User Fees are coming closer to being very real

In article ,
lid says...


and they'll simply build in the "cost" of the optional stuff so you're going
to pay for it whether you use it or not.

--

Well, if they do, then it negates the argument about decreasing safety,
doesn't it?

GF

and they'll simply build in the "cost" of the optional stuff so you're going
to pay for it whether you use it or not.
Well, if they do, then it negates the argument about decreasing safety,
doesn't it?

Not really. If overall costs go up, people fly fewer hours, and are
rustier when they do fly.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Aviation has ALWAYS been a wealthy man's endeavor. In the 1950's a new
Cessna cost about what a small house cost. Same today.

As for ATC, I'd hate to see user services like landing fees, but
frankly, if I stay VFR, and out of D, C, or B airspace, I can fly all
over the country and never even use ATC services. If they truly are so
costly (and I don't think they really are, if you look at it as adding
on the GA use to the airline NEED), I can do without them.

I just flew Colorado to Mississippi and flew with another airplane that
filed IFR and all the ATC stuff. I didn't file a flight plan or talk to
ATC the whole way (I DO listen). When the ceilings looked a little low
I just tuned in ASOS's from airports in front of me, and upon hearing
they were 5000 AGL was encouraged that I could proceed safely.
Meanwhile my buddy is getting vectored up into the clouds and around
all the MOA's (I just fly throught them, never even SEEN a plane in
one, it's near airports where you see planes). We both got there
safely. Neither of us is right or wrong, just different ways of doing
things. .....

But, yeah, aviation is an expensive endeavor. Somewhere around $100 per
hour to fly the average small GA aircraft. And that is expensive fun,
no matter what you compare it to, though we don't like to admit
it.......

In article ,
says...


and they'll simply build in the "cost" of the optional stuff so you're going
to pay for it whether you use it or not.
Well, if they do, then it negates the argument about decreasing safety,
doesn't it?

Not really. If overall costs go up, people fly fewer hours, and are
rustier when they do fly.



mmmmm..... Not so convincing.That would have to be demonstrated.
I do think the intial argument is convincing - if pilots are charged money
for a briefing, then many will launch without it. Same for VFR flight
following. That's a good argument against such a system - however the
solution is just as simple as has been suggested here - charge for it even if
it isn't specifically used!!

For my part - if they start charging higher landing fees, then I'm just not
going to land!

GF

On 2006-03-06, Greg Farris wrote:
(on safety)
mmmmm..... Not so convincing.That would have to be demonstrated.

In Britain, the regulations to get a PPL are stricter (harder exams and
checkrides) and it is more expensive to fly.

Despite the more liberal US flight environment regarding safety
regulation, GA in the United States has a better safety record. (Trying
to get the CAA to accept this is an impossibility of course).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Greg Farris wrote:

Not really. If overall costs go up, people fly fewer hours, and are
rustier when they do fly.

mmmmm..... Not so convincing.That would have to be demonstrated.
I do think the intial argument is convincing - if pilots are charged money
for a briefing, then many will launch without it. Same for VFR flight
following. That's a good argument against such a system - however the
solution is just as simple as has been suggested here - charge for it even if
it isn't specifically used!!

Greg, how will they charge for something even if not used? Take my
normal flying. On cross countries I use flight following but no
flight plan. If I don't use flight following how do they charge for
it unless it is landing fee based or similar? Seems that the fuel
tax does the same thing already at perhaps a lower collection cost as
mentioned by others.

Ron Lee

The purpose behind many government proposals is not to raise
money [revenue][ or to reduce crime]but to reduce certain
actions, such as flying or gun ownership.

A businessman flying a CE172 on a business trip to see
clients is "bad" while an airliner taking 100 holiday
tourists to the beach or Las Vegas to gamble is "good."

Rich people fly, so make them pay is the war cry of the user
fee faction. Just like luxury taxes on rich boaters almost
killed the boat-building industry, these people don't see
any advantage to a viable network of airports nation-wide.
To "them" 200 airline terminals are enough. They don't
understand that in order to train pilots you need airports,
airports need business which means travel, travel requires
airports at every city. It doesn't need 12,000 feet of 3
foot thick concrete or a 24/7 tower, it does need a GPS
approach, a remote communications outlet, a telephone
outside and fuel and rental cars.

No airplanes sales means airports close, no airports means
fewer student starts. Higher fees reduce profits. Let's
kill the industry, put up fences at all airports, require
security checks on the "airport kid" and impose new
"services" and then require the user pay whether they want
the service or not.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
| Greg Farris wrote:
|
| Not really. If overall costs go up, people fly fewer
hours, and are
| rustier when they do fly.
|
| mmmmm..... Not so convincing.That would have to be
demonstrated.
| I do think the intial argument is convincing - if
pilots are charged money
| for a briefing, then many will launch without it. Same
for VFR flight
| following. That's a good argument against such a
ystem - however the
| solution is just as simple as has been suggested here -
charge for it even if
| it isn't specifically used!!
|
| Greg, how will they charge for something even if not used?
Take my
| normal flying. On cross countries I use flight following
but no
| flight plan. If I don't use flight following how do they
charge for
| it unless it is landing fee based or similar? Seems
that the fuel
| tax does the same thing already at perhaps a lower
collection cost as
| mentioned by others.
|
| Ron Lee
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:H1gPf.116115$QW2.31983@dukeread08...
The purpose behind many government proposals is not to raise
money [revenue][ or to reduce crime]but to reduce certain
actions, such as flying or gun ownership.

The purpose behind many government proposals is simply to increase the size
of the government.

Despite the more liberal US flight environment regarding safety
regulation, GA in the United States has a better safety record. (Trying
to get the CAA to accept this is an impossibility of course).

Wow -- that's an amazing little tid-bit.

What's your take on that, Dylan? What's going on here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:38:46 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
H1gPf.116115$QW2.31983@dukeread08::

Rich people fly, so make them pay is the war cry of the user
fee faction.

Actually, the Reason Foundation, who have been the most vocal
proponent for converting Air Traffic Control to becoming a Profit
Based Organization, originally proposed to exempt light-GA.

I believe it's more about providing an additional federal revenue
stream to large corporations (LockMart, Boeing) who already have the
expertise and capability to automate ATC. If one can judge by the
criminal "Boeing Boondoggle" attempt to bilk $12 billion out of the
Pentagon by leasing the military 100 B-757's from their assembly line
in imminent danger of running out of orders, it would be consistent
with that philosophy.