How much can we complain and demand for free

[drgwentzel]

Goodness gracious!

Show me in writing what tax I pay that is specifically earmarked to pay for the US Army. Should we now be charged a "protection" fee?

It is NOT a business. It has responsibilities -- like separating aircraft -- that supersede profit.

The government was already getting paid for the charts when they were paper. So they were never free. They were making a profit (5 million dollars I'm told) that off-set some of their other expenses. Now they are not making that money and wish to regain it by being paid for the same work they've always done in preparing navigation data for our use. And, by god, they should!

Gene Wentzel

 

[poadeleted21]

The government was already getting paid for the charts when they were paper. So they were never free. They were making a profit (5 million dollars I'm told) that off-set some of their other expenses. Now they are not making that money and wish to regain it by being paid for the same work they've always done in preparing navigation data for our use. And, by god, they should!

Gene Wentzel

If they were making a profit, they were doing so illegally. They are allowed to recoup the cost of producing them. Work of the government is public domain, How much do you think you outta pay to look at the blue marble photo? That costs bbbbbbbbillions to make.

 

[drgwentzel]

With as much as I travel, BFF (before foreflight) I spent at least $700/yr on paper.

Now, I spend $75...

And $150 will still be a bargain.

 

[poadeleted21]

You assume the price will be 150 when it's Jeppesen vs Garmin

Different market, different players, different game. Think $20 buy in Saturday night poker at Ron's house vs the WSOP final table. The better player's might be at Ron's house but....

 

[murphey]

Now pay for the airports and atc services you use. Pilots are a bunch of freeloading cheapskates.

I do pay for the airport use, and many others, too. In Colorado, the fuel tax that all aircraft pay is used to support the 76 public airports in the state. This fuel tax pays for something at the low end such as wind socks to repaving, WAAS, approaches, AWOS, and many other improvements. Even if I never use an airport, such as Monte Vista, part of the fuel tax I pay went for improvements at the airport.

As for ATC, now that's another story.

 

[drgwentzel]

I might add that these charts save lives in the air and on the ground. It is for our nation's benefit that we have them. By charging more, fewer people will buy them and the world will become a more dangerous place.

No one's charging more! We've just been paying less for more in that last few years.

When, in 2013 dollars, did you spend 150 dollars per year for EVERY sectional, every terminal area chart, every approach plate, every low altitude chart, every A/FD, and every high altitude chart FOR THE ENTIRE COUNRY?!! Come on!! I can't even add that all up!

Gene

 

[docmirror]

Ya know what I realize. When it comes to what the feds 'owe' me or 'give' me I really could give a wet, dribbly, spit. They want to publish TFRs, fine - go ahead, and I'll maybe look them up. I get my flight info an weather from comm sources now, I get my charts from comm sources, and after I take off I usually turn the damn radio OFF and just fly the effing plane. The whole federal system for aviation could vaporize tomorrow and I would prolly wake up and say 'whaaa'? Good riddance to bad rubbish. I do what I can to follow the rules, and I fly in MOAs, I go direct, I don't talk on the radio when I'm in a non-towered field and so effing what. It's MY airspace to do with as I please. The feds have enough of it now, it's amazing I can go from TX to CO without a lot of shyte now. ADS-B is only gonna make it worse, not better. They got nothing I need, so eat some feces, become ill, go over there, and DIE.

 

[poadeleted21]

Ya know what I realize. When it comes to what the feds 'owe' me or 'give' me I really could give a wet, dribbly, spit. They want to publish TFRs, fine - go ahead, and I'll maybe look them up. I get my flight info an weather from comm sources now, I get my charts from comm sources, and after I take off I usually turn the damn radio OFF and just fly the effing plane. The whole federal system for aviation could vaporize tomorrow and I would prolly wake up and say 'whaaa'? Good riddance to bad rubbish. I do what I can to follow the rules, and I fly in MOAs, I go direct, I don't talk on the radio when I'm in a non-towered field and so effing what. It's MY airspace to do with as I please. The feds have enough of it now, it's amazing I can go from TX to CO without a lot of shyte now. ADS-B is only gonna make it worse, not better. They got nothing I need, so eat some feces, become ill, go over there, and DIE.

But... But.. But...

You are required by law to have up to date information and you clearly aren't paying enough to acquire that information. Pay no attention to the fact that a 1971 Gazetteer would suffice for your needs, you need to pay more to know the new laws created every 28 days. Why you're not jumping at the opportunity to do so is beyond me. I wish they would put new charts out daily and charge $150 a pop for it, what a deal that would BE!!!

 

[ebykowsky]

...after I take off I usually turn the damn radio OFF and just fly the effing plane. I go direct, I don't talk on the radio when I'm in a non-towered field and so effing what. It's MY airspace to do with as I please.

But then you won't hear me screaming "Student Pilot!" over the 2-way, announcing my landing on the downwind runway.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

We in the midwest can get a nice dinner for 2 for $20 plus tax and tip so 150 to me is more than it apparently is to you.

but like others said, which straw breaks the camels back?

I disagree with your sentiments.

Flyers:

There was an article in AVWeb called "Who's working against your favorite apps?"


This article appears to be concerned that the FAA will start charging what is deserved for its aviation database information. It is stated that what we pay now to ForeFlight or WingX per year might double. Well, whoop-de-doo! 75 dollars verses 150.

Their concern was that WingX might lose users because of this and gave an analogy of, “What if Toyota doubled its price of the Camary?" Please! There is a BIG difference between 25K and 50K, and 75 dollars verses 150 dollars. One will break you, and other means you might have to sacrifice one night out to dinner and actually prepare your own meal that day. Please!

The FAA is already losing millions by the loss of electronic media dissemination of the charts they create and put together. Now the FAA is going to give us free weather and traffic in the cockpit and do we really have the nerve to *****-it-up about 75 dollars per year for the greatest free services in the world that they already provide us?
User fees are a real threat, but please, let's pick our battles and not nit-pick everything.

The way I look at it, we are a minority of golfers who play golf on an expensive country club and aren't happy that the entire country pays our green's fees and our country club memberships. NOW, we're bitching that they aren't going to buy us our golf balls and tee's too! Please!

Gene Wentzel

 

[PW_Plack]

I agree with Gene in his original post.

This discussion reminds me of my reaction to AOPA's emergency fundraising letter back in October. The gist of it was, "We've invested so much in incumbent federal lawmakers to get them on our side, and now polls show some of our friends are in trouble!" We were asked to make a sizable donation to the AOPA PAC to save the day.

The assumption was, of course, that we'd blindly support corrupt lawmakers who've cheated us on so many bigger issues, just because they signed up for the GA caucus. It made me realize how many people rail against special interest groups, but defend the ones to which they belong.

As a general principle, I'm in favor of people paying for the stuff they use. If we fly for a living, then we pass it on to our customers. If we fly for pleasure, we admit we engage in an extravagant hobby, and bite the bullet.

Getting a handle on entitlement spending, whether its for pilots, doesn't have a chance if nobody's willing to put their own freebies among the cuts.

 

[poadeleted21]

I agree with Gene in his original post.

This discussion reminds me of my reaction to AOPA's emergency fundraising letter back in October. The gist of it was, "We've invested so much in incumbent federal lawmakers to get them on our side, and now polls show some of our friends are in trouble!" We were asked to make a sizable donation to the AOPA PAC to save the day.

The assumption was, of course, that we'd blindly support corrupt lawmakers who've cheated us on so many bigger issues, just because they signed up for the GA caucus. It made me realize how many people rail against special interest groups, but defend the ones to which they belong.

As a general principle, I'm in favor of people paying for the stuff they use. If we fly for a living, then we pass it on to our customers. If we fly for pleasure, we admit we engage in an extravagant hobby, and bite the bullet.

Getting a handle on entitlement spending, whether its for pilots, doesn't have a chance if nobody's willing to put their own freebies among the cuts.

Then quit requiring the GD things, The government mandates that we know this stuff. They are the street signs of the airspace, do you feel entitled every time you pass by a yield sign? I think we should have to stop and tape a quarter to every mile marker on the Interstate.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I just can't quite grasp the thought process of some people.

• Our illustrious government mucks up the long standing sectional distribution system by cutting off small FBOs from paper
  
• Vast quantities of pilots no longer have access to required sectionals, particularly on short notice, without paying big overnight fees to a Sporty's type of operation to FedEx them out.
  
• The private sector sees an opportunity to create a better product utilizing the existing data sources, just as the tablet market is coming into being
  
• Pilots respond by moving en-mass to those better products
  
• As mentioned earlier, some department's budget is now a mess because they can no longer cover their various shortfalls with the cash surplus that paper used to generate.
  
• And now another "user fee" is attempting to be birthed.

Don't you realize that the pilot community would still ONLY have paper and MAYBE the overpriced Jepp/Garmin products if this proposed fee had been in place since day one?

You guys are proposing to kill the very system that drives private innovation and generates the kind of products we all seem to like to use.

What are you thinking?????

It is no different than deciding a GPS position access fee is great idea since the satellite system isn't paying it's way -- and hey, look at all those smartphone users who are using their phones as GPS maps and aren't paying for the positional data they consume.

 

[Ted]

Certainly, everybody has their own opinions on what the government should and should not pay for with our tax dollars. You have things like GPS, which are used by everybody, including the military, and so there's a logical thought that tax dollars spent there makes sense.

For charts, the FAA previously funded the chart production through sales and free distribution. While I do agree that's a nice way to do it overall, the end result is that those of us who used to be paying into the system in the form of chart purchases are now not, so the FAA needs a new funding source. They propose a funding source that mirrors the previous funding source, and people complain because they aren't getting their free Ham Sammich no more.

Point is, the FAA isn't out of line in figuring out a new way to fund this, rather they're being responsible (more of our government should try this concept). I wouldn't have an issue with it being funded in the form of an extra fuel tax or the like, either, since that keeps it getting funded but still allows free access for the beneficial reasons. But really, it comes down to having to get paid for somehow.

What makes no sense is people who don't see why this does need to get paid for somehow. The theory that "I pay my taxes so I pay for it" clearly doesn't work given the current fiscal situation. Something has to give, and while I believe that it should all come from entitlement programs, this, in effect, becomes one if we don't have a designated funding pool.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I happen to like fltplan.com and use it all the time. You wanted to know where you could find Canadian charts and that's the best place I've found, that is, besides the Jepp subscription we have.

Not sectional charts. No one has sectional charts.

 

[ebykowsky]

What I dont understand is where all the subscription fees we pay for the apps now go. $30 a month for some electronic sources--I thought the whole reason for this was to pay the government for the chart update along with bit for the developer. Would sources like sky vector still be free?

 

[alaskaflyer]

I think the whole reason that Canada is where it is, is...their reliance on outsourcing, income on some products and user fees to power their system.

There are aspects to the Canadian national airspace system that are clearly superior to ours. One that I feel strongly about is a bit of a throwback - attended rural airports. Unfortunately Nav Canada is diligently working to dismantle that.

The current lack of digitized VFR sectional charts for that country is a result of a funding stream that disincentivizes the process in favor of paper, IMO. Fortunately the aviation industry is forcing the hand politically and we may see something in another year or two.

Apropo of nothing, I just received my yearly Nav Canada user fee bill in the mail yesterday

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Certainly, everybody has their own opinions on what the government should and should not pay for with our tax dollars. You have things like GPS, which are used by everybody, including the military, and so there's a logical thought that tax dollars spent there makes sense.

For charts, the FAA previously funded the chart production through sales and free distribution. While I do agree that's a nice way to do it overall, the end result is that those of us who used to be paying into the system in the form of chart purchases are now not, so the FAA needs a new funding source. They propose a funding source that mirrors the previous funding source, and people complain because they aren't getting their free Ham Sammich no more.

Point is, the FAA isn't out of line in figuring out a new way to fund this, rather they're being responsible (more of our government should try this concept). I wouldn't have an issue with it being funded in the form of an extra fuel tax or the like, either, since that keeps it getting funded but still allows free access for the beneficial reasons. But really, it comes down to having to get paid for somehow.

What makes no sense is people who don't see why this does need to get paid for somehow. The theory that "I pay my taxes so I pay for it" clearly doesn't work given the current fiscal situation. Something has to give, and while I believe that it should all come from entitlement programs, this, in effect, becomes one if we don't have a designated funding pool.

This is more than a "free Ham Sammich" issue. Between the shift from NOAA and the "High Performing Organization" plan, the "boy geniuses" at the FAA practically eliminated our ability to procure sectionals from traditional sources.

I bought an Ipad and a Foreflight subscription only because I could no longer get paper locally for my flights -- in particular for my out of state trips.

Look at what an FBO or small flight school had to do to put a chart on their counter:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/index.cfm?print=go#q3a
On October 5, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) transitioned to a New Chart Agent Model. This change was part of an overall High Performing Organization (HPO) plan that will help the FAA reduce costs, increase efficiency, and make the Chart Agent Program more self-sufficient.

The requirements of the New Chart Agent Model are: Chart Agents must have a minimum annual net sales volume of $5,000; Chart Agent orders must be placed using the FAA e-commerce system; Chart Agents may establish their own network of sales outlet(s) to sell navigation charts and related products; and Chart Agents will have the opportunity to choose the discount/obsolete return rate they receive from the FAA to purchase navigation charts and related products (50% discount of FAA published prices with zero obsolete returns accepted or 40% discount of FAA published prices with up to 20% obsolete returns accepted). You must also submit a business plan to FAA summarizing how you plan to achieve the $5,000 minimum annual net sales volume. Agents will be permitted one year to establish their business. Thereafter an agent not selling a volume sufficient to maintain an active status may be discontinued.

Private industry stepped in to fill the gap. Now the FAA is whining because their funding model isn't providing the surplus that it used to.

Do you think that Foreflight (and others) would have been able to establish a business model from scratch with the proposed fee system in place? Can one publish supplementary tools such as SkyVector without requiring a credit card swipe to look at an airport on a map?

Have we seen any accountability with regards to costs, waste, and spending with the current organziation?

Some people seem all too willing to open up others' pocketbooks because the FAA has not been able to manage itself appropriately.

 

[Everskyward]

Not sectional charts. No one has sectional charts.

Sectional charts? What are those?

 

[docmirror]

, so the FAA needs a new funding source. They propose a funding source that mirrors the previous funding source, and people complain because they aren't getting their free Ham Sammich no more.

Point is, the FAA isn't out of line in figuring out a new way to fund this, .

Sorry for carving up your post but I want to point out that this kind of thinking is exactly why our country is coming apart. The FAA NEEDS to do only one thing. Regulate airplanes and pilots. That's it, they don't need to make money on charts, they don't need to make money on anything, they are an arm of the federal govt. If they get out of the chart business tomorrow it can't be fast enough. Just put their airspace updates on a thumb drive(read only), stick in a server and publish the location. Come and get it. Comm vendors will download it, airlines, some private fliers, and we all go do our own thing. If a market remains for printed sectionals, then that market will be served by the vendors. If no market, then you roll your own down at the local Office Max. Digital charts would flourish, and there would be a stable, fast, accurate distribution of what the pilot NEEDS. Remember the pilot? He's that guy with his hand on the stick and throttle.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Sorry for carving up your post but I want to point out that this kind of thinking is exactly why our country is coming apart. The FAA NEEDS to do only one thing. Regulate airplanes and pilots. That's it, they don't need to make money on charts, they don't need to make money on anything, they are an arm of the federal govt. If they get out of the chart business tomorrow it can't be fast enough. Just put their airspace updates on a thumb drive(read only), stick in a server and publish the location. Come and get it. Comm vendors will download it, airlines, some private fliers, and we all go do our own thing. If a market remains for printed sectionals, then that market will be served by the vendors. If no market, then you roll your own down at the local Office Max. Digital charts would flourish, and there would be a stable, fast, accurate distribution of what the pilot NEEDS. Remember the pilot? He's that guy with his hand on the stick and throttle.

Why don't more people subscribe to Jeppessen products?

 

[SCCutler]

Why don't more people subscribe to Jeppessen products?

Priced 'em lately?

 

[timwinters]

I thinketh that waseth his pionteth.

 

[comanchepilot]

I guess the real question is what are we paying income/excise/ etc taxes for?

I always thought that we paid taxes for infrastructure and the people to maintain it - roads, ports and aviation resources. Then to see a 'fee' charged if you call the police or fire department seems so wrong then.

What happens now is that they spend all the money on worthless crap like 'green energy' or some such time waster, and then need money for the things they are supposed to do- and I include necessary welfare in that list of things that are what taxes are supposed to cover - then they run out and charge fees for things like ports, airports, and roads to cover the cost of the bureaucrats who create more cost and make work for people who pay the taxes. . . .

Towns and cities invent new things to do - tell you that they a) make you safer b) more efficient etc etc etc and then in 5-7 years tell you that you need to now pay for it with a user fee but never examine whether the thing is ever still actually needed. . . .

 

[iflyforfun]

the point being that out taxes are the lowest they've been in 60 years and we can't expect everything for free at those rates.

At the end of the day, this is just about the case. Other than 1934-43 and 1949-50, taxes as a percentage of GDP are the lowest they've been in the last 85 years.

If we want this stuff to be free, taxes need to go up. But it seems to me nobody wants taxes to go up, and nobody wants to give up any services. Hmm...

We can, and should, argue about how efficient our government is in spending our money, but when we drive tax receipts down, we have to find a way to pay for services we want. Privatize, fee for service or cut (or I guess, we can just keep on borrowing until no one will loan to us any more).

 

[ClimbnSink]

I dont know if in a non waste/redirected world the fuel tax would cover all of aviation infrastructure costs, but I doubt it. If not how much should everyone else(non pilots) chip in? Yea I know the arguments everyone benefits from GA, but the gov't funded art people say the same thing along with craploads of other gov't funded programs whose benefits most of us don't care about.

 

[aviatingfool]

Good idea! After all it's worked so well w/FSS.

It's now working a lot better than the Post Office :wink2:

 

[timwinters]

It's now working a lot better than the Post Office :wink2:

You try making money when your company is given a mandate (circa 2006) to fully fund pension plans for 75 years. i.e. the USPS is supposed to have pensions fully funded for workers who aren't even born yet. Saying any more would involve spin zone mat'l so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[pilot_dude]

With so few people flying part 91 it doesn't matter. Recreational GA is dying and all of these "few dollar" things just exacerbate its demise. I encourage the FAA to enact user fees, $250/year memberships for charts, $15.00/gallon fuel. Why postpone the inevitable?

 

[docmirror]

I really don't get people who segment aviation infrastructure from any other kind of 'promote the general welfare' project. We've spent and continue to spend hundreds of billions a year on our highway system, and good for us. Just like Rome, it provides a valuable national asset that everyone in the country benefits from. Even those who don't drive benefit in the form of deliverables right to the store within walking distance of that population.

So why should anyone in this country have anything to say about any airport or airway development by the feds/state. If the citizens don't want to use it, fine don't use it but if you do want to use it then go out there, get in a plane and fly. Should we shut down thousands of miles of interstate between Idaho and N Dakota because it's underutilized? We already have some segments of the interstate that are toll, and the program is expanding. WTF is up with that? Pay for an interstate to be built, then pay to use it too?

Bad plan all around. The airport and airway trust fund is raided every year since it's inception to offset failures in many other parts of govt. Why are we still supporting Amtrak for cripes sake. If you want to cut something, that's where I would start. Sure, support the rail system, but the passenger service? So, why don't we have an Amplane business model with the feds running an airline? Would you support that? It's crazy I tell ya. Provide fixed infrastructure and let the private companies use them to everyone's advantage. That goes for all the little airports around the country as well.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The roads provide immeasurable more benefit to people then GA infrastructure. Nice to have but the benefits to joe taxpayer are way overstated. Besides kill the gov't funding and the private market will fill the need where this one, a real need not imaginary GA utility fantasy crap.

 

[Alexb2000]

The roads provide immeasurable more benefit to people then GA infrastructure. Nice to have but the benefits to joe taxpayer are way overstated. Besides kill the gov't funding and the private market will fill the need where this one, a real need not imaginary GA utility fantasy crap.

I know where you're coming from, but universally it isn't true. GA in a place like Taos with no airline service is the source of huge local income. It allows people to fly in, spend lots of money, and ask nothing of the local government except to have an airport.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I know where you're coming from, but universally it isn't true. GA in a place like Taos with no airline service is the source of huge local income. It allows people to fly in, spend lots of money, and ask nothing of the local government except to have an airport.

If it is that valuable then the local ski area/hotels/developers should build an airport. Why should my taxes subsidize private business 3,000 miles away?

 

[rcpilot]

I guess the real question is what are we paying income/excise/ etc taxes for?

I always thought that we paid taxes for infrastructure and the people to maintain it - roads, ports and aviation resources. Then to see a 'fee' charged if you call the police or fire department seems so wrong then.

What happens now is that they spend all the money on worthless crap like 'green energy' or some such time waster, and then need money for the things they are supposed to do- and I include necessary welfare in that list of things that are what taxes are supposed to cover - then they run out and charge fees for things like ports, airports, and roads to cover the cost of the bureaucrats who create more cost and make work for people who pay the taxes. . . .

Towns and cities invent new things to do - tell you that they a) make you safer b) more efficient etc etc etc and then in 5-7 years tell you that you need to now pay for it with a user fee but never examine whether the thing is ever still actually needed. . . .

One man's waste is another man's good spending. The point could easily be made that subsidizing an inefficient, highly polluting means of travel is a tremendous waste, and that it's not still needed. Given how effective the airlines are for most people, it's harder to try to convince them otherwise.

And more people would probably agree with that than the whole "green energy" thing. Maybe not around here, but pilot forums aren't exactly a powerful originator of public policy.

 

[Alexb2000]

If it is that valuable then the local ski area/hotels/developers should build an airport. Why should my taxes subsidize private business 3,000 miles away?

So, we should only pay taxes for the things that effect us personally and then only if we chose to?

 

[poadeleted21]

What "Close the Airport" organization do you guys belong to? You'd probably be a lot more effective in realizing your utopia by joining one.

 

[poadeleted21]

One man's waste is another man's good spending. The point could easily be made that subsidizing an inefficient, highly polluting means of travel is a tremendous waste, and that it's not still needed. Given how effective the airlines are for most people, it's harder to try to convince them otherwise.

And more people would probably agree with that than the whole "green energy" thing. Maybe not around here, but pilot forums aren't exactly a powerful originator of public policy.

Who knew you could just grow airline pilots on trees?

 

[ClimbnSink]

So, we should only pay taxes for the things that effect us personally and then only if we chose to?

The govt shouldnt build things because they benefit a tiny population, be it pilots, resort owners, or hipster artists. Open that door, which we have, and it never ends. Well it will end, but not pretty.

 

[ClimbnSink]

What "Close the Airport" organization do you guys belong to? You'd probably be a lot more effective in realizing your utopia by joining one.

Almostall of my flying is outof private airports, we could cut airport funding to zero and I wouldnt blink.

 

[Alexb2000]

The govt shouldnt build things because they benefit a tiny population, be it pilots, resort owners, or hipster artists. Open that door, which we have, and it never ends. Well it will end, but not pretty.

Pretty sad to see a pilot so negative about aviation and things in general.