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.