USER FEES

[thammer]

We can disagree, I'm ok with that.

[Robert Eilers]

We need to be careful when we begin to compare commercial road taxes to user fees. In the first instance, tanker trucks and other commerical vehicles are the equivalent of the Airtlines except on roadways. A commercial interprise that proposes to profit from the use of tax payer funded infrastructure should be required to pay a fee to supplement their extraordinary use of a jointly funded resource. I don't have alot of grief regarding commercial business jet operations, which are for profit, being required to pay reasonable fees. However, the general aviation user, not operating for hire, places very little pressure on the Air Transportation System. We generally, operate below 10,000 feet and most often utilize low traffic or uncontrolled airfields. IFR flight is more of an exception than the rule. I believe the Cirrus and VLJ community represents a very small percentage of General Aviation. Private Personal Vehicle Operators are not required to pay a fee to use the roadway (excluding toll roads) nor should Private not for profit General Aviation pilots be required to pay user fees.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Very good points Robert.

[3958v]

One other thing needs pointed out. When a small plane flies in class B,C or D airspace and uses the sevices of ATC it is really more for the safety and convience of comercial aviation. I doubt if most of these services would be available if it were not for the FAA's desire to protect the flying public from crashes involving comercial air carriers. Our use of the system makes things safer for them. Bill K

[GAHorn]

...They're looking to do the same thing to us. Now that the socialists are in majority it's gonna get worse....

Does that mean the other party is made up of anti-socials? I thought it was supposed to be a gov't of, by, for the people...i.e. society.

(I doubt many Democrats would meet the definition of socialist and name calling will not promote friendly conversations....so perhaps we should be careful lest we find ourselves attacking our friends...)

From the latest AOPA Online, rec'd today:
"Aviation user fees are very much an idea pushed down from the Bush administration. But the power shift in the House will most likely put Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) in charge of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he would control whether any legislation to change the way the FAA is funded gets passed to the full House for a vote. Rep. Oberstar, a longtime friend to general aviation, is highly skeptical of any changes to the current, proven FAA funding system. There will also be a change in the leadership of the aviation subcommittee. AOPA has a longtime relationship with the two most likely contenders: Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Jerry Costello (D-Ill.). Both are knowledgeable about general aviation, and both have demonstrated a willingness to listen and understand the ramifications of user fees on GA."

[jrenwick]

Iowa Dave's question near the top of this topic, i.e what are the user fees the government would like to impose, doesn't have an answer yet -- but it is a really good question.

First, they've got to get the congress to buy off on the idea that the FAA, NWS, etc. should be funded by user fees, rather than tax revenues, and who gets to decide what the fees shall be. Once that's in the law, then I imagine there would be a growing number of different fees over time, and the amounts would also grow. I'll share what I know about some user fees I've paid (and haven't paid) in other countries, and it may help people understand what this could mean.

Many of us have gotten a bill from NavCanada after flying north of the border. That seems to be a flat quarterly fee asked of all users of Canadian airspace during the time period. The amount is based on the maximum gross weight of the aircraft. It funds navigation services: FSS, CARs, towers, etc. I'm sure there are Canadians reading this who can correct me and fill in details.

If you fly in Europe or the U.K., you can expect to pay a landing fee in the range of $15-$20 US equivalent every time you land a small airplane at any small field that's open to the public. It can be much higher if you land at a major airport, of course.

European countries, as a rule, tend not to build airfields for small aircraft at the public's expense. You end up using fields owned by flying clubs, and fees are one way the clubs fund their operating expenses. (The others are member fees, hangar and aircraft rentals, etc.) The friend I fly with over there has his own airstrip (used by sheep when he's not flying), and he doesn't charge me a landing fee. But because he doesn't want to annoy the neighbors by doing landing practice there, we went to a nearby club airfield and he paid 25 pounds for five laps around the pattern so I could get checked out in his airplane. That was the bulk-rate landing fee; you would probably pay 10 pounds for a single arrival.

The UK Meterological Office used to supply weather briefing information for pilots, at rates like a pound or two per "product." Meaning that if you requested a prog chart to be FAXed to you, that page might cost two pounds. Similar for METARs, TAFs, synopses, etc. A useful briefing gets pretty expensive. When the WWW came around, UK pilots found they could get weather information for free from Sweden. I don't know if the UK Met still charges in the same way, but they probably don't get much business any more.

If you fly IFR in England, you'll be charged for every approach you make. Most airfields there don't have instrument approaches, so besides being expensive, IFR isn't very useful either, unless you're a corporate, charter or airline pilot.

Ireland is interesting. There isn't a lot of GA there, but in a few places, those rugged people keep it going. While traveling there, we were warned not to contact certain ATC centers, because we would get a bill from them if we communicated with them in any way.

For some reason, an airfield cannot be open for use in Ireland unless there's someone there -- an unattended field may be used only in an emergency. So it becomes a requirement that you cannot initiate any flight until you have received permission to land at your destination. In one case we had an airport operator call us shortly before our filed departure time, to tell us that a family emergency had come up. He wouldn't be able to be at the field when we were scheduled to arrive, so we would have to go somewhere else (which we did).

I have to cut this short now, but suffice it to say there may be no other country in the world (save Canada, perhaps) with as good a General Aviation infrastructure as the US, and from what I can tell, user fees cannot get you there.

Best Regards,

John

[Dward]

Thanks John, for helping us to realize what we have.

[N2865C]

Some good news from the latest AOPA newsletter....

NO CASH REGISTER IN THE SKY, CONGRESSMAN SAYS
The chairman-apparent of the House Transportation Committee wasted little time in making clear his position on general aviation user fees. "The idea of a cash register in the sky to cover the cost of aviation is not appealing to me, to general aviation, to regional aviation," said Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) at a Tuesday press conference. With the shift in power following the midterm elections, Oberstar is expected to assume the chair of the committee responsible for FAA funding. The FAA and the airline industry are backing a plan that would charge fees to all system users and create an air traffic control governing board dominated by the airlines. Oberstar called that a "bad idea." "There are some functions government must undertake in the public interest," said Oberstar, noting that he had opposed a similar plan proposed by the Gore Commission in 1993. He said it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now—the "airlines deciding how aviation operations, air traffic control and all the rest will be conducted." See AOPA Online.

[lowNslow]

Some good news from the latest AOPA newsletter....

The FAA and the airline industry are backing a plan that would charge fees to all system users and create an air traffic control governing board dominated by the airlines. Oberstar called that a "bad idea."

Now there's a understatement. I can just imagine what the ATC system would be like if the current crop of airline management was running the show.