GA's "fair share"

Technological solutions already exist. Creative solutions are called for.
User fees need not be difficult to administer!

For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
easily be extended to small planes. Aircraft owners would be required to
pay a small annual fee for the transponder, say $10,000. As you pass by
the OMNIs, charges to your credit card could be automatically posted.
During takeoffs and landings, the same transponder detection equipment
could be utilized to charge. Perhaps a first missed approach would be on
the house. For subsequent missed approaches, a 50% landing fee would be
charged.

Your radios could also be equipped with electronic debiting software, to
charge the card in the event you request flight following or need to
contact ATC. Newer planes could be factory equiped with instrumentation
(like the Hobbs) that would show how much you're racking up on the AMEX
card. If you reach your charge limit while aloft, a fuel shut off switch
could be automatically engaged, thereby encouraging timely payment of the
user fees. If you are at sufficient altitude, there should be time to
contact AMEX to get the credit limit lifted in order to accomplish an
runway landing.

("Skylune" wrote)
Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


Cutting costs is more effective.

For starters, eliminating 3rd Class medicals would save money.


Montblack

by "Steve Foley" Nov 4, 2005 at 08:45 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

(For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA
heavily
subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

AOPA, like every lobby group out there, has to fight tooth and nail
against
any proposal limiting its members. You can't let the camels nose under
the
tent. It's the old 'give them an inch' philosophy."

I think you are right on the money here. Seriously. The AOPA knows they
cannot budge on this. Thus their weird, disingenous arguments. They are
forced into taking absurd positions.

I do enjoy the AOPA kabuki show though. They should have a dora dora play
a musical accompaniment.

Here in the UK the answer is yes to just about all those questions

In the UK they charge to have a television on.

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

Skylune wrote:

Technological solutions already exist. Creative solutions are called for.
User fees need not be difficult to administer!

For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
easily be extended to small planes. Aircraft owners would be required to
pay a small annual fee for the transponder, say $10,000. As you pass by
the OMNIs, charges to your credit card could be automatically posted.
During takeoffs and landings, the same transponder detection equipment
could be utilized to charge. Perhaps a first missed approach would be on
the house. For subsequent missed approaches, a 50% landing fee would be
charged.

Your radios could also be equipped with electronic debiting software, to
charge the card in the event you request flight following or need to
contact ATC. Newer planes could be factory equiped with instrumentation
(like the Hobbs) that would show how much you're racking up on the AMEX
card. If you reach your charge limit while aloft, a fuel shut off switch
could be automatically engaged, thereby encouraging timely payment of the
user fees. If you are at sufficient altitude, there should be time to
contact AMEX to get the credit limit lifted in order to accomplish an
runway landing.

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

In article ,
Newps wrote:

You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.

So if the SEL spamcan only pays $50/year, is it reasonable to assume
that the cost of NAVCANADA services is only $50?

Would the FAA services be significantly more? if so, why?

If the cost to the FAA for the SEL spamcan is only the equivalent of $50
canadian, why are people so hot to have user fees?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Skylune" wrote

I think they should just increase the AV gas tax somewhat.

This would not address your point of nonrecreational GA paying the majority
of GA gas tax.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Mike Rapoport" Nov 4, 2005 at 07:10 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


GA is also the only user that pays income tax."

What the ????? There is no income tax on general aviation. Maybe you
mean the personal income tax, which everyone pays?



Yes that is what I meant. The airlines pay no income taxes. They report a
tax liability under GAAP accounting but there is an adjustment in the cash
flow statement. I am all for user fees if it applies equally to everyone
for everything since my total tax bill would decline by a huge percentage.

Mike
MU-2

Very, very good argument. You should cc this to AOPA.


David Megginson wrote:
I think it's worth taking a different perspective on this. Let's say
that you have a moderately busy, medium-sized airport near a
medium-sized city -- there are (say) 20-30 airline flights in and out
every day. That airport has an FAA tower, and light aircraft account
for the majority of the movements. Should light aircraft owners pay
the majority of the cost of operating the tower, since we make the
majority of the radio calls?

To answer the question, consider what would happen if the tower were
closed. We all know how to fly in and out of airports without a tower
-- even the bizjets can handle that -- and on an IFR day, most of the
recreational pilots disappear, and the rest of us will simply do
one-in/one-out full procedure approaches. We might lose 10-15 minutes
occasionally, but that's no big deal.

Now, consider the airlines' CRJs or 737s having to share that airspace
with us, holding for 15 minutes waiting for a turn to approach in IMC,
or joining the VFR traffic pattern #5 for landing behind a Cessna 150.
With that in mind, who gets most of the benefits from having a control
tower?

I think the same is true of a lot of ATC services. Light aircraft talk
a lot to ATC, but to a large extent, we're doing so only to help the
heavy iron keep moving efficiently around us. It seems fair that the
airlines (and maybe bizjet operators) pay most of the cost, since they
get most of the benefit.


All the best,


David

Newps wrote:


Skylune wrote:

Technological solutions already exist. Creative solutions are called
for. User fees need not be difficult to administer!

For example, the EZ pass electronic transponder system for autos could be
easily be extended to small planes. Aircraft owners would be required to
pay a small annual fee for the transponder, say $10,000. As you pass by
the OMNIs, charges to your credit card could be automatically posted.
During takeoffs and landings, the same transponder detection equipment
could be utilized to charge. Perhaps a first missed approach would be on
the house. For subsequent missed approaches, a 50% landing fee would be
charged.
Your radios could also be equipped with electronic debiting software, to
charge the card in the event you request flight following or need to
contact ATC. Newer planes could be factory equiped with instrumentation
(like the Hobbs) that would show how much you're racking up on the AMEX
card. If you reach your charge limit while aloft, a fuel shut off switch
could be automatically engaged, thereby encouraging timely payment of the
user fees. If you are at sufficient altitude, there should be time to
contact AMEX to get the credit limit lifted in order to accomplish an
runway landing.


You're making it a thousand times harder than it needs to be. User fees
will not be on a per use basis, you will pay a yearly fee most probably
based on the weight of your plane. Canada has user fees. Your typical
single engine spamcan pays less than $50 per year for his user fees.
That's Canadian money of course. So even if the average US owner got a
bill each year for $50 it is trivial to the cost of flying.


$50/year/airplane in the USA wouldn't make a dent in the FAA's budget.

Matt