Easy way to let your Representatives know how you feel about User Fees.

[NC Pilot]

NBAA has a great (and easy) way to let your representatives know how you feel about GA user fees. So to:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/govt/action/

and pick the "Oppose user fees for General Aviation" option. Take less than 30 seconds and targets your representatives in Congress.

Let them know!!!

 

[Michael]

Congress should have polls setup on a site to let the people vote on what they want their representitives voting for.

Thanks for the link. I will add my vote. Are the number of people who will vote for this enough to discurage congress to add yet another tax or fee?

 

[infotango]

You know I'm still not sure how I really feel about user fees. And I'm not sure if the additional money that is to be raised is supposed to decrease the FAA's budget shortfall or whether they will raise enough revenue to reduce the fuel tax AND decrease the shortfall. The airline's interest in them would suggest the latter.
For what it is worth, the user fees that NavCananda applies consist of two separate fees, an annual fee per aircraft and a fee for specific usage of services. The light planes of the type we fly (anything lighter than a C340) are basically exempt from any of the specific user fees. See the fee calculator on the NavCananda website. From my work a C195 flying between Montreal's largest airport to Toronto's largest international airport would have no fees. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
However, the fees begin to stack up and really apply with turbojet aircraft and large corporate type acft. If the FAA were to replicate something like this, I guess the AOPA and the NBAA would be against these fees because they not only represent us light piston folks but also the Bizjet crowd. A NavCananda type fee system has the result to really divide AOPA membership. I'm not sure how much my heart bleeds for the people who fly around in light jets needing to pay a little extra to fly.
The annual fee is a bit problematic, but again, if it were going to reduce GA's exposure to the fuel tax (us GA folks actually pay more fuel tax than the airline guys) then I'm not sure if it would work out to be more costly for any of us. And a reduction of the fuel tax would definitely provide some motivation to fly more.
Again I really don't fully understand all the issues here, and I agree that the precedent of user fees here is one very big step towards the horrific GA system the Europeans must suffer with. It's just that nobody, including NBAA AOPA ATA and FAA has been too forthcoming with details about the user-fee system. Until more details come clear, I'm not sure this is the GA issue worth falling on the sword for. But, it's always good to protest new GA fees, and the NBAA does have one neat site set up.

 

[silver-eagle]

The biggest problem with user fees is the government. We used to get all these things free just because we paid our taxes. Now, we not only have to pay [our ever increasing] taxes but these damned user fees. Worst part is sometimes these user fees just go into the general fund rather than to pay for what you're using. Now you're paying even more tax!
It doesn't truly matter what user fee you're talking about either. Whether it is a toll, a FAA mandated fee, or for your child's school sports program, it is another tax if it goes to the general fund. Were it to defray the cost of the service, then okay. But take a look at the highway situation. Are the tolls paying for THAT road? Gas tax. Is it a general fund or targeted to repair roads.
So where does this user fee go?
Read the facts AOPA put together. (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060427aaae.html)

 

[Graueradler]

I couldn't find a way to review the contents of the letter they want to send from me. I'm against user fees (beyond fuel tax) but not willing to put my name on something that I can't review before hand.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You know I'm still not sure how I really feel about user fees. And I'm not sure if the additional money that is to be raised is supposed to decrease the FAA's budget shortfall or whether they will raise enough revenue to reduce the fuel tax AND decrease the shortfall. The airline's interest in them would suggest the latter.

Remember that airlines do not pay fuel taxes, they (or rather, their passengers) pay per-ticket taxes instead. I also have not heard ANYTHING suggesting that the fuel taxes will be decreased if we have user fees. The FAA claims to be short of money, and that suggests that we will only be adding user fees, not subtracting anything.

The problem with user fees lies in the concept, not the specific implementation. Once there is an infrastructure in place for collecting user fees, we will no longer have much control over what happens to them in the future. Remember when the ADIZ went up, and it was "temporary"? Congress even ordered the FAA to justify it. Well, it doesn't look like the ADIZ is going anywhere, and even AOPA has given up on trying to get rid of it completely. Expect the same progression if we have user fees of any sort whatsoever.

This MUST be stopped.

 

[JasonCT]

Here is a copy of what I sent to my local congressmen. Please feel free to copy and make the appropriate changes and send to yours!


I am sending this letter to request your support for the interests of my fellow pilots - and the others in the state of Massachusetts that utilize its local airports - by opposing any proposal that would impose new and onerous user fees on the general aviation community.
The general aviation community contributes to the Airport/Airways Trust Fund through a "fuel tax." Fuel taxes are the best way for the general aviation community to pay for its use of the national airspace system.
Fuel taxes are assigned fairly, based on an operator's use of the air traffic system. There is no simpler and more accurate way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the system than to measure the amount of fuel burned. Small aircraft use less fuel and pay lower taxes; large aircraft use more fuel and pay higher taxes.
By contrast, the experience our industry has had with user fees in other countries demonstrates that there are serious drawbacks to those systems.
User fees are a costly administrative burden for operators. At a 2003 forum held by the International Civil Aviation Association, an official with the International Air Transport Association testified that it cost IATA members anywhere from $85 to $125 to process a single invoice. Costs are even higher for NBAA member companies who are not in the business of providing transportation for compensation or hire.
The general aviation community is committed to working with government and industry to develop our future air transportation system. But user fees are a bad idea for general aviation. I urge you to preserve the general aviation fuel tax as the sole mechanism for collecting Aviation Trust Fund revenue from the general aviation community.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and for your service to our state.

 

[infotango]

Remember that airlines do not pay fuel taxes, they (or rather, their passengers) pay per-ticket taxes instead. I also have not heard ANYTHING suggesting that the fuel taxes will be decreased if we have user fees. The FAA claims to be short of money, and that suggests that we will only be adding user fees, not subtracting anything.

The problem with user fees lies in the concept, not the specific implementation. Once there is an infrastructure in place for collecting user fees, we will no longer have much control over what happens to them in the future. Remember when the ADIZ went up, and it was "temporary"? Congress even ordered the FAA to justify it. Well, it doesn't look like the ADIZ is going anywhere, and even AOPA has given up on trying to get rid of it completely. Expect the same progression if we have user fees of any sort whatsoever.

This MUST be stopped.

Kent I see your point, and I agree that the userfees will possibly set a precedent which will be very hard to shake, and could eventually effect light general aviation. This alone might make a good reason to fight user fees.
But,
The FAA is funded by fuel taxes and excise taxes which are charged to passengers on the purchase of their tickets and to freight customers. The airlines also pay a tax on their fuel, of 4.3 cents per gallon, which is less than the 19 cents we pay and the 21 cents Jet A GA users pay. This income from the taxes goes into a trust fund which is used to support the operation of the NAS, and for airport improvement projects. These projects are critical to GA, and unfortunately would be most likely to be cut if the FAA was required to cut its budget. In addition to funding airport improvements, receipt of these funds makes it illegal to shut an airport, a critical problem in GA aviation right now.
The airlines claim that they use a disproportionate percentage of FAA services to the amount of money which they put into the trust fund. This is probably a false argument since the airlines also cause most of the congestion at airports and in the airspace. However the corporate sector hasn't been entirely forthcoming about their use of airspace either.
-The FAA is facing a budget shortfall this year. I can't remember how much it is right now. Since none of us want the FAA to cut services (cuts would be felt most by GA) there are basically three options to cover the operating shortfall. 1) have congress cover the shortfall with money out of the general income tax base. Given the currently huge deficits the country is running, this probably won't happen. 2) charge user fees to increase revenue 3) raise fuel and excise taxes across the board.
The user fees, as proposed, will only affect heavy and Jet-A powered segments of GA, and will not be charged to light users. Don't believe AOPA and NBAA's numbers for fund contribution to use ratios, since these numbers fail to seperate the GA sector into its to component parts, Light private flights and Corporate flights.
Corporate aviation uses a disproportionately high percentage of the services to the money they pay in fees. Almost all corporate flights are operated on IFR flight plans, and many arrive into busy terminal areas. Still they pay only 2 cents more per gallon of gas over the light GA (piston) sector, who very rarely uses IFR services or arrives in terminal areas. The Corporate sector is receiving a free ride on light GA and the airlines.
If the FAA is unable to charge userfees to the corporate sector of GA, than they will next start looking in other places. The most obvious source will be an across the board increase in the fuel and excise taxes that we all pay. An increased fuel tax will be disastrous to us light piston folks.
I really am not sure that I have a problem making the corporate sector of Aviation pay more in fees. I, and 90 percent of the people on this board will never set foot in a corporate jet. I worry that in absence of corporate jet user fees, the taxes for the rest of us bug-smasher pilots and cattle car riders will go up. The FAA nor AOPA had discussed what they plan to do if they can't raise user fees or get money from congress. The obvious answer seems to be a general increase in fuel and excise taxes. Most of us are not in a position to pay much more for gas. Most corporate flight departments won't be hurt by having to pay more per trip. (Okay they may have to down grade to a lowly hawker from a G-V. )

Clearly, the ATA has an agenda here, but so does NBAA and AOPA who both represent the corporate sectors of general Aviation.
So until I know more about what user fees entail for all of us, I'm going to be VERY careful what I wish for. No user fees could potentially mean much higher prices at the pump for all of us.



Edit, sorry for such a long post, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. I know this view is unpopular here....waiting for the negative reps. to flood in.... Just please read my post first.

 

[Frank Browne]

I couldn't find a way to review the contents of the letter they want to send from me. I'm against user fees (beyond fuel tax) but not willing to put my name on something that I can't review before hand.

When you fill in the information there is a preview option available prior to submitting if you want to preview the letter.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

-The FAA is facing a budget shortfall this year.

That is debatable. OMB disagrees.

Since none of us want the FAA to cut services (cuts would be felt most by GA)

Says who? If there were cuts, we don't know where they'd be.

3) raise fuel and excise taxes across the board.

Bring it on. The infrastructure is in place and that makes it easy (read: cheap) to collect the revenue. I'm guessing it's somewhat difficult to adjust these tax rates and that's why the FAA wants user fees - That way, they'll be able to simply raise the bill. No checks and balances.

The user fees, as proposed, will only affect heavy and Jet-A powered segments of GA, and will not be charged to light users.

Maybe this year. Once that infrastructure is in place, sooner or later we WILL be paying. Look at what's going on in Canada right now.

Corporate aviation uses a disproportionately high percentage of the services to the money they pay in fees. Almost all corporate flights are operated on IFR flight plans, and many arrive into busy terminal areas. Still they pay only 2 cents more per gallon of gas over the light GA (piston) sector, who very rarely uses IFR services or arrives in terminal areas.

2 cents per gallon, sure... But they're also burning WAY more fuel. Any of you bizjet types care to share your fuel burn rates? I'm guessing it's just a tad bit more than 10gph. Even if the FAA were to increase the fuel taxes by 25% (a nickel a gallon), that's only 50 cents an hour for me. The bizjet types do pay a much higher dollar amount than we do with the current system.

The Corporate sector is receiving a free ride on light GA and the airlines.

How so?

An increased fuel tax will be disastrous to us light piston folks.

IMHO, user fees will be much more disastrous. And don't believe for a minute that you'll never be paying them. Once the system is there, it's too easy to extend the fees to include everyone.

Most of us are not in a position to pay much more for gas.

Again, even a 25% increase in taxes only costs a nickel a gallon. We see price hikes worse than that all the time due to other factors. (100LL here started the month at $3.94, and ended at $4.32. )

Clearly, the ATA has an agenda here, but so does NBAA and AOPA who both represent the corporate sectors of general Aviation.

AOPA represents all of us, don't they?

I know this view is unpopular here....waiting for the negative reps. to flood in.... Just please read my post first.

No need for negative rep... It's only an opinion. You present it very well, even if you are totally wrong.