Unjustified GA User Fee

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.

"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.

On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" wrote in
. com:

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?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" wrote in
. com:

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'.

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
. com:

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 he
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.

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

On 28 Aug 2006 07:57:24 -0700, "jbskies" wrote in
.com:

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)

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
s.com:

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.

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

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.

"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