$100 GA tax?!

Last edited:
They need to quit boogalooing the scape goats.

The reason we need ATC in the first place is because the sky is full of airliners trying to bump into each other all the time. GA has been flying since day one with little to no ATC intervention. We are pretty good at keeping ourselves apart on our own except for IFR operations when you can't see out the windows. You could shut the entire ATC system down right this minute and GA won't even notice for the most part...it'll be business as usual. Airliners probably won't be able to back off their boarding gates though.

Get rid of GA and the problem won't go away.
Get rid of airliners and ATC won't have anything to do for the most part.

Are they really expecting us to fork out $200 plus operating costs for a little hop over to another airport a few miles away that uses $60 in sky high rental fees? Seriously? That sounds more like trying to shut GA down than funding ATC in a realistic manner.
 
Good for the class baiting pols, good for AOPA fundraising. These proposals are win-win.:rolleyes2::mad2::)
 
ATC could disappear tomorrow, and I couldn't/wouldn't care less.

If the gummint wants to charge $100/flight, I'll just turn off the transponder, and fly low... :lol:
 
"Camel's nose" argument notwithstanding, the proposed fee affects turbine aircraft only. Piston aircraft are exempt, regardless what airspace they fly in. The bizjet crowd is the target du jour in the class struggle.
 
Pilawt said:
"Camel's nose" argument notwithstanding, the proposed fee affects turbine aircraft only. Piston aircraft are exempt, regardless what airspace they fly in. The bizjet crowd is the target du jour in the class struggle.
Click to expand...
First of all, I don't want my government spending a large portion of the fees just to implement a new way of collecting those fees! That's a ridiculous expenditure!

Second, I don't think that class warfare makes for good laws.

Third, Camel's nose!
 
lets take the White House reasoning and apply it to something similar that everyone can relate to.

an 18 wheeler pays far more fuel tax than you as a Limo owner does on a coast to coast trip. we're going to impose a $100 fee on all Limo trips because its not fair that your limo is smaller and burns less fuel than an 18 wheeler on the same trip. oh we're going to exclude all other cars for the time being.
 
Pilawt said:
"Camel's nose" argument notwithstanding, the proposed fee affects turbine aircraft only. Piston aircraft are exempt, regardless what airspace they fly in. The bizjet crowd is the target du jour in the class struggle.
Click to expand...

Since every administration regardless of party proposes user fees, how is it "class struggle"? I think it must be coming from somewhere within the bureaucracy. We need to find those people and educate them.

The thing that's really brain dead about the current proposal is that it's the same fee regardless of the length of the flight. Applying the user fee in the form of a fuel tax (i.e., what we have now) is much more equitable, and doesn't require an expensive bureacracy to collect the fees.
 
IMHO the fuel tax cannot be tampered with by the current congress because both sides of the aisle are loathe to even suggest a "tax increase". Any member that suggested a "tax increase" would be DOA at reelection time. A "user fee" is more tolerable because that is a "fee" not a "tax" and somehow voters seem more accepting of that fee, particularly if it doesn't appear to directly impact them.
 
This appears to be the FIRST administration that hasn't requested congress to provide for the fees. It appears that this administration feels they already have the authority to impose them without congressional approval.

If this logic is correct, then congressional action may be required to prohibit this fee.
 
Pilawt said:
"Camel's nose" argument notwithstanding, the proposed fee affects turbine aircraft only. Piston aircraft are exempt, regardless what airspace they fly in. The bizjet crowd is the target du jour in the class struggle.
Click to expand...

So when AvGas is outlawed by this same administration.....
 
Drachen596 said:
lets take the White House reasoning and apply it to something similar that everyone can relate to.

an 18 wheeler pays far more fuel tax than you as a Limo owner does on a coast to coast trip. we're going to impose a $100 fee on all Limo trips because its not fair that your limo is smaller and burns less fuel than an 18 wheeler on the same trip. oh we're going to exclude all other cars for the time being.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that in this scenario, the limo actually pays MORE fuel tax for the same trip than the 18 wheeler!

Airline fuel tax is around .04 c/gal while GA and pt135 are paying .21 c/gal

The learjet will actually pay more gas tax money for the same route of flight than an airbus - even considering the airbus's increased fuel burn...
 
Pilawt said:
"Camel's nose" argument notwithstanding, the proposed fee affects turbine aircraft only. Piston aircraft are exempt, regardless what airspace they fly in. The bizjet crowd is the target du jour in the class struggle.
Click to expand...

So are the small guys... turboprops... caravans.. etc...

The caravan or king air operator that does several short hops per day is going to get driven out of business by this user fee.
 
dell30rb said:
So are the small guys... turboprops... caravans.. etc...

The caravan or king air operator that does several short hops per day is going to get driven out of business by this user fee.
Click to expand...


What will people that live in remote areas like Alaska do for material, transportation, healthcare, etc?
 
dell30rb said:
The caravan or king air operator that does several short hops per day is going to get driven out of business by this user fee.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. While it will impact them more than the bizjets, 100 bucks per flight is still pretty small compared to $2000/hr.

The fee itself is chump change to those who it will apply to.

The problem (as someone mentioned in the other thread) is that once the fee is successfully put on the books, it is alot easier to expand it's scope to include piston aircraft than trying to go after all GA in the first place.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't know about that. While it will impact them more than the bizjets, 100 bucks per flight is still pretty small compared to $2000/hr.

The fee itself is chump change to those who it will apply to.

The problem (as someone mentioned in the other thread) is that once the fee is successfully put on the books, it is alot easier to expand it's scope to include piston aircraft than trying to go after all GA in the first place.
Click to expand...

As you are probably aware, its difficult to make money with an airplane. Say you have a caravan that stops at 4-5 airports a day in its normal routine.. they are going to get nailed with $400-$500 a day in user fees. That's probably more than the profit you would make with that airplane in a day's worth of flying, considering fuel, maintenance and paying a pilot.

Hell even $100 a day is probably close to the profit of the airplane
 
Last edited:
dr.edward said:
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120113white-house-aviation-user-fee-response.html

Scary stuff. Pilot #s and GA activity continue to decline from what I read. Amazing this government can think increasing taxes will help anything.

ATC is one of the FEW gov entities I am truly impressed with already.

:)
Click to expand...

The main problem I see is that yet another bureaucracy need be created to collect this "fee" [ i.e. tax]. So this means adding more government employees to the payroll [we have far too many already] , with no guarantee that they could ever be effective in their mission. If the non-profit world is an indication, they would probably spend 95% on overhead to collect 5%. Collecting thru fuel taxes would make most sense, but such a common sense action in the current political climate seems not viable. The camel's nose under the tent aspect of this worries me most.
 
The real issue with this is that once it's in place, it's quite easy for someone to declare that ATC is non-governmental.... meaning iit can be contracted out. How's FSS working for you?
 
fgcason said:
They need to quit boogalooing the scape goats.

The reason we need ATC in the first place is because the sky is full of airliners trying to bump into each other all the time. GA has been flying since day one with little to no ATC intervention. We are pretty good at keeping ourselves apart on our own except for IFR operations when you can't see out the windows. You could shut the entire ATC system down right this minute and GA won't even notice for the most part...it'll be business as usual. Airliners probably won't be able to back off their boarding gates though.

Get rid of GA and the problem won't go away.
Get rid of airliners and ATC won't have anything to do for the most part.

Are they really expecting us to fork out $200 plus operating costs for a little hop over to another airport a few miles away that uses $60 in sky high rental fees? Seriously? That sounds more like trying to shut GA down than funding ATC in a realistic manner.
Click to expand...

I like your view point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top