![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
by Newps Nov 8, 2005 at 10:36 AM
Skylune wrote: "You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees. That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying." But Boyer produced the video of the meter running! Maybe he doesn't know about Canada's simple fee system. Done for effect. Even the pro user fee types realize you cannot charge on a per use fee. The revenue collected would be far outweighed by the collection process." Boyer and his cronies should use an intellectually honest approach, rather than the stupid stuff his organization produces when they object to ADIZ ("I fly a C-150, fear me!") or user fees (the running meter video). The sound bite stuff from AOPA is really dumb. I guess he knows that an honest assessment would show the true state of affairs: very heavy subsidies for light GA. Minetta knows this: don't let the recent love fest fool you all. That's why he kept on using the "in my view" qualifying language at the recent EXPO. (Even the AOPA has picked up on this huge qualifier.) An honest assessment would start with the $$ GA pays into the system, and then attempt to quantify the resources used by GA, including capital (the airports themselves, including runways, towers, lighting, electronics, etc) and operations (ATC services mostly). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|