User Fees

Where is all this user fee flak coming from?

Do the fuel taxes not get routed back to the system? If not, let's raise a
big stink.

Are the budgets not big enough? Okay, I might be convinced that this is
true, and I may even be willing to look past the fact that the system is
where it is due to seriously bad decisions over the past 20 years just in
the name of getting a solution over wasting time pointing fingers.

Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc.
etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

Don't they realize the incredible inefficiency of having to bill us? Don't
they realize the money they need to fix the system will instead get used
trying to create a billing system and manage the accounts. This will cost
tens of millions and likely require that everyone get a discreet transponder
id for it to ever work. Meanwhile, they are still using vacuum tube crap to
keep us from crashing!!!

AFAIK, the big traffic increases are coming from increased use of business
jets trying to join in where the scheduled players are already trying to
crowd each other out in order to lose money on every flight. Let's say we
want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would it not be easier
just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the same amount
would it not?

And then we could use the money to buy gear and pay controllers instead of
creating an all new department to manage the fee system!

Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
ups.com...
Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.


The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do not
recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too. The
cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this figure).
This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position" section
within the past year.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
ups.com...
Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.


The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do not
recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too. The
cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this
figure). This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position"
section within the past year.

Mike
MU-2


Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think
they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?

We have had this discussion before, and I would rather not rehash it. If we
could get a better FAA by raising the fuel tax, I would support it. I just
want to know what the extra will actually get us. Otherwise, I would just
as soon see the whole thing go libertarian. All we in GA really need are the
GPS satellites, and a few gadgets. AMR, United, and the rest can pack up
and go home for all I care.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Paul kgyy" wrote in message
ups.com...
Support AOPA, they are our best protection against this. Economically,
I suspect that the tax money raised from our bugsmasher fuel usage
doesn't really cover the cost of service for FSS, VOR maintenance, ATC,
etc etc. But the result of fees will be that fewer people use the
system, which is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences.


The total revenue raised from the fuel tax is about $60 million. I do
not recall if this was for avgas alone or included GA jet fuel use too.
The cost of FSS is about $600 million (there is some dispute about this
figure). This information was in AOPA Pilot in the "Presidents Position"
section within the past year.

Mike
MU-2


Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors think
they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?

We have had this discussion before, and I would rather not rehash it. If
we could get a better FAA by raising the fuel tax, I would support it. I
just want to know what the extra will actually get us. Otherwise, I would
just as soon see the whole thing go libertarian. All we in GA really need
are the GPS satellites, and a few gadgets. AMR, United, and the rest can
pack up and go home for all I care.

The argument is always framed as "fair share" but there is no way to agree
on what is fair. The framers of the argument twist the facts to support
their point of view. Clearly GA isn't paying for what it consumes since the
fuel tax doesn't even cover FSS. On the other hand, GA owners and pilots
pay income taxes and airlines do not.. On the third hand, while the
airlines don't pay income taxes (with the probable exception of Southwest),
they employ a lot of people who do and airline travel helps facilitate
economic growth which generates tax revenue.

When the time comes to collect the tax either through user fees or a fuel
tax the same "fairness" issues come around again. It doesn't cost any more
to provide ATC services to a larger airplane that burns more fuel, so a fuel
tax isn't "fair".

My personal point of view is that the airline business is inherently
unprofitable due to high fixed costs combined with the "tragedy of the
commons" problem. The industry will always be complaining and looking for
handouts from government. It is also apparent thatGA, taken alone, is
subsidized from the general fund but pilots are too pig-headed to
achknowlege it. This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to
pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either. As a point of
interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less that
thier equal share of the cost of government.

Mike
MU-2

The argument is always framed as "fair share" but there is no way to agree
on what is fair. The framers of the argument twist the facts to support
their point of view. Clearly GA isn't paying for what it consumes since
the fuel tax doesn't even cover FSS.

That is one we can fix fairly easily. If it costs X dollars to disseminate
the weather, then charge X dollars to get it (the government has other needs
for the weather, so its not an aviation expense). However, if the goverment
for its own purposes wants us all to have the weather info and requires it,
then I don't see how you can say any share is a "fair share". When you
require it, fairness goes out the window.

On the other hand, GA owners and pilots
pay income taxes and airlines do not.. On the third hand, while the
airlines don't pay income taxes (with the probable exception of
Southwest), they employ a lot of people who do and airline travel helps
facilitate economic growth which generates tax revenue.

Let's go ahead and leave out other tax revenues for simplification. Also,
one can justify ANYTHING using the economic growth argument. Governments
local, state, and federal almost uniformly make bad decisions when the
"invest" in economic growth. That's why communism failed.


When the time comes to collect the tax either through user fees or a fuel
tax the same "fairness" issues come around again. It doesn't cost any
more to provide ATC services to a larger airplane that burns more fuel, so
a fuel tax isn't "fair".

While what you state seems true on its face, in practice it is not. A
larger plane flying very quickly, with huge liability issues, and trying to
get into the same crowded international airport as all the other big fast
planes costs MANY times more to provide services to than a small prop going
from one small field to another which 90% of the time uses "see and avoid"
as its primary control system. In fact, almost the ENTIRE system we now
have is set up to allow the carriers to operate. I really can't understand
why that is never discussed or admitted in these big conferences.


My personal point of view is that the airline business is inherently
unprofitable due to high fixed costs combined with the "tragedy of the
commons" problem. The industry will always be complaining and looking for
handouts from government.

Quit the handouts, and the ones that survive will profit.

It is also apparent thatGA, taken alone, is
subsidized from the general fund but pilots are too pig-headed to
achknowlege it.

I would be happy to acknowledge it, as I depreciated my plane. OTOH, they
let me do that to "create jobs" and get more tax revenue. Its so complex, we
really don't know do we?

This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to
pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either.

Its the whole government shell game that makes us all think this. The
redistribution has gotten so out of hand. One government interference after
another, and now even you are buying into this idea that we are not paying
our fair share in GA. We can't tell what the fair share is because there is
simply too much smoke.

I do know one thing, I would rather pay a private company for weather than
anyone else. Also, we could easily put a speed limit for safety that would
destroy the airlines who could never "see and avoid". Of course, the idea
of a speed limit is stupid, but it points out the fact that its not little
props that need the whole system, its the Jets.

As a point of
interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less
that thier equal share of the cost of government.


And, close to 90% think they have "earned" their benefits. Its the shell
game. I pay enough in taxes to hire several people, so I must be doing a
pretty good job keeping up my end. I suspect that a good portion of pilots
are the same given the cost of the activity.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
news


Is the "fair share" argument what this is really about? The majors
think
they are paying too much because their planes use more fuel?


Well, the majors are not a business, they're a political interest group. I
used to think that Southwest was able to profit by cherrypicking, but now
that they're the #2 carrier it's pretty hard to deny that the majors are
simply businesses with a failed model. For airline travel to evolve we need
to let Darwin play his cards and thin the herd.

Then there's the fact that the airlines write off fuel costs. And it's not
as though the only cost of an airliner is ATC. Those major metropolitan
airports cost a pretty penny to run, and then there's that little thing
called the TSA.

This unwillingness to accept simple math is not unique to
pilots, medicare recipients don't achknowlege it either. As a point of
interest, almost everyone in our society (close to 90%) is paying less
that
thier equal share of the cost of government.

Yes, which makes the left's chant that the rich "aren't paying their fair
share" deliciously ironic.

There has never been a sustained constituency for smaller government. You
can always rile up an angry mob to prevent cutting program A and another mob
for program B, but only in rare moments of crisis will people rally around a
general tightening, as with Thatcher or Reagan. Even in those cases, I would
argue it was really more of a moral issue than accounting, as with the
welfare debate. Aid to Families with Dependent Children cost in the
neighborhood of 20-30bn a year, not a major item in the federal budget.
People wanted it cut not because it cost too much, but because it corrupted
people and in turn society. Of course, no one is really talking now about
how taxing the pants off young people trying to buy their first car, house,
have a kid to buy drugs for elderly people who are as a group much sounder
financially. They paid 1980s taxes on 1980s income but will get 2010
benefits that cost 2010 money. But hey, it's only fair, right?

-cwk.

"Dude" wrote:

Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
administration we elected.


Then "Dude" wrote:

Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would
it not be
easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
same
amount would it not?

Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message
news:4fK_d.12274$oa6.4378@trnddc07...
"Dude" wrote:

Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
administration we elected.


Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
enough foolishness?


Then "Dude" wrote:

Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system. Would
it not be
easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
same
amount would it not?

Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?

--
-Elliott Drucker

Yes, when its IMC, I mostly take Southwest. Besides, my per passenger fuel
use is similar to Southwest's, so what's the difference?

"Dude" wrote:

Still, what complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc.
etc. etc. thinks user fees are a fix?

I wittily replied:

The complete idiotic, power hungry, stupid, short sighted etc. etc. etc.
administration we elected.


"Dude" retorted:

Oh, let's not be partisan. Can't we agree both sides have demonstrated
enough foolishness?

To which I say:

Not partisan, just the facts. In our democracy, we get the government we
elect. If we elect morons, why are we surprised that they govern (and set
FAA policy) moronically?




Then "Dude" wrote:

Let's say we want a $20 fee per flight for using the IFR system.
Would it not be
easier just to raise the fuel tax a penny or two? That would raise the
same amount would it not?

Do you burn 2000 gallons of fuel on a typical IFR flight?


And the ever-clever "Dude", noted:

Yes, when its IMC, I mostly take Southwest. Besides, my per passenger
fuel use is similar to Southwest's, so what's the difference?


Upon which I am happy to point out to "Dude":

Actually, if you fill a couple of seats in a single engine piston airplane
you are probably below Southwest's average fuel per occupied seat-mile by a
good margin.

That said, a $.01/gallon extra tax on aviation fuel will not cover the cost
of the ATC system, which in any case is far more than an average of $20 per
IFR flight. I also agree with you (and many other posters) that user fees
are a very bad idea, primarily because they will discourage the safety
benefits of IFR operation.

--
-Elliott Drucker