That $100 thing

O

onwards

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
1,998
Location
CA
Display Name
Display name:
onwards
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.
 
onwards said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since the airplanes with reciprocating engnes are not included, the $100 fee would not do much to affect the spam can and backwater FBOs right away. However, it's the principle that matters. Once the fees are in, it is only a matter of time when they are raised much higher than $100 and extended to piston twins, high performance singles, and eventually everyone.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Since the airplanes with reciprocating engnes are not included, the $100 fee would not do much to affect the spam can and backwater FBOs right away. However, it's the principle that matters. Once the fees are in, it is only a matter of time when they are raised much higher than $100 and extended to piston twins, high performance singles, and eventually everyone.
Click to expand...


Right on the money. There has never been a beauracrat that saw a fee that he didn't want to increase.
 
MBDiagMan said:
On one of the forums I read, I saw an article Friday that indicated it was Obama, not the congress or a committee.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be diplomatic and keep this out of the SZ. ;)

Yes, if you like user fees vote for Obama. Eventually, we will all be considered rich enough to tax more. :mad2:
 
zaitcev said:
Since the airplanes with reciprocating engnes are not included.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
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...

Its correct.

Those are "AND" statements tied by a comma. That means all conditions independently of each other are true.

Good question on the definition of controlled airspace. I suspect that will probably net out to a question: "Did you use ATC?" Yay or nay.
 
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.
 
Does anyone have a good site for AvGas tax breakdowns? I've seen similar charts for MoGas in the past, but I don't know if I've ever seen anything for AvGas. I'm thinking of something that shows:
Bulk fuel price: $X/gal
+ Federal: $Y/gal
+ State Tax: $Z/gal
+ Local Tax: $Q/gal
+ etc.
= $Price at Pump

I would be interested to know how much tax I'm paying for the hours that I'm NOT using ATC services vs. the taxes paid when I AM using ATC services. Considering ~90% of my flying for the past year or so has been sans-ATC, I have been paying for services that I have not been using.
 
Yeah, I'm trying to read up on it - realize I'm late to the game - but it seems like this might well apply to us flying the single engine pistons locally too. An extra $100 for a $100-$150 flight changes it from "possible" to "too expensive", for me anyway. I suppose it wouldn't be that bad for a longer flight that cost $1000, but the vast majority of GA flights are a lot shorter than that, no?
 
SkyHog said:
Its correct.
Click to expand...
Indeed Dan blew it, and in such a big letters too. However, there's still a problem with those little airplanes being "recreational". Know the ruling in the Sport Pilot? "Not in the furtherance of a business", so that Bo in which you make a sales trip is not "recreational". Voila, that will be $200 please.
 
zaitcev said:
Indeed Dan blew it, and in such a big letters too. However, there's still a problem with those little airplanes being "recreational". Know the ruling in the Sport Pilot? "Not in the furtherance of a business", so that Bo in which you make a sales trip is not "recreational". Voila, that will be $200 please.
Click to expand...


Nonsense... read the sentence. There is no implied "or" in the administration's comprehensive list.

Fly GA in "controlled airspace"? You're NOT exempt.
 
zaitcev said:
Since the airplanes with reciprocating engnes are not included, the $100 fee would not do much to affect the spam can and backwater FBOs right away. However, it's the principle that matters. Once the fees are in, it is only a matter of time when they are raised much higher than $100 and extended to piston twins, high performance singles, and eventually everyone.
Click to expand...

EAA says pistons are included

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service," Hyde said in reference to air traffic services, including piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Its correct.

Those are "AND" statements tied by a comma. That means all conditions independently of each other are true.

Good question on the definition of controlled airspace. I suspect that will probably net out to a question: "Did you use ATC?" Yay or nay.
Click to expand...

Here is part of the statement from the Whitehouse. I am afraid you are incorrect

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service," Hyde said in reference to air traffic services, including piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace.
 
zaitcev said:
Indeed Dan blew it, and in such a big letters too. However, there's still a problem with those little airplanes being "recreational". Know the ruling in the Sport Pilot? "Not in the furtherance of a business", so that Bo in which you make a sales trip is not "recreational". Voila, that will be $200 please.
Click to expand...

sorry you are wrong according to EAA that quotes the Whitehouse, time to wake up and call anyone you can to stop Obama on this

"We have concluded that a $100 per flight user fee is an equitable way for those who benefit to bear the cost of this essential service," Hyde said in reference to air traffic services, including piston-powered aircraft in controlled airspace.

Last I recall class E is controlled airpsace



Class Controlled IFR SVFR VFR ATC Clearance Separation Traffic Information

A Controlled Yes Yes No Required Provided for all flights N/A

B Controlled Yes Yes Yes Required Provided for all flights N/A

C Controlled Yes Yes Yes Required Provided for all IFR/SVFR Provided for all VFR

D Controlled Yes Yes Yes Required Provided for IFR/SVFR to other IFR/SVFR Provided for all IFR and VFR

E Controlled Yes Yes Yes Required for IFR Provided for IFR/SVFR to other IFR/SVFR Provided for all IFR where possible, to VFR where possible but only when requested

F Uncontrolled Yes No Yes Not Required Provided for
IFR/SVFR to other IFR/SVFR where possible Provided where possible

G Uncontrolled Yes No Yes Not Required Not provided Provided where possible
 
Last edited:
Just got a blurb from AOPA which indicates they think it's going to be part of a budget proposal to Congress, as opposed to an NPRM and rulemaking to enact the fee.

Time will tell. Regardless, complaining to Congress is the only option we have.
 
TMetzinger said:
Just got a blurb from AOPA which indicates they think it's going to be part of a budget proposal to Congress, as opposed to an NPRM and rulemaking to enact the fee.

Time will tell. Regardless, complaining to Congress is the only option we have.
Click to expand...

Until November
 
dennyleeb said:
Until November
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think this is something they all are dying to do, because it's a populist notion. I do have to say, I'm surprised to find that attitude in the US; growing up in Israel where socialism and the accompanying sentiment is pretty strong, the idea of various luxury taxes is sort of ingrained, but in big ol' US of A?
 
gcd89 said:
What happens then? You elect a Bush/Obama clone will push the law through anyway?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I understand the FAA needs cash, and that's where I understand the need for some sort of revenue proposal. Fine. Charge us an annual fee of some sort. Don't charge us per flight. Don't charge us a whole bunch of money for "charts". Come up with a better answer.

I'm writing my SOPA letter today to my MoC. Guess I'll write this letter, too.
 
ChrisK said:
I understand the FAA needs cash, and that's where I understand the need for some sort of revenue proposal. Fine. Charge us an annual fee of some sort. Don't charge us per flight. Don't charge us a whole bunch of money for "charts". Come up with a better answer.

I'm writing my SOPA letter today to my MoC. Guess I'll write this letter, too.
Click to expand...

agree, but that makes to much sense

Just made my donation to the AOPA PAC. Hope you all care enough to do the same. While calling your congressman or senator may help unless you know them personally it will not do very much. Help those who are fighting for us. To those who rip on AOPA and EAA quit being so damn cheap and blaming it on other things.
 
Last edited:
They're just wanting to make sure the $100 hamburger is a $100 hamburger. ;)
 
ChrisK said:
I understand the FAA needs cash, and that's where I understand the need for some sort of revenue proposal. Fine. Charge us an annual fee of some sort. Don't charge us per flight. Don't charge us a whole bunch of money for "charts". Come up with a better answer.
Click to expand...

For what? That's all I want to know.

I'm certain there's useless waste *somewhere* within FAA that could be cut to offset infrastructure service costs.

No one is willing to do it.

I haven't worked for a company in my lifetime yet that hasn't undergone a layoff of at least double digit percentages of their employees and restructuring at some point in time.

Why are government agencies typically immune to such things?

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.

Government and Clergy seem to be the only careers left that have such longevity. ;)

It's time for a hard look at priorities. Not everything government does is necessary or even positive.

There's at least 10% that could go away overnight with no significant impact to anything that will matter in ten years. That'd be a good start.
 
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...


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.
 
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...

and that is the bottom line

it is just to make him look good for going after the "rich"
 
Why they need money for nextgen of course.

And who will that benefit the most, and why are they doing it?
For the AIRLINES!!
 
dell30rb said:
And who will that benefit the most, and why are they doing it?
For the AIRLINES!!
Click to expand...

If they want new toys for their cattle cars they can go buy their own new junk to play with.

What's next? Will they want GA to buy them those silly looking roll around boarding tunnel things for their airplanes? Maybe GA should pay for brand new airline only airports while we are at it.

it is just to make him look good for going after the "rich"
Click to expand...

Well I'm one of those filthy 'rich' pilots. I would love to take my financial stuff to DC and show them exactly how rich all of us rich pilots really are and let them start making decisions based on that. If they use me as a reference point, I could probably get avgas down to about 8 cents a gallon including tax.
 
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...

Obama isn't "my guy". That's kinda my point.

In Nov. he could very well be replaced by someone who will pass the law anyway considering everyone on the Repub. side agrees with him on every other issue.
 
Wait - I'm not the only one who rents planes from the flying club on a credit card???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top