2-5-07 User fees proposed by Bush for air traffic services

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I must admit. I'm a touch bemused that Bushistas have raised EVERY fee they can find but claim to be the patron saint for protection against taxes.:roll:

Personally, I believe our whole tax structure should be based on a sales or user tax model. Nothing irks me more than basing tax on productivity. Actually, it's out right rediculous.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is the problem with the Democrats.

They've forgotten what a "right" is. Flying is not a "right". Amazingly, neither is driving. These are both "privileges".

In fact, many things the Democrats on this board would tell you are your rights are in fact not. Your true rights are very clearly spelled out for you in our nations founding documents. If you review them (Which Dave obviously has not) you will find flying is not listed as a right. Again, neither is driving. Suprisingly neither is healthcare or a high standard of living.

But lets not let facts rain on the parade shall we?

DAMN BUSH! HE'S STEALING OUR RIGHTS!

Actually fool, if you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that the constitution does spell out those rights which people have, and it's part of the reason many of the founding fathers didn't want to include a bill of rights. They were worried it would be construed in the future that only those rights laid out were actually rights, and that there were no rights beyond those spelled out. That is completely false. The constitution lays out the limits to the right of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not of the people.

I get tired of hearing how all these things are privileges, especially from people who are supposedly against big government. Declaring anything a privilege means that we are beholden to nanny government. You make me sick.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is the problem with the Democrats.

They've forgotten what a "right" is. Flying is not a "right". Amazingly, neither is driving. These are both "privileges".

In fact, many things the Democrats on this board would tell you are your rights are in fact not. Your true rights are very clearly spelled out for you in our nations founding documents. If you review them (Which Dave obviously has not) you will find flying is not listed as a right. Again, neither is driving. Suprisingly neither is healthcare or a high standard of living.

But lets not let facts rain on the parade shall we?

DAMN BUSH! HE'S STEALING OUR RIGHTS!

Actually fool, if you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that the constitution does spell out those rights which people have, and it's part of the reason many of the founding fathers didn't want to include a bill of rights. They were worried it would be construed in the future that only those rights laid out were actually rights, and that there were no rights beyond those spelled out. That is completely false. The constitution lays out the limits to the right of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not of the people.

I get tired of hearing how all these things are privileges, especially from people who are supposedly against big government. Declaring anything a privilege means that we are beholden to nanny government. You make me sick.

Isn't that what Specop said? 😕

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is the problem with the Democrats.

They've forgotten what a "right" is. Flying is not a "right". Amazingly, neither is driving. These are both "privileges".

In fact, many things the Democrats on this board would tell you are your rights are in fact not. Your true rights are very clearly spelled out for you in our nations founding documents. If you review them (Which Dave obviously has not) you will find flying is not listed as a right. Again, neither is driving. Suprisingly neither is healthcare or a high standard of living.

But lets not let facts rain on the parade shall we?

DAMN BUSH! HE'S STEALING OUR RIGHTS!

Actually fool, if you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that the constitution does spell out those rights which people have, and it's part of the reason many of the founding fathers didn't want to include a bill of rights. They were worried it would be construed in the future that only those rights laid out were actually rights, and that there were no rights beyond those spelled out. That is completely false. The constitution lays out the limits to the right of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not of the people.

I get tired of hearing how all these things are privileges, especially from people who are supposedly against big government. Declaring anything a privilege means that we are beholden to nanny government. You make me sick.

And I agree. I use "rights" and "founding documents" to cover both individual rights and the rights of the government.
The Constitution lays out the rights of the government and the BoR is specifically your individual god given rights. Simple as that.

And you can froth at the mouth all you want, but your only God given rights are those laid out in the BoR. Driving, as much as you jerk off to it being otherwise, is a PRIVILEGE. Healthcare is a PRIVILEGE. Housing is a PRIVILEGE. Flying is a PRIVILEGE. Now, owning firearms is a RIGHT. Speaking whats on your mind is a RIGHT. Burning our flag is a RIGHT. Obviously you do not understand the differences.

Now, if you want to preach freedom so much why dont you write a letter or two opposing some gun bans. You know, try taking some action as opposed to banging away on your keyboard from the comfort of your couch.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is the problem with the Democrats.

They've forgotten what a "right" is. Flying is not a "right". Amazingly, neither is driving. These are both "privileges".

In fact, many things the Democrats on this board would tell you are your rights are in fact not. Your true rights are very clearly spelled out for you in our nations founding documents. If you review them (Which Dave obviously has not) you will find flying is not listed as a right. Again, neither is driving. Suprisingly neither is healthcare or a high standard of living.

But lets not let facts rain on the parade shall we?

DAMN BUSH! HE'S STEALING OUR RIGHTS!

Actually fool, if you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that the constitution does spell out those rights which people have, and it's part of the reason many of the founding fathers didn't want to include a bill of rights. They were worried it would be construed in the future that only those rights laid out were actually rights, and that there were no rights beyond those spelled out. That is completely false. The constitution lays out the limits to the right of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Not of the people.

I get tired of hearing how all these things are privileges, especially from people who are supposedly against big government. Declaring anything a privilege means that we are beholden to nanny government. You make me sick.

Isn't that what Specop said? 😕

Guess I should have proofread, there should be a NOT in there. The constitution is NOT a document specifying the only rights that Americans have, while leaving everything else as privileges.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And I agree. I use "rights" and "founding documents" to cover both individual rights and the rights of the government.
The Constitution lays out the rights of the government and the BoR is specifically your individual god given rights. Simple as that.

And you can froth at the mouth all you want, but your only God given rights are those laid out in the BoR. Driving, as much as you jerk off to it being otherwise, is a PRIVILEGE. Healthcare is a PRIVILEGE. Housing is a PRIVILEGE. Flying is a PRIVILEGE. Now, owning firearms is a RIGHT. Speaking whats on your mind is a RIGHT. Burning our flag is a RIGHT. Obviously you do not understand the differences.

Now, if you want to preach freedom so much why dont you write a letter or two opposing some gun bans. You know, try taking some action as opposed to banging away on your keyboard from the comfort of your couch.

The bill of rights is not a comprehensive list of god given rights. If it is, I'd love for you to back that up with something other than your opinion.

The bill of rights doesn't specifically lay out the right to breathe, eat and sleep. Are we to assume then that those are privileges as well? :roll:

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
So why shouldn't the people who use the services PAY for the services?


Or are pilots now entitled to free air traffic control services? Maybe they should be entitled to free airports too, then we can give them Earned Gas Tax Credits or such tripe?

Pilots already pay for these services with a MASSIVE fuel tax. Air traffic control and most of the FAA is paid for through fuel fees. The airlines don't like this because of how much fuel they use, so they pressure congress to move more of the burden down to the pilots that fly as a hobby. But airlines should pay a hell of a lot more. Why?

Airlines use air traffic control from the time they are ready to leave the date until the reach the gate. The majority of general aviation pilots never talk to air traffic control and the ones that do *mostly* only talk to tower at the airport they are leaving/arriving.

Airlines use NAV-aid systems every single flight, most general aviation pilots rarely use NAV-Aids except while in training.

Building runways, etc. for airliners cost a lot more than it does for a general aviation airport.

Airports that airlines fly into also require a higher class of airspace than general aviation airports, requiring controllers for approach/departure.

Basically the current system ain't broke, so lets not fix it.

 

[Craig234]

Here's what some people don't get.

It's an area the government now pays for with taxes. The demographics of the people who get that benefit and would have to pay the fee tells us whether it's mainly for the rich. I suspect it's mainly the middle class, whether pilots or passengers on airlines who will have to pay the increase.

So, here's how it works - say $250 million is now spent on this. By making it a fee, you take $250 from mostly the middle class, and free up that money in the budget to instead go to something that directly benefits the ultrat wealthy, say, a 'subsidy' for a donor industry, more tax borrowing, or something else.

The net effect is another tax burden shift off the ultra wealthy to the middle class.

I suspect though that it's not aimed at the middle class but wanting to cut any spending that isn't going to political priorities, i.e., donor benefit. 'Pay to play'.

The days of the government treating the average citizen as the person who deserves government benefits largely ended with the massive increased need for big donations.

The monied few now dominate the political system, with the average voter nothing but someone to market to to keep them under control while they're screwed.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: ntdz
How many middle class people do you know that own a plane? Besides, aren't you 100% for taxing rich people?

I know a lot of people in the middle class that own airplanes and a lot more that RENT airplanes. A used plane can be bought for ~10-25K, new kit planes around 100K. Many people form groups that buy planes together, so each person will own 1/4 of the plane and pay 1/4 of all the bills on it. Buying a plane is cheaper than many other hobbies middle class people do, such as RVing. The cost of owning a plane can be about the same as owning a ski boat.

All of you people that think "he owns a plane he must be rich," go to a little local airport and see the types of people that own and are renting planes. There are people from all walks of life.

BTW: Once again people already pay for the FAA through the current massive fuel taxes. There are also landing, parking, tie-down, fuel fees at many airports.

 

[Fern]

Does this sound like stupid double speak BS to anyone else?

"Reform of the FAA's financing structure is necessary because under the existing aviation tax structure, there is no relationship between the taxes paid by users and the air traffic control services rendered by the FAA," agency officials said in their budget submission to Congress.

For example, a full flight from Boston to Miami generates more money for the FAA than another that is half full, but both planes require the same attention from air traffic controllers.

"We have to make serious and fundamental changes," said James May, the ATA's chief executive. "Linking air traffic control services and what system users pay for those services is a very important first step."

AND

Business jet owners and other private fliers would likely pay higher fuel taxes as part of the new formula, industry officials said.

Ummm, lets see it's wrong for the FULL plane to pay more than the HALF full plane because they both use the same attention from air traffic controllers.

Well, if the new fee is based on fuel, instead of ticket sales, wouldn't the plane with a high fuel burn rate pay more than the plane with a lower fuel burn rate? But wouldn't both planes require the same attention from air traffic controllers?

Where am I wrong here? I mean, I must be wrong. Surely these people aren't that laughably retarded?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I must admit. I'm a touch bemused that Bushistas have raised EVERY fee they can find but claim to be the patron saint for protection against taxes.:roll:

I don't see where they are raising fees. The article seems to indicate merely a change in the way the fee is charged.

Currently it's part of your ticket price. They want to change to a charge on airlines, and a gas tax on private pilots.

It's not like they're doing both.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And I agree. I use "rights" and "founding documents" to cover both individual rights and the rights of the government.
The Constitution lays out the rights of the government and the BoR is specifically your individual god given rights. Simple as that.

And you can froth at the mouth all you want, but your only God given rights are those laid out in the BoR. Driving, as much as you jerk off to it being otherwise, is a PRIVILEGE. Healthcare is a PRIVILEGE. Housing is a PRIVILEGE. Flying is a PRIVILEGE. Now, owning firearms is a RIGHT. Speaking whats on your mind is a RIGHT. Burning our flag is a RIGHT. Obviously you do not understand the differences.

Now, if you want to preach freedom so much why dont you write a letter or two opposing some gun bans. You know, try taking some action as opposed to banging away on your keyboard from the comfort of your couch.

The bill of rights is not a comprehensive list of god given rights. If it is, I'd love for you to back that up with something other than your opinion.

The bill of rights doesn't specifically lay out the right to breathe, eat and sleep.

Are we to assume then that those are privileges as well? :roll:

We normally do not see eye to eye but seem to be on the same page on this.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I must admit. I'm a touch bemused that Bushistas have raised EVERY fee they can find but claim to be the patron saint for protection against taxes.:roll:

I don't see where they are raising fees. The article seems to indicate merely a change in the way the fee is charged.

Currently it's part of your ticket price. They want to change to a charge on airlines, and a gas tax on private pilots.

It's not like they're doing both.

Fern

Go down to your nearest FBO (local airport with gas tanks etc) and they will explain it to you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ntdz
How many middle class people do you know that own a plane? Besides, aren't you 100% for taxing rich people?

I know a lot of people in the middle class that own airplanes and a lot more that RENT airplanes. A used plane can be bought for ~10-25K, new kit planes around 100K. Many people form groups that buy planes together, so each person will own 1/4 of the plane and pay 1/4 of all the bills on it. Buying a plane is cheaper than many other hobbies middle class people do, such as RVing. The cost of owning a plane can be about the same as owning a ski boat.

All of you people that think "he owns a plane he must be rich," go to a little local airport and see the types of people that own and are renting planes. There are people from all walks of life.

BTW: Once again people already pay for the FAA through the current massive fuel taxes. There are also landing, parking, tie-down, fuel fees at many airports.

Thank you sir once again :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It's an area the government now pays for with taxes......

So, here's how it works - say $250 million is now spent on this. By making it a fee.......

WTF? It is CURRENTLY a fee. A fee charged per ticket.

Come on guys, it's right up front

The Bush administration proposed on Monday that airlines pay billions in user fees to replace ticket and other taxes that currently underwrite much of the nation's air traffic control system

AND

By making it a fee, you take $250 from mostly the middle class, and free up that money in the budget to instead go to something that directly benefits the ultrat wealthy

Bwuhahahah. You never let the facts get in the way of your story, do you?

The net effect is another tax burden shift off the ultra wealthy to the middle class.

See above remark.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I must admit. I'm a touch bemused that Bushistas have raised EVERY fee they can find but claim to be the patron saint for protection against taxes.:roll:

I don't see where they are raising fees. The article seems to indicate merely a change in the way the fee is charged.

Currently it's part of your ticket price. They want to change to a charge on airlines, and a gas tax on private pilots.

It's not like they're doing both.

Fern

Go down to your nearest FBO (local airport with gas tanks etc) and they will explain it to you.

Dave,

If you're saying the article is factually incorrect, I would appreciate if you would explain. Frankly I hate commercial flight, and I don't have a plane. I really can't be bothered to seek out some little airfield in the hopes that someone there wants to explain it to me.

If you're saying the private airplane owners will pay more, and the average flyer pays less. Well, OK, maybe so. But I still don't see where there is a proposed overall increase of FAA funding?

TIA,

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
This is the problem with the Democrats.

They've forgotten what a "right" is. Flying is not a "right". Amazingly, neither is driving. These are both "privileges".

In fact, many things the Democrats on this board would tell you are your rights are in fact not. Your true rights are very clearly spelled out for you in our nations founding documents. If you review them (Which Dave obviously has not) you will find flying is not listed as a right. Again, neither is driving. Suprisingly neither is healthcare or a high standard of living.

But lets not let facts rain on the parade shall we?

DAMN BUSH! HE'S STEALING OUR RIGHTS!

Actually that's not really true, and if you ever read any part of those founding documents besides the 2nd amendment, you might know that. I would like to draw you attention to the 9th and 10th amendments (yes, they DO exist!).

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now maybe I'm just a silly Democrat, but that would seem to imply that we have a right to everything the constitution doesn't tell the federal government it can take away from us, or that our respective state constitutions don't tell the states they can take away from us. Now obviously you don't have a right to federal resources without paying for them, so I don't agree with Dave on this particular issue, but I also disagree with your silly idea that the constitution spells out the limit of our rights...it's simply not true.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now obviously you don't have a right to federal resources without paying for them, so I don't agree with Dave on this particular issue, but I also disagree with your silly idea that the constitution spells out the limit of our rights...it's simply not true.

No one said anything about not paying for the Federalo resources, the payment has been in the fuel charges.

This new charge method shifts the payment more on the backs of casual pilots and away from the airlines.

That's just wrong but I expect no less from Republicans at this point.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now obviously you don't have a right to federal resources without paying for them, so I don't agree with Dave on this particular issue, but I also disagree with your silly idea that the constitution spells out the limit of our rights...it's simply not true.

No one said anything about not paying for the Federalo resources, the payment has been in the fuel charges.

This new charge method shifts the payment more on the backs of casual pilots and away from the airlines.

That's just wrong but I expect no less from Republicans at this point.

Dave actually has this one right 😉.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ntdz
How many middle class people do you know that own a plane? Besides, aren't you 100% for taxing rich people?

I know a lot of people in the middle class that own airplanes and a lot more that RENT airplanes. A used plane can be bought for ~10-25K, new kit planes around 100K. Many people form groups that buy planes together, so each person will own 1/4 of the plane and pay 1/4 of all the bills on it. Buying a plane is cheaper than many other hobbies middle class people do, such as RVing. The cost of owning a plane can be about the same as owning a ski boat.

All of you people that think "he owns a plane he must be rich," go to a little local airport and see the types of people that own and are renting planes. There are people from all walks of life.

BTW: Once again people already pay for the FAA through the current massive fuel taxes. There are also landing, parking, tie-down, fuel fees at many airports.

Thank you sir once again :thumbsup:

Too bad you are the only one that seems to be reading my posts, since everyone is still saying "You should have to pay for the service." Do you fly?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My guess is that the new fees will be imposed but the feds will drag their feet on current ticket fees (call them taxes).

Accordingly, the rich will pay more and everybody else will pay the same . . . until the feds come up with a new excuse to raise ticket fees (call them taxes).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ntdz
How many middle class people do you know that own a plane? Besides, aren't you 100% for taxing rich people?

I know a lot of people in the middle class that own airplanes and a lot more that RENT airplanes. A used plane can be bought for ~10-25K, new kit planes around 100K. Many people form groups that buy planes together, so each person will own 1/4 of the plane and pay 1/4 of all the bills on it. Buying a plane is cheaper than many other hobbies middle class people do, such as RVing. The cost of owning a plane can be about the same as owning a ski boat.

All of you people that think "he owns a plane he must be rich," go to a little local airport and see the types of people that own and are renting planes. There are people from all walks of life.

BTW: Once again people already pay for the FAA through the current massive fuel taxes. There are also landing, parking, tie-down, fuel fees at many airports.

Thank you sir once again :thumbsup:

Too bad you are the only one that seems to be reading my posts, since everyone is still saying "You should have to pay for the service." Do you fly?

Yes but not since 1990. I used to fly on Long Island and then in Pembroke Florida. The airport where the banner planes take off from (that is fun).

Since then I have gone down the economic scale sadly.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ntdz
How many middle class people do you know that own a plane? Besides, aren't you 100% for taxing rich people?

I know a lot of people in the middle class that own airplanes and a lot more that RENT airplanes. A used plane can be bought for ~10-25K, new kit planes around 100K. Many people form groups that buy planes together, so each person will own 1/4 of the plane and pay 1/4 of all the bills on it. Buying a plane is cheaper than many other hobbies middle class people do, such as RVing. The cost of owning a plane can be about the same as owning a ski boat.

All of you people that think "he owns a plane he must be rich," go to a little local airport and see the types of people that own and are renting planes. There are people from all walks of life.

BTW: Once again people already pay for the FAA through the current massive fuel taxes. There are also landing, parking, tie-down, fuel fees at many airports.

Thank you sir once again :thumbsup:

Too bad you are the only one that seems to be reading my posts, since everyone is still saying "You should have to pay for the service." Do you fly?

Yes but not since 1990. I used to fly on Long Island and then in Pembroke Florida. The airport where the banner planes take off from (that is fun).

Since then I have gone down the economic scale sadly.

What did you fly 152/172s? I did the majority of my flight training at Riverside in Tulsa, which is usually in the top 30 busiest airports in the country. Good place to learn to fly, because when you go over to an international airport like Tulsa or OKC, it is a lot less busy 😉.

 

[extra]

This is mainly due to airline lobbying who want General Aviation to help pay for the ATC that the airlines use.

It's companies trying to offload stuff onto private pilots, basically.

Most private pilots don't really use much ATC, but every airline flight does.

And TONS of middle class people own planes or rent planes. Used planes aren't as spendy as you would think. Also, small kitplanes or ultralights can be built for almost nothing.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: kedlav
Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Pay for what you use, less free handouts to the rich/big business...

The non-pilots here are missing the point of this problem.

As a private pilot flying a small plane I don't need or use the majority of the air traffic control (ATC) services. ATC in the US is set up to serve the airlines and the large airline type airports. What the airlines want is to take all the services given by ATC and lump them in to a per flight or per mile type of fee. So a small plane with one or two people would pay the same ATC fees as an airliner with 400 people.

First thing that would happen is all the small planes would opt out of all services. Next step would be for ATC services to be mandated. Final step would be for all small planes being grounded because owners won't pay fees.

Let me give you a typical scenario. I fly over to Seattle to a small airport like Auburn. On the way over I use flight following not because it does much for me but because the airliners need it to sequence etc. As I approach Seattle I am required to get a clearance from Seattle Center, again not because it helps me, but because there is a ton of airline traffic and what the airliners are required to do, so am I. Finally I land at Auburn where the whole place is fenced and patrolled. Again it really doesn't matter to me but the airlines and the FAA are scared so what is done at SEATAC is pretty much done elsewhere.

Throughout the flight I use ATC "services" not because they help me with my flight but because they are either required or help the airliners. Now Bush and the FAA want me to pay for these unneeded, unwanted "services".