User Fees are coming closer to being very real

[[email protected]]

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/newsitems/2006/060302faa.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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Jose]

> 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.

[Greg Farris]

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

[Matt Barrow]

"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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Jose]

> 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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Tom Conner]

"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.

[Larry Dighera]

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

>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.

[Chris]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>
> Barry (who can definitely see NYC becoming an ADIZ and is very
> concerned)

Like here in London England where it is class A from the surface to god and
where its not that class A it from 2500 msl.

Making it class A is the same as an ADIZ only tougher - NO VFR.

[Tom Conner]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >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?
>

You hit the nail on the head. I have racked my brain and I cannot come up
with a winning argument that can stand on its own for justifying an airport.
Sure a GA airport has some benefits for society and some individuals, but
when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site. If there was a
winning argument then I doubt if we would be constantly having these
airport/redevelopment situations. At least there does not appear to be a
one-size-fits-all argument. I get the feeling that we are only postponing
the inevitable when we fight back a closure. Of course that doesn't mean
give up, but it does seem to get harder and harder.

> 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.

If the big airports are moved away the little GA only airports will not be
the gateway to the bigger airports. A high-speed dedicated rail line to the
airport makes more sense in that regard.

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

[Jose]

> when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
> the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site.

What are the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site? More
traffic, more industry, more drain on the water system, more sewage,
another mall... pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > 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

What we also have to remember is that real estate developers represent
the biggest political money contributors to state and local elections in
the US. As such, they get first ear of the politicians whom they
represent. The developers also create "noise sensitive" groups to do
their dirty work.

We all have to remain vigilant and step on all the plans to "make better
use" of our local airport.

[Jim Macklin]

99% of all the airports we use today date from 1946 or
earlier. Most of those are WWII military training fields.



"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
>,
| Jose > wrote:
|
| > > 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
|
| What we also have to remember is that real estate
developers represent
| the biggest political money contributors to state and
local elections in
| the US. As such, they get first ear of the politicians
whom they
| represent. The developers also create "noise sensitive"
groups to do
| their dirty work.
|
| We all have to remain vigilant and step on all the plans
to "make better
| use" of our local airport.

[Montblack]

("Jim Macklin" wrote)
> 99% of all the airports we use today date from 1946 or earlier. Most of
> those are WWII military training fields.


The first part seems plausible, the second part does not.


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

During WWII there were NO environmental impact statements,
every military based needed auxiliary fields. The Air Corps
had one standard airport layout that could be flipped. It
was a triangle with buildings and a ramp on one side. These
were built all over the mid-west and great plains, many are
still in use as they were built, some have abandoned the
shorter diagonal runways. Some are in terrible condition
and some have had good maintenance.

Before WWII paved runways were rare, long runways were rare,
long distance airlines used seaplanes because runways were
not available world-wide. The USA built airports everywhere
during WWII, not just in the USA.

Sad fact is that part of our problem today is that there is
no local support for those military airports that were often
sold to the local city for $1.00.



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

--
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.


"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("Jim Macklin" wrote)
| > 99% of all the airports we use today date from 1946 or
earlier. Most of
| > those are WWII military training fields.
|
|
| The first part seems plausible, the second part does not.
|
|
| Montblack
|

[Jay Honeck]

>> I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our "little" airport
>> brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual investment of
>> just $186,000.
>
> I'm not doubting the accuracy of your numbers, but how do you get to that
> 5.5 million number?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M20125EBC

See page 22, Johnson County, "Value Added".

It's actually $5.7 million -- and those are FY 2000 figures.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> I don't know about you folks, but all of my regular GA haunts are
>> frequented by a pretty decent number of "spectators" outside the
>> fences who enjoy watching airplanes, even if they don't fly. Wanna'
>> get a nice feeling? Watch the reaction of little kids when you wave
>> or salute them as you taxi by. That kid might be a future astronaut
>> because of your silly wave.

Yep, that's one of the truly fun parts of flying. We don't get too many
"fence wavers" in Iowa City, because of the way the parking lots are so far
from the runways and hangars -- but when we DO see them, we always make a
point to wave.

What I REALLY want to do is shut down, climb out, and see if they want to go
for a ride. I've never had the guts to do that -- have you?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our "little" airport
> brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual investment of
> just $186,000.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of your numbers, but how do you get to that
5.5 million number?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"B A R R Y" > wrote

> I don't know about you folks, but all of my regular GA haunts are
> frequented by a pretty decent number of "spectators" outside the
> fences who enjoy watching airplanes, even if they don't fly. Wanna'
> get a nice feeling? Watch the reaction of little kids when you wave
> or salute them as you taxi by. That kid might be a future astronaut
> because of your silly wave.

The airport in Bermuda is one of the few places heavy iron flies where you
can get close to the runway, by standing next to the airport fence. I even
got a few waves by the captains of some airliners, when I waved to them.
You can stand pretty close to the end of the runway, and feel the wake
vorticies, after they fly overhead. I didn't get tumbled though, like they
did in "Pushing Tin."

Drats! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>
>I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our "little" airport
>brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual investment of
>just $186,000.
>


I sure wish I could find an argument like that for the airport where my
folks live. It's a town of 20K pop and a typical, general use airport with
a 3700ft paved strip. There's a smallish freight operation there, which,
with the FBO services must account for 15 or so jobs, not more. Other than
this, the airport " might " account for a hundred hotel nights a year, and
that's pushing it. Small planes fly over a golf course and a few rich
peoples' homes, and though the airport is not at all threatened at the
moment, it would just take one letter to the local paper from an annoyed
lawyer to get the ball rolling. Once rolling, I don't see any honest
economic argument in favor of the airport, except perhaps one of future
value. The airport is of little economic consequence to the community
today, but if gone, it will be all the more difficult in the future to
find enough open space to create an airport, and one may regret a
short-sighted decision. That's about the best I can think of.

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
>"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.
>

Anecdote:
I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport, they
suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be maintained as
it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community, in order to
preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive proposal for ya!
Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which allow it to be
self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the community, but
maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I think it is only
an enlightened few who see the common sense in this proposal.

GF

[BDS]

"B A R R Y" > wrote

> >What I REALLY want to do is shut down, climb out, and see if they want to
go
> >for a ride. I've never had the guts to do that -- have you?

>
> One of these days... Maybe we'll make that a goal for this spring.
>
> Has anyone ever done this?

A few years ago my wife and I were taxiing in after a nice trip out for
lunch and some general flying around the area. As we taxiied past the
parking lot I noticed a young boy standing beside the car the rest of his
family was in with a look on his face that I knew all too well.

We shut down by the fuel pumps and I walked over to introduce myself to his
parents and to offer their son a ride. His parents said sure, he could go
if he wanted. Unfortunately, the youngster was just a little too shy to
take me up on it, even if his parents were going to be along for the ride
too.

Even so, it felt good to be able to offer something like that to someone
since I can rememeber spending many similar days at the airport myself,
hoping against hope for a similar opportunity to come along, but it never
did.

If you get the chance I'd say by all means do it.

Bruce

[Jim Macklin]

Those rich people might need an air ambulance some night or
a doctor to fly-in.


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

--
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.


"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article
om>,
| says...
|
| >
| >I make sure EVERYONE that will listen knows that our
"little" airport
| >brings in $5.5 million dollars each year, for an annual
investment of
| >just $186,000.
| >
|
|
| I sure wish I could find an argument like that for the
airport where my
| folks live. It's a town of 20K pop and a typical, general
use airport with
| a 3700ft paved strip. There's a smallish freight operation
there, which,
| with the FBO services must account for 15 or so jobs, not
more. Other than
| this, the airport " might " account for a hundred hotel
nights a year, and
| that's pushing it. Small planes fly over a golf course and
a few rich
| peoples' homes, and though the airport is not at all
threatened at the
| moment, it would just take one letter to the local paper
from an annoyed
| lawyer to get the ball rolling. Once rolling, I don't see
any honest
| economic argument in favor of the airport, except perhaps
one of future
| value. The airport is of little economic consequence to
the community
| today, but if gone, it will be all the more difficult in
the future to
| find enough open space to create an airport, and one may
regret a
| short-sighted decision. That's about the best I can think
of.
|
| GF
|

[Ash Wyllie]

Greg Farris opined

>In article >,
says...

>>
>>Granted, an airport is not the same as undeveloped wilderness, but the
>>"benefits" of development (except to the developer) are dubious.
>>

>Anecdote:
>I actually know of a case in Europe where, because of its unique eco-system,
>close to a city, but still quite wild, a medium-sized municipal airport has
>become a recognized " endangered habitat " for some species of birds. It's
>endangered of course because lawyers living nearby want to close it down, and
> developers have their eyes on the open land. The city has grown out towards
>the airport, to where the once forsaken territory now has immense value. The
>environmentalists who prepared the bird report are stuck between a
>philosophical rock and hard place - being dyed-in-the-wool
>environmentalists, they cannot actually favor the continued existence of the
>airport - Heaven forbid - but they admit it is the unique blend of open
>space, grassland and even the method of upkeep of the airport that provides
>the habitat for the birds. They even say if the airport were to be
>eliminated, certain species could be in danger of extinction. Their proposal?
> Well since they cannot actually come out and oppose closing the airport,
>they suggest "in the event of an airport closure" the land should be
>maintained as it is, with full maintenance staff at cost to the community,
>in order to preserve the wild bird habitat. Now there's a progressive
>proposal for ya! Eliminate the revenue portions of the operation, which
>allow it to be self-sufficient and even a substantial economic motor for the
>community, but maintain the land upkeep at cost to the residents! So far, I
>think it is only an enlightened few who see the common sense in this
>proposal.

KCON is in a simular situation. There is a species of butterfly that lives on
the aiport, and it is endangered. Add in the National Guard, the state capital
and 1/2 of Louden's NASCAR team traffic, it is a safe to survive airport.

The rest of the GA airports in NH are not so asured of survival.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Greg Farris]

In article <a1GOf.115894$QW2.114637@dukeread08>,
says...
>
>
>Those rich people might need an air ambulance some night or
>a doctor to fly-in.
>

They have a helicopter landing site at the local hospital.


As it stands right now, many of those lawyers have planes, and are the
staunchest supporters of the airport. As I said earlier, there is no
direct threat to the airport at present - to their credit, they are
even thinking of expanding it slightly so larger aircraft can land there,
because they think this could improve its economic contribution. However,
if they decide not to expand it, let's say for cost reasons, or
because the environmental impact study is not favorable enough, and if a
few of those flying lawyers move away, or stop flying, and a movement to
restrict or close the airfield gains a foothold, I cannot see any honest
economic argument to counter it.

GF

[Jose]

> However, if they decide not to expand [the airport ...]
> I cannot see any honest economic argument to counter it.

Not all reasons are economic.

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

[Ron Lee]

>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.

That may work but I have heard no details about the "user fee" system.
If they charge for weather briefings then many people will stop
calkling in. If they charge for filing a flight plan then those are
likely to plummet.

If they charge for flight following (which I use) then expect that to
drop as well.

Overall a user fee is likely to decrease safety.

Imagine when I fly above 00V now I talk to Springs Approach so that
they know where I am and in doing so I am able to help minimize
impacts to air carriers flying into COS. If they decide to charge for
that I might just quit talking with them which may impact flights into
COS as they divert around an unverified target. Note that I often fly
higher than commercial traffic as it passes 00V.

We shall see what happens.

Ron Lee

[Jay Honeck]

> That may work but I have heard no details about the "user fee" system.
> If they charge for weather briefings then many people will stop
> calkling in. If they charge for filing a flight plan then those are
> likely to plummet.
>
> If they charge for flight following (which I use) then expect that to
> drop as well.
>
> Overall a user fee is likely to decrease safety.

Precisely.

Which is why (even if it starts out differently) user's fees won't be
restricted to voluntary stuff. They will have to apply to mandatory
things -- like takeoffs and landings -- simply because otherwise the
bureaucratic economics won't add up when pilots stop using the voluntary
things.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Farris]

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?

GF

[Jose]

>>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.

[Doug]

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.......

[Greg Farris]

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

[Dylan Smith]

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

[Ron Lee]

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

[Jim Macklin]

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
|

[Dave Stadt]

"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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Larry Dighera]

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.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> 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?

More regulation does not equate to more safety - when you get beyond a
certain point in GA regulation, more regulation tends to have the
unintended consequence of making things *less* safe. More regulation
tends to make things more expensive. So instead of, say, fitting a
second AI in your plane, you don't because of the stupendous amount of
paperwork you'd have to fill out (and pay handsomely for). Or instead of
replacing an old component, a bunch of pointless paperwork has used up
that money so you have to soldier on with a lashed-up repair instead.
The FAA does the same thing, the CAA is worse.

The good news is that EASA (the new EU-wide authority) is making
encouraging noises like saying "we need to reduce regulatory burden" and
"we need GA to be more vibrant", so hopefully they will kick the CAA
into touch (the CAA's nickname in these parts is the Campaign Against
Aviation).

--
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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-07, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> 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.

Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
excluded.

Of course the airlines want this changed. They whine how they are
essentially cross-subsidising LARS (lower airspace radar service),
commonly used by GA (think flight following, except we call it RIS -
Radar Information Service, or RAS when the vis is bad, Radar Advisory
Service). Of course, they conveniently omit that LARS is run by the
military who would have to run LARS whether GA existed or not! (And they
conveniently forget that ATC is almost entirely for the airlines benefit
- the rest of us could quite happily survive if all the ATC in the
country was abolished).

--
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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:00:13 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>::

>(And they conveniently forget that ATC is almost entirely for the
>airlines benefit - the rest of us could quite happily survive if
>all the ATC in the country was abolished).

Survive perhaps, but IMC operations and separation would suffer. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:00:13 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>::

>Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
>excluded.

I wonder if that is also true in Canada and Australia, and other
fee-based ATC countries.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>>Over here where they DO have user fees for ATC services, light-GA is
>>excluded.
>
>I wonder if that is also true in Canada and Australia, and other
>fee-based ATC countries.


In most of Europe, even "light GA" has to pay user fees if an IFR flight
plan is filed and flown. No fees for VFR and information services. Many
(by no means all) airfields have landing fees. In France, these tend to
be in the 8 - 12 EUR range for a 182 (<2 Ton) aircraft. In Italy they can
be ridiculously low (I have seen fees of under a dollar - though
admittedly not recently - they are trying to bring them in line with
other countries). Add $10 to the total cost of your trip, and is that
really going to make you cancel out and sell your plane?

GF

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-07, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Survive perhaps, but IMC operations and separation would suffer. :-)

IMC flying in class G airspace is _routine_ here...

--
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

[Jay Honeck]

> The good news is that EASA (the new EU-wide authority) is making
> encouraging noises like saying "we need to reduce regulatory burden" and
> "we need GA to be more vibrant", so hopefully they will kick the CAA
> into touch (the CAA's nickname in these parts is the Campaign Against
> Aviation).

Glad to hear that change may be on the horizon. Good luck with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"