GA User fees

Jose: You are a reasonable guy. I understand your fictious example.

Here's a real case: Lets pick a GA airport that has 100,000 plus
operations per year. It has a tower with about 7 controllers (contract).
No commercial service. It receives a 95% grant from the FAA for all its
capital improvements, plus it receives the $150K per year FAA operating
subsidy, plus various state funds. There are no landing fees. The vast
majority of the flights are for training or recreation. Tie down fees are
less than $10/night.

Who is paying the tab? The flyers?

Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by Steve A Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05 AM

It would have been nice if the 'lune posted the link, but then he has
not done it before. Why start now.

In fact, I have posted the link several times in the past. Since you
already did the work for the person that chooses to just go with the AOPA
company line, rather than looking at the other data, I'll point to another
FAA report that also contains GA usage data, as well as the micro-pittance
(0.4%) of GA AV gas taxes relative to total taxes. Here it is, see esp.
p. 17.




http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ta_Package.pdf


Thanks. You should post a reference link every time you use it to support a
point, if you want to have at least some credibility. Expecting people to
review all your past posts to find a link is not very reasonable.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous
financial
burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be
less
inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
disingenous reasoning.

There was a very good article on GA user fees in the latest Flying magazine
(I think that's where I saw it).

What it boils down to is that GA is basically using the excess capability of
a system that has to be in place for the airlines anyway. If GA goes away
the cost of providing the services to the airlines will hardly be affected,
and the system would not see much, if any, downsizing. The end result is
that GA is not really adding much to the cost of the services it uses - they
would be there with or without GA.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:55:03 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous financial
burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be less
inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
disingenous reasoning.


Serveral things need to examined.

1) If user fees are implemented, then there will a large majority of
users that will avoid them by flying to places where they are
non-existant or decline services. If these fees can't be avoided,
then people will stop flying. Either way, the funding will not be
raised. Private pilots will be taxed out of the sky. Should I be
squeezed out of airspace in favor of commercial operations? No.

2) Commercial operators should pay a larger share because businesses
exploit resources for profit and are very efficient at it. I don't
mean this in a negative way, it is just the purpose of business.
Highway use taxes are much higher for commercial operators because
they consume percentage wise more of the highway infrastructure. I
don't know about you, but I've never used a weigh station or an escape
ramp. The weigh stations are there because companies were overloading
the roads. Should I be penalized because businesses are require more
overhead? No.

3) Left unchecked, business entities will consume all of a given
resource. SPAM is a wonderful example of this. Email is free and
most of it is commercial. Eventually, email will not be free and why
is that? Because of commercial abuse of the resource. Fees balance
social cost. Airlines pack in flights and require increased
infrastructure to support their schedule. If they spaced their
flights over a 24 hour period, congestion would be less of a problem.
I as a private individual can choose to fly during non-peak hours and
I do. The ATC infrstructure is not designed for me. Should I pay for
large percentage of it? No.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

"Jose" wrote:
...
This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The
primary beneficary is the airlines, who can now
schedule more flights and have fewer delays...


Exactly, and the issue is not just small GA planes. Our City goes
further by charging the $1 million annual operating deficit of the
reliever directly to the air carriers in the user fees they pay to the
port authority. If the reliever field closed, corporate aviation and
the fleet of medevac helicopters would have to move to the big airport,
causing serious delays. Peak times for bizjets are the same as for air
carrier.

Fred F.

by Jose teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 21, 2005 at 07:38 PM


Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
subsidized.

I obviously disagree with this most recent argument. But, next week, I
will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Happy Holidays, Skylune out.

The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Well, you are doing so from erronious premises.

Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
subsidized.

No, I don't know whether they are or not; my point is that it doesn't
matter. Airports do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of a national
system, serving the group with the most political clout. A cost here
generates a savings there; you cannot reasonably separate the two.

But, next week, I
will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Whatchadoing up this way? I'll have some taxi info soon; meanwhile
consider which FBO you will arrive at - they are on opposite sides of
the field. Reliant is on one side, and Arrow and Executive Air are on
the other.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I believe you are right on this point. But let's look at the numbers.

The avgas tax is $0.193/gallon. If my plane burns 10 gph I am paying a tax
of $1.93/hour. If I fly 50 hours per year I pay $96.50 per year to use the
system. If I stop flying altogether is the FAA going to be able to reduce
it's expenses $96.50/year? If I double the amount I fly is the FAA going to
have to increase their annual budget $96.50 to cover the cost?



"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:CfAqf.856$dh2.160@trndny08...
The AV gas taxes more than cover the incremental cost that GA adds to the
equation. It does not cover the excessive amounts that the FAA wastes.


"Skylune" wrote in message

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA
nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Whatchadoing up this way? I'll have some taxi info soon; meanwhile
consider which FBO you will arrive at - they are on opposite sides of
the field. Reliant is on one side, and Arrow and Executive Air are on
the other.

Jose

The plan is to fly from ISP (near my old Lawn Guyland stomping grounds),
stop at Danbury to pick up a friend/eat/fuel up, and then head up to
Bethel Maine to ski at Sunday River.

Hopefully the weather holds up, cuz my bud is a VFR pilot. He pushes the
envelope a bit too far for my taste, so I do my own weather briefing
(using Intellicast) before I hop into the C-172.