View Poll Results: As an airline pilot, are you an AOPA member?
Yes
27
56.25%
No
21
43.75%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll
AOPA and Airline Pilots
07-31-2014 | 07:11 PM
#12
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
I have been, off and on, for many years.
Off right now, probably will renew in the future. Too busy with other stuff right now, but as soon as I get rid of 4 kids, then I'll have more time to play with little airplanes.
Same with EAA. Great organization, just don't have enough time/money to play right now.
4 kids in college will do that to you...
My sailboat racing friends call me, "The poster child for birth control"!
Most of them have zero kids and go racing all the time. I'm lucky to make 3-4 regattas per year.
Such is life.
Off right now, probably will renew in the future. Too busy with other stuff right now, but as soon as I get rid of 4 kids, then I'll have more time to play with little airplanes.
Same with EAA. Great organization, just don't have enough time/money to play right now.
4 kids in college will do that to you...
My sailboat racing friends call me, "The poster child for birth control"!
Most of them have zero kids and go racing all the time. I'm lucky to make 3-4 regattas per year.
Such is life.
08-03-2014 | 07:51 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,923
Likes: 698
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
My understanding...current ATC "user fees" come from a fuel tax...a 777 and a Phenom fly the same route and use identical ATC services and bandwidth but the 777 pays a LOT more user fees for those same services due to much higher fuel burn.
The airlines would prefer that each aircraft paid "per use" fees. Other countries already do this. Good for airlines (they no longer subsidize GA) but bad for GA which would almost certainly have to pay significantly more per flight than their current fuel tax.
08-03-2014 | 10:10 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
From: Right Seat 737, Front seat T-6
Not a member. I cancelled mine several years ago, as they were against every single change to military airspace. I understand supporting GA (I fly civilian warbirds), but doing so at the expense of other aviation groups seemed odd to me.
Instead, I am a member of and support the Commemorative Air Force--they lobby the FAA and congress to help keep old warbirds flying.
Instead, I am a member of and support the Commemorative Air Force--they lobby the FAA and congress to help keep old warbirds flying.
08-04-2014 | 05:09 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
My understanding...current ATC "user fees" come from a fuel tax...a 777 and a Phenom fly the same route and use identical ATC services and bandwidth but the 777 pays a LOT more user fees for those same services due to much higher fuel burn.
The airlines would prefer that each aircraft paid "per use" fees. Other countries already do this. Good for airlines (they no longer subsidize GA) but bad for GA which would almost certainly have to pay significantly more per flight than their current fuel tax.
The airlines would prefer that each aircraft paid "per use" fees. Other countries already do this. Good for airlines (they no longer subsidize GA) but bad for GA which would almost certainly have to pay significantly more per flight than their current fuel tax.
There would have to be some structure that acknowledges the relative ability or inability of GA to pay user fees as compered to airlines and other operators, or we would kill GA in this country.
AOPA - am a member, have always enjoyed their online safety courses and those aren't free to put together.
08-04-2014 | 12:11 PM
#16
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
There is a big Light Sport Aviation event here in January, come on down!
http://www.sport-aviation-expo.com/
08-04-2014 | 06:04 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,150
Likes: 51
From: Volleyball Player
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.
08-05-2014 | 08:47 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
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.
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?"
08-05-2014 | 11:52 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,150
Likes: 51
From: Volleyball Player
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?"
08-05-2014 | 11:56 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Well, it is impossible to prove a negative and also impossible to prove that something that hasn't yet happened will happen. So we both have the same hole in our argument. I can see why you feel the concern is not justified, though I still hold to it. I'm willing to live with that. ^.^
