If user fees go into effect I'm done

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 writes:

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

In terms of how governments are allowed to slip towards dictatorships, yes.
The Nazis came to power in large part through complacency, and the willingness
of the people to trade freedom for a (false) sense of "security."

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.

They are already doing that, else the services would not exist. It's only a
question of who is charged for the costs.

It's important to find a balance between charging all people for a service,
including those who never use it, and charging only the people who actually
use it. The former is unfair to some extent (although the per capita cost may
be very small), and the latter can be unfair if the charges per capita turn
out to be extremely high.

Suppose you have a service X that is used only by GA pilots. Should GA pilots
alone pay for the service, at $1000 per GA pilot (and zero for everyone else),
or should all entities operating aircraft pay for it, at $10 per GA pilot (and
$10 for all airline passengers), or should all taxpayers pay for it, at $0.01
per pilot (and $0.01 for everyone else)? Where do you draw the line?

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.

Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if
they fly more than a few hours per year.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:



Not extraordinarily wealthy, but much more wealthy than average, especially if
they fly more than a few hours per year.


Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their
elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses?

Sam Spade wrote:

Why should people who are much more wealthy than average expect their
elisted hobby to be funded by the taxes of the struggling masses?

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.

Well, if you are going to make a statement like that then you can
also say that commercial air travel isn't really "necessary".

The only "necessary" things in life are food air and water and a
dry place to sleep. If you want more than that, and/or things
at a lower cost then lots of other things are necessary... including
general aviation.

Of course we are really only talking about free societies that
encourage business and priviate property rights. Anything else is
the old Soviet Union, in one form or another.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so
little to the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that
it is hardly worth mentioning. The things that get money spent on
them like airports are helping the struggling masses by supporting
businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a
necessity; general aviation is not.

I can think of 3 major companies that together employee ~2500 people in my
town of ~20,000 that would not be here if it weren't for the availability of
GA flight. In fact, the town would probably dry up and blow away if any one
of these left and would certainly do so if any two of them did.

And since one of these companies just decided to pay for the college
education of every single person that graduates from our school system I'd
say that means pretty much everybody here benefits from GA.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

The "hobby" flying that people, including the wealthy, do adds so little to
the cost of maintaining the national airspace system that it is hardly worth
mentioning. The things that get money spent on them like airports are
helping the struggling masses by supporting businesses that create jobs.

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.


GA is a gnat on the publics rear end. We use a resource nobody else
cares about or wants, that is, the airspace between 1000 and 18000 feet
AGL. The only part of that anyone else cares about is the circle around
large airports that big metal uses to climb up and down to their
accustomed flight altitudes. We use 3000 feet of pavement when the
general public uses countless miles of it. We use fields out of town
and give them up when the town grows out to the "useless" land the
airports were built on and want it "back". We use a tiny fraction of
the fuel, have virtually no environmental impact compared to cars
and ATVs. Our accident rate, for whatever the danger to pilots per
hour is, is to the general public a fraction of carnage done yearly
by portable power saws, much less anything more dangerous like a
car or truck. We are accused of noise pollution even though our
total impact is less than a years production of Harley Davidson.
We are accused of air pollution even though our total output is likely
less than the lawn mowers in LA.

And despite the fact that we use a resource that is virtually free and
has unlimited capacity (airspace) there is always someone who thinks
that we shouldn't have it, because they can't have it.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get your way someday.

Scott

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I strongly suspect that GA is more of a burden than an asset for the
population and society at large. Commercial air travel is a necessity;
general aviation is not.


Your statement is equivalent to saying that commercial land vehicles (cars
& trucks) are a necessity, but private ones are not. The only difference is
that fewer pilots fly privately than drivers who drive privately.

But what you don't recognize is that GA is necessary to maintain the
infastructure of the commercial airlines. For example, FBOs in many small
airports would not be able to support themselves or their employees without
the income produced from servicing and storing these private aircraft. At
my airport, the GA ramp has hundreds of planes each paying several hundred
dollars a month just for a tie down. They also provide fuel for these
aircraft, and have a crew that lays out the

They also handle service for a small number of GA fractional jet share
clients, and do overnight service and storing of a small number of Airline
jets. However, I doubt they could support their current structure just on
the fees associated with fueling up some NetJets and towing Dash-8's for
United to a hangar.

More importantly, though, without the GA system, there would be limited
opportunities for people to build the required experience to become a safe
commercial aviator. There would probably also be a reduced lack of
interest.

So perhaps you have not observed the full extent of the picture, and have
made a judgement based on incomplete or innacurate theories...