Redefine? It's a 135/91 Subpart-K(pending who's in back), how else do you define it? In the end, GA is simply any operation that doesn't fall under military or airline. I'm just trying to understand your point here

Honestly, the GA market still pays plenty, but it comes in ramp fee's, hideous fuel prices if you have a need to go into a "big-ger" airport. Airlines pay these, but that's more in the leasing agreement to operate from their gates at each facility, and their fuel is bought from the supplier in mass, so therefor discounts/gallon. If a landing fee is to be paid, that is required for all aircraft going in, and dependent on weight, so that's fair also. I almost forgot, all A/C over 6000lbs pay Excise Tax, so they have to pay for that too.

**stepping off soap-box** Honestly, I'll defend the anti-user-fee to the end. It's wrong for all sectors. It will hurt everyone in the end

 

I am sure that we all hope the user fee goes away however GA is dying anyway. If user fees up the price of a commercial licence to 100K then all our professional pilot certifications would be worth something again.

Seems that GA as we all know will be reduced to small rural privately owned air parks that will be populated by 60 somethings and sport pilot approved J-3's and champs.

SkyHigh

 

I think Skyhigh has a good point here. Look at the boating industry. Public marinas are not being built any more. Private marinas are being purchased and converted to Condominiums / dockominiums where only the "Yacht" crowd can afford to keep their "boat." The small boat owner is being squeezed out of the sport by regulation, taxation, high insurance costs, high fuel costs and "user fees." Sport aviation (where many of us learned to love flying) is being "displaced" by the same constraints.

Perhaps there is some good in all this. As SAABaroowski says, "There's nothing like flying a J-3 Cub with no doors off a grass strip."

 

I have been invited to join the local airport board in efforts of improving it. I don't know what to say. All the guys who fly for fun are over 60 anymore. GA as we know it seems doomed unless they can create a casual air park atmosphere and of course the local flight school (airline pilot factory) and charter jet guys don't want that.

GA will be banned to small rural out of the way farm fields. So I have to ask my self "why not a user fee"? I don't think it will really have an effect upon the small guy. They are on their way out anyway.

SkyHigh

 

Unfortunately Sky I think you are right in your assessment. We could truly be witnessing the end of an era right now. We had a good thing in the USA with the Golden Age of General Aviation including superb aircraft made on native soil, a wide ranging economical FBO network, cheap aviation gasoline, spectacular aeronautical scenery along with free flight service stations and full FAA infrastructural support. No more; it is time for all this to fade quietly away and things will become just as they are in Europe where to own or fly a small aircraft is cost prohibitive for the middle class. We'll be grounded, and we may never fly that way again.

The cost of flight training to become an airline plot will increase due to the demise of cheap GA-based flight training. The exorbitant taxes and fees will get rolled into the costs of attending ERAU and similar institutions. This will inevitably drive up the payscales airlines have to pay to attract professional pilot applicants. But it will take a few years. Airlines are not very worried about it, this wonderful source of low-priced pilots. They think there will not be a backlash; for 35 years young pilots have been forced to eat the $50k it took to get them their ratings.

I think the reality that most pilots are vastly underpaid has still not registered with the average American and most people still have no idea the glory days of the American airline pilot are gone. Airlines strongly attract people who still want a crack at the apple, and they can still pay peanuts for talented labor. But eventually the scarcity felt by airlines in the rest of the world feels in regard to pilot supply will arrive on domestic soil. Then payscales will rise. It will be the first time in 50 years they have to pay substantially higher pilot wages.

And by then the Golden Age of GA will be long gone.

 

Just a little factoid, there is an 18% FET on chartered flights, so a typical $20,000+ round trip from TEB to MIA incorporates about $1000 for Uncle Sam, include the roughly $2.00 on 1200 gallons of JetA for the r/t= $2400.

So yeah, there are user fees, they are called taxes in this case, but the net for the gov't is $3400 for 1 airplane going to MIA and back to TEB.

 

Pay might go up by 10% but it will never go back to even half of what they paid in the hey day.

We are experiencing a shortage of pilots willing to work for peanuts, nothing more.

SkyHigh

 

I believe the NetJets of sorts SHOULD pay user fees or an elevated fuel tax. But to pinch the one or two plane FBO flight training centers is just wrong and will kill all part 61 flight training.

 

They were talking about getting rid of the user fees and implimenting a fuel tax. They assumed that it would be "more fair." This is a very heated subject that is packing quite a punch with either outcome.

 

I guess when I made that very open ended comment I have only one or two ideas in mind.

I don't know the costs associated with operating a corporate flight dept and a company like NetJets. In my lack of knowledge it seems like they get away with not having to pay their share even though they are providing the same service the airlines do, transporting passengers. What I don't realize is the numerous fees they already pay, landing fee's and various taxes.

I really shouldn't comment because I don't know enough to begin with, but my impression has always been the companies like netjets get away without having to pay their share, the share that the airlines cover, even though in reality they are providing the same exact service.