Maybe we should be pulling for the military to cut the amount of pilots in half. That would eventually produce fewer commercial pilots.

From what I have seen, the number of new private pilots has dropped significantly over the past several years largely because of fuel prices (maybe $1.00 or $1.50 more a gallon). Yet the number of commercial pilots has been increasing. That means no one is learning to fly for fun anymore. People getting a pilots license are doing it to go to airlines. User fees will kill GA flying for fun, but I am not sure it will put a huge dent into the commercial pilot supply.

A lower supply of pilots will not directly affect pay at the regional level as long as regionals can keep lowering minimums. One of two things would need to happen to prevent this:
1. The FAA could require any pilot of a 121 airliner (captain of FO) must have ATP minimums. That way when regionals need to hire like crazy (As ExpressJet, Skywest, Republic, Eagle, etc... are right now), they could not just lower minimums to get pilots. They would need to think of ways of attracting pilots (BETTER PAY, BETTER QOL, ETC...).
2. Minimums get so low that most regionals start hiring with a commercial multi. Then the minimums can't get any lower. The only way to attract pilots would be to increase pay, qol, etc...

Since it doesn't look like #1 can ever happen, I am rooting for #2. What happens when these companies with low mins lower then to commercial multi, and they still have a hard time attracting pilots?

The FAA is scared to death about what the thousands of VLJ airplanes are going to do to the system. So are all the Part 121 folks. FL280 and .65 Mach will constipate the ATS like you won't believe. Maybe taxes will keep the rich folks grounded.

Incorrect. The opposite is ture. Just as in Europe only the super-rich will be able to afford aviation. Decent average folks who just want to have a little plane (like me) will be screwed over hard core.

As for less people flying for fun, it's technically true, probably mostly due to family and work obligations and not enough free time than the cost. AOPA did an analysis of the cost of flying and they estimated that (adjusting for inflation) renting a plane today isn't much more expensive than it was 30 years ago.

Also, I'm somewhat bothered by this attitude amongst airline pilots that only their commercial airlines deserve to be in the sky. That's just the vibe I'm getting. It would be pretty sad to have to tell our grandchildren that there was once a time when average Americans could fly fun little airplanes.

Mike, though this thread digressed into a 'supply and demand' thread (sorry) the importance of sharing the cost of the ATC is one of fairness. Doesn't a BE-200 (with 8 pax) take up the same ATC slot and workload as an A-320 with 148 pax? Shouldn't the GA pilot shoulder the same share?

This whole thing bothers me on several levels. 1) The FAA is taking its lead from Europe. The flaw in this thinking is in the UK, you can fly IFR without a flight plan. Controlled airspace is only around the airports. The UK breaks up their altitues they fly at by 90 degree increments instead of 180 like we do here. 2) Can someone explain to me how we have a 2.9 trillion dollar budget and can't afford our current ATS???? 3) If technology is the root cause for pilots losing their jobs they why can't the same technology be used to handle the "extra" traffic? Seems everywhere I've worked I was always asked to do more for the same or less in some cases.

In general, point taken. However, I take your point only on the assumption that the BE-200 you mention is some sort of commercial charter or air taxi operation with fare-paying passengers. If that's the case, then I can agree. As far as a new system though, it would be much easier to simply subject charter/air taxi fares to the segment tax that regular airline pax pay. This wouldn't be a hirrible thing since the segment taxes are pretty small and it would be payed by the passenger, not really the charter company or the individual pilot flying the plane.

What outrages me is the idea of runnung through the financial ringer pilots who fly privately, mostly in a non-IFR environment. Massive taxes and fees would apply to pilots who aren't even IFR rated and/or whose planes aren't even IFR certified. And VFR operations have no guaranteed use of the ATC system. I don't like the idea of paying for ATC only to be denied VFR flight following. That would be like when you put your dollar into the vending machine and don't get the soda.

Well, there are some GA pilots out there that are wealthy and will own airplanes and fly them no matter what the cost is. So, I dont see these user fees killing off that pilot group. It will hurt the guy that rents a plane to go flying for fun once a month or a few times a year.

Arent the regional airlines having a hard time finding pilots right now? Isnt that why they are taking people at 800/100 or lower? I am sure there are pilots here that had to have substantially higher experience to get their jobs, even if it was only 1-2 years ago. My point is, the regionals are having some trouble filling their classes, but their response hasnt been to raise the pay, they have lowered their "qualifications".

Only time will tell what the effects of this will or wont be....

Umm, no. Chances are pretty good that the BE200 goes to a reliever airport that doesn't require the massive environment that the hub does to serve the A320. Corporate/General aviation never required the massively expensive runway/ATC environment that the airlines do. Give me a 5,000 foot runway, a GPS approach, and one tower controller and I'm all set. When we go to a hub airport, we get hit with some pretty massive fees already, so for the most part we avoid them. When we have to use one, we figure the hefty landing fees are the price we pay to play in the big boy's playground. Why make me pay, though, when I stay out of their expensive playground?

What's wrong with the fuel tax that we already pay? It makes total sense and is fair. The more the airplane burns per hour, the more the operator pays per hour - duh. It ain't broken, why fix it? Plus the system is already in place. Starting a different system will be problematic and costly - just ask anybody that operates in Canada.

Don't even get me started about the fact that the FAA can't even get a handle on exactly what their current/future expenditure requirements are. Even the GAO is shaking there heads at what goes on at the FAA accounting offices. How can you set prices when you don't even know what the costs are? Oh sorry, bad analogy - that's the way the airlines have been operatng for years. The FAA must have learned it from them.

When you get down to brass tacks, this is just a way for the airlines to attempt to pass more of their costs off to someone else because they can't seem to make a go of it on their own, not to mention the fact that they are feeling threatened by the competition of general aviation. The fractionals are starting to eat into their first class clientel and they're nervous. They turned people off with their poor service and people are going away in droves. They are using this "make the fat cats pay their fair share" lame argument to get the FAA to buy into it.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail. Congress is already starting to look at this as a dead issue, so maybe that's as far as it goes.