Unjustified GA User Fee

[jbskies]

FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:

--------------------
Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
get off the ground, aviation experts said.

There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
typically found on runways for commercial routes.

.... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.

-------------------- from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735

GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
users? No way.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"jbskies" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
> users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
> regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:
>
> --------------------
> Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
> reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
> runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
> get off the ground, aviation experts said.
>
> There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
> lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
> typically found on runways for commercial routes.
>
> ... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.
>
> -------------------- from
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735
>
> GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
> the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
> And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
> users? No way.
>

I agree 100%.

The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
for them to handle a 747.

Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got an
ILS.

Take a look at the "Big Dig" in Boston. What business benefits from easy
access to a big, commercial/air carrier airport?

Let's see what the FAA would spend if they stopped spending on airports. How
much of this spending benefits GA?

Looking at the spending by the FAA at my local airport (Worcester, MA -
KORH):

New Passenger Terminal
New Control Tower (they put the terminal between the old tower and the
approach end of the runway)
Resurface the crosswind (5000') runway

None of these expenses benefited GA in any way, shape or form.

I believe the runway is pavement is eight feet thick. I don't need eight
feet thick. I've landed on 0 feet thick (grass).

I can't even approach the new terminal. There's a yellow line painted around
it that I cannot cross.

[Larry Dighera]

On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" > wrote in
om>:

>FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
>users.

Aren't you comparing the cost of airport facilities to Air Traffic
Control costs?

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
> >users.
>
> Aren't you comparing the cost of airport facilities to Air Traffic
> Control costs?
>

Why does it make a difference? It all comes out of the 'Aviation Trust
Fund'.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:29:44 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in <IZDIg.1209$dj4.1069@trndny08>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" > wrote in
>> om>:
>>
>> >FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
>> >users.
>>
>> Aren't you comparing the cost of airport facilities to Air Traffic
>> Control costs?
>>
>
>Why does it make a difference? It all comes out of the 'Aviation Trust
>Fund'.
>

It makes a difference, because ATC user fees would only be paid for
ATC services, not runway improvements.

It is my understanding, that the Aviation Trust Fund is funded by
aviation fuel tax and airline ticket tax. If you look at Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook Order 5100.38C
<http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/aip_handbook/>,
you'll see, that those taxes do not fully fund the Airport Improvement
Program, and I recall reading that the cost of Air Traffic Control is
not fully funded through those taxes either.

If you are able to provide information to the contrary, I would be
interested in seeing it. There's a clue here:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/la-userfees.html

For nearly four decades, excise taxes on general aviation fuel,
airline passenger tickets, and cargo have financed the bulk of the
expenses for airport improvements, modernizing the air traffic
control system, researching new technologies, and the operations
of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control
system. The taxes deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
support nearly 87 percent of the FAA budget. The remainder of the
FAA's budget is funded through a contribution from the General
Fund. This reflects the public benefit conveyed to all Americans
by the world's safest, most efficient national airspace system.

So perhaps revenue derived from GA fuel tax should be used solely for
GA improvements and ATC, and airline ticket tax revenue should be used
solely for aviation infrastructure and ATC that benefits airlines. :-)
While that would be equitable, it would be difficult to implement.

But the REAL issue is not about funding ATC, it's about wresting
Congressional oversight away from FAA matters, so that big business
can fill their order books and develop a new revenue stream all in the
erroneous name of providing a benefit to the nation and the public.
Don't be fooled.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:26:12 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" > wrote in
om>:
>
>>FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
>>users.
>
>Aren't you comparing the cost of airport facilities to Air Traffic
>Control costs?

He may be. But I think a valid point is that if it were not for airline
needs, ATC services would be a small fraction of what they are today.
Ignoring for the moment the validity of user fees at all, GA's "fair share"
should be the incremental cost of providing those services, not the
pro-rata cost.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:04:51 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote in
>:

>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:26:12 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" > wrote in
om>:
>>
>>>FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
>>>users.
>>
>>Aren't you comparing the cost of airport facilities to Air Traffic
>>Control costs?
>
>He may be. But I think a valid point is that if it were not for airline
>needs, ATC services would be a small fraction of what they are today.
>Ignoring for the moment the validity of user fees at all, GA's "fair share"
>should be the incremental cost of providing those services, not the
>pro-rata cost.

I don't know the current state of the user fee discussion, but
originally GA was to be exempt from user fees. At least that's what
the Reason Foundation purported.

Of course, it was a divide and conquer strategy.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:13:18 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

[snip]
>
> I agree 100%.
>
> The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
> for them to handle a 747.
>
> Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
> carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
> big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
> wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Hey! Let's get one thing straight here! Politics and big business
doesn't need logical consideration! With the likes of you, how do you
expect pork barrel projects and big business to continue raping the
American people? After all, it is well established, someone MUST rape the
American people. It is, after all, the American thing to do. You are
American, right?

I think it's clear you need to take your thoughtful comments and keep them
to your self. Politics simply has no place for insight like yours!


Greg ;)

[Owen[_3_]]

Steve Foley wrote:

> "jbskies" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
> > users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
> > regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:
> >
> > --------------------
> > Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
> > reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
> > runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
> > get off the ground, aviation experts said.
> >
> > There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
> > lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
> > typically found on runways for commercial routes.
> >
> > ... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.
> >
> > -------------------- from
> > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735
> >
> > GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
> > the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
> > And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
> > users? No way.
> >
>
> I agree 100%.
>
> The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
> for them to handle a 747.
>
> Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
> carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
> big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
> wouldn't need ATC in New England.

Huh? If there were no airlines, Hanscom wouldn't need a tower? I think you
might be smoking funny stuff. Or Lawrence, Quonsett, Barnes, Portsmouth,
Westover, Norwood, Hartford, Bridgeport, Nashua, etc. You're saying that those
New England airports need towers because they of airlines???


>
>
> Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got an
> ILS.

Lots of airports have ILS and no tower. So? Nobody said one created the need
for another.

>
>
> Take a look at the "Big Dig" in Boston. What business benefits from easy
> access to a big, commercial/air carrier airport?

>
> Let's see what the FAA would spend if they stopped spending on airports. How
> much of this spending benefits GA?

How much of FAA Revenues come from GA? I believe the vast majority of revenues
come from the airline fees and ticket taxes/waybill taxes and GA revenue (the
excise tax) represents a pittance of the total revenue.


>
>
> Looking at the spending by the FAA at my local airport (Worcester, MA -
> KORH):

>
>
> New Passenger Terminal
> New Control Tower (they put the terminal between the old tower and the
> approach end of the runway)
> Resurface the crosswind (5000') runway
>
> None of these expenses benefited GA in any way, shape or form.

Who did they benefit? I believe the latest 121 carrier to try Worcester is
pulling out real soon.

>
>
> I believe the runway is pavement is eight feet thick. I don't need eight
> feet thick. I've landed on 0 feet thick (grass).
>
> I can't even approach the new terminal. There's a yellow line painted around
> it that I cannot cross.

Don't feel bad. Nobody else is approaching it either, by car, foot, etc.

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Owen" > wrote

> How much of FAA Revenues come from GA? I believe the vast majority of
revenues
> come from the airline fees and ticket taxes/waybill taxes and GA revenue
(the
> excise tax) represents a pittance of the total revenue.

What tears up a runway more, 1,000 landings by a typical single engine AC,
or 1 landing by a B-737? (or other large airliner)

What uses more ATC services more, a typical single engine flight, or a
airline flight.

I should hope commercial airlines pay the lion's share of the bills.
--
Jim in NC

[Doug[_1_]]

What really ticks me off is that I have to pay $25 to get back into my
own country when I fly from Canada to the USA. Now THAT really bugs me.

[Jay Beckman]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What really ticks me off is that I have to pay $25 to get back into my
> own country when I fly from Canada to the USA. Now THAT really bugs me.
>

AFAIK, that's a Canadian "Exit Tax" and not a US re-entry tax, isn't it?

I remember having to pony up when leaving Vancouver a few years ago and I
was so taken aback that I involuntarilly just spat out "Yer Sh*ttin' Me,
Right?"

He wasn't. Er, sh*ttin' me...nor amused.

Jay B

[Doug[_1_]]

It's a US Customs tax, just for airplanes.

[Jay Beckman]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It's a US Customs tax, just for airplanes.
>

Ah..

Thnx

Jay B

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 29 Aug 2006 20:30:53 -0700, "Doug" > wrote:

>What really ticks me off is that I have to pay $25 to get back into my
>own country when I fly from Canada to the USA. Now THAT really bugs me.

I assume that's the customs sticker fee your writing about. At least you
only have to pay that once a year.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Peter R.]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:

> I assume that's the customs sticker fee your writing about. At least you
> only have to pay that once a year.

Yes, but in my case, I always seem to have to go to Canada at the end of
the year for business, which gives me about 25 days use out of the sticker.

--
Peter

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:26:30 -0400, "Peter R." > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>
>> I assume that's the customs sticker fee your writing about. At least you
>> only have to pay that once a year.
>
>Yes, but in my case, I always seem to have to go to Canada at the end of
>the year for business, which gives me about 25 days use out of the sticker.

It sure would be nice if they made the stickers good for 12 calendar
months, instead of just to the end of the current calendar year <sigh>.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Skylune[_1_]]

..Way.

[Newps]

Skylune wrote:
> .Way.


What?

[Skylune[_1_]]

All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
capital and operating costs of the airports. (Same for dual use and
commercial airports...)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
> capital and operating costs of the airports.
>

They are. The grants come from taxes on users.

[Skylune[_1_]]

How do you spell "uninformed?" You are 100% wrong.

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>>
>> All grants for GA airports are "pork." Users should bear 100% of the
>> capital and operating costs of the airports.
>>
>
>They are. The grants come from taxes on users.

19.4 cents federal tax per gallon of 100LL Skylune.

Ron Lee

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

Mr Lune, please answer the following questions, so I won't be uninformed:

What did the FAA collect in fuel tax last year?

What percent of that was collected from GA?

What did the FAA spend on ATC last year?

What percent of the recorded ATC operations last year were GA?

What did the FAA spend on capital improvements last year?

What percent of that was of no benefit to GA?

If you don't have the figures from 2005, feel free to use any other year
after 2001.



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> How do you spell "uninformed?" You are 100% wrong.
>

[TxSrv]

> All grants for GA airports are "pork."

If one looks up on faa.gov at who gets AIP funds, air carrier
fields gets the bulk. Then look at what GA fields get other than
mickey mouse grants, often safety items. The bigger GA fields
are relievers, to help keep corporate aviation out of big
airports, to prevent airline delays. So it's airlines and the
passengers who benefit too. In fact, in our town, the Port
Authority owns the big field and one reliever. They further
extract the reliever's operating deficit, like $1.5 million bucks
annually, out of the pockets of the air carriers, to keep the
bizjets out of their hair and not soak the city taxpayers to
subsidize bizjets.

Fred F.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:27:21 -0400, Owen > wrote:

>Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> "jbskies" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > FAA wants GA users pay additional user fees that to match the airline
>> > users. I don't think that's justified. Read the following paragraphs
>> > regarding to recent ConAir CRJ crash quoted from ABC News:
>> >
>> > --------------------
>> > Although Blue Grass Airport's main runway is 7,000 feet, for some
>> > reason the plane departed Sunday from the 3,500-foot general aviation
>> > runway. The twin-engine CRJ-100 would have needed 5,000 feet to fully
>> > get off the ground, aviation experts said.
>> >
>> > There also were clues for the pilot: Signs marking the right way. Less
>> > lighting. And severely cracked concrete not the type of surface
>> > typically found on runways for commercial routes.
>> >
>> > ... the main runway, which had been repaved last week.
>> >
>> > -------------------- from
>> > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2364735
>> >
>> > GA airplanes use "severely cracked and less lid" runways comparing to
>> > the commercial jets use the brand new runway that just paved last week.
>> > And now FAA want GA to pay additional fee to match the commercial
>> > users? No way.
>> >
>>
>> I agree 100%.
>>
>> The airlines claim is costs as much for ATC to handle my Cherokee as it does
>> for them to handle a 747.
>>
>> Why is ATC there to begin with? Class B around Boston (a big, commercial/air
>> carrier airport). Class C around Bradley, Manchester and Providence (all
>> big, commercial/air carrier airports). It there were no airlines, we
>> wouldn't need ATC in New England.
>
>Huh? If there were no airlines, Hanscom wouldn't need a tower? I think you
>might be smoking funny stuff. Or Lawrence, Quonsett, Barnes, Portsmouth,
>Westover, Norwood, Hartford, Bridgeport, Nashua, etc. You're saying that those
>New England airports need towers because they of airlines???


Me (15 years ago) headed into Beverly Field:
Beverly tower this is Cherokee (what ever it was) landing Beverly.
Tower, Cherokee *** follow the blue Cherokee two miles ahead of you.
Me: I have the blue Cherokee in sight, will follow.
about a minute passes....
Tower: Cherokee *** Where are you going?
Me: I'm just following that blue Cherokee as instructed.
Tower:....Oh!... Not that blue Cherokee! Follow the other blue
Cherokee. The one at your two o'clock position, same altitude.
Me making right turn: Have the other blue Cherokee in sight. I'll
follow this one now.

There are a number of small fields out there that do need towers even
on bright sunshiny days.

Around here even the larger airports with airline service could get
along without a tower, but I doubt they'd be able to provide the
safety required with out one.

>
>>
>>
>> Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got an
>> ILS.
>
>Lots of airports have ILS and no tower. So? Nobody said one created the need
>for another.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Travis Marlatte]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>
> Me (15 years ago) headed into Beverly Field:
> Beverly tower this is Cherokee (what ever it was) landing Beverly.
> Tower, Cherokee *** follow the blue Cherokee two miles ahead of you.
> Me: I have the blue Cherokee in sight, will follow.
> about a minute passes....
> Tower: Cherokee *** Where are you going?
> Me: I'm just following that blue Cherokee as instructed.
> Tower:....Oh!... Not that blue Cherokee! Follow the other blue
> Cherokee. The one at your two o'clock position, same altitude.
> Me making right turn: Have the other blue Cherokee in sight. I'll
> follow this one now.
>
> There are a number of small fields out there that do need towers even
> on bright sunshiny days.
>
> Around here even the larger airports with airline service could get
> along without a tower, but I doubt they'd be able to provide the
> safety required with out one.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keene, NH has an ILS, so, obviously, ATC is not NEEDED when you've got
>>> an
>>> ILS.
>>
>>Lots of airports have ILS and no tower. So? Nobody said one created the
>>need
>>for another.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger, I'm missing your point.

Without the tower, you would probably have proceeded to the airport, seen
the correct Blue Cherokee and landed safely. You're story seems to imply
that two planes in the pattern and one transitioning justifies the need for
a tower. I'm not saying that the tower at that field wasn't unnecessary.
Just that your story doesn't seem to support that justification.

My average flight contributes $7 in Fed taxes. My cross countries that
typically require no services other than the airport maintenance contribute
more like $15 to $20. Plus the profit from fuel sales to the local FBOs. I'd
say I'm paying my share of "user fees."

It seems like pretty simple math to me to make the current system work. Of
course, that does require that the American public is reasonable and that
the Feds can make reasonable decisions. I do not believe that cheap,
commercial flights are an inalienable right. Just as I don't believe that
train travel should be either. Supply and demand. Free market. That's what
we used to believe in.

Apparently no more.

We want it for everyone. We want it cheap. We want it risk-free. I just
don't get that the greater population doesn't see the vicious cycle these
combined attitudes create.

You want no risk? Get a life! You want it cheap? Get a job!

Skylune, I'm confused by your attitude (who isn't?). You seem to be trying
to kill GA in favor of commercial air travel. You do realize that the big
boys make more noise, kill more people and damage more property that GA,
don't you?

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK