User Fees

[spiderweb]

What's the status? Is this likely to go through?

And if it does, will it only mainly affect "heavy" GA, and not spam-can drivers?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Dunno the AOPA fundraising/membership drive is over.

 

[Captain]

Camels nose. I pray is doesn't go through.

 

[Datadriver]

Aopa cannot exist without the threat of user fees.

 

[murphey]

There's been a huge effort against it. Among the more important group, more than 30 mayors of major cities have written to the WH expressing opposition. Both the House and Senate have also expressed opposition. Unless something radical happens this year, it may be dead until 2013. But dont't let that stop you from writing your Congresscritters to express your opposition.

 

[Tom-D]

The FAA funding was in the recently passed transportation budget, stop gap measure, no user fees were included.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-usa-transport-congress-idUSBRE82R1LG20120329

 

[Captain]

Aopa cannot exist without the threat of user fees.

Interesting point I'd not thought about. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, do you think they (AOPA) actively lobby to keep user fees on the table?

 

[Tom-D]

Interesting point I'd not thought about. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, do you think they (AOPA) actively lobby to keep user fees on the table?

I remember the days when they bragged how successful they were at keeping fuel prices low. Now that, That has gone away what's left?

 

[steingar]

Every year every administration has proposed user fees since I started flying. I doubt it started then, either.

 

[Tom-D]

Every year every administration has proposed user fees since I started flying. I doubt it started then, either.

If they would drop the Gas tax, I wouldn't mind paying for my usage of the system, providing of course the fees were reasonable.

But have you ever seen the government give up a tax?

 

[steingar]

If they would drop the Gas tax, I wouldn't mind paying for my usage of the system, providing of course the fees were reasonable.

But have you ever seen the government give up a tax?

A fuel tax makes really good sense. Automatically metering, can be tied to the cost of the gasoline itself, and you burn it when you fly. You can get around it by using auto gas, but that gets harder as more places put booze in it.

A user fee only makes sense to the Executive branch of the Federal government, as it allows that branch to levy a tax independent of Congress. Fortunately for us, as much as we dislike Congresscritters they are anything but stupid, and have consistently refused to institute such fees.

 

[denverpilot]

I remember the days when they bragged how successful they were at keeping fuel prices low. Now that, That has gone away what's left?

Thus the joint announcement by AOPA and EAA that they've essentially "written a letter" asking FAA to allow medical self-certification. There's not much else that either organization can effectively change to maintain their membership bases.

 

[Captain]

Thus the joint announcement by AOPA and EAA that they've essentially "written a letter" asking FAA to allow medical self-certification. There's not much else that either organization can effectively change to maintain their membership bases.

What perfect timing, what with the JB Captain tripping off line and the 82 year old woman landing/crashing herself when her pilot husband died in flight.

 

[denverpilot]

What perfect timing, what with the JB Captain tripping off line and the 82 year old woman landing/crashing herself when her pilot husband died in flight.

Yeah. That's not going to help their case any.

They're magazine companies at this point. EAA sponsors a lot more stuff out in the "real world" of aviation than AOPA does, so dollar for dollar they win. More of my dollars go toward actual flying with them.

AOPA and more directly, AOPA PAC are the common man's way to purchase a Senator or three. That seems to be their role outside of the magazine.

 

[tonycondon]

lol i doubt the AOPA PAC holds a candle to many other organizations which actually could "purchase a Senator"

 

[Jim Logajan]

So the consensus is that if AOPA ceased operation there would be no future negative consequences to general aviation?

 

[denverpilot]

So the consensus is that if AOPA ceased operation there would be no future negative consequences to general aviation?

Honestly, not much. Not since Boyer left. Losing him we lost a savvy media-connected voice. He was pretty tireless in front of the Press. Nobody's putting Fuller on the news after accidents and to give on-air opinions about things related to FAA in Washington.

A lot of advertisers would get some money back and EAA would pick up the crumbs, including the Political "mission".

Perhaps AOPA Legal Services would spin off as a private entity.

Doc has shared some insights about the Medical plan thing that would indicate to me that it would just fold up.

ASF is already separate but they do get some budget from the general pool, I believe. Downsizing them might be the biggest tragic side effect.

And the wine club would cease to exist.

Can anyone name a benefit that they can't find cheaper if they shop around?

Insurance? No. Rental car discounts? No. Credit card bennies? No. Online flight planner? No. Forums? (Hell) no.

I can't think of one. But I'm still blindly renewing my membership.

Their only real plus is that they're the "Big Tent". Right or wrong for homebuilders, EAA is gunning for that spot too.

 

[MBDiagMan]

If they would drop the Gas tax, I wouldn't mind paying for my usage of the system, providing of course the fees were reasonable.

But have you ever seen the government give up a tax?

Ain't gonna happen! That said, remember, income tax is only temporary. It was passed to pay off the war debt, Spanish-American that is.(I think it was that one) I guess temporary means no more than 400 years.

 

[heilmanbw]

Sad thing too is that once the government got their hands on money from one area of GA they could justify (in their minds) getting it from another. So as of right now the proposal wouldn't affect single engine piston aircraft right?

 

[Captain]

Good points Denver. Maybe the EAA would be well served to remove the 'Experimental' from their name. Seems to me it sort of pigeon holes them.

 

[steingar]

Ain't gonna happen! That said, remember, income tax is only temporary. It was passed to pay off the war debt, Spanish-American that is.(I think it was that one) I guess temporary means no more than 400 years.

The income tax was heavily endorsed by those promoting Prohibition. It was never intended to be temporary (which is why they passed a Constitutional amendment). Then again, neither was Prohibition. Up until the passage of the Income tax the Federal government mostly operated off of taxes on whiskey and other alcoholic beverages.

 

[ClimbnSink]

User fees make sense to me. I don't use ATC services but pay for them. Any user fee is going to be in addition to what we have now, so I don't support them. But I would gladly switch from fuel to fee for service. Stop all those IFR guys from freeloading off my fuel purchases.

A fuel tax makes really good sense. Automatically metering, can be tied to the cost of the gasoline itself, and you burn it when you fly. You can get around it by using auto gas, but that gets harder as more places put booze in it.

A user fee only makes sense to the Executive branch of the Federal government, as it allows that branch to levy a tax independent of Congress. Fortunately for us, as much as we dislike Congresscritters they are anything but stupid, and have consistently refused to institute such fees.

 

[steingar]

User fees make sense to me. I don't use ATC services but pay for them. Any user fee is going to be in addition to what we have now, so I don't support them. But I would gladly switch from fuel to fee for service. Stop all those IFR guys from freeloading off my fuel purchases.

We GA pilots are the freeloaders, and in a big way. Our fuel tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for all the airports and navigational aids we use.

 

[ClimbnSink]

We GA pilots are the freeloaders, and in a big way. Our fuel tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for all the airports and navigational aids we use.

True but I usually fly out of privately owned airports and don't use ATC services.

 

[steingar]

True but I usually fly out of privately owned airports and don't use ATC services.

You don't land at other airports? Don't use VORs? GPS? Navigational charts? Do you really think that what you pay in fuel tax covers any of these?

 

[N801BH]

Interesting point I'd not thought about. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, do you think they (AOPA) actively lobby to keep user fees on the table?

Geez Captain... get up to speed....

User fees to AOPA is like computer viruses to Norton, Mc Afee and other anti virus software providers.... You can bet they are behind ALOT of the Virus, Malware and other nasty stuff that will infect your computer.... It makes for continued business..

 

[DaleB]

User fees to AOPA is like computer viruses to Norton, Mc Afee and other anti virus software providers.... You can bet they are behind ALOT of the Virus, Malware and other nasty stuff that will infect your computer.... It makes for continued business..

Naaaah. You just have to pick a can't-miss, surefire thing to fight. Like the government trying to get more of your money. I mean, come on... as long as the sun rises in the East that will happen, and when the sun burns out they'll ask for more to study the problem.

AOPA doesn't HAVE to pay people to try and impose user fees on GA. We, the taxpayers, already do that.

 

[N801BH]

Naaaah. You just have to pick a can't-miss, surefire thing to fight. Like the government trying to get more of your money. I mean, come on... as long as the sun rises in the East that will happen, and when the sun burns out they'll ask for more to study the problem.

AOPA doesn't HAVE to pay people to try and impose user fees on GA. We, the taxpayers, already do that.

Agreed...

 

[ronnieh]

There are two sides to this story. If user fees could be applied fairly and not get out of hand it could work. However, when have you ever seen a new tax not get out of hand? A couple years ago I flew to Honduras. Kerosene was about $1.25/gal cheaper than the cheapest places in the states. The user fees for the round trip was just north of $500. I used about 600 gallons of fuel round trip for the portion of the flight that was subject to user fees. Pretty much of a trade off IF I could have bought the fuel down there for both legs. Buying enough fuel to get back to N.O. saved me about $350.
But, I am against user fees. They want to add user fees to the existing fuel tax. And as someone pointed out there is the camel and his nose.

 

[bbchien]

Well, even though I have resigned from the now nonexistent Board of Aviation Medical Advisors (there is AN advisor remaining), I will say, that user fees remain a "lay down before the tractor" issue for AOPA.

 

[denverpilot]

Well, even though I have resigned from the now nonexistent Board of Aviation Medical Advisors (there is AN advisor remaining), I will say, that user fees remain a "lay down before the tractor" issue for AOPA.

I have a feeling they'll get run over.

 

[bbchien]

...maybe so......but still worth $45.00.

I think the problem is that Phil left the assn. in a weakened condition. Craig has to be a big promoter and is raising fees and funds, any which way he can..... sigh.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You don't land at other airports? Don't use VORs? GPS? Navigational charts? Do you really think that what you pay in fuel tax covers any of these?

I wasn't aware that FAA funded any aspect of GPS; how much did they kick in? Also, I believe the raw data for some of what makes up navigation charts is also funded elsewhere because it is applicable to non-aviation uses. In the early decades while aviation was growing the federal government kicked in 0 (zero) dollars to build airports; but that did change some ... here's a quick history on government funding of airports:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/govt_funding/POL11.htm

 

[Jim Logajan]

We GA pilots are the freeloaders, and in a big way. Our fuel tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for all the airports and navigational aids we use.

Got numbers to back that assertion up? With respect to all of aviation, historically the rest of the Feds were freeloading on fuel taxes:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, MS Sans Serif]"By 1980, the aviation trust fund had received about $13.8 billion but only $4.1 billion had been spent on the airport system. Many parties were fighting over how the money from the fund should be spent, so most of the money remained unused. The U.S. Treasury on occasion has “tapped” the fund to use the money for projects unrelated to airports.[/FONT]"

From: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/govt_funding/POL11.htm

 

[ClimbnSink]

You don't land at other airports? Don't use VORs? GPS? Navigational charts? Do you really think that what you pay in fuel tax covers any of these?

Land in fields. VORs? Is that a joke? (and yes I know how to use them.) Charts nope, I'll look at one now and again but I avoid the talky space and charts. Personally I would be ahead in a pay for services rendered system.

 

[ronnieh]

Greg, I get your point. However, there are two different ideas in play. The $100 per leg for turbine aircraft would not at this time affect you much. But true user fees will get everybody including you. It will be like Europe which has very little GA due in part to user fees. These fees are not just for ATC use. Everything will have a fee. File a VFR flight plan is a fee. Land at your little country airport will be a fee for landing and departing. Call FSS, a fee also. You pilots liscense will have a fee. Your medical will have a fee. Do not think for a minute that any of GA will escape user fees. Back to the $100 / leg for turbine aircraft. How long will it take them to include first piston engine on an IFR flight plan then VFR traffic. When the next gen gets up and running and all aircraft are required to have the equipment do you think you can escape fees? If user fees ever get on the books it will be the end of small piston aircraft as we know them now. Be careful what you ask for. IMO

 

[Bob Noel]

We GA pilots are the freeloaders, and in a big way. Our fuel tax doesn't come anywhere near paying for all the airports and navigational aids we use.

What are the marginal costs caused by GA, especially small GA?

If all of small GA disappeared, how much of the FAA and ATC infrastructure would be eliminated?

 

[ClimbnSink]

I don't want them, was just pointing out that they wouldn't affect me much(as proposed) and if there was an honest switch from fuel tax to user fees I would come out ahead. As to Euro style GA hell I'm ready for it, just bought a paraglider-eurotrash style flying, when in someplace that is trying to be Rome...

 

[Gmaper]

If they would drop the Gas tax, I wouldn't mind paying for my usage of the system, providing of course the fees were reasonable.

But have you ever seen the government give up a tax?

Hey, Tom. Our illustrious legislature here in Georgia just eliminated not one but two onerous TAXES. We had to pay sales TAX on vehicle purchases (but only on the difference between new cost and trade-in allowance so on a $20,000 car with a $10,000 trade we paid on the $10,000 difference) and we also had to pay an ad valorem TAX each year on the declining value of the vehicle. So, our good guys in this predominantly red state said that TAXES ARE BAD and they did good by eliminating these two.

So, being fiscal good guys (they say), they said that this did have to be revenue neutral. So, they implemented a FEE on title registrations/transfers so that you now pay, guess what, the same rate as the eliminated sales TAX but you get to pay it on the entire price exclusive of the trade-in. (In all fairness I'm not sure about this part about the trade-in because the explanation I received was from our county tax assessor and he was unclear about all of the details since the Georgia legislature hasn't given them anything official). This title registration FEE is paid when you register the title. This FEE also applies to all title applications including the transfer of ownership between family members. So, you say the price you paid your dad for the car was $100? Not too worry, they are going to check the value of the vehicle to make sure that if you got a really sweet deal you will still pay the state based on "fair market value". This new FEE will apply to all transactions, even between private individuals which previously excluded the sales tax.

So, beginning March 1, 2013 this kicks in. The boys on the hill did figure out that this might have a negative impact on new car sales for a few months before this kicks in so they created some sort of pro-rated scheme, the details of which are also unclear.

And then there is the issue of the ad valorem tax that will be eliminated from vehicles titled after March 1. The tax man told me that the county will have to replace that revenue somehow, possibly with a TAX increase.

As I said before, the information above is from my local tax assessor who admittedly is in the dark about the finer details of this wonderful legislation. I will be truly surprised if we don't learn more ugly side effects as time goes along.

The "T" word is a no-no but all levels of government seem to have no problem with FEES. GA, for the moment, dodged a user FEE which was pushed because the idea of an increase to the gas TAX was unacceptable.

I like your tag-line, Tom. It is very true.

 

[steingar]

What are the marginal costs caused by GA, especially small GA?

If all of small GA disappeared, how much of the FAA and ATC infrastructure would be eliminated?

Do you think the airlines need runways less than 5k feet?