If user fees go into effect I'm done

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

fyi - 767

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

fyi - 767


And, Boeing didn't initially propose it. The AF wanted them, didn't have
the money, and asked "How would a private sector company do something like
this?".

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

The ATC user fee issue is a corporate boondoggle like Boeing's recent
infamous proposal to lease a hundred B-757(?) tankers to the USAF.

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

"Chris" wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html
It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in
t:

Behind that nose is a very large camel.

The nose came in 1919. Head and neck - 1926. Front legs - 1940.

We're getting pretty close to the hind quarter's here, and I think there's
already too much momentum to stop the camel completely.

As a pragmatic, the best that I can hope for is that us little guys can still
afford to fly. Quite frankly, I have less sympathy for corporate Gulfstreams
who use the system more than I do, weigh enough to make a difference on the
runways, and probably are a more legitimate subject of the airline's
complaint.

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

Judah wrote:

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

ktbr wrote in
:

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap,
move out and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Interesting comparison.

Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
charging a fee for said provided service. It's not as outrageous as you
make it - most people in the US pay tolls to drive on certain roads, pay
for tickets to ride public transportation, and pay a 911 surcharge to the
phone company for the privilege of not having to remember quite as many
numbers to dial if they are in danger.

While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

Judah wrote:
"Chris" wrote in news:535rlaF1qs7rdU1
@mid.individual.net:

Have a look at the future for some of us it is the present.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/crco/publ...ance_tool.html

It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

Hopefully that will be the same approach that they come up with here...

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Scott

scott moore wrote in
:

2 tons = 4000 pounds. Walk over to all the pilots on your home
field with aircraft in this range, and tell them you have no problem at
all with the government balancing the budget on their backs to save
your own skin. Then tell us who is going to be on YOUR side when they
reduce the weight requirement to 3,000 lbs.

Then 2,000 lbs.

Then 1,000 lbs.

Then pass a bill declaring that private "hobby" aircraft are to be
restricted to unpopulated areas only.

Cessna 172s, Beech Bonanzas, and even Beech Barons pose a different threat
and a different cost than King Airs, Pilati, Citations and Gulfstreams.

Personal flying poses a different threat and cost than Corporate and
Charter.

Already there is differentiation - look at landing fees. They are based on
class, engine count, and weight. Quite frankly, if someone is personally
flying a Pilatus or King Air, he may find himself with a bit of the short
end of the stick here, but he also is flying a King Air or a Pilatus, and
probably can handle the difference.

I would love to believe that can win this 'war' and avert user fees
altogether. But my pragmatism or cynicism or whatever has led me to the
conclusion that even if we divert this attack, the enemy will keep on
coming. Seeing that it's a reality in Europe certainly dispells any
illusions I may have had.

In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that the public is smart enough
to recognize that we little folk are not worth the effort and leave us
alone.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure we'll get that much.