Bring S1300 to the Senate floor and vote YES!

[ljg]

I say leave GA out of it and eliminate the idea of user fees all together. ATC headaches stem directly from airline inefficiencies clogging the nation's busiest airspace with RJ's every other hour. It is not the C172 practicing flight traning at GFK or the 135 Lear into BDL at 3:50am. Airlines should respect federally mandated capacity limits and adapt.

[SteveC]

I'm with you guys. User fees are a bad idea, and the rationalization the airlines use is bogus. Airline hub and spoke systems and oversaturation at the major hubs is what drives the huge costs involved in the airtraffic control system. General aviation, including business jets, already pay more than our fair share.

Fix your own problems, but not by dumping on other users.

[mikecweb]

I love how the airline guys are now saying yes for user fees....because they want to help out the controllers!

What a joke. Surreal you are 2 months at the most removed from GA and you already singing the airline song.

[charlie1017]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I love how the airline guys are now saying yes for user fees....because they want to help out the controllers!

What a joke. Surreal you are 2 months at the most removed from GA and you already singing the airline song.

You know when the furlough comes, and airline hiring is nil, it's the CFI ticket or the part 135/corp gig what will help to put food on the table...

[JEP]

Originally Posted by JEP

......Senator Rockefeller (W.VA) is the main individual pushing the user fee’s legislation through Congress. They showed several video clips and his main focus appears to be limiting GA access to congested (Class B) airspace.

The majority of the media blitz is concentrated in the D.C. area as that is where all the Congress members are living and working during their session. There was about $32.2 million spent last year in pushing this legislation. The lobby groups pushing have their website: www.smartskies.org.

Truths:

• GA accounts for only 4% of traffic at the major airports today.
• Airlines schedule more flights than there is capacity for in VMC. Now you add in weather, etc…and the delays start to add up.
• 25% of the delays are the fault of the airlines
• 70% of the delays are the result of weather.

AOPA and NBAA have combined forces and created a website to combat the media blitz from the lobby groups pushing for the user fees: www.aviationacrossamerica.org.

In the past years the airlines have received $38 billion in funds in a number of different ways. That number has come from: tax breaks, pension relief, and a number of toher sources.

John D. Rockefeller chairs the Senate Aviation Sub-committee. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is the ranking member of this committee. She is playing a pivotal role for GA and Phil had nothing but good things to say about her.

Two Key Bills:
S2345 – Some of the key points for this bill:

• no airline tax break
• 65% jet fuel tax
• no avgas tax
• no user fees

S1300 – Some key points for this bill:

• airline tax break
• jet fuel tax
• no avgas tax increase
• $25 user fee for turbine a/c on an IFR flight plan

The FAA funding bill could reach the Senate more than likely sometime next week as and early as Monday 04/28. Phil mentioned that AOPA feels they have enough votes in the Senate to reject the bill that includes the user fees.

[Kristie]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I love how the airline guys are now saying yes for user fees....because they want to help out the controllers!

What a joke. Surreal you are 2 months at the most removed from GA and you already singing the airline song.

would be good idea to not generalize all airline pilots as "the airline guys"...not all airline guys agree that user fees are good!

[kellwolf]

I don't see the S.2345 as a saving grace. Everyone's touting the "no tax on avgas" but did I see a SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT tax on jet A? That sounds to me like the 100LL guys tossing their Jet A burning GA brothers under the bus to me. And I'm not talking about the airlines, I'm talking about places like NetJets, Flight Options, corporate flight depts, etc. Things that Phil Boyer pointed out are still part of GA. The only read difference b/w the two bills that I can see are user fees, and I don't want those either. But to say "raise the taxes on the other guy but not us" is sorta hypocritical.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

What a joke. Surreal you are 2 months at the most removed from GA and you already singing the airline song.

Your point?

You don't know where I was before I even made this career change, and it wasn't in any GA aircraft. It was with the ambition to be with the FAA, but not after the workforce took it on the chin.

But that doesn't matter to some people.

Blow your own horn somewhere else Mike.

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by Kristie

would be good idea to not generalize all airline pilots as "the airline guys"...not all airline guys agree that user fees are good!

I think he only brought it up as they (all the airline guys I know that posted) are trying to get it passed only for their benefit. PCL himself said he liked it for improved bargaining between the union and management.

Airline pilots that agree with this bill are being selfish and really do not care so much for ATC as the want us to believe.

Now it is true that there are airline guys that don't support the bill, but they seem to be in the minority.

The house bill is the best. Increased tax on jet A and avgas while keeping the taxes the same for the airlines. How is that so bad? The airlines get enough money from the government as it is.

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Your point?

You don't know where I was before I even made this career change, and it wasn't in any GA aircraft. It was with the ambition to be with the FAA, but not after the workforce took it on the chin.

But that doesn't matter to some people.

Blow your own horn somewhere else Mike.

That's a nice story. I was a signature away from being a controller as well.
Just do me a favor, and explain this quote when Surreal wasn't an airline pilot(in training):

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Things are already paid for. No reason to increase, or try to generate a "user fees" structure.

What needs to happen, is stop wasting trillions of dollars in occupations, stop wasting billions of dollars for bridges to nowhere(s), stop wasting billions on government projects that never lead anywhere. Too much pork, that could have been used to strengthen our airspace structure, and get the technology to the field (for ATC services).

Real estate is not cheap. It costs money to improve infrastructure. Just redirect the flow of funds from useless projects to the FAA's infrastructure budget. But, States, and local governments should also be spending their own money to fix their own local issues. The FAA should not be responsible for the full 100% cost (they are not at this time, and should never be) of repairing runways, repaving them, or extending them. User fees are not going to fix the fact that we have a congested airspace system, and airports / airlines are soaking it all up. GA is not the problem, sorry guys.

Wake up.

I'm awake.

[E6BAV8R]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I love how the airline guys are now saying yes for user fees....because they want to help out the controllers!

What a joke. Surreal you are 2 months at the most removed from GA and you already singing the airline song.

Your point?

You don't know where I was before I even made this career change, and it wasn't in any GA aircraft.

I think his point is quite clear...

What difference does your 'career change' have to do with the matter at hand? It doesn't matter if you were in a GA a/c or not before your 'career change'. You were, at one time, in a GA a/c and learned to train in a GA a/c.

It's going to be funny see when those furlough's start rolling through, God forbid, but I hope you still made good ties with your past employer out of aviation now that you're shafting us. Bigger and better skies right?

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

That's a nice story. I was a signature away from being a controller as well.
Just do me a favor, and explain this quote when Surreal wasn't an airline pilot(in training):

I'm awake.

I don't agree with everything in this bill.

How about that?

Everyone's definition of GA is different.

Moreover, I do not support subsidies to an industry that fails to find a way to make significant money. So that is where my opinion differs from some other "airline" individuals.

IMHO, GA consists of small business owners who rely on their aircraft for commerce, and flight training establishments.

Everyone else fits in elsewhere and should help with the modernization of the system.

Crystal?

[Kristie]

Originally Posted by Maurus

I think he only brought it up as they (all the airline guys I know that posted) are trying to get it passed only for their benefit. PCL himself said he liked it for improved bargaining between the union and management.

Airline pilots that agree with this bill are being selfish and really do not care so much for ATC as the want us to believe.

Now it is true that there are airline guys that don't support the bill, but they seem to be in the minority.

The house bill is the best. Increased tax on jet A and avgas while keeping the taxes the same for the airlines. How is that so bad? The airlines get enough money from the government as it is.

I want to see the ATC group bumped up from their current situation just as much as everyone else does....if i understand the bill correctly, the pork of increasing JetA & avgas taxes on GA isn't conducive to that approach and is essentially eerily similar (IMO) to adding a "user fee" for GA and that's where the bill goes south.

I don't get why some airline guys support the GA user fees. it really isn't going to help the situation with contracts or what not, they are what they are and it's NOT because of the cost to become a pilot (ie: instruction etc)...I think the puppy mills prove that. all it's going to to do is make it difficult for a lot of good mom & pop shops out there that provide good training for a non-exorbitant fee to stay open and functioning. Then most guys that want to be pilots will have to go to the mills, pay a crap load just to become a pilot and the wages to get to the top will "still" be the same. IMO, the only way, that i can see, to change that is AT the regional level with unions and demand for decent wage/scope. pilot shortages, by not being able to afford training, aren't really going to help the matter IMO...they haven't even up to now.

[E6BAV8R]

IMHO, GA consists of small business owners who rely on their aircraft for commerce, and flight training establishments.

So where does the Fractionals, Corporate flight departments, etc.. come into play? They are all GA as well.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by E6BAV8R

It's going to be funny see when those furlough's start rolling through, God forbid, but I hope you still made good ties with your past employer out of aviation now that you're shafting us. Bigger and better skies right?

I'll have to remember that. Karma's a bitch, and I don't think I've wished a furlough towards anyone. Different strokes for different folks though.

I warn anyone, and everyone, to not get comfortable in their present position (what industry they're in doesn't even matter). I'd highly suggest the same to you.

Notice how that has a different tone than "God forbid(ing)" furloughs towards someone?

But whatever - that doesn't matter these days with emotions running higher than anything.

For one, I don't feel I'm shafting my previous employer. They are in the flight training segment and shouldn't have to pay the same as say the Business Aviation (I'll get to that shortly) sector, or the Airline sector. Just as I don't think they or small business owners who use their own aircraft (Think Alaska) for commerce should have to pay the same bill as Business Aviation or Airline sector users. Second, I stay on great terms with all of my previous employers, so don't worry about that.

Originally Posted by E6BAV8R

So where does the Fractionals, Corporate flight departments, etc.. come into play? They are all GA as well.

There's this association called National Business Aviation Association, NBAA. I'm sure you've heard of them. They put on a great show. Really enjoyed NBAA 07, but unfortunately. . .they're not in my definition of General Aviation (to repeat: Flight training, and small business commerce utilizing the company's owners aircraft, flown by the owner).

If you operate a 12,500lbs or larger aircraft for a company, or any aircraft that requires a two man crew for a company (insurance requirements), or a single man crew for any Incorporated business or company that has a labor cost of more than $150,000 a year I do not consider you to be part of my definition of "General Aviation" but rather part of the Business Aviation movement.

If I were in their shoes, I'd be doing the same thing. Ridding the coattails of the small guy Cessna 150 and Cessna 182 in anger over any increase in fees.

But I'm not, and I see modernization as something that has to occur. If you depart and arrive into high capacity Class C, D, B terminal areas on a regular basis you should have to pay a certain fee that is higher than the flight training, small business for commerce user of the system.

Business Aviation does not pay into the system the same way the airlines do, and I can never advocate that type of fee structure (tickets). Just doesn't make sense.

So with that being said, we can put the emotions on the shelf and have an actual discussion.

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

I'll have to remember that. Karma's a bitch, and I don't think I've wished a furlough towards anyone. Different strokes for different folks though.

I warn anyone, and everyone, to not get comfortable in their present position (what industry they're in doesn't even matter). I'd highly suggest the same to you.

Notice how that has a different tone than "God forbid(ing)" furloughs towards someone?

But whatever - that doesn't matter these days with emotions running higher than anything.

For one, I don't feel I'm shafting my previous employer. They are in the flight training segment and shouldn't have to pay the same as say the Business Aviation (I'll get to that shortly) sector, or the Airline sector. Just as I don't think they or small business owners who use their own aircraft (Think Alaska) for commerce should have to pay the same bill as Business Aviation or Airline sector users. Second, I stay on great terms with all of my previous employers, so don't worry about that.



There's this association called National Business Aviation Association, NBAA. I'm sure you've heard of them. They put on a great show. Really enjoyed NBAA 07, but unfortunately. . .they're not in my definition of General Aviation (to repeat: Flight training, and small business commerce utilizing the company's owners aircraft, flown by the owner).

If you operate a 12,500lbs or larger aircraft for a company, or any aircraft that requires a two man crew for a company (insurance requirements), or a single man crew for any Incorporated business or company that has a labor cost of more than $150,000 a year I do not consider you to be part of my definition of "General Aviation" but rather part of the Business Aviation movement.

If I were in their shoes, I'd be doing the same thing. Ridding the coattails of the small guy Cessna 150 and Cessna 182 in anger over any increase in fees.

But I'm not, and I see modernization as something that has to occur. If you depart and arrive into high capacity Class C, D, B terminal areas on a regular basis you should have to pay a certain fee that is higher than the flight training, small business for commerce user of the system.

Business Aviation does not pay into the system the same way the airlines do, and I can never advocate that type of fee structure (tickets). Just doesn't make sense.

So with that being said, we can put the emotions on the shelf and have an actual discussion.

It doesn't matter how you differentiate general aviation and business aviation, either way the past has shown fees to hit general aviation as a whole after being "exempt" form the fees originally. There is plenty of money for the FAA. The only reason the FAA wants these types of things such as user fees to be implemented is to get off the general fund and away from the grasp of congress.

Just do any research into how much it takes to fly IFR in Europe and you will see what user fess do. They are really expensive and also hurt safety as people will make bad decisions to save money.

Europe is an extreme case, but it could happen to us. Our ATC system is far superior to Eurocontrol just because of ability for extra safety and ATC usability.

User fees may not seem to hurt BA but it will come down to GA. Once people stop flying the fees will continue to rise to compensate and added fees will follow. From there safety is no longer stressed as user fees become too expensive to pay just to avoid a dangerous situation. User fees are bad. Don't start them and they wont be a problem. Simple as that.

[E6BAV8R]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

I'll have to remember that. Karma's a bitch, and I don't think I've wished a furlough towards anyone. Different strokes for different folks though.

I warn anyone, and everyone, to not get comfortable in their present position (what industry they're in doesn't even matter). I'd highly suggest the same to you.

Please tell me where I implied otherwise?

For one, I don't feel I'm shafting my previous employer. They are in the flight training segment and shouldn't have to pay the same as say the Business Aviation (I'll get to that shortly) sector, or the Airline sector. Just as I don't think they or small business owners who use their own aircraft (Think Alaska) for commerce should have to pay the same bill as Business Aviation or Airline sector users.

I agree. Too bad the FAA doesn't see the same, huh?

If you operate a 12,500lbs or larger aircraft for a company, or any aircraft that requires a two man crew for a company (insurance requirements), or a single man crew for any Incorporated business or company that has a labor cost of more than $150,000 a year I do not consider you to be part of my definition of "General Aviation" but rather part of the Business Aviation movement.

I do agree. However, like I said, the FAA doesn't distinguish between the two, to my knowledge.

But I'm not, and I see modernization as something that has to occur. If you depart and arrive into high capacity Class C, D, B terminal areas on a regular basis you should have to pay a certain fee that is higher than the flight training, small business for commerce user of the system.

Who is to define what a 'regular basis' is? What if it is a training flight into a Class C or D?

Business Aviation does not pay into the system the same way the airlines do, and I can never advocate that type of fee structure (tickets). Just doesn't make sense.

So do you mind describing this fuel tax that has been placed on the fuel I purchase? I've been confused as to what that has been for.

I agree with some of the points you make. However, there is no real definition given by the FAA of what "business aviation" entails. Even though it may be geared towards business aviation turbine aircraft now, we all know it is a slippery slope.

[surreal1221]

Right . . . using one single term as an umbrella term will not work in this instance.

To respond to one of your questions, flight training (in my opinion) should not see any fee increase by going into a Class C, or D surface airport or airspace, or Class B airspace.

It's going to take those who are in each of those sub-sectors (General Aviation, Business Aviation) to direct a change in policy instead of this one size fits all mentality.

Not much more I can suggest except to actually get pro-active in whatever area of this debate and go balls to the wall. Our government does it every day.

Originally Posted by Maurus

Europe is an extreme case, but it could happen to us. Our ATC system is far superior to Eurocontrol just because of ability for extra safety and ATC usability.

User fees may not seem to hurt BA but it will come down to GA. Once people stop flying the fees will continue to rise to compensate and added fees will follow. From there safety is no longer stressed as user fees become too expensive to pay just to avoid a dangerous situation. User fees are bad. Don't start them and they wont be a problem. Simple as that.

You're really not telling me much of anything that I don't already know.

Yes, Eurocontrol is a nightmare. . .but Eurocontrol did not come from User Fees.

Outsourcing Air Traffic Control brought about Eurocontrol, and then Eurocontrol brought about User Fees.

NATCA and the small guy in GA are in this fight together, to keep our NAS a governmental function.

Everything else you mention, I'm not going to respond to because I agree with for the most part, with certain exceptions that are already discussed in replies above.

But welcome to the discussion

[Baradium]

Originally Posted by JEP

That user fee is for turbine a/c on an IFR flight plan. The FAA legislation you speak if is running on it's current extension which expires on June 20th. Those are both direct from Phil Boyer's mouth at last nights Pilot Town Meeting......MY highlights will come as I am typing them up as we speak.

Look at Canada, it started for "turbine a/c on IFR" and just went on from there. This is NOT a good thing.

They just slowly add it.

Originally Posted by meyers9163

In addition the airlines are already losing money... So lets hit them all with 25 a plane and see what else we can nail them with.... Let alone GA aircraft...... Honeslty I dont see a proplem with Corp jets perhaps.... But a small GA give me a break.....

See above. Uncle sam doesn't see a difference between the lear jet and the cessna 150. They'll differentiate at first to try to get the smaller a/c guys to throw larger ones under the bus, becuase then when they go to expand it the larger guys won't care. This is the same way companies use alter egos and the award system for regionals against unions to work at them undercutting the others to get ahead.

If everyone is focused on having just a "little" less than the competition, it's just an endless fight to see who can have the worst.

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Westmoreland is a scumbag. I'm ashamed to have him representing me. But he'll still get a letter from me in support of S1300. He'll also get a letter from me after he votes against it (as I'm sure he will) that tells him just what I think of him and his anti-labor BS.

That bill is a horrible bill for aviation and voting against it isn't anti-labor. You aren't a politician as far as I know, so let's not try to make things about something they aren't. People aren't automatically against you because they don't like that bill. There are plenty of reasons to vote against it even if you want to help the controllers.

I have a number of friends who are controllers and want to see them with better conditions, but that doesn't mean I'll support this bill.

Originally Posted by surreal1221

For one, I don't feel I'm shafting my previous employer. They are in the flight training segment and shouldn't have to pay the same as say the Business Aviation (I'll get to that shortly) sector, or the Airline sector. Just as I don't think they or small business owners who use their own aircraft (Think Alaska) for commerce should have to pay the same bill as Business Aviation or Airline sector users. Second, I stay on great terms with all of my previous employers, so don't worry about that.

That bill *will* shaft them. These fees have trickled down in every case they were implemented in and has decimated the flight training industry in the associated areas.

Just becuase you see flight training and "buisiness" as seperate doesn't mean uncle sam will. To the government they are all just "units" to be taxed.

So, how much experience do you have with the system in Alaska, since you chose to use it in your argument?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------


A per flight fee for IFR in any form is a very bad idea. General aviation has been doing bad enough with the current fuel prices, let's try not to kill it just for the percieved help to the airline industry. It's also a safety issue since it will encourage taking shortcuts to keep costs lower.



This bill won't help the airlines anyway. The problem really is only going to be fixed by either consolidation or loss of some airlines. It's unfortunate, but it's true. There is too much capacity, or at least percieved, with airlines not charging enough to cover costs. A little more help would just mean they'd still lose money trying harder to undercut everyone else.


I don't know if you all have paid attention to the policitians speaking against the DAL-NWA merger because "ticket prices might go up!"

Those are the people you should be writing letters to about the industry. The ticket prices are not sustainable at current levels and fuel prices. Taking action to keep them where they are will not help.


One way or another, the airlines need to become profitable on their own. This generally means ticket prices need to actually reflect costs. Until airlines start doing that, it's bad news for all of us working in the industry.

[JEP]

Originally Posted by Baradium

Look at Canada, it started for "turbine a/c on IFR" and just went on from there. This is NOT a good thing.

They just slowly add it. ......

No arguments here. That was one of the main points. If you start with X next time it will be X + ....... They don't want to give an inch because once you start it will keep coming....

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Baradium

This bill won't help the airlines anyway. The problem really is only going to be fixed by either consolidation or loss of some airlines. It's unfortunate, but it's true. There is too much capacity, or at least percieved, with airlines not charging enough to cover costs. A little more help would just mean they'd still lose money trying harder to undercut everyone else.


I don't know if you all have paid attention to the policitians speaking against the DAL-NWA merger because "ticket prices might go up!"

Those are the people you should be writing letters to about the industry. The ticket prices are not sustainable at current levels and fuel prices. Taking action to keep them where they are will not help.


One way or another, the airlines need to become profitable on their own. This generally means ticket prices need to actually reflect costs. Until airlines start doing that, it's bad news for all of us working in t