If user fees go into effect I'm done

Judah writes:

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

In what ways?

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

Maybe. Why do you keep mentioning "threats"? Are pilots dangerous people?
Does the population have to be protected from aviation?

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.

That same argument can be used against any pilot of any aircraft.

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.

The United States doesn't necessarily ape Europe in every respect, but it is
true that anything that leads towards increased costs is difficult to avoid.

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.

That's why, in many matters concerning general aviation, it's better to play
down publicity rather than seek it out. You never know which way the opinion
of the general public might go, and you can't afford to have it go against
you.

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

Pilots are outsiders in the eyes of the average Joe. Which means that if
someone proposes taxing them but not "normal Americans," he'll almost
certainly get his way.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Judah writes:

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

In what ways?

1) Heavier aircraft (18,000 lbs according to another thread) wear runways
and taxiways, requiring excessive maintenance. Light aircraft do not
produce excessive wear on the runways and taxiways that they ride.

2) Part 135 operations (ie: Charter and Corporate Jets) typically fly IFR.
Even if they fly VFR (which I believe is rare) they must have a VFR flight
plan. They use the system more. Part 91 pilots (Single & twin engine props)
fly more VFR than IFR, and as has been discussed on this group, often fly
without consuming any services.

3) Part 135 operations typically fly every day, and sometimes more than one
round trip per day. My guess is that they average over 100 hours per month.
Personal aircraft, besides rentals, typically fly 200 hours per year or
fewer.

4) Part 135 operations typically involve flights with pilots who do not
personally know any or all of the passengers who will be flying with them.
As has been discussed elsewhere in this group, Part 91 operators typically
don't fly with strangers, and some don't let anyone else but their
instructors ride with them. This, in combination with the capacity and
flammability of the fuels of typical Part 135 aircraft vs. typical Part 91
aircraft leave open the possibility that a Part 135 aircraft might be used
as a weapon, whereas the use of a Part 91 aircraft as a weapon has been
demonstrated to be both unlikely and impractical.

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.

That same argument can be used against any pilot of any aircraft.

Do you mean to say that someone who can afford to rent a plane for $70 or
$80/hr wet probably earns the same amount of money as someone who owns a
Pilatus or King Air, and pays $500-$1000/hr in addition to his fixed costs?
Or do you mean to imply that the cost of a user fee represents an equal
percent of the $80/hr cost to fly a Cessna vs. the $800 / hour to fly a
Pilatus or King Air?

Presumably, based on the European numbers, the user fee might run $200
dollars for a Pilatus, and just over $100 for a Cessna (although it's
waived in the European model). For a Pilatus operator, that's 15 minutes of
flight time. For a Cessna operator, it's up to 2 hours of flight time.

Do you believe that to be equitable?

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.

The United States doesn't necessarily ape Europe in every respect, but
it is true that anything that leads towards increased costs is difficult
to avoid.

The point was, if user fees were not happening anywhere else, then the
proposal would be a novel idea and need to get past significant barriers in
thought process. As it is, however, user fees exist in Europe and Canada,
and so there is a model to follow.

The US is the exception to the rule and unfortunately it's unlikely to
remain that way forever.

I wish I could believe differently.

scott moore writes:

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.

At least someone understands how it works. But most people won't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-02-10, Judah wrote:
It looks like aircraft weighing less than 2 tons are exempt. I believe that
would pretty much cover all single engine pistons.

This is the case. I've never paid a single user fee (aside from landing
fees, but the airports I generally visit are privately owned, and the
landing fee is charged by the owner of the airfield, not the
government).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Chris writes:

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

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

Europe has always been a leader in bureaucracy and overregulation, aided by a
complacent population that has never known greater freedoms and is unaware of
their existence.

I wonder why weight enters into the calculation. Do controllers carry the
aircraft on their backs from waypoint to waypoint? And since air traffic
control is already (or should be) a service of the state, why is tax added to
the final amount?

And why should people download an unverified application and run it on their
own computers? How do they know that this executable can be trusted? What's
wrong with a Web page that does the same calculation?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:21:01 -0000, "Chris"
wrote in :


"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

RSO Distance Tool

This application, once installed, will allow users to calculate
the EUROCONTROL route charges in order to obtain an estimation of
the charges they will likely incur when operating flights within
the EUROCONTROL charging area. Additional information about the
RSO Distance Tool you may find in the CRCO Customer Guide To
Charges (paragraph 10).

Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
system? What did you do to resist it?

Larry Dighera writes:

Why did your populous accept the imposition of a privatized ATC
system? What did you do to resist it?

Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.


It would seem there is another option, garner support from other
like-minded groups of voters:

ELECTORS GROUP OPPOSES USER FEES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194438)
Well you never know who your friends are, and the aviation
alphabet groups can add the League of Rural Voters to the growing
list of organizations opposed to the Bush administration's plans
for reorganizing the FAA. In a statement issued last week, League
President Neil Ritchie described GA as the "lifeline to rural
communities" and says the mix of user fees and tax increases
contained in the package will force many operators to ground their
light aircraft, reminding the government of just how useful that
fleet can be in times of trouble. "General aviation played a
crucial role in efforts to evacuate Hurricane Katrina survivors
and continues to play an important role in our preparedness for
future disasters," Ritchie noted. The group is even more irritated
about what the plans might do to airline service in the
hinterlands.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194438

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:19 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Europeans are already accustomed to having their lives run for them by
bureaucrats (now in several layers both domestic and international). It
does
not occur to them to _resist_ things. The ones who were willing to
resist
injustices and incompetence crossed the Atlantic and Pacific centuries
ago.

Europeans do actually resist - as evidenced by the massive response to
the CAA's Mode S transponder proposals. However, the GA population is so
small it is effectively disenfranchised - the CAA basically responded
'well we're going to do it anyway so there'. When you are 50,000 voters
out of an electorate of 40 million, your opinion counts for nothing -
especially when the CAA is leaned on heavily by moneyed corporate
interests like the airlines - the executives of which can remove their
donations to political parties if the CAA doesn't do what they want.

In the end your only option if you don't like the CAA is to move
somewhere else (typically the US). However, most pilots like enough
_other_ things about their own country that they aren't prepared to move
over just a single issue.

A couple of years ago the Eurocrat politicians tried to bring in a
constitution to harmonise Europe. The people voted it out thankfully.Well in
this case the Dutch and the French.
The politicians got a real bloody nose. It has not stopped them trying to
bring it in again, but they are in a state od shambles.

People power.