FAA user fees

[HelloNewman]

Mine's going in the mail tomorrow.

Good and when they ignore your letter and pass the bill anyway make sure you get that bank account ready. We won't be more like europe, this is called pulling your own weight. Time for the GA guys to help pay what the airlines have been paying for years. The taxes are out of whack and its time to correct that. If you don't wanna pay to play then don't try and use up the airspace when you don't need to. Fly VFR and save yourself the headaches.

 

[Natef26]

What is the likelihood that these proposed changes will pass? As student pilot hopeful this is worrysome as I am definitely not made of money.
What effect will this have on VFR only flight training and soloing?

 

[svcta]

Newman, do you own an airline? No, wait, you must be ex-military. There's no way you could come from GA and not be worried about what user fees would do to the pleasure flyer. I rarely, as in almost never use the IFR system outside of work but I am involved pretty heavily with vintage aircraft in my free time. I've flown privately owned planes overseas, too, and I would really not like to see our system become as prohibitive as theirs.

All of that put aside, I have seen first hand how cheap and shady some operators out there are and I shudder to think of all of the cargo haulers, cheap private guys, etc. running around out there trying to pinch a nickel in hundred dollar weather.

 

[wrxpilot]

Good and when they ignore your letter and pass the bill anyway make sure you get that bank account ready. We won't be more like europe, this is called pulling your own weight. Time for the GA guys to help pay what the airlines have been paying for years. The taxes are out of whack and its time to correct that. If you don't wanna pay to play then don't try and use up the airspace when you don't need to. Fly VFR and save yourself the headaches.

1)At least I can say I tried by writing letters and discussing the issues face to face with my representatives (yep, I've done both).
2)Pulling our own weight? The ATC system is setup for the airlines - not GA.
3)Killing off GA will have a net negative effect on society due to jobs lost in the aviation industry. Not just pilots, but technicians, engineers, service employees, etc.

You seem awfully bitter... Just another pathetic troll like "sicuvaflight" is my guess.

 

[wrxpilot]

Here's my letter:


The Honorable Ken Salazar
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Ken Salazar:

My name is XXXX and I am a mechanical engineer and a general aviation pilot in the state of Colorado. I am writing you to express my deep concern over the FAA’s financial proposal for NGATS (Next Generation Air Transportation System). The NGATS plan will remove the FAA from Congressional oversight, will lead to the absolute devastation of General Aviation in the United States, and will have a tremendously negative impact on the strong aviation contribution to the economy of Colorado.

FAA services are currently funded by taxes on aviation fuel, airline passenger ticket taxes, and the general taxpayer fund. This financially fair and healthy source of funding has been in place for over forty years and has continuously allowed the FAA to operate with an excess of funding. The Office of Management and Budget has shown that the current funding plan will allow the FAA to perform all requested future services, while the FAA’s proposed financial plan will actually take in less funding.

The FAA’s plan would shift the costs of operating our air traffic control system (that exists almost exclusively for the airlines) to the general aviation community in the form of a shocking 366% increase in fuel taxes on top of various user fees for activities such as simply requesting to fly within the airspace of areas like Denver. The precedent will be set for many other user fees, such as obtaining weather information, filing flight plans, etc. The safety impact this will have makes me shudder.

The stifling increase in fuel taxes and the addition of user fees will increase the costs of general aviation so much that it will be beyond the financial reach of ordinary middle class citizens such as myself. As a young, aspiring professional pilot, I fear that I and countless others will be forced out of aviation – both recreationally and professionally. Colorado will be hit particularly hard, as it is home to numerous aircraft manufacturers such as Adam Aircraft, Pilatus Aircraft Industries, Aviation Technology Group, Inc. and other general aviation employers involved with air freight, air ambulance, charter operations, fabrication, maintenance, and service facilities. Not only will pilots be affected, but also countless engineers, technicians, support staff, service workers, and the tourism industry.

I urge you to carefully consider the damage this legislation will cause to the national and local aviation and aerospace industries. Please use your influence to maintain our healthy and vibrant aviation industry, which is considered far and above the best and safest in the world.

Sincerely,

XXXXX

 

[HelloNewman]

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

 

[wrxpilot]

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

Why should the public continuously bail out the major airlines? Why should I have to pay county taxes for children to go to school when I don't plan on ever having kids? Why should I pay for the fire dept when I haven't had a fire?

The public does not pay the majority of the taxes either... GA pays fuel taxes and uses but a fraction of the ATC system. The US taxpayer benefits from ATC services in numerous indirect ways, including mail, freight, scheduled airline service, air ambulance service, etc.

I'll be a CFI way before the user fees could potentially take place. Doesn't matter - I don't want to see future GA pilots get reemed and I will not standby and watch General Aviation be destroyed. Unlike you and your selfish friend "sicuvaflight", I do what I can to pull my weight with GA (which isn't much, but at least I try).

Get it through your head - Joe Sixpack and myself are not putting a burden on ATC services. What puts a strain on ATC services are the busy "pushes" that are a result of airline hub style service.

 

[siucavflight]

Why should the public continuously bail out the major airlines? Why should I have to pay county taxes for children to go to school when I don't plan on ever having kids? Why should I pay for the fire dept when I haven't had a fire?

The public does not pay the majority of the taxes either... GA pays fuel taxes and uses but a fraction of the ATC system. The US taxpayer benefits from ATC services in numerous indirect ways, including mail, freight, scheduled airline service, air ambulance service, etc.

I'll be a CFI way before the user fees could potentially take place. Doesn't matter - I don't want to see future GA pilots get reemed and I will not standby and watch General Aviation be destroyed. Unlike you and your selfish friend "sicuvaflight", I do what I can to pull my weight with GA (which isn't much, but at least I try).

Get it through your head - Joe Sixpack and myself are not putting a burden on ATC services. What puts a strain on ATC services are the busy "pushes" that are a result of airline hub style service.

You make good points, you do not have children and still pay for school. My point is not that it is unfair for taxpayers to pay for our ATC system(I think that it is more then fair), the only advantage I see to a user based system is that it is going to create more job opportunities for guys like us, not saying that it is a morally good position to take, just stating the obvious.
In all reality would I be happy to see this? No, actually I would not I own half of a Cirrus and enjoy flying it on my days off and usually fly IFR. I just felt like stirring the pot a little bit.

 

[flyer172r]

it is going to create more job opportunities for guys like us, not saying that it is a morally good position to take, just stating the obvious.

Considering that all non-airline jobs will pretty much die if user fees pass, all the professional pilots who currently don't fly for the airlines will pretty much have to make the move. Ergo, no increase in the "pilot shortage."

 

[svcta]

How is there any way to assume that user fees will translate in to more jobs? If it's student start ups that you think will taper off, I'm sure that that would be offset by the number of operators that would be forced out of the system due to cheapitude or out of biz. all together due to safety violations.

Addition: Why do the airlines assume that their taxes would be reduced? A change in the system would never reduce the cost for one side because that would result in a revenue-neutral change, which the gub'ment ain't in the habit of making. They want more $$, not changes for the same $$.

Of course that questions disregards the position that the airlines don't create the problem at hand. Let's be realistic: when you're out there in the system you hear a lot more recognizable callsigns than "novembers". Does anyone have the time to research a little? How many airplanes do DAL, UAL, NWA, SWA, CAL, JIA, XJT, Eagle, Pinnacle, Jblu, Skyw, Colgan, (and the list of 121s goes on) VS. the part 91 operators in the IFR system at any given point in time? This isn't a rhetorical question as far as I know because the answer may surprise me. Anyone?

 

[Bandit60]

I read in Aviation Week that the airlines pay something like 95% (or thereabouts; I don't have it in front of me) of the monies collected in fuel taxes, and that this new plan would bring their contribution down to 72% (again, or something), which is more in line with their usage.

It occurred to me that the airlines need a sophisticated ATC system more than the GA and business planes do. That's not to say the smaller operators don't need it; certainly, they do. But they have more options as to when, where, how, and if they fly. They have a smaller and more understanding clientele. They don't have to convince the little old lady from Ipanema that they are as safe as Amtrak or Greyhound. Their need for full ATC services is somewhat less than that of the airlines.

If ATC were a private business-- were it my private business-- I'd find an excuse to charge the airlines a little more. Maybe around 20% more. Why? Because you make your money where you can. The airlines themselves understand this; it is why First Class is priced THREE TIMES as much as Economy Class.

So, I'm unswayed by the argument that FAA user fees are more "fair". A product or service is worth what you can get people to pay for it, not what it costs you to provide. What it costs you to provide is completely irrelevant. If we want a robust, healthy system, we will continue to fund it in a way that factors in people's need for it. Fuel taxes are simple, practical way of approximating that.

I may be wrong but my understanding is that airlines do NOT pay a fuel tax like general avaition does. Are you sure you read the article right? Second point..how do you figure that our passengers are more understanding. You must not have ever flown in the corporate world. If anything, I think sometimes they are just the opposite.

 

[Alamanach]

I may be wrong but my understanding is that airlines do NOT pay a fuel tax like general avaition does. Are you sure you read the article right? Second point..how do you figure that our passengers are more understanding. You must not have ever flown in the corporate world. If anything, I think sometimes they are just the opposite.

From the February 19, 2007 issue of Aviation Week:

User fees and revamped fuel taxes would reduce the airlines' share of ATC operating expenses from the roughly 95% they currently pay to the 73% the FAA calculates as their actual share... In October 2008, the FAA would drop the current taxes and fees that provide revenue to the trust fund. In 2005, two-thirds of these revenues came from a 7.5% excise tax on airplane tickets, and 18% from international arrival and departure taxes. Other sources include a cargo waybill tax, and commercial and noncommercial fuel taxes.

You're right, I haven't flown corporate aviation. I made my assumption imagining that the corporate pilot can explain to his handful of intelligent passengers what's going on. But then I think of the knee-jerk dimwits I work for, and I see your point. Touche.

I still say charging the airlines what amounts to a premium makes some business sense; they need the system much more than others. You make your money where you can. Changing this funding system to be more "fair" will be deleterious in every direction; we'll have less revenue coming in, fewer planes flying, and fewer and less experienced pilots.

 

[cessna_driver2]

No matter what you charge the airlines, Do you honestly believe the airlines will pay for it out of their own revenue? Of course not, so it comes down to the tax payer getting the shaft once again. Airline tickets will go up, (due to additional fees passed from the airlines to the passenger) and once again, I'll get stuck paying the bill.

So let put it down like this, would the airlines pay for a 336% hike on jet fuel that is sold (in bulk by the way.) to all 121 operators? Or even better increasing the corporate income tax of the airlines itself by 336%. HECK NO. They would fight tooth and nail.

Right now, the airlines buy contracts of fuel that last upto a few years. Kinda like a futures thing. They make a contract with a fuel supplier to purchase so many millions of gallons for a set period of time. (That's one other reason why the legacy can't stand Southwest. They have been buying fuel at a cheaper rate for the past several years and it's killing them.)
Can you imagine how much money the gov't would make on .70 cents more now per the millions of gallons the airlines use? Just for 1 million gallons of fuel at .70 cents tax per gallon, that would be 700,000 dollars in taxes the airline would pay. Do you really think the airlines would go for that?

So lets get away from fuel for a quick second. Let's look at past moderization overruns the FAA have implemented & congress had to stop due to money. Anyone remember the microwave landing system or even the advance automation system (AAS) these programs were shut down by Congress due to spiralling, uncontrolled spending by the FAA. Look how long it's taking WAAS system. Back in 97 I did a report for flight school on GPS precision appraches. What has happened to these?

If you take the FAA out of government, you are giving a blank check to corporate america which has no legal governing body to control it. Look at Enron and worldcom, haliburton? The list will continue. The only draw back is, if the airlines have control of the system all of our lives will be in their hands.

You also say that: "if user fees go into effect, it will decrease pilots & give me my large 6 figure salaries back!" That's a bunch of hog wash. It's not going to get you any more money. What is will do is put more pressure on you to fly more legs. When they start having pilot break the 8 hour duty day, who do you think will be the first to change that requirement. Remember, congress has no say in control of the FAA. I can see it now:

"Pilot's do not hand fly these aircraft anymore, it done all through autopilot, they just sit up there, read magazines, flirt the FA, & tell rude, crude jokes. Why don't they start work say 10 - 14 hour days. Heck they do nothing but sit and watch the guages and talk on the radios."

Who would stand up for your rights then... Your over paid triple dipping union leader who is guarenteed to make 6-8 figures a year just to represent you? They don't care as long as the money keeps pooring in.

In the end, we all will lose... I just hope everyone understands what is really happening.

 

[jbDC9]

So, I'm a little slow on getting around to reading this thread, but I gotta say that I'm amazed at the attitudes of Siucavflight and HelloDooshbag... err, Newman. Could you two retards be more selfish and short sighted?? Siu actually admits to a bit of flamebaiting and trolling, but the selfishness is there. Newman, on the other hand, is just a complete and total idiot... either that or he's just really good at baiting and trolling. Read a few of his other posts on the regional boards and you'll see what I mean.

so mr wrx why should the general tax payers pay for you to dink around in your cessna? Don't worry though I see you are a commercial student. In no time you will have your CFI and can kick back and let your students pay the user fees.

So Mr Newman, you stupidly slam Wrxpilot when makes several valid points. Do you have kids newman? Do they go to a public school? I don't have kids and never will, so please tell me why the fu.ck I should pay school taxes so that your little ankle biters can go to school? But seriously, I hope you don't have kids; stupid people such as yourself shouldn't be allowed to breed and contaminate the gene pool.

Yes GA is where most of us started that fact can not be denied. For those of us at the airlines though we no longer need GA. I have not stepped foot in a GA aircraft for quite a while.

Those of us at the airlines don't need GA?? Idiot. I'm "at the airlines" and I need GA. I own and fly an RV-8 and have absolutely no desire to cough up another buck per gallon on avgas just to keep you happy. But what the hey, if you haven't been in a GA aircraft for quite a while, the rest of us "at the airlines" guys should stay away from them as well huh?

Sorry for the rant, but these two dudes are just nuts by saying they want to snuff the life out of GA... never mind the fact that that's where they came from. Unbelievable.

 

[Nolife]

Glad to see so many folks against users fees. AOPA has put out names of a few key legislators to whom you should should a fax. Check out AOPA's website for more details.