$100 Landing Fees.

Meliss

Meliss

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
202
Location
San Diego, CA
Display Name
Display name:
goodjoojoo
Maybe you’ve been busy with work. Maybe you’ve been caught up in a family member getting ready to graduate from high school or college, just like me. Perhaps you haven’t heard about our President’s proposal to have general aviators pay a $100 fee for each flight. That last one is possible, but not likely.

Security is about protecting things and activities that are important to us. Regulations and tax proposals, just like terrorists and thieves, can be categorized as threats to our freedom to fly. This proposal is a direct threat, every bit as much as Al Qaeda and Los Zetas, and much closer to home.
Yes, I know that there is language in the President’s proposed budget to exclude piston aircraft and flight operations outside of controlled airspace. Hmmm…well, if you can stand to stay below 700 feet AGL, or maybe 1,200 feet AGL tops, you might be able to avoid such fees. But how will you prove that you didn’t climb to 1,201?
Click to expand...

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/...m=rss&utm_campaign=user-feesonly-3035-against
 
First, it's not a $100 landing fee, nor is it a $100 fee for every GA flight. Second, those White House petitions are pretty much ignored by the White House. Third, there is little publicity associated with those petitions. Fourth, since Congress is dead set opposed to user fees, it ain't goin' nowhere anyway. If you want to prevent user fees, join AOPA and contribute to the AOPA PAC rather than waste your energy on these petitions.
 
Agree with Cap'n Ron.

edit: will save that commentary for the spin zone
 
Last edited:
Ron is 100% right. Whether there are 3,000 signatures or 300,000 it really isn't going to make a difference. Do you really think the President is looking at the list of whitehouse.gov petitions and basing his policy on a few thousand semi-anonymous internet votes?

Second of all, if we're going to fight user fees successfully we all need to be educated on what is REALLY proposed -- not just the same nonsense that "evil Obama is trying to kill GA." The proposal would not have affected piston planes at all, controlled airspace or not, and was not a landing fee at all. Regardless, Congress shot it down quickly, and now it's not happening (for now).
 
It's amazing to me how every president proposes user fees, regardless of party affiliation. It's almost like the executive branch runs the presidents instead of the presidents running the executive branch. :(
 
dukeblue219 said:
Regardless, Congress shot it down quickly, and now it's not happening (for now).
Click to expand...
What keeps Congress on our side is the lobbying and informational efforts of AOPA (and the AOPA PAC) and the other general aviation alphabet groups such as NBAA, EAA, GAMA, and NATA. For most of us here, AOPA is our most appropriate representative, and even for those whose activities are covered by EAA, EAA does not have nearly the political clout in DC that AOPA does. So join/renew with AOPA, and if you have the money to spare, send some to the AOPA PAC, too.
 
Perhaps if the government could just rename the aviation fuel tax to aviation fuel flowage fee, the concept of flight based user fees for GA would go away. The basic motivation behind "user fees" isn't all that bad but the typical proposed implementations would result in a high collection/administration cost as well as a safety detriment.
 
gismo said:
Perhaps if the government could just rename the aviation fuel tax to aviation fuel flowage fee, the concept of flight based user fees for GA would go away. The basic motivation behind "user fees" isn't all that bad but the typical proposed implementations would result in a high collection/administration cost as well as a safety detriment.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should just rename the fuel tax "user fee"!
 
I don't think any significant segment of the pilot population objects to the use of straight percentage fuel taxes as the appropriate way to fund the system. The problem is that it's a "tax," and politicians are terrified of raising a "tax." Maybe if we just called changed its name the "National Aviation System User Fee," raising it as required to fund the system wouldn't be so scary to politicians, but the impact would remain appropriate, since those who use the most fuel are the ones who effectively drive the overall system cost.
 
Flying h4x0r said:
Agree with Cap'n Ron. Atleast this whole fiasco makes my 2012 election decision an easy one. NOBAMA. :mad2:
Click to expand...

What is to keep any other future administration from doing it? Romney is no better. He shapes the truth and possibly lies like any other politician.

David
 
flhrci said:
What is to keep any other future administration from doing it? Romney is no better. He shapes the truth and possibly lies like any other politician.

David
Click to expand...
None actually. And has been mentioned, it seem the recent past presidenst have floated this proposal (both parties).
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think any significant segment of the pilot population objects to the use of straight percentage fuel taxes as the appropriate way to fund the system. The problem is that it's a "tax," and politicians are terrified of raising a "tax." Maybe if we just called changed its name the "National Aviation System User Fee," raising it as required to fund the system wouldn't be so scary to politicians, but the impact would remain appropriate, since those who use the most fuel are the ones who effectively drive the overall system cost.
Click to expand...

I'm all for user fees based on individual consumption, including aviation user fees, IF they replace a tax-based revenue stream rather than supplement it. However, that is never the proposal. The proposal always includes, directly or indirectly, a supplement or wholesale shift of the original tax-based revenue stream to some other purpose. In that case, a "user fee" is nothing but a new tax.

There are several theoretically advantages to an actual user fee, including increased accountability for cost control. That might actually work in the private sector, but not so much in the public sector, where cost of regulation is irrelevant, and everything is a political football by design.


JKG
 
Presidents propose user fees because it makes sense for the Executive branch to be able to raise money without having to go to Congress. That's why they like "user fees". That, and they can claim to be not imposing new taxes, despite the fact that a tax is exactly what they're "user fee" is.

In the same vein, it makes good sense for Congress to nix such fees. Why give up power to the Executive branch? That makes no sense at all for the members of the legislative branch.
 
User fees are the norm in Europe, where everything is paid, from the filing of the flight plan to the follow-me car at the end of the flight. The ICAO and euro way of doing things is gradually creeping in.

A 100 dollar landing fee is lousy for general avaition, but it's not much in the grand scope of things. It's more than that to park at some FBO's.

When we first started going into Kabul, the ramp fee was ten thousand cash. We thought we were getting away with murder when we got it down to three grand.
 
DouglasBader said:
A 100 dollar landing fee is lousy for general avaition, but it's not much in the grand scope of things.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself...that would price a great many of us right out of GA...including myself

Typical Training flight now
1.5 hours in a C172 180$ plus tax
2 hours CFI 90$
that's just north of 270$
Throw in 200$ in landing fees...more if you do more than two landings...
:eek:
 
Last edited:
DouglasBader said:
User fees are the norm in Europe, where everything is paid, from the filing of the flight plan to the follow-me car at the end of the flight. The ICAO and euro way of doing things is gradually creeping in.
Click to expand...

And in case you haven't noticed, GA is not exactly flourishing across the pond.

DouglasBader said:
A 100 dollar landing fee is lousy for general avaition, but it's not much in the grand scope of things. It's more than that to park at some FBO's..
Click to expand...

The argument is the camel's nose under the tent. Yeah, today it's only $100 on jets. Next its $150 on anything with a turbine. Then it's $200 on anything with wings. Then its $300 for anything with wings, to pay for all the guys counting landings and sending out bills. Then it's $400 for anything that flies, to pay for the retirement for the all the guys counting landings and sending out bills.
 
flhrci said:
What is to keep any other future administration from doing it? Romney is no better. He shapes the truth and possibly lies like any other politician.

David
Click to expand...

This.

Bush also wanted user fees...
 
And in case you haven't noticed, GA is not exactly flourishing across the pond.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. For those who say it can't or won't happen here, much of what is happening now already happened over there. Gradually things are moving that direction.

The argument is the camel's nose under the tent.
Click to expand...

It's not an argument. It's a fact.

Yeah, today it's only $100 on jets.
Click to expand...

It can be a lot more than that.

Speak for yourself...that would price a great many of us right out of GA...including myself
Click to expand...

I do speak for myself, always.

Many of us are already priced out of general aviation. That's why we do it for a living. We couldn't fly, otherwise.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Ron is 100% right. Whether there are 3,000 signatures or 300,000 it really isn't going to make a difference. Do you really think the President is looking at the list of whitehouse.gov petitions and basing his policy on a few thousand semi-anonymous internet votes?

Second of all, if we're going to fight user fees successfully we all need to be educated on what is REALLY proposed -- not just the same nonsense that "evil Obama is trying to kill GA." The proposal would not have affected piston planes at all, controlled airspace or not, and was not a landing fee at all. Regardless, Congress shot it down quickly, and now it's not happening (for now).
Click to expand...

However, as written it would affect my sailplane and turbine powered self launch gliders. Perhaps even turbine powered cropdusters.

Brian
 
DouglasBader said:
My point exactly. For those who say it can't or won't happen here, much of what is happening now already happened over there. Gradually things are moving that direction.



It's not an argument. It's a fact.



It can be a lot more than that.



I do speak for myself, always.

Many of us are already priced out of general aviation. That's why we do it for a living. We couldn't fly, otherwise.
Click to expand...
So...what are you saying? Just don't fight it? Accept it? Just resign ourselves to the fact that it is comming?

That's the spirit!!:rolleyes:
 
So...what are you saying? Just don't fight it? Accept it? Just resign ourselves to the fact that it is comming?
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that. You just said that. That's the spirit.
 
In one post you say the user fees are no big deal, just get used to them...but then you say you AREN'T saying not to fight them...color me confused
Click to expand...

I did not say user fees are no big deal. You just said that. If you can put words in your mouth and not mine, we'll all be much better off.

I said "a 100 dollar landing fee is lousy for general avaition." That's the polar opposite of "no big deal," you see.
 
DouglasBader said:
I did not say user fees are no big deal. You just said that. If you can put words in your mouth and not mine, we'll all be much better off.

I said "a 100 dollar landing fee is lousy for general avaition." That's the polar opposite of "no big deal," you see.
Click to expand...


No, you also said it's "not much in the grand scheme of things"

That's is where I got the impression you thought is wasn't a big deal.
I guess I misunderstood...still do.
 
I hope everyone understands it is not landing fees that was proposed. It is user fees which is different. The proposal was for a $100 fee per flight for turbine aircraft in certain airspace. The big fear is the camel and his nose.
Many here are talking about ramp fees as opposed to landing fees. For example I am not aware of any landing fees at KHSV. However if I wanted to drop off a passenger without even shutting down engines of the Cheyenne, I owe Signature $300.
 
ronnieh said:
...For example I am not aware of any landing fees at KHSV. However if I wanted to drop off a passenger without even shutting down engines of the Cheyenne, I owe Signature $300.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's awfully steep. How are the fees at MDQ?
 
I do not know about Madison County but, since Jet A is about $1.80 / gallon cheaper I expect the ramp fees to be a little more reasonable.

Birmingham, AL. is another one that is pretty bad. Last time I was in Atlanta it was only $180.00 ramp fee.:(
 
No, you also said it's "not much in the grand scheme of things"

That's is where I got the impression you thought is wasn't a big deal.
I guess I misunderstood...still do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did say that.

When you rent an airplane to fly four hours across the state, then four hours back at one twenty an hour, you just paid 960. Add other expenses, the hotel, the time off work, normal landing fees, ramp fees, etc, the cost to maintain your currency, your medical, and all the associated costs, a hundred isn't a big increase in the grand scheme of things. Is it a lot of money? Of course it is. It's a lot less than what's being spent in Europe.

If you own an airplane and fly a few hours a year, like most do (in part because it's so expensive) between our hangar rental, your fuel, your insurance, your medical, your maintenance, and all the other aspects of owning and operating an airplane, user fees are really a drop in the bucket. It may not be a desirable drop, and nobody likes to pay any more than they must, but it's a burgeoning and oncoming drop and it's far less than many other fees, expenses, and costs that are staring us all down as we move day by day into the future.

Years ago I arrived in Las Vegas in a Learjet. I was sent to the Signature FBO by mistake. My purpose in being there was important; I was carrying a human internal organ for transplant. Time was critical. The sender had us going to Signature, and both FBO's were signed and labled as The Executive Terminal. The client actually wanted us at the other FBO, and the other end of the field.

Signature parked a fuel truck in front of the airplane. I advised them by radio that I needed to reposition quickly. We hadn't shut down the engines. We just needed them to move so we could transition the airplane down the ramp to the proper location, where a vehicle and agent was waiting to accept the precious cargo. Signature refused, and left the truck in front of us, the driver walked away, and we were forced to shut down and go inside to pay by credit card. We had to pay a ridiculous fee for a few moments on their ramp, while we were on a life-saving mission. I'll be the first to say I hate Signature with a purple passion, and that if they were the only FBO left on the planet I'd park on a dirt road first, but there we had little choice. Ramp fees, service fees, and a host of other fees are common and are here to stay.

If you think the cost of such fees in the US is expensive, you should see what others are paying in other parts of the world. Don't expect the restof the world to become like us: it won't happen. Gradually we're becoming more like them, whether it's desired or not. We'll see more UAV's in civil airspace, we'll see increased fees and costs, we'll see fewer airports over the years, greater legislation, more airspace restrictions as time goes on, and a gradual decrease in general aviation. I don't like it, but the trend has been ongoing for decades and will continue to be so.

What's happening in Europe is gradually creeping in here. We've adapted our weather forecasts and reporting, and our flight plans to conform to ICAO. We're seeing more fields where the wearing of bright safety vests are being required. No dumping of fuel when preflighting. A requirement on our pilot certificates to state that we speak English. Gradual changes, little by little, that are making our system become more like Europe. User fees are inevitable; not this year or next, but they will happen.

Is this desirable? No. However, general aviation has had a free ride for a very long time, as the airlines pay for virtually everything. Not much is contributed through general aviation. That's probably a good thing; general aviation, at least on the private level, is struggling, and always has. Which of us wants to pay a hundred bucks extra to fly his Corby Starlet around the pattern, or her Cherokee to Buck City?

User fees are common and expected in some metro areas. Been on the ramp at KSFO lately? Expensive, and not friendly. Been on the ramp at KLAS? Same. Many places already have ramp fees unless you buy a minimum value of avgas or Jet. It's the price of doing business. If you want to avoid such fees, you end up having to either not go there, or spend money in other ways.

Insurance has gone sky high for aircraft. Ridiculously so, especially for those who don't have much experience, or specific experience (tailwheel, multi, time in type, etc). I've often maintained that the hardest part of flying is paying for it. Flying is expensive. Very expensive.

The user fees in this discussion don't affect most of private or recreational aviation. They're irrelevant, and all the excitement for naught. They don't apply. The fact is, irrelevant non-applicable theoretical fees really aren't a big thing in the grand scope of things.
 
Until last year when my M-I-L could still travel, she would book a ticket convenient to her-into ORD. Not MDW, You got it, ORD.

"Intercept the LOC ILS 4R, maintain 8000, track the ILS inbound you're #5 for the field. Maintain 170 knots or greater...."

Fees- $200 every time I got done, no matter what I did.

MIL-->priceless!
 
So, to be clear, it is a big deal, but it's not because it's theoretical...but's it's inevitable...and we should just accept it and not fight it, because it's going to happen, even though it's just theoretical and it's no big deal...but it is...

Crystal clear.
 
And just to be clear, i don't want the US to become like "the rest of the world" I would prefer to fight that...apparently you are cool with just accepting it.
 
So, to be clear, it is a big deal, but it's not because it's theoretical...but's it's inevitable...and we should just accept it and not fight it, because it's going to happen, even though it's just theoretical and it's no big deal...but it is...

Crystal clear.
Click to expand...

So to be clear, those are your words, not mine.

And just to be clear, i don't want the US to become like "the rest of the world" I would prefer to fight that...apparently you are cool with just accepting it.
Click to expand...

I was involved in some of the biggest airspace fights in the country. I've prepared briefs, attended hearings and public meetings, put my comments on the record. I've stood up for the local airport, written my senators and my congressmen, lobbied, supported, paid, joined and fought.

Apparently then, you'll need to speak for yourself rather than putting words in my mouth. Are you able?

What have you done to retain your flying privileges?
 
DouglasBader said:
Insurance has gone sky high for aircraft. Ridiculously so, especially for those who don't have much experience, or specific experience (tailwheel, multi, time in type, etc).
Click to expand...

I was with ya up to here. Insurance on most aircraft has fallen consistently for a number of years.

For three pilots named in a Skylane, we're paying less than $1000 a year.

Only requirement to be named is 10 hours in type. Unnamed with written permission of the LLC is 300 TT, 10 in type.

That's not expensive compared to many other hobbies with similarly priced vehicles.
 
DouglasBader said:
So to be clear, those are your words, not mine.
Click to expand...
Nop...your words...everything in my post was taken from your posts. You did say it was no big deal, then said it was, then said it wasn't...you also (in the same post) said it was inevitable...then said don't get all worked up because it's just theoretical. The only conjecture was the assumption that you think we shouldn't fight this and just take it...but I had no choice but to make that assumption because you haven't actually said how you feel yourself about these user fees. You just keep saying "that's how they do it in Europe" How do you feel? Are you for them? Against them?


DouglasBader said:
I was involved in some of the biggest airspace fights in the country. I've prepared briefs, attended hearings and public meetings, put my comments on the record. I've stood up for the local airport, written my senators and my congressmen, lobbied, supported, paid, joined and fought.

Apparently then, you'll need to speak for yourself rather than putting words in my mouth. Are you able?

What have you done to retain your flying privileges?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt you have done some great things for the aviation community. Have you just decided to sit this fight out? If so, why?
I am speaking for myself...you, well, I don't know. Everything you post is a series of contradictions, without actually taking a stand one way or another.
I, sadly, haven't even gotten my private yet...I'm just getting started. I hope to someday be able to boast, as you do, about all the things I've done for aviation. This issue is my first chance to become active.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top