That $100 thing

Anthony said:
While the ideas of user fees has been floated under a Republican President, this is the first time it has happened when a sitting President has specifically identified General Aviation, business jets, etc as a problem. I fear he will continue to use class warfare to push this through, and further destroy the light plane industry.
Click to expand...


Of course. All those fat cats flying around in private airplanes...


As opposed to those fat cats flying around on Government airplanes....
 
dmccormack said:
INCORRECT

The proposal exempts "military aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, aircraft operated by the federal government, and Canada-to-Canada flights."

Where is "controlled airspace"?
Click to expand...

While I disagree with the bill out of principal, you are wrong. It clearly says "recreational piston aircraft" are exempt. It's right there! That list is everything that is EXEMPT. This is most everyone here, and those here that WOULD be effected by it, are employed by airlines.
 
onwards said:
How real is it?

Seems like congress, via the GA caucus, is pretty adamant in its opposition. Can it really happen?

And if it does, what would it do to you? I know that, for me, it will basically kill most of my flying, making it so uneconomical as to be pointless. I will likely continue to fly occasionally but certainly a lot less than the 10 hours a month or so I average now. I presume my skills will lessen considerably over time. Is that a consideration at all?

I have also put the plane buying project on indefinite hold at the moment, which is unfortunate because I was looking forward to the experience of ownership. It's just that if I am going to fly only 30-40 hours a year, owning really doesn't make sense.

What do you folks think? are these concerns common? seems to me like this would drastically reduce general aviation, but maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


If an extra $100 a flight is going to keep you from flying your jet or turboprop around, you probably weren't in the financial position to be buying one anyway. Might want to consider going to a recip and avoiding the fee.

The proposal exempts "military aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, aircraft operated by the federal government, and Canada-to-Canada flights."
 
Henning said:
The proposal exempts "military aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, aircraft operated by the federal government, and Canada-to-Canada flights."
Click to expand...

The proposal as it stands right now. Which likely has but a minimal resemblance to whatever will finally get enacted.
 
dennyleeb said:
I am not gonna get to political here but you and everyone else knows this crap is all Obama. Now if you wanna look the other way because he is "your guy" then do so. But don't lie to yourself.
Click to expand...

Both Bush's and Clinton backed user fees.........
 
Henning said:
The proposal exempts "military aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, aircraft operated by the federal government, and Canada-to-Canada flights."
Click to expand...

That word "recreational" is the foot in the barn door. It'll be how the interpretation of the law is slowly changed over time.
 
Henning said:
If an extra $100 a flight is going to keep you from flying your jet or turboprop around, you probably weren't in the financial position to be buying one anyway. Might want to consider going to a recip and avoiding the fee.
Click to expand...

What do you think about 135 operators who fly 4-5 hops a day?

Sure it does not hurt MOST of the turbine operators significantly, but what about the commercial pilot who flies a cherokee six around all day? He's going to lose money if he has to shell out 400 bucks a day to the FAA
 
denverpilot said:
That word "recreational" is the foot in the barn door. It'll be how the interpretation of the law is slowly changed over time.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Plus, how much paperwork (read '$$') is going to be spent proving that a flight is "recreational"?

And even after the paperwork, how about charity (Angel Flight, Cloud Nine, etc.), since they aren't recreational or air ambulance? Kiss sky diving goodbye. And flight instruction isn't recreational, is it? Suddenly every IFR lesson where you talk to a controller costs an extra $100?:yikes:
 
Well they already say "VFR practice approach approved, no services provided." Might as well turn off the radio. One less distraction. LOL! ;)
 
dell30rb said:
What do you think about 135 operators who fly 4-5 hops a day?

Sure it does not hurt MOST of the turbine operators significantly, but what about the commercial pilot who flies a cherokee six around all day? He's going to lose money if he has to shell out 400 bucks a day to the FAA
Click to expand...


??? No he's not, he's gonna do just like the airlines do and pass those costs along to his customers. If he doesn't he's too much of an idiot to be in business anyway.
 
Henning said:
If an extra $100 a flight is going to keep you from flying your jet or turboprop around, you probably weren't in the financial position to be buying one anyway. Might want to consider going to a recip and avoiding the fee.

The proposal exempts "military aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, aircraft operated by the federal government, and Canada-to-Canada flights."
Click to expand...

How can you quote that and not read the whole sentence which states "aircraft operating outside controlled airspace."?

Even ifmost of GA is excluded (which is not clear), it's fits the divide and conquer approach of this administration, who love to toss out inane, undefinable gems:


  • "Working families" vs "Fatcats"
  • "Working people" vs. "Wealthy"
  • "Fair share"
Nevertheless, it will end soon. I predict a trouncing on the order of Reagan v Carter (FWIW the same news morons were calling is a "close race" in 1980)

1980.png
 
dmccormack said:
How can you quote that and not read the whole sentence which states "aircraft operating outside controlled airspace."?


1980.png
Click to expand...

Because I learned to read English and I know the meaning of a comma in a sentence. "recreational piston powered planes", "aircraft operating outside controlled airspace" are two different categories both excluded from the rule, not one as a stipulation of the other. All those comma seperated values are individual exclusions from the rule. You don't have to combine all of them to be exempt.

This is why letting everybody vote is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
  • "Working families" vs "Fatcats"
  • "Working people" vs. "Wealthy"
  • "Fair share"
Nevertheless, it will end soon. I predict a trouncing on the order of Reagan v Carter (FWIW the same news morons were calling is a "close race" in 1980)

1980.png
Click to expand...


We can only hope. The climate for users fees on us "little guys" (single, and twin engine pistons) is at its zenith right now. November has a potentially great impact on General Aviation, and other areas affecting freedoms we all enjoy. I think GA is a good barometer of such things, and a litmus test for much of what we value in the U.S.
 
Anthony said:
We can only hope. The climate for users fees on us "little guys" (single, and twin engine pistons) is at its zenith right now. November has a potentially great impact on General Aviation, and other areas affecting freedoms we all enjoy. I think GA is a good barometer of such things, and a litmus test for much of what we value in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Selfishness and waste? Yeah, that's true Conservative American Values.
 
Henning said:
Selfishness and waste? Yeah, that's true Conservative American Values.
Click to expand...


So we are selfish and wasteful by flying small airplanes on our own dime? We work hard, pay for this stuff ourselves, don't ask for handouts or bailouts and that is selfish?

We give free rides, help fly sick people for free, fly abandoned dogs, aid rescues, and enjoy our passion. That's selfish and wasteful too?
 
Henning said:
Because I learned to read English and I know the meaning of a comma in a sentence. "recreational piston powered planes", "aircraft operating outside controlled airspace" are two different categories both excluded from the rule, not one as a stipulation of the other. All those comma seperated values are individual exclusions from the rule. You don't have to combine all of them to be exempt.

This is why letting everybody vote is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no experience with government documents...
 
Anthony said:
We can only hope. The climate for users fees on us "little guys" (single, and twin engine pistons) is at its zenith right now. November has a potentially great impact on General Aviation, and other areas affecting freedoms we all enjoy. I think GA is a good barometer of such things, and a litmus test for much of what we value in the U.S.
Click to expand...


I think it's far more than hope -- there's plenty of evidence. Ask co-workers, family, friends, etc who voted for "Hope and Change" last time.

They'll be staying home or going the other way -- no matter who is on the ticket, given the abject failure of these core beliefs:
  • More government spending & borrowing = economic growth
  • Increasing taxes has no impact on jobs
  • Cap and Trade is needed to fight "Climate change"
  • Government should manage medical services
  • Minimize domestic energy production
  • Promote centralized power
  • Blame everyone else
 
Henning said:
gprellwitz said:
Yeah. Plus, how much paperwork (read '$$') is going to be spent proving that a flight is "recreational"?
Click to expand...
??? How will it be any different from determining that right now which we do also?
Click to expand...

Where do we do that now? I predict that they will be sending a bill for $100 to the plane owner every time they tail number is seen in controlled airspace based on a mode-S transponder code, which will now be required in all controlled airspace, not just class C through A. The owner will then be required to show how they are exempted, and auditors will come around to select owners asking them to prove their exemption.

Okay, maybe that's a little hyperbole and overly pessimistic. But I do think that auditors will be involved, and that owners will need to at least attest that a particular flight was recreational and not otherwise. That's new.
 
gprellwitz said:
Where do we do that now? I predict that they will be sending a bill for $100 to the plane owner every time they tail number is seen in controlled airspace based on a mode-S transponder code, which will now be required in all controlled airspace, not just class C through A. The owner will then be required to show how they are exempted, and auditors will come around to select owners asking them to prove their exemption.

Okay, maybe that's a little hyperbole and overly pessimistic. But I do think that auditors will be involved, and that owners will need to at least attest that a particular flight was recreational and not otherwise. That's new.
Click to expand...

We do it when we determine in Pt 135 applies or if we can deduct the flight from taxes.
 
Once again, ho hum. Every administration since I started flying has pitched user fees. Probably they did it before that. It makes good sense for the Executive to try and collect taxes (which is what a user fee is) independent of Congress, since Congress has a nasty habit of not going along.

Really, all responsible and clever pilots have to do is suggest to the appropriate Congresspeople that such Executive taxes are not in the best interests of the Legislative branch. My guess is it wouldn't take much convincing.

But instead you'll all ***** and moan about Obama on a web board. Good for you. That's really going to change things.
 
Ron Levy said:
The place to stop this is where similar proposals have been stopped before -- Congress. Write to your Reps and Sens and make your feelings known.
Click to expand...


Done, and done. I wrote to my 3 reps in DC the day that notice was posted. I actually got a phone call yesterday afternoon from the office of one of my Senators letting me know his opposition to the plan, too.
 
Henning said:
We do it when we determine in Pt 135 applies or if we can deduct the flight from taxes.
Click to expand...
I agree that we think about the issues, but there is no paperwork or auditing involved with those unless you elect to use it as a deduction. (I don't fly part 135, so can't speak to the paperwork there.) I don't consider the cases to be very comparable, but perhaps you do.
 
Henning said:
??? No he's not, he's gonna do just like the airlines do and pass those costs along to his customers. If he doesn't he's too much of an idiot to be in business anyway.
Click to expand...

NO, HE WILL TRY TO PASS THE COST ALONG AND IT WILL BE TO HIGH FOR THAT PERSON AND THEY WILL USE A DIFFERENT FORM OF TRANSPORT AND THE GUY WITH THE PLANE GOES OUT OF BUSINESS. HAVE YOU EVER RUN A SUCCESSFULL BUSINESS FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME? NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. (SORRY ABOUT THE ALL CAPS, MY BUTTON IS STUCK)
 
Matthew said:
Done, and done. I wrote to my 3 reps in DC the day that notice was posted. I actually got a phone call yesterday afternoon from the office of one of my Senators letting me know his opposition to the plan, too.
Click to expand...

WRITING TO YOUR REPS DOES JUST ABOUT NOTHING (THEY NEVER EVEN SEE IT)

HELP SUPPORT AOPA PAC SO THEY CAN TAKE THEM OUT TO DINNER AND GET THEM DRINKS AND MAYBE A LITTLE MORE (THAT WORKS)
 
dennyleeb said:
WRITING TO YOUR REPS DOES JUST ABOUT NOTHING (THEY NEVER EVEN SEE IT)
Click to expand...

If you send something to the representatives and they or their mail opening people do the drone mode routine of "airplane comment, respond with canned form saying yes we are against GA and need them to pay more too" does that go into a database and report score to the representative that says GA=0 airlines=1 fees=1 that he goes off and does his political voting for?

Just asking because almost all the things I've sent in have been answered back in a way that I think they turn my comment/vote over to the bad guys that I'm against. I could probably send them "airlines suck, GA good" and they would send back a form saying "we agree too, airlines good, GA suck and will vote against GA for you during the next voting session." I sometimes think I'm inadvertently working against what I'm trying to accomplish when I send something to them. I'd hate to be the person who caused GA to go extinct.
 
fgcason said:
If you send something to the representatives and they or their mail opening people do the drone mode routine of "airplane comment, respond with canned form saying yes we are against GA and need them to pay more too" does that go into a database and report score to the representative that says GA=0 airlines=1 fees=1 that he goes off and does his political voting for?

Just asking because almost all the things I've sent in have been answered back in a way that I think they turn my comment/vote over to the bad guys that I'm against. I could probably send them "airlines suck, GA good" and they would send back a form saying "we agree too, airlines good, GA suck and will vote against GA for you during the next voting session." I sometimes think I'm inadvertently working against what I'm trying to accomplish when I send something to them. I'd hate to be the person who caused GA to go extinct.
Click to expand...

My aunt works for our local congressman and that is exactly her job, letters or the message hardly ever get beyond the front desk. Even if you went to see them in person they are gonna just tell you want you want to hear unless your are a major donor. Just how it works even though it sucks. The AOPA will spend time and money lobbying in a much more meaningful and effective way.
 
Done correctly, I do not think privatizing ATC would cause GA much damage.

However, a "user fee" as proposed by the Obama (and past) administrations is not the same as privatizing ATC, since the FAA can institute a user fee while keeping ATC a part of the FAA. In that scenario a user fee is the worst of all possible scenarios.

Nav Canada was privatized years ago and its user fee schedule is tiered based roughly on the value of the ATC services to the customers, not on the unit cost to provide such services. So a Cessna 150 flying IFR isn't charged the same a Boeing 747 flying IFR. So far as I can tell by the Nav Canada Customer Guide, the owner of the C-150 pays a flat C$68/year to use ATC services. No per flight or per kilometer charge. Only aircraft of 3 metric tons or more see per flight usage charges. If you fail to pay the charges, you will be denied ATC services (except in emergencies.)
 
MBDiagMan said:
Has anyone been able to determine what exactly a "recreational piston powered airplane" is?
Click to expand...
No.

Most pistons that I have seen are aluminum with some steel inserts. It is not clear what would make one piston recreational and another not...
 
I have a little different twist on this. My effective tax rate is close to 50% and I use few to none of the services they provide. I don't have kids in school, I don't use any of the social programs, etc. I do use the transportation assets of our country and would expect that between my general taxation and the fuel tax there should be enough money for me to have paid my "fair" share.

Further, this has little to do with paying for the FAA, it's about reducing the deficit (or appearing to do so). If there are 220,000 Civil Aircraft registered in the U.S. and each of them make 10 IFR flights a year at $100, what's that $220,000,000, or even a 50 flights a year (yeah right) $11,000,000,000. The Deficit is ~$15,200,000,000,000 and growing at $1.5 to 2 trillion a year! This revenue best case is a fourth digit rounding error that will have no material impact on the deficit. However, it will certainly have an impact on a lot of private GA related business'.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I have a little different twist on this. My effective tax rate is close to 50%
Click to expand...


When I add Federal, State, and Local income taxes, SS Tax, Various Sales Taxes, Utility "Fees", Property/Real Estate taxes, School Tax, Occupational Privilege Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and several taxes I don't remember right now, my effective tax rate approaches 50% as well. Add in healthcare payroll deductions, and my take home net pay is under 50% of my gross pay.

I know some others are less, and some are more, but still, I don't understand how people can be OK with this and also want to raise tax rates to fund more government waste. Do people really look at wht they pay in taxes or is it that it is mostly deducted from pay checks, and we never "see" it?
 
denverpilot said:
We The People suffer under the possibility of job loss due to fiscal realities, every day when we head to the office, no matter how big or successful the company. A 20 year employee is such a rarity that they're a water cooler topic.
Click to expand...

My boss just hit 30 years with the company. I fully expect to hit 22 before I retire.

Alexb2000 said:
I have a little different twist on this. My effective tax rate is close to 50% and I use few to none of the services they provide. I don't have kids in school, I don't use any of the social programs, etc. I do use the transportation assets of our country and would expect that between my general taxation and the fuel tax there should be enough money for me to have paid my "fair" share.

Further, this has little to do with paying for the FAA, it's about reducing the deficit (or appearing to do so). If there are 220,000 Civil Aircraft registered in the U.S. and each of them make 10 IFR flights a year at $100, what's that $220,000,000, or even a 50 flights a year (yeah right) $11,000,000,000. The Deficit is ~$15,200,000,000,000 and growing at $1.5 to 2 trillion a year! This revenue best case is a fourth digit rounding error that will have no material impact on the deficit. However, it will certainly have an impact on a lot of private GA related business'.
Click to expand...

True.

Anthony said:
When I add Federal, State, and Local income taxes, SS Tax, Various Sales Taxes, Utility "Fees", Property/Real Estate taxes, School Tax, Occupational Privilege Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and several taxes I don't remember right now, my effective tax rate approaches 50% as well. Add in healthcare payroll deductions, and my take home net pay is under 50% of my gross pay.

I know some others are less, and some are more, but still, I don't understand how people can be OK with this and also want to raise tax rates to fund more government waste. Do people really look at wht they pay in taxes or is it that it is mostly deducted from pay checks, and we never "see" it?
Click to expand...

Just had a discussion with a coworker in Belgium. We were talking (e-mailing) about upcoming bonuses and he commented that the government was going to get more of his bonus than he would. And he's just talking income tax. :yikes: No way do I support that BS.
 
They get a lot for their money in Belgium. Health care, child care, retirement, a lot. The folks I talked to seemed pretty happy with it.
 
Ghery said:
Just had a discussion with a coworker in Belgium. We were talking (e-mailing) about upcoming bonuses and he commented that the government was going to get more of his bonus than he would. And he's just talking income tax. :yikes: No way do I support that BS.
Click to expand...



Well that is where we are headed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top