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

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by dcstrng, Mar 5, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 5, 2014 #1

    dcstrng

    dcstrng

    dcstrng

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    323
    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
     
    Highplains likes this.
  2. Mar 5, 2014 #2

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    541
    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.
     
  3. Mar 5, 2014 #3

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    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.
     
  4. Mar 5, 2014 #4

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    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)
     
  5. Mar 6, 2014 #5

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    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.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  6. Mar 6, 2014 #6

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    3,289
    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.
     
    Vipor_GG, N804RV and Pops like this.
  7. Mar 6, 2014 #7

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,160
    Likes Received:
    1,884
    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.
     
    Topaz and spduffee like this.
  8. Mar 6, 2014 #8

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,228
    Likes Received:
    6,117
    Location:
    USA.
    Can't find how to delete a post. Dan
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2014
    1Bad88 likes this.
  9. Mar 6, 2014 #9

    Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    Canton, GA
    Agreed
     
  10. Mar 6, 2014 #10

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    3,289
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    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.
     
    N804RV likes this.
  11. Mar 6, 2014 #11

    rheuschele

    rheuschele

    rheuschele

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Chicago Il. USA.
    You already do pay. It's called taxes.
     
  12. Mar 6, 2014 #12

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,228
    Likes Received:
    6,117
    Location:
    USA.

    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
     
    1Bad88 and JamesG like this.
  13. Mar 6, 2014 #13

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    3,289
    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.
     
    racegunz and 1Bad88 like this.
  14. Mar 6, 2014 #14

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,228
    Likes Received:
    6,117
    Location:
    USA.
    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
     
    1Bad88 and akwrencher like this.
  15. Mar 7, 2014 #15

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    404
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA

    or go to jail for trying! UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL!
     
    racegunz, 1Bad88, N804RV and 2 others like this.
  16. Mar 14, 2014 #16

    1Bad88

    1Bad88

    1Bad88

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    92
    Location:
    Bellville, TX
    Unfortunately, jail won't be an option when fighting this behemoth.
     
  17. Mar 14, 2014 #17

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    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.
     
    1Bad88 likes this.
  18. Mar 14, 2014 #18

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Dan Thomas

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,873
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    $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
     
    1Bad88 likes this.
  19. Mar 15, 2014 #19

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,727
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    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.
     
  20. Mar 15, 2014 #20

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    3,289
    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.
     
    1Bad88 likes this.

Share This Page



arrow_white