Trouble ahead over small plane fees

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:25:39 GMT, B A R R Y wrote in
::

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

That is a difficult issue to resolve. Fortunately Mogas usage, as a
percentage of all aviation fuels consumed in the US, is only a
miniscule fraction.

How about jet fuel?

Perhaps it would be more equitable to levy a per-gallon tax on jet
fuel than to have the current airline ticket tax. That is the counter
proposal the National Business Aviation Association should be
proposing.

How many gallons (not pounds/tons) of fuel does a B-747 hold? :-)

by Dylan Smith Apr 11, 2006 at 10:58 AM



Meanwhile, when airlines need to use GA (for things like training) they
send their students abroad to dodge the fees they lobbied for



I.e. like outsourcing to India, the commercials ship training to where it
is cheapest. In this case, the USA, because of the artificially low cost
created by the subsidies. See below BTS study, esp pp. 10-13.


http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_...pdf/entire.pdf

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
news

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

Paying taxes for roads that they won't be operating their aircraft on?

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. com...
Dave Stadt wrote:

Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect
$1.00 that's just fine by them.

We just got a bill for $6 for a landing @ BDR, back in January.

I can't believe the $6 covers the cost of collecting the money.

In the UK a based plane will pay a flat amount for unlimited landing at the
base airfield. One invoice $300 and you use it or lose it.

At other fields, I pay cash which is cheaper than anything else £5 cash or
£10 if you are invoiced.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"B A R R Y" wrote in message
news

Where does that leave planes that use Mogas?

Paying taxes for roads that they won't be operating their aircraft on?


In some states you can at least get back the state portion of the road
tax for aviation and boating and most other "off road" uses. The federal
portion goes right into the federal coffers.

I know in Michigan and Texas you can get it back for sure (20 cents per
gallon in Texas). it's fill out a simple form with how many gallons your
bought for the plane & send it in no later than 1year after purchased,
then keep on file reciepts showing the fuel purchased.

California keeps it for aviation and boating, but allows a refund for
many other uses.


--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 10 Apr 2006 14:25:55 -0700, "AJ" wrote in
.com::

Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing
the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief.
To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except
commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would
reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay.

The airlines and FAA are embarking on a divide and conquer mission.
Once the proposed precedent is established, it's going to be easier
for the government to move to a fee based ATC system for all flights.

If the airline passengers are paying the 7.5% ticket tax, please
explain how shifting that tax to GA is going to provide financial
relief to the airline industry. The airlines only collect the tax;
they don't pay it; the passengers do.

Will a 7.5% decrease in ticket prices make US airlines more
competitive globally? Domestically? Doubtful. And There is no doubt
shifting airline passengers' responsibility for ATC services and
airport improvements on to GA will have a large, and inequitable,
negative impact on GA.

There is the problem the 7.5% ticket tax. A movement costs the same whatever
the price of the ticket so the tax should be a flat rate charge. Then the
tax is not as ticket price dependent just dependent on their being a ticket.

Then you get the situation we have in the UK where I can buy a ticket from
Luton to Paris for $10 and the taxes come to $25. If I booked late and the
ticket price was $30 the taxes are still $25. If I bought the last ticket on
the plane and the ticket was now $200 the tax is still $25.

cb

Gross weight is what Canada uses.

The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM


The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but
traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations
of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some
MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose




Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned
though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax
(or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political
philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies
(generally against) that you might be interested in.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?


Right, and they're probably not. Remote airstrips tend to need very little
funding to keep open.