WSJ article on user fees

[wsuffa]

Anyone else catch the WSJ article on Page 1 today on FAA user fees? The FAA has been talking to investment banks about floating bonds that would be backed by ATC user fees. Apparently, we'd still get to pay the existing taxes, too. At the end of the article is a quote from the ATA, which is still spouting off about wanting airlines to have more control of the system.

Yikes.

I don't have an online subscription, so it's hard to post here.

 

[AdamZ]

Well my bet is Bill that once you get big money and big banks involved us little guys will get scrod.

 

[wsuffa]

Yeah, I think this is bad news. Especially since us little guys will represent the profit-stream. The bankers have to recognize that this program is intended to push costs off of airlines, and that they (the bankers) have represented the airlines, too. Ergo, it works in their interest to push costs off of airlines onto GA.

This will be worse than the original privatization proposals.

 

[NC Pilot]

Yeah, I can see this generation as being the last to be able to afford piston powered planes around the states. Before long the only ones able to afford flying in the system will be the airlines and corporate jets. All else will be VFR only.

Sad.

 

[trombair]

...Apparently, we'd still get to pay the existing taxes, too. ...

you didn't seriously think they'd cancell the existing taxes just because the user fees were in place did you? c'mon! you should know your gummint better than that!

so much for the "conservative, get government off the backs of the people, republican revolution". all we've done is reverted back to the days of "robber barons" and "f**k the little guy".

i love my country, but i fear our government.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah, I can see this generation as being the last to be able to afford piston powered planes around the states. Before long the only ones able to afford flying in the system will be the airlines and corporate jets. All else will be VFR only.

Sad.

Just like firearms Mark. If you can't ban them through legislation, try frivilous law suits and if that doesn't work, tax it out of existence. And make no mistake, these fees are just additional TAXES.

 

[wsuffa]

Just like firearms Mark. If you can't ban them through legislation, try frivilous law suits and if that doesn't work, tax it out of existence. And make no mistake, these fees are just additional TAXES.

Yep. Now how do we convince congress of that?

 

[Anthony]

Yep. Now how do we convince congress of that?

Legally fly, en masse, into the ADIZ, VFR, (following all procedures, of course) at high noon?

 

[MSmith]

Legally fly, en masse, into the ADIZ, VFR, (following all procedures, of course) at high noon?

You know, I was thinking about just that over the weekend. I don't know what they'd do if 500 or 1000 planes all turned into the ADIZ simultaneously, even if the protest was announced in advance.

Unfortunately, the public would see it as a stunt rather than a protection of our rights.

 

[NC Pilot]

Just like firearms Mark. If you can't ban them through legislation, try frivilous law suits and if that doesn't work, tax it out of existence. And make no mistake, these fees are just additional TAXES.

Yep, Social engineering through taxation. Can't ban something? Tax it out of existence. That's the answer!!!

Taxation with representation is getting less and less enjoyable these days.

 

[NC Pilot]

Yep. Now how do we convince congress of that?

Don't have to. They already know and really don't care either.