Comments on: George W. Bush: Destroying America’s Aviation Industry

By: Bryce Maclennan

Bryce Maclennan — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 05:37:07 +0000

Philip:

Good news: The bill proposing fees was defeated in H.R.2881

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070628house.html

Instead, avgas taxes are going to go from 19.3 cents/gallon to 24.1 cents/gallon

By: Chris Nielsen

Chris Nielsen — Thu, 17 May 2007 09:14:59 +0000

Here in New Zealand we have user fees for everything. Flight plans, airways and landing charges at every airfield, even the 2000ft grass strip down the road from here has a landing charge. We also have a local outfit that brings pilots out from the UK, trains them up and sends them back straight to Easyjet and similar. Apparently it’s still cheaper here than Europe

By: philg

philg — Thu, 17 May 2007 01:49:38 +0000

Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and John Sununu (R-NH) tried to kill the user fees, but they were defeated by a 12-11 vote in the Commerce Committee. John Kerry voted in favor of user fees. We can’t accuse him of voting in self-interest since he is a guy who has himself flown around via private jet even for Washington/Boston trips when commercial airliners go every 30 minutes.

By: Brent

Brent — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:34:21 +0000

User fees are an awful. The law that authorizes the FAA states that it’s goal is to ensure aviation safety. Now the FAA is proposing taxes that will discourage the use of safety services by all pilots. This is in direct opposition to the charter of the FAA.

By: David Adams

David Adams — Sun, 13 May 2007 22:24:02 +0000

In the UK the regulatory authority (the CAA) has to make a profit. As such, it charges a lot for all kinds of things. Additionally, as noted, European airfields charge approach fees, high landing fees, some mandate expensive handling (even for the guy in his 152). As a result private pilots avoid flying to certain better equipped airfields, they fly VFR rather than IFR to avoid en-route charges (only payable for aircraft over 2,000kg); all of these constitute a prima facie case for a lowering of safety. Whether or not it really causes accidents I suppose we can’t know. Likewise, an instrument rating his so difficult to obtain that very very few pilots ever do; the general consensus is that that raises more safety issues than does the high user charges.

General Aviation in the US is seen as a nirvana by many Europeans; even to the extent that many pilots (myself included) operate N-registered aircraft so that much of what they do is governed not by their local regulators but by the FAA.

Meanwhile, given that aviation charges are so damned high in Europe (avgas at $10 a gallon, etc.) you’ll find European pilots moaning about the airlines, particularly the plethora of low cost carriers, grabbing more and more airspace, mandating Mode S transponders and so on.

The end result of all this is that general aviation is used much less than it could be; so perhaps you’re heading down that route.

I think there are a few non-US pro pilots who might have something to say about the notion that they can’t land properly. Try posting that suggestion on PPRuNe and see what sort of responses it garners. Then again, if the US didn’t have such protectionist airspace policies for foreign carriers all the European carriers could be flying around the US learning how to land properly…

By: JonD

JonD — Sat, 12 May 2007 22:54:11 +0000

For safety’s sake, it’s completely insane to discourage pilots from using VFR and IFR flight plans, flight following, and instrument approaches.

But enough of the Bush-bashing. The airlines and the FAA were trying to impose user fees long before the Bush Administration arrived. The FAA wants less oversight, and the airlines want to punish small aircraft for the system they created. Congressmen from both sides have shielded us from user fees so far. Let’s hope they keep it up.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1995/pp9511.html
(among many articles)

By: philg

philg — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:57:01 +0000

James: That is precisely my point, so I probably should have said it directly. We can’t avoid the government taxing us, but we can ask that it be done in a way that doesn’t fill up our mailbox with 30 paper invoices every month. If they want more money from the private airplane crowd, let them raise the fuel tax. Make us poor, not miserable….

By: James

James — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:28:20 +0000

Asking for sympathy on user fees based on the cohort of pilots, however justified, will always be ineffective because there will always be an anecdotal group of rich pilots out there that will produce no sympathy.

While it’s implied by your argument, I think saying directly that the system should be paid for with fuel taxes, much like road taxes are included in automotive fuel prices, is a much stronger and more relatable argument for non-pilot voters.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:09:40 +0000

Philip,

You wrote:

the organization that indulged in the most expensive civilian software development project (roughly $10 billion) in history and then scrapped it after 15 years of futile efforts

What project are you referring to?

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:54:41 +0000

The editor-in-chief of Flying magazine wrote an editorial in the May 2007 Flying titled “The Issue Is Larger Than User Fees” . All of what you say is true, but you don’t mention one of the motivators mentioned by McClellan. The Bush administration wants hand our public airways to the airlines at our expense. Its like giving the national highway system to the 18 wheelers and letting the trucking operators charge the rest of us to use the highways our tax dollars paid for. The Bush administration wants to steal things from the public and hand them to cronies. The impacts would be devastating; to small towns and cities all over the country when they can no longer get air-ambulance; when accidents start happening because users avoid safety related services or towered airports to save enough money to try to stay in the air; and as Philip points out, when there are no decent homegrown pilots.