$100 @ flight user fee proposal is back...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

dcstrng

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
913
Location
VA or NoDak
See: White House budget contains user fee despite opposition - AOPA

On March 4, the White House released its fiscal year 2015 spending plan, which included a $100-per-flight “surcharge” to pay for air traffic control services.
“We are disappointed...” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “With Congress on our side, I am confident we can prevent this arbitrary proposal from becoming a reality, but we have to stay vigilant. We are working hard to make general aviation more accessible and affordable, and whether you call it a user fee or a surcharge, we will keep fighting against proposals like this that would raise the cost of flying."

Ouch... :depressed
 

fly2kads

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
1,620
Location
Justin, TX
Since we are seeing the same thing year after year, I wonder if some low-level wonk has a budget template file sitting out there. "Ok, budget time. Where is that thing? Oh, yeah, here it is!" File... Save As... *poof* Instant budget! Of all the pressing matters facing the nation, I don't think this ranks very high on anyone's list, and gets reinserted by default, forcing us to fight the same battles all over again.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,009
Location
Memphis, TN
They will keep pushing it until it passed or they are told to stop monkeying around. No one will tell them to stop.
 

Aircar

Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
3,567
Location
Melbourne Australia
In the comments section it states that this only applies to turbine aircraft --is that correct? (if so then not much immediate effect on personal aviation but it might be the thin end of the wedge as some say)
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,009
Location
Memphis, TN
If passed it will start with commercial and business jets then trickle down. About the only thing exempt will be Life Flight ops. Once on the books it will be impossible to reverse or stop. One thing nailing a G5 with millionaires but people who do things like pipelines or photography from a 172 will add 50% to what they charge and kill essentially the time builder business for pilots to move up. Enter cheap drones.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,758
Location
Mojave, Ca
Yep, this type of thing ALWAYS starts with the "other guy" (usually rich, too) just so it doesn't cause too much unrest.

Funny how how the sheeple ALWAYS fall for it too.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,940
Location
US
Well, this is the President's proposed budget. The administration puts these types of bill-payers in there so the bottom line numbers look better and so that more spending on other things can be included. I'm fairly sure this will go away again, but I'm less confident that the other spending it is supporting will get cut. And that's how our budget grows.

I'm in favor of finding ways for people to pay for the government services they use. But if I take off and land at an uncontrolled field and don't use ATC services, there's no way that I'm using $100 in services.

I can't wait until ADS-B is fully up and 100% mandatory, and it becomes the mechanism by which every airplane is charged for using the nation's airspace.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,127
Location
USA.
Can't find how to delete a post. Dan
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,758
Location
Mojave, Ca
...I can't wait until ADS-B is fully up and 100% mandatory, and it becomes the mechanism by which every airplane is charged for using the nation's airspace.
Not sure I follow.... The fuel surcharge that we all pay IS the mechanism. It has been in place for years.

And why do we have to pay for the right to use the airspace that we already own. After all, it's "our" airspace, not the government's.
 

rheuschele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
533
Location
Chicago Il. USA.
I'm in favor of finding ways for people to pay for the government services they use. But if I take off and land at an uncontrolled field and don't use ATC services, there's no way that I'm using $100 in services.
.
You already do pay. It's called taxes.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,127
Location
USA.
Not sure I follow.... The fuel surcharge that we all pay IS the mechanism. It has been in place for years.

And why do we have to pay for the right to use the airspace that we already own. After all, it's "our" airspace, not the government's.

Ask the FAA who owns the airspace. We have to pay to get in a federal park, pay to drive on toll road, etc. Isn't your state of CA thinking about charging for miles traveled on all roads ? Dan
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,758
Location
Mojave, Ca
I dont need to ask the FAA, the Constitution predates the FAA by a long shot. The fact that "we the people" have allowed these situations is entirely our fault - and within our control to fix.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,127
Location
USA.
I dont need to ask the FAA, the Constitution predates the FAA by a long shot. The fact that "we the people" have allowed these situations is entirely our fault - and within our control to fix.
100% agree. Now to just convince them. Who is following the Constitution ? America is the Constitution and the Constitution is America. That is why I say, Fly while You Can.

I better get off the subject and back on aircraft. Dan
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,110
Location
Orange County, California
This seems to be a now-annual budget exercise. While I'm sure there are folks in DC who want there to be a user-fee system, I think the earlier poster is correct that, at this point, this is simply another set of smoke and mirrors to make the proposed budget look better.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention, nor does it mean we shouldn't yet again notify our "representatives" that we don't like it.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,337
$100 per flight, applied to private GA, would kill about two-thirds of the activity, I'd think. Too many of us are barely hanging on now, and to add $100 to the $75 flight of an old Champ or 150 would just persuade the owner to give it all up. The prices of older, smaller airplanes would plummet.

By the time the reality hit the fan in the capital, it would be too late to save it. Once out, many guys would never go back. The manufacturers--LSA, especially--should be fighting this sort of thing. The $100/flight fee would probably take five or ten times that out of the economy in lost jobs. Maybe a lot more. Bureaucrats can be so shortsighted sometimes...

Dan
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,009
Location
Memphis, TN
Places like LA, Dallas, and San Francisco where almost all the airspace is B and C would be killer. I think one reason is to keep small planes out of B and C airspace; the sad thing is you want flight following, pay; cross a city, pay, practice flying to a big airport, pay. A,B,C airspace and IFR would become a ghost town. It might revitalize some small airports for people trying to skirt the controllers.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,758
Location
Mojave, Ca
I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I'm guessing that there is not a linear relationship between the number of "users" in the current system and the overall cost of that service. In other words, it costs $xx to establish the ATC system and that cost is going to remain essentially the same if there is one user or a million. Much like aircraft procurement - there is a cost to development, tooling and production facilities. The offering company is going to get those costs out of the government whether they buy 1 aircraft, or 1,000. The difference is the radically different unit cost.

Therefore, it would stand to reason that the controlling agency would want as many operations as possible to make their "per operation" costs look better. Seems like a much better metric for evaluating performance than simply looking at a bottom line price. And it has been proven over and over again that taxing a "luxury" activity kills jobs and reduces the overall revenue base. It can be said with near certainty that this $100 user fee scheme would reduce overall revenue even if the new process to collect and administer these fees was free.
 
Top