AOPA not happy with Delta

[SkiFishFly]

PILOTS NEED TO SET DELTA AIR LINES STRAIGHT
The airlines are continuing their anti-GA propaganda campaign. Delta is the latest to launch an e-mail broadside to its frequent fliers, claiming that the current tax system is unfair to the airlines, and that general aviation is somehow responsible for traffic delays. Here’s the truth: Most airline delays are due to the airlines own scheduling practices and weather. So says the Department of Transportation. General aviation flights are less than 4 percent of the traffic at the nation's 10 busiest airports. Air traffic control modernization (NextGen) will improve things, but it's not a panacea. It can't make thunderstorms disappear, nor allow two airliners to land simultaneously on the same runway. GA is willing to help pay for NextGen and has accepted the fuel tax increases in the House FAA funding bill (H.R.2881) to do so. The airlines demand NextGen and demand a tax decrease. You can help set the record straight by e-mailing Delta Air Lines CEO Gerald Grinstein

 

[SNOWBUM]

why would professional pilots give a crap about what a bunch of Sunday pilots have to say? the propposed tax bill exempts prop planes anyway AOPA can go ******************** off , what a bunch f tools.

 

[Guitar Guy]

why would professional pilots give a crap about what a bunch of Sunday pilots have to say? the propposed tax bill exempts prop planes anyway AOPA can go ******************** off , what a bunch f tools.

I'd guess that there are a fair number of "professional pilots" who are also AOPA members.

 

[rptrain]

why would professional pilots give a crap about what a bunch of Sunday pilots have to say? the propposed tax bill exempts prop planes anyway AOPA can go ******************** off , what a bunch f tools.

where did you learn to fly? it says "CIV." now that you've got yours, it's ok to screw everyone else, right?

 

[NEDude]

Having been on and read the CEO rants at Continental, USAirways and American recently, I don't think they are targeting the weekend warrior. And if you operate out of the northeast you know that just because a general aviation aircraft doesn't take off out of EWR, it can still affect departures out of there. (And I did see a Citation 2 cause a CAL 737 to go around last night in EWR).

They are really going after the corporate guys who operate in and out of TEB, HPN and similar airports around the country who do use the same resources, affect airline delays, but don't pay for the services they use.

The airlines want the airspace system upgraded and want the people who use it to pay proportionally to what they use.

I support general aviation, but lets get serious, the weekend warrior who flies around in his 172 is not really in the same category as the fortune 500 company with a fleet of Gulfstreams. But technically they are both "general aviation" and thus represented by AOPA.

 

[whymeworry?]

In a lot of cases, the tax eceeeds the price of the ticket. Seriously. Go out and purchase a confirmed fare ticket. You will be surprised how much of that ticket is tax. This is the case with all govenrments worldwide. Then when airlines are hurting due to price of fuel, which govenments have shown little interest in remedying, nobody wants to pitch in. Either reduce taxes or raise fares. Airlines can't continue to support the government nor the average GA pilot.

 

[wms]

It'll start with corporate turbine aircraft. But once the ball gets rolling it'll affect all GA. Soon it'll be cost prohibitve for the average person to fly in the US just like it is in Europe.

The airlines feel threatened by the VLJs and they think making turbine ownership more expensive will help them keep the business traveler. Never mind just concentrating on improving their own product. Airlines are now profitable(depending on which book they show), and they have had the power to raise fares, but haven't.

I've always been very conservative in my views, but this administration has been throwing the middle-class to the corporate wolves, and this is just another example.

 

[SNOWBUM]

where did you learn to fly? it says "CIV." now that you've got yours, it's ok to screw everyone else, right?

ok genius, if you red the proposed user fee system it exempt props .

 

[SNOWBUM]

I'd guess that there are a fair number of "professional pilots" who are also AOPA members.

no there aren't. if you are an aopa member you are not a professional pilot, you are a ********************ing tool.

 

[TWA Dude]

The previous immature, flaimbait post doesn't warrant a response but I can say that this professional pilot is an AOPA member and an avid GA fan. The AOPA is 100% correct when they say that any user fees just opens the door to future targeting of light aircraft. Practically the whole rest of the planet has user fees -- and there are very few non-wealthy pilots outside of the U.S. The writing on the wall couldn't be more obvious.

 

[rickair7777]

The previous immature, flaimbait post doesn't warrant a response but I can say that this professional pilot is an AOPA member and an avid GA fan. The AOPA is 100% correct when they say that any user fees just opens the door to future targeting of light aircraft. Practically the whole rest of the planet has user fees -- and there are very few non-wealthy pilots outside of the U.S. The writing on the wall couldn't be more obvious.

Ditto. Can we get a moderator over here please?

 

[aewanabe]

Snowbum: You were born with an ATP, right?

 

[Guitar Guy]

no there aren't. if you are an aopa member you are not a professional pilot, you are a ********************ing tool.

Pot meet kettle...

(And just to state for the record, I'm not an AOPA member.)

 

[Ifly4money]

Stop by your local small airport and inquire about the price of AVGAS or JET fuel. You'll be shocked. I know that my airline pays about $2/gal. for fuel. The local FBO has the same fuel forsale for over $4/gal. I know some of the money helps pay the light bill, but a lot of the difference is TAX. Where does that money go? The FAA trust-fund which congress for years would not allow the FAA to spend, since it was used to help hide billions of $$ in deficit spending. GA does pay HUGE fees to support the services that they use. At JFK the ramp fee alone was $75 per 30 minutes. And if you want AVGAS in JFK it takes them over 45 min. to go get the truck. So on top of the over priced gas you have to pay at least $100 in ramp fees.

No wander pilot schools are closing. Insurance started its skyrocket in 2000 and went out of orbit after 9/11. That was ontop of the already high fuel prices. Fuel has been trying to keep pace with the insurance costs.

My airline took out a large chunk of flesh with pay cuts and now they want to be given a break from taxes which they don't pay the pax pays them. Hmmm, why don't they raise ticket fares. Walmart raises its prices when costs go up, why do airlines lower fares under the same conditions?

 

[Nindiri]

Good thread. It reminded me to renew my AOPA membership this morning before it expired.

 

[LR45JI]

Having been on and read the CEO rants at Continental, USAirways and American recently, I don't think they are targeting the weekend warrior. And if you operate out of the northeast you know that just because a general aviation aircraft doesn't take off out of EWR, it can still affect departures out of there. (And I did see a Citation 2 cause a CAL 737 to go around last night in EWR).

They are really going after the corporate guys who operate in and out of TEB, HPN and similar airports around the country who do use the same resources, affect airline delays, but don't pay for the services they use.

The airlines want the airspace system upgraded and want the people who use it to pay proportionally to what they use.

I support general aviation, but lets get serious, the weekend warrior who flies around in his 172 is not really in the same category as the fortune 500 company with a fleet of Gulfstreams. But technically they are both "general aviation" and thus represented by AOPA.

Having worked on both sides, I see a lot of airline guys that have no idea what is really going on when it comes to who's paying what in this system.

As someone else pointed out - JETA is well over $4/gal nationwide and over $6/gal in the NE. A majority of that goes to taxes. Margins for the FBO's are razor thin.

I was in MMU yesteray and we were the only one there at rwy 5 for takeoff. We sat for over 30 minutes waiting for a slot flow. All the while you could see 40+ takeoff from EWR.

Everyone wants to talk about these corporate jets but no one wants to talke about the thousands of RJ's that the airlines have thrown into the air over the last 10 years cloging the system at .74-.76

The system needs to be changed - but user fees are not the answer (in my opinion). The airlines wanted this system and now that financial times have turned sour, they want someone else to foot the bill - same ole' crap.

 

[rptrain]

ok genius, if you red the proposed user fee system it exempt props .

don't worry, the cabotage proposals on the table are only for cargo. those aren't real pilots anyway.

the way people are all of a sudden willing to believe that airlines are overtaxed, proletariat, workaday chums like you and me merely trying to get fat cats to "pay their share" is nothing short of acute stockholm syndrome.

 

[waveflyer]

Good thread. It reminded me to renew my AOPA membership this morning before it expired.

Me too-

I don't do much GA flying- But i think it's healthy for the economy of the U.S. and a good thing that i have the financial option of doing it now and then. The airlines do need to get after the government for taxes-- The entire world benefits from the existence of airlines, a 100% combined tax for each ticket is more than excessive- Just don't do it on the backs of GA

And well said about the stockholm syndrome...

 

[BoilerUP]

I can't believe how many fools who work as airline pilots actually buy into the SmartSkies propaganda. What are the odds these same folks will bitch to high heaven when airline managers give themselves large bonuses for lowering their tax burden while the 1. average employee gets bumpkus, 2. 91/135 flying declines putting pilots back into the job market, and 3. nothing changes with the ATC system?

Corporate aircraft departing out of HPN/TEB/MMU are not the cause of delays at JFK/EWR/LGA, even departing over the same fixes. The cause of delays at JFK/EWR/LGA is an airline-controllable, saturation-level number of regional jet departures in far too compressed a time frame.

Fuel tax is a fair tax...anything else is bullsh!t.

 

[igneousy2]

I think we have to differentiate between bug smashers and G-V's. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you can prevent user fees for ALL GA users. If you don't make a clear distinction between a C-152 and a GV now, then Cessna 172's will end up paying user fees just like BBJ's. The case against Corporate jets is compelling. I forget where I read the article (aviation week?) but they compared a flight from BOS to ORD on a BBJ and an airline 737-700, they calculated all of the taxes that each would pay and it turned out that a BBJ would pay about 20% of what an airline 737-700 would pay. The BBJ has maybe 12 people on it, the 700 has 120. A BBJ takes up the exact same amount of resources as a 700. This really does not make any sense.

The airline system has always been treated/will be treated as an essential part of the economy that the government will take extra measures to protect. Look at airline bail-out after 9/11, Railroad Labor Act, etc. You're dreaming if you think we will be able to generate much public support if the publics image of "general aviation" is a bunch of rich white guys in their G-V's.

In order to save real GA (c150's, etc) I think the aviation community must propose something that is palatable to everyone. ATC user fees above 18,000 feet. Landing fee increases at the busier airports. GA prohibited to opearte at the nations busiest airports.

A lot of people argue that the airlines have created their own problems for having so many RJ's because they ONLY have 37-90 people on them. The airplanes you are trying to defend only carry 6-10. Sorry to break the news to you but you are proving your opponents point. "Let's restrict LGA to 100 seat plus airplanes" - guess what, not even a BBJ has 100 seats.

If AOPA hangs on to this extreme position then their will be user fee increases for everyone.



Later

 

[Allen1]

I think we have to differentiate between bug smashers and G-V's. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you can prevent user fees for ALL GA users. If you don't make a clear distinction between a C-152 and a GV now, then Cessna 172's will end up paying user fees just like BBJ's. The case against Corporate jets is compelling. I forget where I read the article (aviation week?) but they compared a flight from BOS to ORD on a BBJ and an airline 737-700, they calculated all of the taxes that each would pay and it turned out that a BBJ would pay about 20% of what an airline 737-700 would pay. The BBJ has maybe 12 people on it, the 700 has 120. A BBJ takes up the exact same amount of resources as a 700. This really does not make any sense.

The airline system has always been treated/will be treated as an essential part of the economy that the government will take extra measures to protect. Look at airline bail-out after 9/11, Railroad Labor Act, etc. You're dreaming if you think we will be able to generate much public support if the publics image of "general aviation" is a bunch of rich white guys in their G-V's.

In order to save real GA (c150's, etc) I think the aviation community must propose something that is palatable to everyone. ATC user fees above 18,000 feet. Landing fee increases at the busier airports. GA prohibited to opearte at the nations busiest airports.

A lot of people argue that the airlines have created their own problems for having so many RJ's because they ONLY have 37-90 people on them. The airplanes you are trying to defend only carry 6-10. Sorry to break the news to you but you are proving your opponents point. "Let's restrict LGA to 100 seat plus airplanes" - guess what, not even a BBJ has 100 seats.

If AOPA hangs on to this extreme position then their will be user fee increases for ever

Later

Okay first of all these CEO's letters in there airline magazines are lies. Even if there are more GA Buisness JETS now they still don't fly nearly the same hours as an airline jet will. Airlines use the majority of the ATC system. You could get rid of all the buisiness jets out of TEB, HPN and MMU and you're still going to have major delays in New York. Your CEO's are lieing to the pax about delays to get them on their side. It's amazing how many of you airline pilots jump on your CEO's bandwagon and suddenly believe everything they say. Oh well NetJets and their owners don't seem to be putting up much of a fight so I'm going to go enjoy my nice paycheck, good hotels, time off and free food. I'll leave the arguing to you real pilots out there cuz us loly corporate guys can't meet your standards

 

[CutEmUp]

Like most (probably all) lobby groups, the AOPA’s goal is to do what is best for its members, not necessarily what is right. Should GA pay its fair share; yes. Is that what they are paying currently; probably not. Is it what the airlines want; absolutely not.

I would say the proposed fuel tax increase for retail jet A and avgas is good for now.

Remember that this country is run by lobbyists.

 

[Allen1]

Oh yeah and my free health care, not one dime comes out of my paycheck.

 

[COpilot]

why would professional pilots give a crap about what a bunch of Sunday pilots have to say? the propposed tax bill exempts prop planes anyway AOPA can go ******************** off , what a bunch f tools.

LOL ! I'll Bite, You dumba$$, farking jerk, stab GA in the back, half-wited loser.

I did start in GA, I own a GA aircraft, and guess what I am a member of AOPA.

If you represent the membership of pilots at the airlines who can't think any further than the nose of your mighty B747-400. Then you are a selfish short-sighted imbecile. Stating that it would not affect props, shows your ignorance of how congress, the FAA works.

Go craw into some Jumbo-jet APU intake.

Yeah,,, go ahead moderators, delete my post, ban me for a week, a month, whatever. But if he can spew garbage like his, I can too? I'll go over to AOPA with people who care about more than just their own self interest, people who care about flying for the pure joy of flying, pilots who want to learn, want to get better, want to help one another.

Sad BUM; guess you lost or never had those feelings.

 

[LAZYB]

no there aren't. if you are an aopa member you are not a professional pilot, you are a ********************ing tool.

Whoa Sparky.

Give it a tug, scrunch around a little, make some adjustments.

I think ya got a load in your diapers.

 

[TWA Dude]

I forget where I read the article (aviation week?) but they compared a flight from BOS to ORD on a BBJ and an airline 737-700, they calculated all of the taxes that each would pay and it turned out that a BBJ would pay about 20% of what an airline 737-700 would pay. The BBJ has maybe 12 people on it, the 700 has 120. A BBJ takes up the exact same amount of resources as a 700. This really does not make any sense.

How many BBJ's are flying out there? Enough to really make a difference?

Look, we all know anybody who can afford a large biz jet can afford a few more bucks in taxes. AOPA knows this too. The problem is, the FAA has a poor track record of differentiating segments of GA. Any new rule intended for just the rich would inevitably affect the not-so-rich as well. Remember the luxury tax during the 90's? It killed the yacht industry which had the effect of hurting only the not-so-rich. User fees for GA will have a detrimental effect on safety and will stifle the whole industry. Add in the cost for the collection infrastucture and user-fees would likely cost the taxpayers money.

 

[Ifly4money]

Airlines do not pay the taxes on the tickets. The pax do. This taxes are 100% passed onto the pax. Airlines do not pay fuel taxes or even sales tax when they purchase supplies. The only possible taxes that the airlines pay is income taxes...oh never mind they pass that along also to the pax like all businesses do.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Being that this is in the MAJOR airline section, how is increasing the cost to fly GA going to hurt. Don't we as pilots want to see our pay and benefits restored? Could limiting the supply of new pilots because it weeds out alot due to being cost prohibitive? How wood that be a bad thing? The supply of Drs has always been tightly controlled via limited enrollment in medical school, not due to lack of smart people applying. Ok, feel free to jump my ass now.

 

[Allen1]

I think we have to differentiate between bug smashers and G-V's. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you can prevent user fees for ALL GA users. If you don't make a clear distinction between a C-152 and a GV now, then Cessna 172's will end up paying user fees just like BBJ's. The case against Corporate jets is compelling. I forget where I read the article (aviation week?) but they compared a flight from BOS to ORD on a BBJ and an airline 737-700, they calculated all of the taxes that each would pay and it turned out that a BBJ would pay about 20% of what an airline 737-700 would pay. The BBJ has maybe 12 people on it, the 700 has 120. A BBJ takes up the exact same amount of resources as a 700. This really does not make any sense.

The airline system has always been treated/will be treated as an essential part of the economy that the government will take extra measures to protect. Look at airline bail-out after 9/11, Railroad Labor Act, etc. You're dreaming if you think we will be able to generate much public support if the publics image of "general aviation" is a bunch of rich white guys in their G-V's.

In order to save real GA (c150's, etc) I think the aviation community must propose something that is palatable to everyone. ATC user fees above 18,000 feet. Landing fee increases at the busier airports. GA prohibited to opearte at the nations busiest airports.

A lot of people argue that the airlines have created their own problems for having so many RJ's because they ONLY have 37-90 people on them. The airplanes you are trying to defend only carry 6-10. Sorry to break the news to you but you are proving your opponents point. "Let's restrict LGA to 100 seat plus airplanes" - guess what, not even a BBJ has 100 seats.

If AOPA hangs on to this extreme position then their will be user fee increases for everyone.



Later

Okay so now you want to have GA pay there fair share and then ban them from the busiest aiports, that's a little hypocritical. When are you guys going to get it, banning GA at the busiest airports ARE NOT GOING TO REDUCE DELAYS. HOW DUMB ARE YOU? I think you're pretty dumb especially if you think you're going to get a raise with GA paying more. Keep believing what your CEO's tell you, I'm sure you next paycut you agree to is right around the corner.

 

[Allen1]

Oh and about the RJ argument and us only carrying 6-10 people last I check most corporate depts don't get toghether and make a schedule where they will all depart and arrive at the same time every day.