Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Actually, I'll call you on that. What you are arguing is NOT what has ever been proposed here. There's plenty of what AOPA considers "GA" going on in those other countries too, because AOPA considers business aviation "GA". What has been proposed here would exempt true "GA" like flight instruction, people out doing their own fun flying, incidental to business, etc. So it kind of depends on what you want to call "GA". Guys flying jets for companies, or bob and jim renting a C172? If it's both, your argument doesn't apply because that's not what's being proposed. If it's the former, then what you are arguing is incorrect because there is definitely GA activity in those countries. If it's the latter, then what you are arguing is again incorrect because it doesn't apply.
I stand corrected. My argument is based upon the premise that user fees would apply to both situations, whereas the actual proposal in this country, as you mentioned, would exclude the C172-esque sector of GA. I should have been more clear to state that I do understand the current proposal excludes small piston airplanes.
My concern, however, remains that small GA aircraft will eventually get swallowed by a fee-hungry Congress. Our government has a track record of expanding its fee structure whenever the opportunity allows; it seems too easy to say "The corporate guys have to pay the fee, why not the guy who can afford to buy a $500k C172?"