The U.S. House's version of a bill to fund the FAA

cherokeeflyboy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
719
Display Name

Display name:
Cherokeeflyboy
The following was email to me by Ipilot, comments???

"House FAA funding bill nixes all user fees, would require new talks with controllers
The U.S. House's version of a bill to fund the FAA includes almost $30 billion to modernize air traffic control and improve airports, and so far leaves out user fees for air traffic control services. But at look at the bill itself shows pilots would have to pay plenty of other fees, like $50 for getting an airman certificate and $25 to replace it (replacements are currently $2); $130 to register an aircraft (now it's only $5); or $42 to get a medical certificate, on top of what you'd pay for the doctor's exam. The bill, which still has a long way to go before the House approves it, would also have to be squared with the Senate's version, which includes a $25 fee for larger general aviation aircraft to fly under instrument flight rules. Predictably, general aviation groups are praising the bill and air carriers are blasting it. The proposal raises gas taxes by 5 cents per gallon for general aviation and 9 cents per gallon for the airlines, the first increases since 1998. The House version of the funding bill would also require the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA to return to the bargaining table and come up with a contract, the Washington Post reported. Until the two sides reach a new agreement, the bill would put the 1998 contract and work rules, which are much more favorable to controllers, back into effect"
 
I'm not sure I have a problem with the "documentation fees" that they are proposing per se. You can make the camel's nose argument, but increasing the fees on regular transactions with the FAA doesn't pass that sniff test (all puns intended).

Gas tax going up, that is interesting. That's $1/hr for a 20gph plane...

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Gas taxes and other taxes already pay for "documentation fees," so no, it's not ok to charge a surcharge junk fee on top of what we already pay.

This nickel and diming of junk fees is what banks, credit cards, mortage companies, and the phone company do, and no one thinks it's ok except the banks, credit cards, mortgage companies, and the phone company.
 
Gas taxes and other taxes already pay for "documentation fees," so no, it's not ok to charge a surcharge junk fee on top of what we already pay.

This nickel and diming of junk fees is what banks, credit cards, mortage companies, and the phone company do, and no one thinks it's ok except the banks, credit cards, mortgage companies, and the phone company.

Yeah, and the whole point of new fees is to have something to raise. They put it in with, "What're ya worried about? It's only $2!" Then every year thereafter the story will be "The new budget includes increases in some fees not generally paid by most households. In other news..." and the $2 is now $20, and on the next round the $20 is now $250.

As you said, take a look at your phone bill to see how your $29 a month plan costs you $41 a month.

It is the camel's nose.
 
As you said, take a look at your phone bill to see how your $29 a month plan costs you $41 a month.

Which is why I no longer have a landbased phone. I really would hate to see flying go that way.

Missa
 
Which is why I no longer have a landbased phone. I really would hate to see flying go that way.

Missa
We're about to fire the phone company, but our cell phones have almost as many junk fees and taxes as the land line.

And all our services ended up as one company again - AT&T, just like in the 1970s with the Bell system! Local, long distance, cellular, and internet. After this, we will only have cell phones through AT&T.
 
This whole thing sucks. But isn't this the result of too many people for too long saying, "Govt should be run like pvt business"?
 
The fact is there's nothing wrong with the current system, well, other than the usual abundance of government waste, corruption and mismagement. This is about the airlines wanting us to foot more of their costs, which by the way, are incurred developing a system specifically designed to their specifications and for their use! Nexgen? I have no use for it. tc
 
I'm not sure I have a problem with the "documentation fees" that they are proposing per se. You can make the camel's nose argument, but increasing the fees on regular transactions with the FAA doesn't pass that sniff test (all puns intended).

Gas tax going up, that is interesting. That's $1/hr for a 20gph plane...

Cheers,

-Andrew

Gee .. sure glad I built me a 3 1/2 gph experimental I can operate
under Sport Pilot.
 
Back
Top