100 mayors denounce Obama’s attacks on GA

WASHINGTON, D.C. — General aviation is a vital part of our economy and national infrastructure, and we are concerned about the repercussions of your statements about it. That, in essence was what the mayors of 100 communities in 48 states recently sent in a letter to President Obama. The letter was coordinated by the Alliance for Aviation Across America.

The letter was sent just days after Obama released his budget calling for a $100 each-flight fee on certain general aviation users.

More than 1.2 million jobs and over $150 billion in economic impact annually are supported by general aviation, the mayors stated to Obama and his advisors. The mayors pointed out to the President that GA and the airports it utilizes are literal lifelines to their communities. They provide business growth, law enforcement, disaster relief, medical care and other services.

It is a mistaken belief that general aviation is a luxury for fat cats, the mayors informed Obama. “We can tell you first hand that these aircraft are a critical tool and resource for businesses in our communities; businesses that keep our communities afloat and help workers to be able to continue to put food on their tables for their families.”

The mayors told Obama that “we need to do everything we can to support jobs and stimulate the economy, not crippling an industry which represents a lifeline such as ours around the nation.”




People who read this article also read articles on airparks, airshow, airshows, avgas, aviation fuel, aviation news, aircraft owner, avionics, buy a plane, FAA, fly-in, flying, general aviation, learn to fly, pilots, Light-Sport Aircraft, LSA, and Sport Pilot.


  1. AP says

    You can’t blame this on President Obama.   This has been a recurring issue for at least the past 30 years.  Every time it has come up it has been defeated.  Please contact your congresscritters and make sure it gets defeated again.  The current system of supporting the aviation infrastructure through aviation fuel taxes is not broken and does not need to be fixed. 

    This is one on which we in the aviation community, Right, Left, and Center need to speak to Washington with _one voice_.  In the words of Ben Franklin, “We must all hang together or we will most assuredly all hang separately.”

  2. gbin says

    > [from Frank R. Sandoval, below]  … Your continued rhetoric has not produced any evidence to support your comments…

    I’m not sure whether you’re just playing games or what, as you could very easily find for yourself plenty of the evidence I’ve pointed out (and I have to believe you’ve already seen it, too).  But on the remote chance that you really need some help, here’s just one recent example…

    In January, a letter written by Mr. Fuller on the subject of the user fee was widely circulated in the AOPA and beyond.  It opened with:

    “Next month, in his initial Fiscal Year 2013 budget, President Barack Obama is expected to once again propose a $100-per-flight user fee for millions of general aviation flights in the coming years.

    Needless to say, THIS FEE WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR EVERY PILOT and for every American who cares about preserving the greatest general aviation system in the world.”

    Nowhere did the letter mention that piston aircraft (or anything else) were exempt from the fee, and indeed the entire letter acted as in its opening as if every pilot of every aircraft was going to be assessed this fee.

    As I said, I can readily believe and certainly do hope that Mr. Fuller is in general a good person trying to do good work, but that doesn’t make it ok for him to be dishonest with people about this issue in order to scare them into sharing his view.

    • Frank R. Sandsoval says

      No games from this end Sir or Madam. User fees are serious business not only to General Aviation but to our country as a whole. Since you are unable to support your comments other than with loose rhetoric, allow me to support my position and give you an opportunity to respond.
      I do not question Mr. Fuller’s integrity. He represents the views of AOPA members. That is his job. It is my sentiment that you have unfairly taken the liberty of attacking his character with as much negative rhetoric as you can generate, without evidence. That is your prerogative, I suppose.
      On the issue at hand, and on the remote chance that you have acquired some knowledge and sense concerning the Aviation community, I would direct you to page 30 and page 31 of the Administrations proposed 2013 budget. It does not take a rocket scientist to formulate the derived product of the forecasted $7.4 billion in fees. But more importantly and less discreet, is the definitions of “general aviation,” the definition of “controlled airspace,” and the definition of “aviation operators” in the context of this proposal. If you did in fact knew the definitions of the aforementioned terms, it is my contention that we may not be having this discussion. You can not exempt piston aircrafts or public aircraft if you understand the definitions of the terms. That would be like saying a circle is square to the tune of $7.4 billion. To put it in layman’s terms, it is a proposal disguised as a solution to fix a deficit by suggesting that the majority of the expense to operate airports and Air Traffic Control will be absorbed by a fantasy fee. In fact, if you know the terminology, it is a disguised fee to tear apart the infrastructure of General Aviation by means economically destroying the small aviation businesses and the safety of all aviation in general.

      • gbin says

        If not game-playing, then you’re engaged in a more purposeful deceit.  You asked for evidence even though it was already available to you (indeed, you’d doubtless already seen at least some of it).  When presented with more, you persist in denying its existence.

        The truth, for those who actually value such:

        The same administration that proposed the user fee also clearly stipulated that piston aircraft are exempt from it.  There has been no ambiguity on the matter from their side.

        Some people in positions of authority in general aviation, including AOPA president Craig Fuller as well as the author of the article above, have pretended that the piston aircraft exemption does not exist in an apparent attempt to mislead and frighten those who heed them.

        It is not the job of Mr. Fuller or anyone else in a position of authority to perpetrate deceptions, not even if they mistakenly believe that it is in people’s best interest.

        • Frank R. Sandoval says

          I must say I am disappointed in your ability to argue your point and your faculty to deduce. At this juncture, I will conclude our discussion with this thought. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Nobin. It appears to me that you are indeed some form of vegetation attempting to impose your bad ideas on the rest of humanity irrespective of the evidence against you and the damages you will perpetrate therein.

          • gbin says

            Ah, I see that game-playing is what you’ve been doing, after all.  As long as you’ve been having fun, I guess…

          • Radf9760 says

             There was nothing inaccurate about Mr. Fuller’s letter.  There are millions of turbine flights per year under the umbrella of GA and a turbine user fee would indeed be a disaster for all of GA.

            Your whole argument rests on the idea that either turbine aircraft aren’t part of GA or that piston pilots don’t/shouldn’t have an interest in turbine fees.  You’re wrong on both counts.  You are grossly misunderstanding the GA ecosystem if you believe that turbine fees won’t affect all of us.

            Even if we accept the moronic notion that the government won’t eventually expand the fee to gouge piston pilots as well, your argument is still illogical.  GA is a community, we all interact, we’re interdependent.  Businesses are comprised both of piston and turbine aircraft.  Small, piston businesses and small airports draw numerous benefits and resources from nearby turbine businesses.  All pilots should be angry about this fee.  Turbine aircraft are already more expensive to produce, maintain, and operate.  Those of us building flight hours already look at turbine time as a nigh-unreachable goal.  Why would any piston pilot support making turbine time MORE expensive?

            Even if taxes happened in a vacuum and only the taxed saw negative effects, your argument is still wrong.  I think it’s wrong for the government to ask for more money from anyone for anything.  Politicians waste our money and they’ve already over-regulated GA to the point of severe inefficiency.  We’re years behind in terms of aircraft design due to backward FAA “safety” regulations.  You seem to contend that I should stand idly by while my government tries to screw someone else because you wrongly assume that it doesn’t affect me.

            Seriously?  That’s your contention?  That we should all pipe down if not directly impacted by government overreach?  You wouldn’t dare contend such a thing if the matter were civil rights instead of taxes.

            Inform yourself about General Aviation.  Read and economics textbook.  Try to be more well-read and circumspect in the future. 

    • Radf9760 says

      The user fees proposed will discourage IFR.  Discouraging operation under IFR is discouraging both safety and the continuing education of GA pilots.  Instrument Flight Rules keep ALL aviators safe.

      Do you understand the amount of overhead involved in GA business?  This increase in cost means that there will be way more VFR turbine traffic.  Those guys are moving fast, trying to make money.  It’s not a big deal to share the airport and surrounding airspace with them when we have full separation services but if they all go VFR, it’ll be a madhouse. 

      Increase accidents, reduce safety, increase taxes, reduce the demand for experienced IFR pilots – Oh yeah, that sounds brilliant and not at like something all pilots might be concerned about.

  3. says

    I am entirely against user fees and support efforts such as this to educate politicians and let them know of our disappointment in this method of funding. 

    However, I have to admit that “gbin” below has a valid point.  This is constantly presented as a VERY partisan issue.  Every article and defense against user fees makes it seem like this is personal attack from Obama and Democrats against Republicans and positioned specifically to kill the aviation industry.  And the counter-attacks are always about how ignorant and vicious the other side is in considering this method of raising funds, and NEVER seems to mention that this is only directed at turbine aircraft.

    If you are serious about getting this off the table, don’t present yourself as a die-hard conservative and ignore the facts!  When you do that, politicians (and others) immediately stop listening and know that they have no chance of getting your vote or having a reasonable discussion. 

    Instead, tell them WHY piston pilots are concerned, even though the user-fee doesn’t apply to them right now.  Explain what you think it’ll do to flight schools, FBO’s, and remotely located small businesses.  Mention the concern that it won’t bring in the revenue that they think that it will (John below explained it well, if dramatically). And explain why safety could be adversely affected.

    And don’t just complain about user-fees on chat rooms, websites, and in the hangers.  Contact your congressmen and your senators!  Right now, I’ll bet most of them think this is a non-issue, a funding source that won’t lose them votes.  Convince them otherwise.  I’ve already talked to my Democractic congressman, and have also referred him to his collegues who participate in the GA Caucus.

    • gbin says

      I’m not opposed to user fees in general (and I’m still weighing my thoughts on this user fee on turbine aircraft), and I see very little reason and no real evidence supporting the contention that this user fee will subsequently extend to piston aircraft, but otherwise I agree with everything you wrote above, Peter.  Thank you for contributing!

      I’m not at all surprised by the knee-jerk responses posted by some others, of course, as this is merely a comments section and there is so much political partisanship in America today.  But it really bothers me when people in positions of authority – authors who write articles for a general aviation news board, for example, or leaders of organizations such as AOPA that aren’t meant to be aligned with a particular political party – abuse that authority to try to mislead and frighten people into adopting their partisan views.  It’s just not right.  Do they really have so little regard for their integrity (not to mention our intelligence)?

      • Frank R. Sandoval says

        Mr Gbin:
        Your perspective may be limited if you are not involved in aviation. To attack AOPA, the author of this article, and almost everybody commenting does not result in a productive discussion of the issue. History reflects that when governments expand they do not retract. That is the authority that is being expressed to support the comments. Would you be so cordial as to express your authority for your comments. 

        • gbin says

          I would say instead that dishonesty (e.g. pretending that the user fee in question affects all of general aviation even though piston aircraft are exempt) does not result in a productive discussion.  Well, except in the eyes of someone perpetrating the deception, when it works…

          All I ask is for people – especially people in positions of authority – to honestly represent the situations they address.  Quit telling lies of omission or other, more active kinds.  Quit characterizing people who think differently as if they are The Enemy.  I agree it’s a lot to ask for, especially with the sorry state of modern American politics.  Probably it’s a hopeless request.  In any event, I firmly believe it is every person’s right to ask for ethical behavior, even to expect it from people in positions of authority, and to call out those who instead indulge in unethical behavior.  We’d all be a lot better off if a great many more of us did so. 

          • Frank R. Sandoval says

            Dear Sir Gbin or Madam Gbin:
            Thank you for your response. Without the slightest intent to patronize you, you seem to write and express yourself as an educated individual. In your comments, you mentioned certain individuals who do not share your view point. I, being an open minded individual, was simply requesting that you support your view point to make it worth while considering.

            The request you metion certainly is honorable and should be the standard we all live by. No one appreciates dishonesty or lies, either directly or by omission. You are certainly correct that everyone is entitled and should expect respect and ethical behavior from others. No disagreement there.
            Having said that, I was raised to never form an opinion of an individual until at least having the opportunity to meet them. I am at odds with you because I have met or have been present at membership meetings with Mr. Craig Fuller, AOPA President, Mr. Rod Hightower, EAA President, and Mr. Ed Bolen, NBAA President. In my view, their integrity is above reproach and their main agenda is the safety of the membership of their respective organizations. Ironically, they all agree with the view of the author of this article. Thus, I must take exception with your view point until such time that you support your comments. That does not make us enemies, we just have different view points at this moment. The concern with user fees is the end result. It will jeopardize and put safety at risk.

          • gbin says

            I’m glad that you agree that a person need not defend his/her request for/expectation of honesty from people in positions of authority.
            As for support for my mention of some of AOPA’s leadership also (in addition to a few of the reporters writing for this website) being dishonest about the user fee under discussion, one need look no further than various reports posted here at this website.  It has been a fairly frequent occurrence for one or more of them, most notably including AOPA president Craig Fuller, to speak of the user fee as being an attack/punishment by the Obama administration aimed at all in general aviation.  Piston aircraft are exempt from the user fee and these speakers/writers know that, but they often pretend otherwise.  I would imagine that they likewise know that the current administration really has nothing personal against any part of general aviation (let alone all of general aviation) – why on earth would the administration feel otherwise? – but the incendiary language they choose to use in describing the administration says quite the opposite.  I can well believe, and certainly hope, that these people are all generally good people trying to do a good job, but with respect to this particular issue they have clearly cast aside their integrity to further their agenda.  I’m sorry if hearing that makes you unhappy, and I assure you it makes me unhappy to say it, but that’s the way things are.
            When they stop blatantly misrepresenting the situation of this user fee to general aviation, I’ll stop calling them on it.  In the meantime, I urge everyone who believes that people in positions of authority should exercise that authority with integrity to join those of us who call them out on their lapses.

          • Frank R. Sandoval says

            I must be grounded in the objective work of history? Your continued rhetoric has not produced any evidence to support your comments. Truth before rhetoric and I will consider.

          • Radf9760 says

            Costs spill over to everyone, taxes don’t happen in a vacuum, they don’t affect only the taxpayers.

            Example: My remote local airport is refueled by tanker, a turbine tanker.  Per flight fees are going to drive up local fuel prices for everyone.

            A nearby Delta class airport is a bit of a relic but a few GA businesses keep it open which has enabled students like me to begin a career in aviation without relocating away from jobs and family. Turbine fees are going to drive away the users propping up our small airport. 

            It’s not dishonest at all to say that turbine fees are going to hurt all of GA.  It’s short-sided to believe that taxes affect only the taxed; costs get passed on to everyone.

          • Radf9760 says

            It’s not dishonest to say that taxing turbine flights hurts all of GA, try to be more circumspect.

            In any case, why wouldn’t Fuller and other aviation authorities solicit help from the wider GA community?  There are millions of people involved in GA but compare that number to the total population of the USA and we’re a minority.  Of course GA should attempt to speak with one voice.

      • Radf9760 says

        You’re not opposed to user fees in general?  Have you ever flown in Europe?  User fees are killing GA over there.  We have SO many foreign students who find that the only way to pursue a career in aviation is to become a pilot over here.

        The guy who owns the flight school I attend is Italian, he contends that user fees will be the death of US GA. 

        Are you a pilot?  An aviation business owner?  Do you at least live near an airport or something?  Because you sound woefully ill-informed about user fees. 

  4. Val says

    Imagine you had to pay a User Fee to drive your car on a per trip basis…  Or a User Fee to take your boat out… or your bicycle.

    Before we look to increase cost, we should look to decrease spending. I’m totally in favor of Unicom.  😉

    And the argument that piston aircraft owners or operators should not be concerned because this proposition only applies to turbine aircraft scares the bejesus out of me. That looks like a case of “oh deep pockets… RAID, PILLAGE AND PLUNDER!!!”  

    When that “fee” (read:  tax) is in place, piston aircraft will be next because there are MORE piston aircraft.  Maybe it won’t be $100 per flight for piston aircraft, but it will be something… 

    And like I said in another post, the icing on the cake will be the change in FARs requiring the PIC to collect and remit the fee.

  5. John H Fischer says

    @673303038d69b63d210b8dde7f3a8745:disqus and Mitch Latting you are correct in every sense of the word.  It’s like the whole “gun” debate.  If we ban guns then no one will have them…except the bad guys who don’t care about the law anyway.  If we only tax turbines on IFR routes, and plan on making $10 Billion over ten years then we’ll be ok. 

    Except you The government WON’T make $10 Billion.  The user fee will put people out of business, or flight’s will fly “less safe” (safety is ‘loosely’ used here) VFR routes.  All resulting in a significantly LOWER tax income for the Feds.

    And this is how the thought process will work. 

    Pawn – “So Mr. President, we didn’t hit our ‘user fee’ income for the year”.
    Pres – “Oh ok well I think we should expand the user fee to ALL IFR planned flights”

    Then when more businesses go under and people stop flying IFR almost completely then the next train of thought that will derail will go something like this.

    Pawn – “Well sir we still aren’t making our numbers I don’t get it”
    Pres – “Don’t worry I’ve got hope and change that’ll work for sure!  Put the user fee on All of General Aviation, that should finally do it!”

    If you want to kill business in America “TAX IT”. 

    If you think that one sector in American business can support more burden on it YOU’RE WRONG no matter what sector it is!

    John Fischer

  6. Paul says

    Check out what happened in England with user fees, several hundred dollars to do a couple of touch and go’s.  Also, it’s about SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY.  How many turboprop pilots will elect to fly VFR and not contact ATC while mixed up in a hornet’s nest of small prop planes.  Not only will the turboprop not receive traffic avoidance info from ground radar, but the prop planes on flight following will not have the safety benifit of knowing when a 250 plus knot turboprop is about to run them out of the sky.  The more pilots that use the ATC system the better, not the other way around.  Way to go government, you found a way to make flying MORE dangerous, not less.

    • says

      I agree that user fee’s will destroy general aviation. From what I heard it will be levied against an aircraft in controlled airspace. Is not everything considered controlled except class G airspace? So basically every time the wheels leave the ground until they touch down again will have to pay the tax err fee I mean. And as others have stated, before long it will be a tax on all aircraft. Most student pilots do 150 to 200 touch and goes during pilot training. Can anyone imagine new pilots in the industry with the cost of training increasing 15K to 20K?

        • Pianist337 says

          So what…you’re willing to throw the turbine pilots under the bus and then HOPE they don’t come after the piston community? Appeasement didn’t work in 1939, and it won’t work now!

          • gbin says

            Nope.  I simply prefer to live in the real world and accordingly focus my attention on real world issues rather than on politically partisan doomsday hypotheticals.

            You might truly believe in the doomsday you write about or you might not, I have no way of knowing and plenty of reason to be suspicious given the deceitful tactics some opponents of the user fee have been employing.  But I do know that a number of exemptions from the user fee have been stipulated, including piston aircraft which of course make up the great majority of general aviation.  And I also know that some people in positions of authority (such as the author of this story) have been consciously or inadvertently – it doesn’t really matter which, as they have an obligation to get things right – misleading others on the subject in an apparent effort to scare them. 

          • Radf9760 says

            It’s hardly a “doomsday hypothetical” to point out that increasing the cost of turbine flying hurts GA.  It’s foolish to think that turbine business won’t pass on their costs to consumers.  You do realize that those of us who fly piston aircraft depend on turbine aircraft in many ways, don’t you?

            My flight school rents space above Western Aviation, a primarily turbine company.  If they have a per-flight fee increase, they’ll have to recoup the cost somewhere.  Our rent just might go up.

            We have the luxury of utilizing some great mechanics, people who earn most of their dollars working on turbine aircraft.  If their company is forced to reduce staff due to increased costs, we’ll have to ferry to Seattle for something as simple as a 25 hour.

            GA is a symbiotic ecosystem, what impacts some of us impacts us all.  Frankly, I’m in agreement with most of the other posters, government grows and user fees for turbine aircraft will inevitably result in fees for all.  However, even if we’re all wrong, there’s still ample reason to oppose such fees.

            The best reason of all to oppose turbine fees is that our government does not need to be stealing any more of our money, nor do they need to interfere in our lives any further.

        • Radf9760 says

          You do realize that training isn’t only conducted in piston aircraft, right?  Training is on-going throughout a pilot’s career. 

          Practically speaking, pilots will train and spend the early part of their careers in piston aircraft with the near-universal goal of transitioning into turbine aircraft.  My flight instructors buy turbine time whenever they can scrape together the cash because it makes them more attractive to future employers. 

          A career in aviation is already so difficult to manage financially.  Very little in terms of financial aid is available these days; the loans are small and the interest is just high enough that it would be nearly impossible to maintain a training schedule.  Every student I know is working full time and taking years to train.  There’s literally no viable loan option which allows for practical flight training. 

          User fees, even JUST turbine user fees are going to hurt low-time pilots and frankly, there’s not that many of us knocking about, we don’t need more financial obstacles. 

  7. Mitch Latting says

    Saying that the $100 fee is only for turbine aircraft, not piston powered aircraft is deceiving in itself.  It is a door opener for the rest of aircraft to follow.  Once the fee is in place, there is no further oversight to we are all fair game then.  

  8. Jimklick says


    I wonder what your name really is.

    I wonder if you ever studied any U.S. history. NEVER has the government
    passed a tax that did not expand and increase.

    I wonder if you know that the Income Tax was a temporary wartime
    Jim Klick

    I wonder why you think that everything is partisan politics, when sometimes
    something is just a bad idea, no matter who thought of it

  9. gbin says

    I wonder how many of the mayors who signed that letter were deliberately misled into thinking that the user fee pertains to all or nearly all of general aviation, rather than just to jet aircraft users?…

    I wonder how many of the mayors were politically partisan Republicans, opposed to anything the Obama administration might propose about anything?…

    I wonder why the author of this piece felt entitled to obscure the rather significant fact that piston aircraft users – the great majority of general aviation – are exempt from the fee (as certain other writers here have also omitted), and to label the Obama administration’s proposal as “attacks on GA” (rather more politically partisan than most reporting here)?…

    I wonder how many other readers here are tired of all of these blatant attempts to deceive them in the name of partisan politics?…

      • gbin says

        Right, because anyone who isn’t sufficiently suspicious or preferably outright disdainful of our current president must be a clandestine agent working on his behalf…

        I believe that’s called a paranoid fantasy.

        • Radf9760 says

          It’s not about Obama or the Left, it’s not partisan politics at all.  All politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have their hands in our pockets. 

          Do you think we should keep silent regarding our legitimate concerns just because you rabidly reply and cry “partisanship?” 

          It’s not deceitful to say that turbine user fees are an attack on General Aviation.  It may surprise you, as you seem ill-informed, but turbine aircraft are part of GA.  Many GA business begin as piston-only due to costs and expand to turbine in order to significantly increase revenue.  A per-flight fee makes the most profitable revenue stream of small GA businesses more expensive, for some it will be cost-prohibitave.  People will go out of business. 

          This is a tax that serves the long term purpose of setting a precedent for user fees that will probably eventually be applied to all of GA.  In the short term, Obama and the Left will get to crow about taxing the idle rich who cavort in their private planes – that’s the deception you should be worried about.  People who aren’t involved in GA may well shrug it off as gouging the rich when in fact, turbine user fees will hurt all of GA.

          Frankly, you don’t sound as though you’re a pilot, you don’t sound like someone who knows anything about GA.

          • gbin says

            I’m not about to waste my time correcting your innumerable mischaracterizations of who I am, how I feel about the proposed user fee, what the situation really is surrounding said user fee, etc., Radf9760.  As you appear to know all too well, it is far easier for someone of a mind to be dishonest in the interest of promoting his/her viewpoint than it is to defend the truth against such shenanigans.

            I’ll just take a moment to point out one example:  You wrote “[i]t’s not about Obama or the Left, it’s not partisan politics at all.”  Of course, the comment to which you were replying when you said that was a reply itself, to someone commenting that “[I] seem to be an Obama plant at this site.”  Not just a political plant – and administrations before Obama, including that of G.W. Bush, also proposed general aviation user fees – but specifically “an Obama plant.”  What’s far more, the very headline of this report (as I pointed out in my first comment about it) mentions “Obama’s attacks on GA.”  You want us all to pretend with you that the report’s author Mr. Spence and some others here haven’t been making an effort to turn this into a politically partisan issue?  Good luck with that.

            Ok, you can go back to churning out more deceitful garbage now…

          • Frank R. Sandoval says

            Mr. Radf9760:

            The paradox and denial that Mr./Ms. Gbin is faced with is that, the proposed $100 fee has ramifications beyond the actual words of the proposal itself. Safety, economics, progress, education, research, development and the future of Aviation, are all at risk and the proposal makes this very assertion in what it does not say. The truth is, this bad idea is actually saying far more than what the wording might indicate. It places Aviation in general under an unjustified control and makes it dependant on a bureaucracy for its continued existence. The wording also places a control that extends to what we might even consider insignificant but, as you have pointed out, has a far deeper hidden domino effect. You have explained it in terms that explicitly reveal that which we may otherwise miss or the unsuspecting not catch. It is important to pay careful attention to detail with a passion, if we are to preserve Aviation. So, we must make certain that the T is crossed and the I’s are dotted. If we allow abstract rhetoric to misinform or undermine the objective and spirit of Aviation, then we should not be entitled to what it has to offer us.

    • Pianist337 says

      You seem to have conveniently ignored the responders who mentioned the user fees would not be for piston aircraft, then went on to make the very valid point that once government gets its foot in the door with a new revenue stream, it will be only a matter of time until ALL flights who talk to ATC will be paying this fee. When the money collected from turbine flights isn’t enough, who do you think they’ll go after next? Ridiculous, you say? Hardly. If this new fee goes into effect, a new agency will be created to collect and “process” this fee. Once that happens, that agency will need ever-increasing funding to operate. Likely, it will need more money than it EVER collects, meanwhile driving some people away from flying and others from filing a flight plan ever again, significantly raising the risk level for those who still manage to fly. Also, you may want to notice I didn’t mention any specific political party here; this isn’t a partisan issue, it’s an issue about not needing another government agency! General aviation pays its share of the money it takes to manage the national airspace in fuel taxes. And the $100.00 figure is just a starting point. When that doesn’t raise the funds to even pay for the new agency, they’ll increase it to $150.00, $200.00, $300.00.

    • Radf9760 says

      I wonder how partisan politics has anything to do with disliking a specific tax proposal.  You’re the one dragging partisanship into the discussion.  It’s not about Left or Right wing, it’s about an unnecessary, ill-conceived proposal to gather revenue from a community already overburdened by government interference in the form of over-regulation and fuel taxation.

      It’s not partisan to ask the whole General Aviation community to support the concerns of turbine aviators.  We, the members of the GA community, are the informed citizens on the subject of user fees, of course we should all be aware of and involved in the decision. 

      How can you be so short-sighted as to think that increasing the cost of turbine time won’t affect the whole GA community? 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *