oh yeah, marion blakeys our pal! NOT!

[tom clark]

[FONT=verdana, arial](from: AvWeb) The FAA's new financing proposal may have gotten a cool reception in Congress last week, but that's not daunting FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, who is continuing to push for the plan's acceptance. Speaking before the Royal Aeronautical Society in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Blakey acknowledged that "a bit of a stick fight" greeted the release of her proposed legislation, but said she's convinced that it's on target and needs to get passed. "The people who have never paid a user fee still don't want to," she said. "If you think that a user fee is troublesome, try an air traffic system that's totally gridlocked. When that happens, the argument about who flies most or who pays what isn't going to matter." If Congress fails to enact the legislation by the Sept. 30 deadline "because we were arguing about who picks up the tab, everyone loses," Blakey added. "If you think that the first step is all this represents -- that we have time to burn, that our current system works just fine -- watch what happens when the taxes expire and the [aviation] trust fund dwindles." [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial]i love the scare tactics. i wonder if we'll see her at snf or oshkosh this year? that could get ugly. the one thing glaringly apparent here is we have NO representation in the FAA. imho, tc[/FONT]

 

[mikea]

Didn't she make all kinds of assurances there was no plan for user fees.? Maybe that was only when her boss, Norm Mineta was against user fees. I wonder if Norm got the boot with a push from the airlines.

Like AOPA has suggested, we need to get the world out that the system should maybe not be run by the industry that keeps going bankrupt and requires taxpayer bail-outs while paying huge exec bonuses...and holding citizens prisoner on airliners for 9-10 hours.

You're right. I'll bet she doesn't show for "Ask the Administrator" at Oshkosh this year.

 

[KennyFlys]

Participants in general aviation aren't likely financial supporters for current political appointees with aspirations for future political offices.

 

[colomtnflyer]

Ken wrote -
"Participants in general aviation aren't likely financial supporters for current political appointees with aspirations for future political offices."


If our current elected officials and future political aspirants are so very short sighted to the fact that GA participants DO WIELD a great deal of financial influence during elections, then they deserve to be dropped out of a perfectly good aircraft... (sans parachute).

This same group of GA pilots could exercise considerable influence in the direct elections as well, and not just as a part of the AOPA PAC.

Here is a brainstorming idea-
What would it take to survey all the States, to find out how much they currently pay to operate all State owned aircraft and any leases, charters, etc...? How much will these proposed user fees add to the cost of doing the States business? Certainly they don't expect to be exempt from these fees?

Show each State how much more it's going to cost each year, and we might find some unlikely allies...

MAYBE ???

 

[KennyFlys]

Here is a brainstorming idea-
What would it take to survey all the States, to find out how much they currently pay to operate all State owned aircraft and any leases, charters, etc...? How much will these proposed user fees add to the cost of doing the States business? Certainly they don't expect to be exempt from these fees?

Show each State how much more it's going to cost each year, and we might find some unlikely allies...

MAYBE ???

You make a good point. Given the substantial revenue some airport authorities take in from hangar and tie-down rentals, among many other fees or tax revenue at such an airport... they would be up for some pretty good losses if pilots bailed out for other cost increases. The powers that be at PDK might be in opposition if they knew what may come.