Hey, Joe Pilot, Marion says STFU

[mikea]

Marion Blakey says that "Joe Pilot" will only pay an extra $4.00 an hour so STFU.

I'm going to start with a couple of questions for you. How many of you have long-range business plans in place that can only be funded a year at a time? How many of you tie those business plans to the price of an airline ticket?

No one does unless you're an airline. A funding system put in place decades ago, a funding system that didn't contemplate fare wars or Orbitz or Southwest. No one did.

But with the expiration of the FAA's financing system at the end of September, we have a chance to fix that. It's an historic opportunity. But unfortunately it's in danger of degrading into a stick fight over user fees. General Aviation's afraid of user fees. That's why GA is paying through a fuel tax. Under our proposal, the majority of GA will never pay a user fee. What they're missing is the $4.3 billion in capital funding those user fees would finance over the next five years. We've put our money where our mouth is, increasing capital spending by 40 percent. We're putting big investments into ADS-B and other core NextGen technologies.

Some of the rhetoric out there is just flat out wrong. The criticisms that we can't be trusted with this plan just don't hold water. One hundred percent of our major capital projects are on schedule and on budget. I'll stack that up against any federal agency anytime.

When you hear horror stories about the FAA being "anti-GA," I want you to take a good look at the numbers. In our proposal, Joe pilot in a Cessna 172 will experience an operating cost increase of about four dollars per hour. In other words, the owner of a very expensive airplane is engaged in a heated dispute that hinges on the cost of a Starbucks latte. It's important to note here that if the fuel tax is increased, it still represents less than five percent of the overall cost to fly your GA aircraft..

They have to make a change you know. How could airlines predict that Southwest Airlines (which pays higher fees) would come along. ??????
We need to point out to congress once again that it's airlines that went bankrupt that have this great financial plan for America. The ones that have been doing fine AND PAYING HIGHER FEES than the big guys scammed for themselves don't want a change.

Try telling car or boat operators that they need to come up with $4 an hour...which will be $50 an hour in no time.

 

[EdFred]

She's full of road apples. $4. More gov't math. $1.00/gal tax increase x 10gph sure as hell doesn't equal $4.00

Hey Marion Blakely, Carlos Mencia wanted me to leave a message for ya....

Dee Dee Dee, you stupid, uh rhymes with a way to reach first base....

 

[KennyFlys]

Show me a government plan where the price stays the same from the start and I'll show you a socialized plan where it took everything you made to start with.

I don't trust Blakey nor one single person who is in favor of this plan. We're paying for it with fuel tax. She makes it sound like we won't be paying the fuel tax then but rather these other fees. Horse hockey!

 

[tonycondon]

In other words, the owner of a very expensive airplane is engaged in a heated dispute that hinges on the cost of a Starbucks latte.

so what about me and my very inexpensive airplane? Do I only get an increase of a cup of crappy airport coffee?

 

[KennyFlys]

When I think more about this... right now, there's a lot of abuse of engines and airframes by renters pressing to the top of the green on MP and Prop or just RPM for fixed prop. Renters figure they pay by the hour and fuel is included so... "Why conserve?"

Granted, it's all part of attitude about the care and conservation of the plane you're placing your life in. But, does anyone think this problem is going to become less of an issue when they have to start paying more for fuel tax as well as any user fees?

Rental rates are already artificially inflated because the aircraft do not reach TBOs much of the time on top of problems remaining hidden until 100 Hr or annuals. So, the cost goes even higher again.

 

[JasonCT]

Mike when are we going to do a GA fly over Chi town to protest - get the media involved have them meet us at a local airport, etc.

 

[wbarnhill]

Hey, why don't we petition the government for a bailout too? A 15 billion dollar bailout would surely finance the GA side for quite a few years since she's only asking for 4 billion from user fees, right?

 

[tom clark]

i love it. no user fees for the average pilot. just another 75 cents a gallon tax. but no "user fees". she should be in congress. i read the other day where she said this was all for the good of ga. that we would soon be squeezed out of the "system" without user fees. man, this chick is full of it. imho, tc

 

[tdager]

so what about me and my very inexpensive airplane? Do I only get an increase of a cup of crappy airport coffee?

Trust me...that one phrase stood out to me too! Even SHE has this B.S. view that we are all rich and our planes are "expensive", hell a 172! Now of course if you consider a new one I can concede that, but my plane cost me LESS then a new Escalade!

Stupid b*tch.....(yes I said that, I am grumpy and sick and tired of getting painted with the "rich" brush).

 

[KennyFlys]

Trust me...that one phrase stood out to me too! Even SHE has this B.S. view that we are all rich and our planes are "expensive", hell a 172! Now of course if you consider a new one I can concede that, but my plane cost me LESS then a new Escalade!

Stupid b*tch.....(yes I said that, I am grumpy and sick and tired of getting painted with the "rich" brush).

Tom,

In honor of Marion Blakey, I suggest we change the name to...

"Georgia Rich Wealthy Privileged Pilot's Association"

Of course, standards will dictate anyone with annual income under $250k and net worth under $1 million shall be ineligible for membership.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

This "rich" phrase is getting to me too. A colleague based in Chicago said that "...the loss of Meigs was better for Chicago- only rich pilots used it".

I asked if he considered me "rich"?

 

[Michael]

Of the $15 billion in bailout money award to the airlines, $5 billion was used on improving the air traffic control system. That want enough 5 years ago, what makes anyone think it will fix whatever they say is broken now?

 

[mikea]

Of the $15 billion in bailout money award to the airlines, $5 billion was used on improving the air traffic control system. That want enough 5 years ago, what makes anyone think it will fix whatever they say is broken now?

Not only that but they've had a half dozen ATC modernization programs over the last 30-40 years. They always end up with the contractor getting the $nnnMs for chasing the ever changing specs on a T&M basis and never delivering.

The biggest program which was never delivered will be based on 1960s mainframe technology when it gets rolled out. They had to make practical design considerations, like knowing that having enough communications links between sites would cost a fortune. It's not like each of us at home now have more comm bandwidth than the whole system was designed for.

 

[SkyHog]

And lets not forget the FAA's bunk handling of the Microwave Landing System. Look for more retarded ideas like that when user fees come around.

 

[JRitt]

Not only does she want to raise the fuel tax by $.50/ gal (costing my cessna 172 $4/hr more to fly) but her funding syystem falls way short of paying for any of the upgrades the FAA wants to do so she would have to borrow money to do the upgrades. The current funding system WOULD pay for the upgrades. After she has to borrow the money to do the upgrades then she would have to figure out a way to raise an additional 4-6 billion a year to pay for the loans. Where would this money come from? An additional tax on fuel of 50-75 cents a gallon (it only fair to spread the repayment to everyone because we all use the system.

 

[TMetzinger]

Rental rates are already artificially inflated because the aircraft do not reach TBOs much of the time on top of problems remaining hidden until 100 Hr or annuals. So, the cost goes even higher again.

Dunno about your operators, but it's my experience that rental fleets where instruction is done and airplanes fly often reach TBO much more consistently than the general population of the same airplane types. Granted, they'll reach TBO in a couple of years, but they make it.

I've been able to review the maintenance logs of all the airplanes in my FBO's fleet, and I don't see your "hidden" problems occuring. At the rates we pay, if the thing's not friggin' PERFECT, it gets squawked. And some squawks do get deferred to the next maintenance window if they're not critical, but they always get fixed at the next window.

Of course, it helps that the singles are all young (1997 or newer) and the twins have been treated well. Operators renting older airplanes can have problems with parts availability.

What drives up the cost of rental planes that I've seen is the need for significant insurance protection for the business, and finding 10+ million in liability coverage is getting to be very difficult.

 

[flyersfan31]

Dear Marion,

Thanks for that helpful new aviation cost metric, the "latte equivalent."

Most of the Joe Pilots I know actually prefer their joe black, like the future of general aviation should you and the major airlines get their way. Lattes are for Beltway insiders and K Street leeches (often the same thing). BTW, using your metric, Glenn Tilton, CEO UAL, made 5,292,389.25 lattes last year.

Heck, I'm just so pleased that we GA pilots are being asked to pitch in to save these corporations from their mean competitors. It is, I have to agree, an outrage to insist on them competing successfully in the marketplace instead of just letting them suck at the public teat like, say, ethanol producers. We Joe Pilots should be proud to dig into our pocket and pass on our latte money to bail out the airlines.

UGh, I get so pi$$ed thinking about this. Sanctimonious blowhards, all!!!!

 

[NC Pilot]

This "rich" phrase is getting to me too. A colleague based in Chicago said that "...the loss of Meigs was better for Chicago- only rich pilots used it".

I asked if he considered me "rich"?

With the fees and the price of fuel you had to pay at Meigs only rich pilots could afford to land there. I never did although I would have loved to.

The latte analogy doesn't hold water either. It assumes it will cost you the equilvalent of a latte every time you fly, when in reality it costs a latte every hour you fly. Or for me 1.5 latte's per hour.

If user fees guaranteed me equal access to the IFR system as airlines I might be talked into it, but I can't see that happening. All user fees will do is shift more expense to the people who use the system the least and the airlines will continue to run themselves into the ground and go bankrupt and continue to ask for government bailout for their gross mismanagment.

We may lose, but I will not go down without a fight.

 

[JohnR]

GA won't pay user fees? Don't believe that for one nanosecond.

It's really not the amount of the increase (that BS $4/hour that's probably at least double that much) that we're against. We know the cost always goes up. What do we get for the money? What do they actually mean by "modernization" anyway?

We're against being made a pawn, being swept under the rug, being thought of as a piñata full of money, and being considered a bad thing for those sweet angelic airlines that have to be saved at all costs.

Oh, and you're damn right we're afraid of user fees, Marion.

 

[mikea]

GA won't pay user fees? Don't believe that for one nanosecond.

It's really not the amount of the increase (that BS $4/hour that's probably at least double that much) that we're against. We know the cost always goes up. What do we get for the money? .

Right. I'll put a $10 bill on the panel that will go the D.C. when C90 answers me when I call up for VFR flight following. THAT is what I would ask at the next "Ask the Administrator'" if she has enough * to show up.

"The airline seat is the most taxed...." Right. How unfair. Because WE should be paying the "passenger security fee" they imposed to fund the TSA morons or the "facility charge" at O'Hare - which we can't use - because Daley is telling the FAA the fees are not high enough to pay for the contracts he intends to give his buddies.

 

[wsuffa]

I'm with Mark on this one... and I've said it before - *if* this guarantees equal access to all airspace for GA, including ALL Class B airspace, then I might be able to be convinced. As it is, though, we remain (or become more) second-class citizens.

I'm just waiting for an airline captian to make a PA announcement asking the passengers on a weather-delayed commercial flight to write to Congress to support this.

I'm also betting that the airlines would drop this completely if there were a quid-pro-quo on passenger rights.... for example, that passengers would not remain "stuck" on board for more than an hour after landing... that passengers be truthfully informed about delays... that delay information be truthful (e.g. that mechanical issues not be classified as "weather delays")... that phone calls to rebooking numbers be answered within 5 minutes... that passengers be routed to their destination within 36 hours after a flight cancellation (none of this "the earliest we can get you out is 3 days from now)...

The alternative, as I see it, is to move completely to free-market on the airlines. Eliminate most FAA regulation, and along with it eliminate the Federal pre-emption (meaning that states could assert their consumer laws). Yeah, I'd even go so far as to eliminate much of the nit-picking FAA oversight with the theory that airlines presenting a terrible safety or equipment record would be avoided by passengers.

Since the airlines are presenting this as a way to "eliminate FAA Air Traffic delays", perhaps it's time to ensure that such benefits really do trickle down to the consumer. Otherwise, we've accomplished nothing with the user fees except a cut in airline costs - the race to the bottom continues.

Bill

(Still chafing from having sat on the taxiway at DFW for 45 minutes last night waiting for AA to figure out what gate to put the plane at, plus another 30 minutes standing on the plane waiting to disembark because they couldn't find a ****ing gate agent to move the jet-bridge. Total delay from landing to door-opening: 1:15).

 

[AdamZ]

Dear Marion,

Thanks for that helpful new aviation cost metric, the "latte equivalent."

. Lattes are for Beltway insiders and K Street leeches (often the same thing).
UGh, I get so pi$$ed thinking about this. Sanctimonious blowhards, all!!!!

Andrew this is EXACTLY the reason I offered to bring BEER and not a latte to your hangar this summer

 

[KennyFlys]

Dunno about your operators, but it's my experience that rental fleets where instruction is done and airplanes fly often reach TBO much more consistently than the general population of the same airplane types. Granted, they'll reach TBO in a couple of years, but they make it.

I should have clarified. It's not the standard but it does happen. At GVL, most of the planes are quite new. All the singles with one exception are 2003 or newer. The twins are either very new or recently overhauled with extensive modifications. And, they do have an excellent progressive maintenance program on most of the birds. Renters and students are followed quite closely so they remain reasonably safe and proficient.

I've seen other locations which I won't name that have not had great maintenance. The aircraft tend to get abused by renters and students. I don't think it's common but it does happen. I sincerely believe it's only going to get worse in some respects because of increased costs.

 

[poadeleted20]

She's full of road apples. $4. More gov't math. $1.00/gal tax increase x 10gph sure as hell doesn't equal $4.00

The proposed increase is not $1.00/gal. In fact the total proposed tax isn't that much. The number I heard floated was a new tax rate of 70 cents/gallon, which is only like half a buck up from the current tax which hasn't changed in a very long time. Now, I'm not saying I'm happy with that number, but I would suggest that anyone throwing numbers around check them for accuracy before throwing them, and especially before criticizing anyone else's number.

 

[SkyHog]

The proposed increase is not $1.00/gal. In fact the total proposed tax isn't that much. The number I heard floated was a new tax rate of 70 cents/gallon, which is only like half a buck up from the current tax which hasn't changed in a very long time. Now, I'm not saying I'm happy with that number, but I would suggest that anyone throwing numbers around check them for accuracy before throwing them, and especially before criticizing anyone else's number.

Numbers aside, I won't be happy unless the Airlines pay their fare share as well. Which means first starting to charge them the same tax we're paying.

Why pay a tax that benefits the airlines only?

 

[poadeleted20]

Numbers aside, I won't be happy unless the Airlines pay their fare share as well. Which means first starting to charge them the same tax we're paying.

If the airlines paid the same 70 cents per gallon proposed for light GA, how much more would they be paying for ATC than what they would pay under the proposal as given? Can you even show that it would be more? Frankly, I have no idea, but I'd be interested to see your numbers -- it might change my thinking.

 

[SkyHog]

I can try....I suck at math, so here goes:

According to the Wisconsin State Department of Revenue (http://www.dor.state.wi.us/faqs/ise/aviation.html), currently, GA pays 6 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes.

Currently, Airlines pay 4.3 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes (source, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-09-14-tax-relief_x.htm).

In 2005, Airlines burnt an average of 19,431 Million Gallons of Jet-A ([http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf)

That same year, General Aviation burn an average of 1,201 Million Gallons of Fuel (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf)

So - using those numbers, Airlines paid $835,533,000 in fuel taxes, and GA paid $72,060,000 in taxes (someone check my math on that).

That's before the tax hike.

Remember, that while those tax numbers are there - GA pays their own taxes. Airlines don't pay a dime.

.

 

[wsuffa]

I can try....I suck at math, so here goes:

According to the Wisconsin State Department of Revenue (http://www.dor.state.wi.us/faqs/ise/aviation.html), currently, GA pays 6 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes.

Currently, Airlines pay 4.3 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes (source, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-09-14-tax-relief_x.htm).

In 2005, Airlines burnt an average of 19,431 Million Gallons of Jet-A ([http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf)

That same year, General Aviation burn an average of 1,201 Million Gallons of Fuel (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf)

So - using those numbers, Airlines paid $835,533,000 in fuel taxes, and GA paid $7,206,000,000 in taxes (someone check my math on that).

That's before the tax hike.

The airlines (or more specifically, the passengers) also paid a % tax on the value of each ticket sold.

 

[KennyFlys]

If the airlines paid the same 70 cents per gallon proposed for light GA, how much more would they be paying for ATC than what they would pay under the proposal as given? Can you even show that it would be more? Frankly, I have no idea, but I'd be interested to see your numbers -- it might change my thinking.

You can count on the airlines not paying it. The cost of travel will increase as every dime shall be passed on to the passenger.

I don't have an issue with airlines passing on the cost of doing business. I do have an issue with any authority with the power to tax taking said money without a clearly proved need for it. So far, I've not seen anything but rhetoric from the FAA.

 

[mikea]

I can try....I suck at math, so here goes:

...

Currently, Airlines pay 4.3 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes (source, http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-09-14-tax-relief_x.htm).
...

FACT: The so-called "user fee" scheme devised by the mega-carriers is based on criteria selected for the purpose of decreasing the mega-carriers’ tax burden and increasing everyone else’s. The GAO illustrated how the Big Seven, by cleverly manipulating the formulas, merely shifted $550 million in annual costs (i.e., recurring) from them to others in the industry. GAO said $500 million of that shift would fall on Southwest, America West, and other low-fare and small airlines. GAO also pointed out how the formulas created a special low fee for the commuter airlines "owned by or affiliated with one of the coalition airlines."

FACT: The seven largest carriers have purposely joined together in a concerted attempt to try to impose a fee structure on U.S. airlines which merely shifts over $550 million in costs from high fare carriers to low fare carriers.

SOURCE: Roberts Roach & Associates, "Air Traffic Control User Fees: a proposal by the seven largest U.S. airlines," May 29, 1996; and, U.S. General Accounting Office, "Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Issues Raised by Proposal to Replace the Airline Ticket Tax," GAO/RCED-97-23, December, 1996. (Tab 11)

FACT: The proposal by the seven largest carriers created special tax rates for members of the "Group of Seven" and higher rates for everyone else. Interestingly, even among the Big Seven themselves, the treatment is not equal. For the "founding fathers" of the Big Seven (American, Delta, and Northwest), the effective tax rate was identical carried out to four decimal places, about .0845%. The four fellow travelers who joined the club late (United, TWA, USAir, and Continental) apparently paid a fee for their tardiness, because their effective tax rate was higher, about 9%. Non-club members were assessed much higher "dues" for participating in the ATC system. In the case of Southwest, about 16%.

http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/NCARC/testimony/swa-te.htm

I guess, Marion, some airline passenger seats are more equal than others, too.

 

[flyersfan31]

The numbers are a red herring. The issue is mismanagement at both the FAA and the major carriers. We (non-latte drinking bugsmasher drivers) are being asked (!) to pitch in to fix the mistakes of others. Oh dear, no one ever foresaw Southwest when the current deal was created? What, exactly, does that mean? They never dreamed someone would run their airline more efficiently? The old-line carriers don't want to fix their own problems. The FAA has a typical government attitude: why be efficient when you can just raise taxes? All the numbers in the world can't erase that fact.

And how bad off can they be if they can pay their CEO 5mm lattes?

 

[Ghery]

You want to get steamed. Here's a quote of some information off the Washington (state) Department of Transportation's web site in reference to our state taxes on aviation fuel:

"
Funding Equity
Currently 95% of all aircraft fuel sold in Washington is exempt from paying state aviation fuel taxes. Exempt users include agricultural operations, air carrier and supplemental air carriers, aircraft used for testing and experimental purposes, training of crews for the purchase of air carrier aircraft, the operation of a local service commuter and governmental use. However, while commercial service is exempt from state fuel tax, they pay federal fuel taxes into the national Aviation Trust Fund, which provides for FAA Airport Improvement Program grants at the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports. Over one-half (77) of the public use airports in Washington are not NPIAS airports, and therefore do not quality for Federal funds. Nearly all of these are municipal airports local in rural areas. Tax-exempt aircraft that use these airports do not contribute through their taxes to maintenance or improvement of the facilities."

Only 5% of the aviation fuel purchased in this state is taxed at the state level. We have a pretty good state aviation department, but just imagine what they could do if the air carriers paid tax on the fuel they buy in this state. I know, they'd just tanker it in from somewhere else, but they've got to get some here. You come flying in to SEA from NRT and you're not going to have a lot left on board.

I ride in airliners as a part of my job. I like video conferences a whole lot better. Let them all go bankrupt for all I care.

 

[tonycondon]

maybe we should have a latte party in boston harbor.

 

[Michael]

I ride in airliners as a part of my job. I like video conferences a whole lot better. Let them all go bankrupt for all I care.

So we can pay to bail them out again?
Someone should run the numbers, maybe it would be cheaper to pay these user fees rather than the tax increase to bail out the airlines B)

 

[Michael]

maybe we should have a latte party in boston harbor.

Way overdue. And i will be in Boston in two weeks YAY.

 

[tonycondon]

make sure to stop by the costume shop for a peg leg and eyepatch

"In Local News today, a group calling themselves the 'Pirates of America' were dumping Latte's in Boston Harbor today, apparently in a protest on the FAA's new funding scheme."

 

[poadeleted20]

Remember, that while those tax numbers are there - GA pays their own taxes. Airlines don't pay a dime.

By that standard, the passengers (i.e., the real "owners" of the government) get every dime back when the airlines turn the money over to the government and thus pay nothing. However, when you really think about it, who are the real users of the system when the airliners haul passengers -- the airline or the passengers?

In any event, your math is still out to lunch -- 4.3 cents times 19,431 Million Gallons is $835,533,000, but 6 cents times 1,201 Million Gallons is only $72,060,000, not over seven billion. OK, now I see you corrected your error. In any event, when you add in the other taxes the airlines pay, they are still paying way more than we are even under the proposed rules.

 

[SkyHog]

By that standard, the passengers (i.e., the real "owners" of the government) get every dime back when the airlines turn the money over to the government and thus pay nothing. However, when you really think about it, who are the real users of the system when the airliners haul passengers -- the airline or the passengers?

In any event, your math is still out to lunch -- 4.3 cents times 19,431 Million Gallons is $835,533,000, but 6 cents times 1,201 Million Gallons is only $72,060,000, not over seven billion. OK, now I see you corrected your error. In any event, when you add in the other taxes the airlines pay, they are still paying way more than we are even under the proposed rules.

I agree, but then remember that the airlines are getting much more service that GA is. Right now, most of my flights are VFR (and, in fact, from AOPA's stats, most GA flights are VFR as well). That means we have the option of talking to ATC.

Airliners are under constant control, from the time they pop the chocks to the time they shutdown, hours later.

When was the last time that you flew into ORD, landed, taxied to the ramp, and spoke to ramp control in a GA airplane?

Plain and simple, Airliners use more of the system than we do.

And then there's the fact that the airliners are constantly fighting to get tax relief (and I believe some states have given it too). There's no tax relief for GA.

edit: so what I'm saying is that the system is fine the way it is. There's no need to add additional fees to our usage. There's enough money there, it just needs to be used more effectively.

I will say this though - I am much happier to see it as a tax than a per use fee. At least that's better

 

[poadeleted20]

I will say this though - I am much happier to see it as a tax than a per use fee. At least that's better

Me, too. That way nobody's making a decision on scud-run vs file based on the price of the clearance. And given that the fuel tax has been the same since forever, I have no problem with a rational fuel tax increase -- I'm just not convinced that a raise to 70 cents per gallon is a rational increase. To my thinking, the way to do this is to take the total bill, divide it by the number of gallons are pumped each year, and charge everyone their "fair share" on that basis. That way, the big jets pay more (since they eat up more of the system when they fly) and the big users pay more (since they are using the system more often). It also removes cost from the decision on whether to file or whatever, and that's the way I think it should be for safety reasons.

 

[JohnR]

Keep the avgas tax the same, no user fees. No compromise. Ever.

GA's position is there's no need to change the funding system, so why even entertain such thoughts?