User fees in Obama's budget proposal

Trapper John:

Your arument is 100% nullified when you realize that Piper Navajos, Seminoles, Helicopters, VLJs, Lear Jets, even some of the Boeing big class Jets are operting under General Aviation, not airliners....

Include them, and suddenly you're seeing how much more money we spend.
 
SkyHog said:
Trapper John:

Your arument is 100% nullified when you realize that Piper Navajos, Seminoles, Helicopters, VLJs, Lear Jets, even some of the Boeing big class Jets are operting under General Aviation, not airliners....

Include them, and suddenly you're seeing how much more money we spend.
Click to expand...

But the best any of us has done is to spitball it. Without hard numbers, that's nothing more than a guess -- probably a pretty accurate guess, but a guess nonetheless.

FWIW, John's point is just a guess too.
 
SkyHog said:
Trapper John:

Your arument is 100% nullified when you realize that Piper Navajos, Seminoles, Helicopters, VLJs, Lear Jets, even some of the Boeing big class Jets are operting under General Aviation, not airliners....

Include them, and suddenly you're seeing how much more money we spend.
Click to expand...

I disagree that my argument is 100% nullified. Keep in mind that the bigger the plane, the fewer of them there are in GA - you'll see that at any airport. You can go to the registration database and tally up how many of each kind of plane are out there (I've got better things to do), but what you're going to find that that the vast majority of the fleet is single engine, fixed gear.


Trapper John
 
SkyHog said:
Trapper John:

Your arument is 100% nullified when you realize that Piper Navajos, Seminoles, Helicopters, VLJs, Lear Jets, even some of the Boeing big class Jets are operting under General Aviation, not airliners....

Include them, and suddenly you're seeing how much more money we spend.
Click to expand...
Like the 732 that sits on our ramp flown pretty much at the wishes of the UT men's basketball team? Or, the Expressjets charter that comes in every week to move the ladie's basketball team? Or, those that move the football team during the winter? That's just one college.

Oh, and what about that Hawker 800 that came in here on charter for the exclusive use of Bill Clinton? Of course, I have to be fair... one of my favorite country singers, George Straight has his own G-III I'm sure pays a fair amount of tax on its fuel use.

So, ya mean all those Part 91 operations and many more?
 
TMetzinger said:
There are two issues behind User Fees that I want to comment on.

Shifting the FAA budget from a tax revenue standpoint to a fee-based system takes Congress out of the loop. Now, anyone will tell you I'm no fan of the Congress, but I'm even LESS of a fan of the FAA management, and of the executive branch deciding how it's gonna spend it's fee-based revenue stream without the checks and balances of the Congress.

Second, our society as a whole (even those who never get in an airplane) benefits from the systems the FAA manages. It's proper that some of that funding come from the general tax revenues.

With that said, when someone can show me a reasonable way of determining how much cost the FAA incurs to support my flight in excess of capabilities they would already have to have in place anyway to support the airlines and military, then I'll be happy to pay those costs (preferably through an easy-to-collect system like fuel excise taxes). And I'll be understanding that when I'm IFR, I'm operating in a system sized and designed primarily for the airlines and paid for primarily by them (and their customers), and I'll understand that I may get a slightly lower level of service.

But, if you want me to pay my "fair" share of the total cost of the system. based on the number of airplanes, or to pay a fee for ATC services, than I better get equal priority, equal routings, and an equal voice at the table as any other airspace user. Which means that NWA can wait for ME instead of the other way around. And I'd better never hear UNABLE from ATC when calling for a bravo transition through ORD.
Click to expand...
Tim I don't disagree.

But there is a large part of the populace that is very vocal that those that use services should pay for them. Subsidizing is not what we should be paying taxes for is their mantra. They would be in favor of privatization of ATC and other air service such that they are fully funded by the users. It is not just fuel taxes that pay for the FAA services we enjoy. Regular tax dollars from everyone's federal income taxes goes to pay part of the FAA budget. Is it fair that the people who may never fly are paying taxes to support our hobby?

It is bad enough that they are already paying for welfare mommas in Cadillacs, now they will have to support rich pilots in their pursuits! You can almost hear the cry on talk radio right now saying exactly that.

This will be the criticism and opposition that we face.

Over in the SZ someone said this recently when talking about the bailout
And those of us who were responsible, who bought homes and financing prudently, who didn't go on welfare, etc. etc. get the shaft.

FWIW, for the first time in a couple of years, I am making good money again - I acted responsibly during the period of reduced income, and I planned ahead for the day that's come. What do I get? Someone reaching into my pocket to pay for the bailout and folks that want things they can't afford.
Click to expand...
Change a few words and see if you might hear something similar from your non-flying/ non-pilot neighbor sometime about FAA support and user fees. They will feel as though they are supporting your hobby.

To counter this argument we have to get our ducks in a row and have those numbers of what we support now, we need to make the real safety argument. The one about GA pilots not getting enough practice is probably not a good one. It makes us sound as though we are barely competent and probably should not be flying as it is.
 
Last edited:
Trapper John said:
It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Not my problem with it at all. You need revenue? Raise the excise taxes. The flagrant inefficiency of any alternative "user fee" collection bureaucracy is guaranteed to require even HIGHER fees to cover the deadweight loss. It just doesn't make sense. NONE. And is GA really being subsidized? We're a flea on the back of the airline dog. The ATC system exists for the airlines. Hell - try flying through Bravo airspace on a Friday afternoon VFR. That right there tells you who the system is for.

The user fees argument is a straw man designed soley to protect the airline business from itself. They can't run their own business so they'll f up others. Remember, this whole thing was a reaction to the prediction of the skies being darkened by thousands of VLJs. Since the VLJ thing isn't panning out as planned, I see no reason to saddle us with the reaction.
 
KennyFlys said:
Like the 732 that sits on our ramp flown pretty much at the wishes of the UT men's basketball team? Or, the Expressjets charter that comes in every week to move the ladie's basketball team? Or, those that move the football team during the winter? That's just one college.

Oh, and what about that Hawker 800 that came in here on charter for the exclusive use of Bill Clinton? Of course, I have to be fair... one of my favorite country singers, George Straight has his own G-III I'm sure pays a fair amount of tax on its fuel use.

So, ya mean all those Part 91 operations and many more?
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping to support my argument.

One B-737...okay. And I'll bet there are 90 to 100 singles based at KAUS.

And note that I never said bizjets weren't paying their way.


Trapper John
 
flyersfan31 said:
Not my problem with it at all. You need revenue? Raise the excise taxes. The flagrant inefficiency of any alternative "user fee" collection bureaucracy is guaranteed to require even HIGHER fees to cover the deadweight loss. It just doesn't make sense. NONE. And is GA really being subsidized? We're a flea on the back of the airline dog. The ATC system exists for the airlines. Hell - try flying through Bravo airspace on a Friday afternoon VFR. That right there tells you who the system is for.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree a bit that fuel tax collection is the most efficient way to pay. But if GA is the flea on the back of the airline dog, how do you explain the cost of FSS?

The user fees argument is a straw man designed soley to protect the airline business from itself. They can't run their own business so they'll f up others. Remember, this whole thing was a reaction to the prediction of the skies being darkened by thousands of VLJs. Since the VLJ thing isn't panning out as planned, I see no reason to saddle us with the reaction.
Click to expand...

It's hard to disagree with that!


Trapper john
 
Trapper John said:
Let's look at that claim. Let's say you fly a C-172 for 100 hr/yr. At 8 gallons/hr, that's 800 gal x $0.194/gal tax which is $155.20. I find it very hard to believe the benefit received from airports and ATC is only $155 for 100 hours of flying!
Click to expand...

Trapper John said:
I disagree that my argument is 100% nullified. Keep in mind that the bigger the plane, the fewer of them there are in GA - you'll see that at any airport. You can go to the registration database and tally up how many of each kind of plane are out there (I've got better things to do), but what you're going to find that that the vast majority of the fleet is single engine, fixed gear.
Click to expand...

John, this was somewhat the point I was trying to make, but I think there are a few parts missing here.

First, a Piper Navajo requires the same effort as a 172 from ATC's perspective (assuming both are talking to ATC). So therefore, a fuel tax from a 172 would be paying less of its share than the Navajo. One could argue the 172 isn't talking to ATC as much as the Navajo and therefore that is fair, but it still stands that the service required of both is the same.

Now, to the point of what makes up the fleet: Even though there are more single engine, fixed gear planes out there than there are Navajos and other big planes, remember that 80% of the AvGas is consumed by 20% of the fleet. One hour of Navajo time burns as much fuel as 5 hours of 172 time. A Lear burns... I can't remember, but it's a whole lot of fuel. Furthermore, those planes fly a whole lot more than our planes do. The planes in my flying club get maybe a total of 200 hours per year for both of them between 30 people. Meanwhile, there are no shortage of Navajos out there getting 1000 hours per year in 135 operations. In our little planes, we are pretty darn insignificant from a fuel perspective.

I still am more in favor of a fuel tax than user fees, but I am in favor of either far more than TSA security. Either way, both need to be fought.
 
smigaldi said:
Tim I don't disagree.

But there is a large part of the populace that is very vocal that those that use services should pay for them.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Tell those people no more airports where the medevac helicopter might land. Tell them no more charitable airlifts. No more good weather forecasts. Essentially take away all the side-effects of aviation.

Those same people don't think we should pay for space, either....

**** 'em.
 
TMetzinger said:
Tell those people no more airports where the medevac helicopter might land.
Click to expand...
The medevac helicopter doesn't need an airport to land on. ;)

The medevac airplane on the other hand....
 
There are all different considerations here as many have ably brought to light. There is not black and white manner in which this can be empirically determined.

Look at our nation's freeway system. That was paid for and is maintained by a mix of federal and state funds; there aren't user fees. Back when Ike put this forward, it was a manner in which to stimulate interstate commerce; that was good for the country in many ways. Of course, in some places there are tollways and one has a choice: it's not mandatory to take the tollway, but it may be highly beneficial and worth if for most users. So, maybe some high users pay some fee, but for small, infrequent users, it's just not efficient or productive to bill for each use.

No system will be completely fair. What I most object to is the onerous bureaucracy that will be created to administer what cannot be a perfect system. Let's use the KISS principle here. Keep it simple. How much will it cost to send 5 and $10 bills to pilots? How much time will it take to make payments through this system? Several studies I have read state it costs almost as much to administer some of these systems as they collect.

So, are we to have another Post Office type agency? Guess what they will do when the aren't profitable? Who will hold them accountable? Will they have police powers to collect fines?

Best,

Dave
 
Everskyward said:
The medevac helicopter doesn't need an airport to land on. ;)

The medevac airplane on the other hand....
Click to expand...

Yeah it does, because they don't sell Jet fuel at the Exxon station. And they need the helipad at the hospital (Surveyed and designed to FAA standards), the small airport to transfer the patient to the ambulance when the airport doesn't have a helipad.

And so on and so on.
 
Trapper John said:
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm pointing out your claim that you fully pay your way is specious.



I don't suppose you used FSS or any navaids, either.



OK, so you pay a little beyond federal fuel tax, but I seriously doubt that it's enough beyond to cover the value of what you are getting.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

You haven't once acknowledged that the military, one of the biggest users of the national airspace system, doesn't pay into the FAA. For that reason a portion of the FAA should by funded by the general fund. You haven't once acknowledged that the military uses airports beyond their bases. Until you acknowledge that, you can say that the air carriers aren't paying enough to cover they value of what they are getting. In the aggregate, when you include all users, we probably are paying according to our share.

I use navaids and FSS. But I'm sure the air carriers do too- just where do you think their dispatchers get their information? The airlines sure don't have their own weather stations at every airport.

Also you refuse to acknowledge that private airstrips (like Solberg, NJ) somehow manage to stay in business. They do it by selling fuel, tiedown space, occasionally landing fees, and hangar rental. We pay for those services.
 
It has been stated that a 152 requires the same amount of ATC services as a Baron or a King Air. On this surface this is true, but the Fuel tax is probably the most fair way to distrubute the cost of ATC. The C-152 might have at most 2 users (passengers) the Baron probably 4 the King Air maybe 8 passengers. When You divide the Fuel tax up by the number of passengers or the lbs of cargo being moved it become a much more fair way of financing the system, probably more fair than any other system.
Also factoring in that the 152 uses the system less often than the bigger aircraft also figures into the equation. Nearly everyone is paying for the system in one way or another, it my be as a passenger, a business owner, or paying Fedex or UPS to ship a package.

I think the main reason the airlines favor the user fee system is that with a fee based system it would be much easier for airlines to find and even create loopholes so they would not have to pay their fair share.

Brian
 
Trapper John said:
Thanks for helping to support my argument.

One B-737...okay. And I'll bet there are 90 to 100 singles based at KAUS.

And note that I never said bizjets weren't paying their way.
Click to expand...
Between federal, state and local taxes, these aircraft owners are being taxed ENOUGH!

Like I said, if the FAA needs more funding it better look at how it's organized. It's as top heavy as any government agency out there. Only an idiot or a greedy bureaucrat would be in favor of user fees.
 
Good luck figuring out what is "fair". Just like on the thread about taxes, "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. :dunno:
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Where do the dispatch offices get weather and other information from?
Click to expand...

From private weather services that sell the data the taxpayers support the NWS to collect. Remember when Santorum wanted to outlaw the NWS from giving away it's public data for free if some company was charging for it?

Speaking of freeloaders. Do the airlines pay a user fee for weather data?
 
Actually, the interstate system is comprised of federal and state funds, with user fees as well. Certain highways have tolls on them. That's a user fee, at least to me.
 
Trapper John said:
I don't suppose you used FSS or any navaids, either.
Click to expand...

FSS is being made redundant. Navaids? Well, again, who flies the most? Airlines. They're the ones the friggin' things were put in place for. Not GA. Airlines. ATC? Radar? For airlines (remember the Grand Canyon Connie crash? i don't either but that was the impetus for the modern ATC system and it had nothign to do with GA!!!)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You haven't once acknowledged that the military, one of the biggest users of the national airspace system, doesn't pay into the FAA. For that reason a portion of the FAA should by funded by the general fund. You haven't once acknowledged that the military uses airports beyond their bases. Until you acknowledge that, you can say that the air carriers aren't paying enough to cover they value of what they are getting. In the aggregate, when you include all users, we probably are paying according to our share.
Click to expand...

How much activity does the military generate compared to airlines and GA in general? I doubt it's as big as you claim, but without specifics we can't pin it down.

I use navaids and FSS. But I'm sure the air carriers do too- just where do you think their dispatchers get their information? The airlines sure don't have their own weather stations at every airport.
Click to expand...

How much of the FSS services do airlines use? I think next to none, show me otherwise if you can. The origin of weather information is NOAA, anyway, not FSS, so that's not pertinent to the discussion. What is pertinent is the $380 million/year cost of FSS and how it's being funded.

Also you refuse to acknowledge that private airstrips (like Solberg, NJ) somehow manage to stay in business. They do it by selling fuel, tiedown space, occasionally landing fees, and hangar rental. We pay for those services.
Click to expand...

Again, a deflection.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
How much activity does the military generate compared to airlines and GA in general? I doubt it's as big as you claim, but without specifics we can't pin it down.
Click to expand...
Based on what I actually see, quite a bit. At Lincoln, NE, looks like about 1/4 to 1/3 but I don't have time to sit around and watch them. A decent number of airports I lnad at when I fly commercial have Air Force, ANG, or Army Air colocated at them. In NJ, I know I shared airspace with a lot of military aircraft. Please don't try to say the military presence is insignificant. I know they have large MOAs depicted on the charts that cover an incredibly large amount of the USA. That should give some kind of indication there. In any case, you can't pin numbers on it either so you equally can't say I'm wrong. However, since they do use the NAS, it is only right that they pay into it. The best way is throught the general fund as they are doing now.



Trapper John said:
How much of the FSS services do airlines use? I think next to none, show me otherwise if you can. The origin of weather information is NOAA, anyway, not FSS, so that's not pertinent to the discussion. What is pertinent is the $380 million/year cost of FSS and how it's being funded.
Click to expand...
Judging from some of the posts from people I recognize as knowledgable, they may not use FSS, but they do use FAA data. For my flying, my main use of the FSS is to confirm there isn't a TFR nearby. 90% of my flying is local VFR.
This is only part of the discussion. Can they be replaced by DUATs? I'm not unwilling to make concessions.



Trapper John said:
Again, a deflection.
Click to expand...
Trapper John said:
There is a cost associated with making the facilities and services available. If a pilot can't afford to be proficient, and uses a silly excuse not to be, like landing fees, then he or she shouldn't be flying. Taking your logic to the extreme, we should just provide free instruction for all pilots, that way they won't crash.
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought it up when you said that I wasn't paying the full value of my fuel taxes.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
Based on what I actually see, quite a bit. At Lincoln, NE, looks like about 1/4 to 1/3 but I don't have time to sit around and watch them.
Click to expand...
Aircraft operations at KLNK:

Aircraft operations: avg 215/day[SIZE=-1]*[/SIZE]
33% transient general aviation
29% military
21% local general aviation
12% commercial
4% air taxi[SIZE=-1]
*for 12-month period ending 31 March 2008[/SIZE]

So you are pretty much right on with your 1/4 to 1/3 estimate.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of the "a blip is a blip" theory that states that all ATC targets impose the same workload, but I don't buy it completely. The differences in speeds, the concentration on just a few arrival and approach paths, all make me think that controlling airliners is more intense than controlling the FLIBs.

Now I will give back some points for stress added by GA pilots who either can't navigate, or can't communicate on the radio properly.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Well, the answer is obvious, me.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a few years. You're still a bit young (the constitution has the minimum age).

I'd be a lousy president but you might work out ok. Maybe you can use some staffers?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Maybe in a few years. You're still a bit young (the constitution has the minimum age).

I'd be a lousy president but you might work out ok. Maybe you can use some staffers?
Click to expand...
Sure. It really can't be that hard--I'd just read the spin zone every morning. Everyone in there already has all the answers.
 
jesse said:
Sure. It really can't be that hard--I'd just read the spin zone every morning. Everyone in there already has all the answers.
Click to expand...

What do you do when they give opposite answers - flip a coin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top