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,

p

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

scott moore writes:

And the "profit motive" has given us wx delivered by geosyncronous
satellite, including graphics. The FAA has given us an operator who
reads web pages to you.

The government has also given you GPS, LORAN, VORs, and ILS, along with
thousands of free or dirt-cheap sources of data.

Don't confuse the individual failings of organizations (private or public)
with the general advisability of public or private ownership or operation.

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

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:


What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.


I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

Man you are clueless.

Matt

Thomas Borchert writes:

When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.

--
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.

Judah writes:

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.

Okay, granted. I thought the discussion was just about user fees for ATC.

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.

So why not just attach the fees to the flight plans? It would be risky to try
to correlate that with something like aircraft type or weight.

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.

See above. Charge for actual use, not assumed use based on some other loosely
correlated variable.

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.

But how would this relate to user fees?

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?

I mean to say that eventually everyone ends up paying more. Don't assume that
just because a user-fee plan targets the heavy hitters first, it won't
eventually start to hit the little guys as well. Prices always go up. Taxes
never disappear. New charges are never eliminated; they can only expand.

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?

If you base the fee on actual use, this isn't an issue.

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 don't believe in user fees at all. The cost of the aviation infrastructure
(and other transport infrastructures) should be borne by society as a whole,
because the global benefits outweigh the costs.

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.

Yes, but Europe does a lot of bizarre and restrictive things that the U.S. has
never seen fit to adopt, so all hope is not lost.

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

It has been exceptional in many ways for a long time. I wouldn't write it off
quite so quickly. And the U.S. is a leader in aviation, not a follower.

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

B A R R Y wrote:
I wonder what it'll be like for ATC if all of the VFR aircraft that
currently use flight following become 1200 blips on the radar?

Awh, let's make it a bit more interesting for 'em... Let's turn off the
altitude reporting part of it... And then go fly around one of the VORs,
a reporting point, or something... evil-grin

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
t...

I wonder what it'll be like for ATC if all of the VFR aircraft that
currently use flight following become 1200 blips on the radar?


They'll have a bit less to do.

Judah wrote:
In today's world, an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system could replace
the briefers, and you could still call for weather from your car. Instead
of talking to a briefer, you could dial or talk to the voice response
system and get appropriate responses.

Having dealt with quite a few of the various voice response systems over
the years, I would have to say that such a system would pretty much
ensure that I never called for a briefing again... When you have the
repeat the same damn think 10 times and the ****in' system *still*
doesn't recognize what you're trying to say, they're basically ****in'
useless... The menu systems that require touchtone responses are quite a
bit better since they are working with fairly discrete responses that
all phones need to be able to generate in order to even dial a number...