FAA funding debate... let's discuss

[Amenab Slade 886213]

News flash, impending legislation scheduled to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] in a few days will crush general aviation. The propaganda is churning away at full throttle, and is effectively convincing lots of uneducated folks that GA is the scome of aviation.

 

That's right, if just a few days the FAA will become an autocratic monster salivating to enforce $.70 increase in fuel taxes for GA aircraft, mandatory user fees for entering controlled airspace oh and you guessed it, a decrease in taxes for the airlines.

 

The argument for user fees by the airlines is they are disproportionately paying and unfair share to use the national airspace system (NAS). The propaganda being spread is GA is congesting the airspace at major airports and causing all the flight delays (wtf).

 

The federal airway and development act of the early 70's authorized the NAS system to be funded via national excise taxes. This is the most efficient and effective way to fund the system, as no additional resources are necessary to collect.

 

You buy gas, and the system is funded simple.

 

It is a time proven method, which has generated a few billion is surplus revenues annually.

 

The FAA wants to perform a standard rate time turn 180 degrees to mimic the airspace of countries like Europe and Australia. Currently GA pilots in these countries pay 300-400% more for each flight than a pilot flying in the U.S.

 

 

So now, the reasoning is GA pilots will continue to fly once user fees are implemented AT THE SAME percentages. This despite the cost per flight 300-400% higher.

 

Unbeknown to most people GA aircraft and ops greatly exceed airlines. However, the majority of these are using the system minimally, by flying VFR.

 

When comparing financials, the airliners dwarf GA and to overall usage of the NAS system. What airline do you know flies VFR?

 

Well so there you have it. Millions of people will have their dreams shattered and their livelihoods ruined because of this incompetent decision to implement user fees.

 

These proposed laws are so detrimental to aviation. I think this conversation would not have any merit here on VATSIM because 99.5% of people fly commercial a/c.

 

God bless America!

 

edit: link added http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

[Joseph Soter 939877]

I can't do too much personally to fight this, but I know that there are a significant number of people of this community that fly in real life that should be concerned about this. I think this deserves a place in my sig for a few days.

 

I know for a fact that if this goes in to effect, my entire flight training process could be jeopardized.

[James McMannamy]

Another point in the user-fee scenario is that these user fees are supposed to help alleviate the problems [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with airline delays at major airports (this is something backed by all the airlines and the airline buddies in congress -- the commercial broadcast on the CNN airport network last week gave the misleading impression that airline delays at big airports are due to general aviation users at those airports).

 

This doesn't make any sense because the airlines make up over 90% (usually more than that) of the traffic at the busiest airports with the most delays. The airline industry is blaming general aviation for its own problems. Once they have user fees in place, what will the next step be for the airlines? They would have to find someone else to blame for their [Mod - lovely stuff]py scheduling -- I think it would probably be the air traffic control system next, and they'll want to contract out more of the NAS to help out their corporate buddies at Boeing and Lockheed Martin (and to divert the attention away from themselves).

 

The imposed work rules and huge pay cut on the air traffic control workforce is just a step in making the contracting out of the ATC system easier and more attractive to big business.

 

Once this is finally all complete several years down the road . . . the airlines will have to find someone else to blame. So right now: GA, next: ATC. They have plenty of time to look for another scapegoat in the meantime.

[Jerry Jacobs 920625]

You know what will happen?

 

What will happen is that pilots with a Commercial Liscense will be scarce.

 

YOU CANNOT HAVE BIG PLANES WITHOUT LITTLE PLANES!

[Brian Nuss 887798]

YOU CANNOT HAVE BIG PLANES WITHOUT LITTLE PLANES!

 

That is exactly right, Jerry. Put another way, little pilots grow up to be big pilots. If the FAA with their diabolic plans, eradicates GA from this last bastion of flying freedom that we enjoy in the U.S., where are pilots going to go to get the training they need?

 

We already have the entire world's pilots coming over here for flight training because their own countries have done to them what the FAA now wants to do to us. Where will we go when fees and taxes have made flying unaffordable here? Antartica?

[Alex Bailey 969331]

If anyone has over flown real world, you know as well as I do that fuel is how they make their money. They always disregard the landing fee when you buy fuel at their airport This certainly isn't good for the industry any way you slice it - without the influx of GA pilots you won't have anymore commercial pilots...

[Aggrey Ellis 964561]

This is looking bad. People might start having to some to Canada.

[Tim Krajcar]

Canada already has user fees..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nav_canada

[Marc Glorioso 810788]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t7GQQK81xw

 

 

This is the best video that describes the FAA's budget.

[Amenab Slade 886213]

Once the precedent is set with enacting aviation user fees (no matter how small) it will eventually get to a point where flying is simply no longer an option.

 

I do agree with one argument, the overall system has to be modernized and quickly, but not at GA's expense.

 

The only thing that can possibly stop this bill is if our reps become aware that Congressional oversight of the FAA will be eliminated with this new law going into effect.

 

Only time will tell.

[Jim Davey]

Like they "modernized" the FSS, right?

55 minutes on hold the other day for a briefing, only to have a briefer from California that hadn't a clue about DC area airspace... I had to tell him where to look for my needed information...

[Scott Johnston 890281]

Why does the system need to be modernized? It seems to work perfectly fine to me. The system aint broke, if the FAA starts monkeying around with it, they'll just fuck it up.

 

The reason that there are so many delays at hub airports is because the the airlines schedule all their damn flights at the same times. No amount of "modernizing" is going to fix that.

 

What the FAA NEEDS to do, is get rid of that monkey of an admin Blakey, and get someone that actually has a clue.

[Steven Perry]

Why does the system need to be modernized? It seems to work perfectly fine to me. The system aint broke, if the FAA starts monkeying around with it, they'll just [Mod-You kiss your mother with that mouth?] it up.

 

There are a lot of items that need to be modernized to improve up-time, safety, and efficiency. Ancient radar that is almost older than anyone working for the FAA could use a face lift... or at least they could replace all the vacuum tubes and clear the circuits of bugs. Ensuring that the UPS system doesn't belch CO-exhaust back into the control room would be a nice upgrade too. Some of the buildings used for ATC purposes need renovations or a new start entirely. The list goes on but I need to run out the door...

 

All these modernizations, a bunch of new runways, and some pretty power point presentations will not fix the system though. The only reason more than 49 people haven't died yet because of the dilapidated state of the FAA is the veteran controllers that manage to hold all the crumbling pieces of this house of cards together. In 5 years, these vets will be as sp[Mod - Happy Thoughts] as the hair left on the heads of the 20 year old kids taking over for them without any training, support, or equipment.

 

Statistics indicated an up-tick in fatal ATC-related accidents after Reagan fired all the PATCO folks. During the "good ol' days" of the 90s and the first half of this decade, the fatalities dropped to (or almost) nil, but we sure did "lose" a lot of money paying a sufficient number of air traffic controllers a good wage. Now it's time to restrike a balance between budget and lives. 49 people have died so far due to the FAA's premeditated plan to cut staffing, cut time-off, cut breaks, and cut pay. No one complained more than a few squeaks out of the talking heads in the week after the disaster though, so clearly the cost savings are worth more than 49.

[Brian Nuss 887798]

By the way, the FAA, in their infinite wisdom, chose as part of their "strategy" to hand a 30(!) pay cut across the board to all their controllers. This, at a time when the ATC system is desperately short of controllers throughout the system.

 

And when the airlines cite why it is that they have so many delays, they inevitably raise two causes:

 

1. weather

2. ATC

 

The latter is usually due either to outdated equipment, too many planes being pushed through an antiquidated system, or ATC which is perpetually understaffed.

[Scott Johnston 890281]

 

The latter is usually due either to outdated equipment, too many planes being pushed through an antiquidated system, or ATC which is perpetually understaffed.

Well, they're partially correct. It IS because there are too many planes being pushed through the system, but that's THEIR fault, and it has nothing to do with the system being out-dated. Updating the system is not going to fix the fact that there are only so many gates, so much space on the airport, and so many flights that can arrive and depart at the same time.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

You bring up a good point, Scott. Any multi functional system is going to have a number of constraints and near constraints. As soon as you break one (hire more ATC (cheaply)) then another component becomes the constraint (not enough runways and gates). Break that constraint and then the next one pops up (those pesky GA airplanes).

 

Corporations justify improvements all the time, saying things like "Widget XYZ is the best thing since sliced bread and will make the system go from 60 to 500 mph." Everyone walks out of the room [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming they are on the verge of a 500 mph breakthrough. That change gets implemented but the whole thing stops at the next constraint, only going 75 mph instead of 500 mph.

 

Point is, like so many complex problems, there aren't simple answers. You have to understand that system at a basic level, be able to figure out which ones are really working well and to what level, then prioritize your improvement methods and projects to get the constraint breaking order right so you get a consistent bang for your buck.

 

If I read what's going on in the US House, this bill isn't going to make it because the House version differs A LOT from the Senate version. That puts them in conference and, if the immigration bills are any indicator, there it will die. We can only hope; lots more GA pilots in the House than Senate, I think.