User Fees are coming closer to being very real

The threat to general avaiation from "User Fees" is right now. I know
this has been discussed for as long as I've been around aviation which
is 30 years now, but this is not hot air this is a real 2006 problem.
As you can see from the articles below the white house, FAA and
airlines are all in agreement. The only thing standing in their way is
the congress.

If you care there are two things you can do.

Email, Snail mail and call your representatives in DC.

Join or renew your AOPA and EAA memberships. I know neither
organization is perfect but they are our best representatives in DC.

Konrad Haskins
UK Private Pilot, IMC & RT
USA Commercial Pilot ASEL, AMEL, IR, A&P, IA for 10 years.

AOPA story from yesterday March 2nd 2006
"When the FAA and all the airlines are in total agreement about
something, it's not usually good for general aviation."

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...060302faa.html

Jack Pelton, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cessna
Aircraft Company
Delivered this speech on February 24th 2006

A Business View of the Myths and Realities Around FAA Funding

http://cessna.com/news/speech/SpeechTranscript.doc

The threat to general avaiation from "User Fees" is right now. I know
this has been discussed for as long as I've been around aviation which
is 30 years now, but this is not hot air this is a real 2006 problem.

I'm afraid that GA in America is going to go the same way as GA did in
Europe and Asia -- and no one cares. Instead of allowing for grass roots
aviation, it will belong to only the wealthiest, and the rest be damned.

Getting pilots to care is like herding cats. Only when our airport was
very directly threatened were we able to raise ANY vocal opposition from the
pilot community (although, once riled, they proved to be VERY effective),
and I'm currently trying to figure out ways to get a rise out of them over
the demolition of a 77 year old Boeing airmail hangar. (Thus far, to no
avail.)

I'm afraid the rug will be pulled from beneath them long before most pilots
are even aware that they're not standing on firm ground.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Getting pilots to care is like herding cats.

I'm afraid the rug will be pulled from beneath them long before most pilots
are even aware that they're not standing on firm ground.

Well, some of us have tried to herd a cat named Jay around the immense
impact of the DC FRZ and ADIZ. That cat looks around locally and says
"I don't see any significant difference..."

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

In article VMgOf.801024$x96.328497@attbi_s72,
says...


I'm afraid that GA in America is going to go the same way as GA did in
Europe and Asia -- and no one cares. Instead of allowing for grass roots
aviation, it will belong to only the wealthiest, and the rest be damned.


GA in the US cannot "go the way" it did in Europe in Asia, because one has to
have been somewhere to go somewhere. GA has never been very serious in Europe,
at least not compared with the US, and has never existed in Asia.

I think that pilots and the AOPA are right to fight against user fees, because
nothing should be allowed to happen without a fight, however in truth if
limited user fees do become a reality it will not signal the end of GA in the
US. In all likliehood, the costs will be modest, compared with the increases
that fuel costs and insurance costs have in store for us. Don't give in without
a fight - but don't overdramatize either.

I think the "big fight" that the AOPA needs to be involved in is airport
closures. That's the big threat. One could argue that user fees are "fair"
because there's no reason for the average joe to paying into a general fund
that subsidizes leisure for the happy few (asbestos suit ON yes, I know all
the arguments for and against this - I only said "one could argue"). But
airport closures, though disguised as public interest, are more often than not
promoted by developers with greedy eyes on the real estate, and as such are an
even greater concentration of wealth away from public use toward personal
profit.

A few years ago I was reading that the proposed rulemaking mandating "mode s"
transponders and 8.33 VHF spoacing would be the end of GA, because such
equipment would be too expensive and too heavy to fly in GA aircraft. Well look
at the market today - not only have these initiatives not destroyed GA, they
have been beneficial to it.

Fight the battle, yes - but try to keep perspective on which are the most
important battles.

GF

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article VMgOf.801024$x96.328497@attbi_s72,
says...

[Good stuff snipped for brevity]


Fight the battle, yes - but try to keep perspective on which are the
most
important battles.

And remember that just about every activity under the Sun (or Moon) has
pronouced it's incipient demise in the absence of subsidies.

I think that pilots and the AOPA are right to fight against user fees, because
nothing should be allowed to happen without a fight, however in truth if
limited user fees do become a reality it will not signal the end of GA in the
US. In all likliehood, the costs will be modest, compared with the increases
that fuel costs and insurance costs have in store for us. Don't give in without
a fight - but don't overdramatize either.

Wow -- that's an incredible understatement of the problem.

Airports -- and the national air space -- are funded by a variety of
things, but the lion's share comes from fuel taxes. It is a simple
and relatively efficient way of collecting revenue, not unlike the 12%
sales/hotel/motel tax we must collect from our guests here in Iowa.

Adding another layer of bureacracy to collect new "user's fees" (AKA:
Taxes) amounts to just another insane power grab by the governmental
elite. Once created, this cadre of money-sucking, under-worked gubmint
employees will NEVER go away, and the overhead to maintain this
structure will NEVER be "modest" -- even if the tax starts out
tolerably small.

The equivalent would be if the State of Iowa were to set up a toll gate
out front of the hotel to collect $5 from every guest -- AND continued
to collect the sales/hotel/motel tax. Better to simply raise the
sales/hotel/motel tax, no?

Unless you're suggesting that the current fuel taxes would/should be
eliminated under the "User's Fee" plan? I wouldn't oppose that,
philosophically, although such a tax collection system would be
incredibly less efficient than the current one.

I think the "big fight" that the AOPA needs to be involved in is airport
closures. That's the big threat.

Agreed -- but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy. User's fees can only hurt GA, which will result
in airports closing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy.

Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even a healthy GA
population at a small airport that is in a developmentally desirable
area will not make enough money to fend this off. Granted, healthy GA
contributes economically many other ways, but those ways are mostly
hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy target.

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

Well, some of us have tried to herd a cat named Jay around the immense
impact of the DC FRZ and ADIZ. That cat looks around locally and says
"I don't see any significant difference..."

Comparing the impact of an ADIZ around our seat of government to the
impact the creation of a new system to collect user's fee would have on
GA is, to put it politely, nuts.

I know you're still ****ed about the ADIZ -- and rightly so -- but
please try to keep user's fees in perspective. If we as pilots don't
stand together against the creation of a new tax collection system, GA
-- already nearly dead in much of the country -- is doomed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
but the airports won't be threatened with closure if GA is
expanding and healthy.

Sure they will. The economic forces are the same - even a healthy GA
population at a small airport that is in a developmentally desirable
area will not make enough money to fend this off. Granted, healthy GA
contributes economically many other ways, but those ways are mostly
hidden and indirect, making airports still an easy target.

True, but we overlook the fact that a redeveloped airport site will still
generate indirect income. More than likely, a well developed airport site
will generate more indirect/hidden income in one week than what the airport
does in one year, including both direct and indirect income from the
airport. Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually a
losing argument once the facts are clear.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually a
losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of its
poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate is
abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack local
access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue given
the dearth of open space.

So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.