Asked by The Eagle editorial board this week about his top priorities in the new Congress, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, mentioned his efforts to avert a Federal Aviation Administration plan to impose user fees on business jets and private pilots, and he predicted success. He and others have warned that raising the cost of flying will reduce plane sales — a terrible development for Wichita’s general-aviation manufacturers. “I think we’ve finally gotten the stake out and are about to drive it through user fees,” he said. That’s good news for Wichita’s economy.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
47 Comments
His top priority is *user fees* on general aviation??
What about the war?
What about energy independence?
What about the demographic disaster that is going to be Social Security?
What about the national debt, and the fact that much of it is held by emerging military powers that do not have our best interests at heart?
What about illegal immigration, and the utter failure of the Federal government to control the border?
What about the growing spread of Islamic fanaticism, fueled lately by this country’s military policy?
What about nukes in North Korea?
Nukes in Pakistan?
What about the train wreck that NCLB is becoming?
What about the questionable, possibly criminal activities by his campaign staff?
ALL THIS AND MORE, AND HIS TOP PRIORITY IS AVIATION USER FEES???
Good grief. This man has to go.
Oh, and anyway, the biggest threat to aircraft manufacturing jobs is not user fees. It’s outsourcing and the selling off of manufacturing facilities and other assets.
When I moved to Kansas in 1995, there were nearly 30,000 people employed at Boeing Wichita. Now it’s down to a little less than 4000. All that without user fees…
A tax that did quite a bit of damage to general aviation was the luxury tax of the eighties. Sales of new aircraft went way down and the average price paid for a used plane went up and drove many private sale away too as few could afforded the taxes.
And yes Tom the factors you named has a effect on the economy as well.
Tiahrt is supposed to represent the Kansas 4th Congressional District. Not the “Boeing first” congressional district.
Let me see if I get this.
Option 1:
No user fees. This translates to no money for airport maintenance. Planes hit potholes at high speeds. Nasty crashes.
Option 2:
Stick people other than plane owners with the tab for airport maintenance. Execs and affluent hobby pilots can’t afford it. Right.
I own a tiny 14-foot sailboat. I have to buy a state parks permit to use our local lakes in order to sail my boat.
Two summers ago we went camping in Colorado, then on the West Coast. We had to pay campsite user fees in every National Forest campground we stayed in. This used to be “free”, i.e. all taxpayers subsidized the campers. But this changed under Ronald Reagan’s administration.
So the Republican position would seem to be, “If it’s a government-owned facility for average Joes and their families, they should pay to use it. If it’s a facility for rich guys, average Joes and their families should pay for the rich guys to use it.”
Please, Tom, you’re depressing me.
Please be informed. The implementation of the proposed user fee has nothing to do with Boeing. The proposed fee affects only general aviatione (Beech, Cessna, Learjet) which employs more people than Boeing and Spirit combined. Second, general aviation “rich guys” already pay user fees-it’s called a fuel tax. Third, the user fees are curretnly assigned to commercial aircraft, because they are the primary user of the air traffic control system.The ATC was built for the commercial aviation system. In fact, when general aviation was banned from Washington DC airport, there was little difference in the load factor of the Air Traffic Control System. And please, the fees that the average joes pay to use the parks system are paid by the rich folks.
Tom has his negative hat on this morning. Just because there are more important things in the world doesn’t mean that life doesn’t go on.
The user fee issue affects ordinary people in how it depresses sales of airplane. People have jobs making those planes.
Dr. Schooley tries to make it a partisan issue. The FAA wanted to impose the fees. They are Democrats? The Eagle is applauding Tiahrt’s efforts? They are Republicans? It’s an issue that has a potential large local impact. This is something we should be united on, unless we are just looking for something to complain about.
Outlander,
I have my “stunned disbelief” hat on today. I’m stunned that Tiahrt’s top priority is a user fee for wealthy people.
I have to pay a $10 user fee for every round-trip to Topeka I make. Will Boeing First District Representative pass a law doing away with the Turnpike tolls?
“Asked by The Eagle editorial board this week about his top priorities…”
Please note that priorities is plural. That means more than one.
Tom forgets to mention that some of those “outsourced”jobs are right here in Wichita that service the needs of local manufacturers.
You better do a recount of aircraft and aircraft related employees Tom.
Republican,
And most of those employees have taken *reductions* in wages and benefits.
Great job, Mr. Boeing First District Representative.
“When I moved to Kansas in 1995, there were nearly 30,000 people employed at Boeing Wichita. Now it’s down to a little less than 4000. All that without user fees…”
The facts that you aren’t looking at are that there are still almost 20,000 people employeed in that same location but most of them are now employees of Spirit. And the reason that the number of Boeing employees is now so small is mainly because Boeing is, I believe, trying to get rid of it’s location in Wichita. My prediction is that in 10 years, Boeing will either not exist here or will have just enough employees located here to do maintenance/modifications on military planes.
AFN, so you’re defending Tiahrt by saying “only” 10,000 jobs have been lost, and the last 4000 are soon to go???
I’m not really “defending” anything and actually I misread some of the previous post and didn’t realize exactly what was being said until after I posted mine… BUT if people around here are really so worried about Boeing, and if these fees would somehow affect Boeing and its revenue, I would think that could greatly affect what little of the company is left.
There weren’t 30,000 employees at Boeing wichita in 1995.
None of this makes a whit of difference. When the penalties for CO2 emissions kick in that WE pushes so highly , its certain the entire industry will simply disappear. I really doubt that the private planes will even be allowed. Cars and trucks are useful for work and to live to exist today, but your own special jet is not.
Just listen to the newsies bitchin about the John Travolta, Prince Charles et al and their flying around on private jets. That will eventually filter down to most everyone.
Look at this astounding map or Private jets leaving the SuperBowl..
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/02/fly_the_crowded_1.shtml
and picture all that gone, if they have to start paying emission fees such as the cars have for years. GM just estimated the new proposals being talked for cars will add over 5000 to the price of the next gen cars. Hell the current pollution on cars has added over 6000 to the ones you drive now.
Toyota was losing almost 15,000 on each Prius until this year and they have supposedly gotten it down to around only losing 5000 on each one now. So the things were and still are a loser bait. Plus they get no where near the mileage stated.
The US will be pilloried by the EU and UN for not signing Kyoto. But no one in the news tell you that the NONE of the EU signers have EVER met their goals..never will. Some are 20 to 50 % over and it grows ever year. Their old stodgy Socialist/communist based economies would simply shut down if they did try to meet it. Plus China DOES NOT have to meet anything. Go figure
One thing that must be made clear is that general aviation is not just a hobby for the rich. Just about anybody can go through the training and earn their pilot’s license. I did, and I work part time and am working towards a degree. Unfortunately over the past few years, the costs of general aviation, particularly insurance coverage on aircraft, and the cost of aviation fuel, have skyrocketed. Adding user fees that private pilots would have to pay will just add to the number of pilots that stop flying. General Aviation is a very important part of the nation’s transportation system and imposing user fees I believe would be crippling. 10 small local airports are closing everyday in the United States which in turn take jobs away and hurt local economies. I have not always supported Congressman Tiahrt’s views but in this particular case I support him. There is a documentary entitled “One Six Right” that explains the role general aviation plays in the United States and I think that if some of the people that think user fees are a good idea should watch it.
You’re right anon. I saw the previews at one six right dot com and must say I want to get the DVD and watch it.
Flying is probably one of the few things a man or woman can do and feel really spiritual significant while realizing how insignificant he or she is in the grand scheme of the World.
Your right, I think Tiahrt got this one pegged; right on the money.
The Air Transport Association says that airlines pay for 94 percent of the current system, but only account for 68 to 70 percent of the system costs. According to the ATA, general aviation user fees will put the costs of the air traffic control and airport systems on the people who use them.
I’m flying to St Louis on the 19th. Why should I pay for not just the airline services I’m using, but subsidize private planes at the same time? I don’t get to take a LearJet to St Louis – I’ll be flying coach/cattlecar. But I’m helping pay for Todd’s buddies to jet around the country in luxury.
Nice.
Even nicer is that Todd is making this one of his “top priorities.”
Thanks, Boeing First District Representative.
Why do you think flying is just for the rich? I’m not rich but I fly. My plane cost me less than my car, yet I use it every day that I can, becuase it allows me to conduct my business and still be home at night. If I didn’t have it, I’d spend a lot more money staying at hotels and driving home the next day. Also, the argument that airlines pay 98 percent of the bill while only using 70 percent of the services is plain BS. General Aviations pays tremendous taxes already on fuel. If you think ~$4.50 per gallon of fuel is cheap, think again. General Aviation generally doesn’t even use the Air Traffic Control system that they want us to pay for. Out of 100 flights I flew last year, I used ATC on a total of 4 of them, and that was only becuase I needed them, yet I paid for them on every single flight I had through the fuel tax. Commercial Airlines MUST use ATC on every single flight they conduct. The user fee proposal doesn’t only add a “Per Use” tax to every flight, it quadruples the Fuel Tax we’re already paying to support the Commercial Airlines system.
Do the math and check the facts before you post this kind of BS. The Commercial Carriers are hurting badly because of their own poor business practices and now they want General Aviation to help bail them out.
On a side note. If you don’t think that GA traffic will suffer with user fees, check around in other countries that use User Fees like this proposal. You will see a drastic reduction in the number of flights simply becuase they can not afford to do it anymore.
Those of you who think paying tolls is just like this, you’re wrong. User Fees applied in this scenerio would cover EVERY SINGLE ROAD YOU DRIVE ON as soon as you pull out of your driveway, not just selected toll roads you see today. For example, you don’t pay for roads funded by the National Highway System which allow you to drive across this entire great country without paying a single fee (except fuel tax, which we also pay.) We do have airports where there are landing fees, similar to the Toll Road scenerio, but we don’t have to go there, just the same as you don’t have to drive on a toll road. However, sometimes, it’s just convenient to do it, like driving to Topeka directly.
Bill
To those who think GA pilots are all wealthy individuals with money to throw away…
I got my pilot’s license when I was making $17 thousand a year serving the US Air Force. I saved and rented a plane whenever I could afford it. Then after I got my license I went 15 years without flying because my income went even lower. I finally landed a job that payed me $40 thousand a year and was able to scrape money together and actually buy a plane. In order to afford maintenance I had to go out and get certified as an aircraft repairman with the FAA. Now I own my plane(still making payments ($240/mo)) and use it primarily to fly sick and needy people around the area through Angel Flight America as well as fly for disaster relief efforts when needed. I do this COMPLETELY and solely at my own expense. Just last Monday I flew a mission that used 35 gallons of fuel at about $5 a gallon. My viewpoint is that if I am blessed to have the license and plane then I will use it to help others. I’m not alone in this, there are thousands of pilots nationwide who volunteer their time, money, and airplanes for this worthy purpose. If user fees are enacted not only will the price of fuel jump almost a dollar a gallon but I will be charged for talking to air traffic control, towers, flying through some types of airspace, and other charges that will make flying completely unaffordable and keep me from being able to help those who need it. I would be forced to use gas from the local filling station even though my plane may not be approved to use that fuel. I will be forced to fly below clouds and try to dodge all the radio and tv towers if I happen to see them. I won’t ever talk to air traffic control because it will cost too much…and there will be thousands of other planes doing likewise. You may see the number of accidents skyrocket (midair collisions, flight into towers or terrain) because of this poorly thought out proposal. Currently General Aviation pays it’s fair share in fuel taxes, that’s why our fuel is already around $5 a gallon. The airlines cause the majority of aviation headaches in this country because of their “spoke and hub” system. GA shouldn’t be the ones to pay to fix Airlines’ system, they should pay to fix it themselves. We put very little strain on the air traffic control system because we don’t even have to talk to them in many cases. The Airlines cannot move their planes without talking to air traffic contol. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has proven that there is plenty, even an excess, of money available with the current funding system to finance all that the FAA wants to do in the foreseeable future. General Aviation is not just a bunch of rich guys flying for the fun of it (although there is that segment of the population of pilots). A lot of us scrape together what we can to keep our planes flying, or even build our own planes from scratch, and help the community if possible because we love flying and hear the call to help others if we are able. We can’t afford to have the airlines (who can’t even keep themselves out of bankruptcy) in charge of aviation in this country. Eventually such a plan will destroy aviation in the United States as we know it.
It is unfortunate that so many people in this country just react to a headline instead of finding out for themselves what is really going on. I am a pilot, but have not flown for some time due to work and other commitments. But now I am ready to get back into the left seat and exercise my rights and priviledges, as all americans can do when they jump behind the wheel of their cars, to fly a GA aircraft. But there is a problem, President Bush, as President Clinton before him, have decided that they want the FAA to be a private organization that can charge for their services, every single service. You might say that this sounds good, but it is not! You see, it will be the FAA that becomes private, no longer under that control and oversight of Congress… the people that we all vote for to work on our behalf. Who would be incharge and would provide that oversight, the airlines. It seems that the FAA and airlines want to merge together, but not make it appear so, to create a new air traffic system in America, one that airlines would control and general aviation would be pushed out of. How would you like it if to drive your car from you home to work everyday, you had to pay a fee for each road you drove on, a fee for every traffic light you stopped at, a fee for every stop sign you came to in addtion to every gas tax that you pay for now, what would you think? You would be angry! Lets add on that truckers and buses, who are the road equivalent of the airlines, get the department of transportation to make those fees high enough that you just don’t drive anymore because you cannot afford it. You would have to give up a right that you not only may enjoy, but need because a special interest group wants you out of the way so they can make more money. Is this what America has become. If this passes…yes! Also, will you feel safe in the skies when the FAA is not longer providing the oversight that the airlines hate. That’s right, the FAA will not longer be the organization for safety oversight because the airlines will not let them and congress will no longer have the ability to hold them accountable.
So when you say that Rep Tiahrt is not doing his job, you are wrong…he is trying to save your life next time you fly.
Check what is happening…www.aopa.net and http://www.avweb.com
Bob
Allow me to welcome all the non-Wichitans and non-Kansans who are linking here from the AVWeb.com article about this blog entry. It’s great to see you taking such a passionate interest in the activities of a Representative from a district you probably only fly over.
There are quite a large and growing number of us in Kansas 4th Congressional District that would be more than happy for Tiahrt to move to your districts and represent you, instead. It’s been increasingly clear for several years that he hasn’t been doing such a great job for us.
I just have one question for you: Do the AOPA lobbyists really care what happens to Tiahrt’s *real* constituents? You know, the people who actually *live here?*
I have to agree with Wm and Ken. Tom is one of the most uninformed individuals that I have read. I am a pilot and I am not a “rich guy”. General Aviation is so much more than “his buddies flying around in luxury”. General Aviation supports many small communities that do not have access to commercial services due to the “Hub and Spoke” system of the airlines. This was a direct result of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This Act made airline travel much more affordable to the general public and much less accessible. The airlines use 90% of the ATC system in this country. It was built for them. General Aviation only uses the excess. If you banned every general aviation flight from areas such as New York City not one controller would lose his job because the usage would remain the same. The Airlines are doing nothing but wanting to shift their debt to general aviation. They have run their companies so poorly for so long that they are all virtually bankrupt. If it was not for the taxpayer bailing them out each year in the form of Airline Subsidies from the government their would be no airlines. So each and every one of you that live in Wichita should be thanking Tiahrt for being concerned enough to keep the econcomy here in Wichita healthy. If general aviation dies it won’t affect Boeing except positively. What it would affect is the jobs at Cessna, Beech, Bombardier and every other supplier of these companies. Please get your information correct about such things as General Aviation. Don’t assume only the “rich guys” can fly airplanes. It JUST NOT TRUE!!!
Wm, Ken and the informed Tom may be viewd as biased because they are pilots, but at least they are informed pilots. One of the reasons the ‘road to hell is paved with good intentions’, as was pointed out previously by Ken, is that far too few American citizens take the time to do a little research of their own so that they are knowledgeable about a subject before they form an opinion. Too many Americans citizens form emotional viewpoints based on newpaper headlines and/or radio and TV sound bites. For those who would like to add to their knowledge about General Aviation, please log on to gaservingamerica.org to learn about how General Aviation impacts our society. One can also log onto aopa.org (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) to learn about the association that represents airplane owners. Then, if you want, log onto faa.gov to learn about the organization that has been and continues to be responsible for the largest, safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. A little knowledge goes a long way. Thanks.
My previous post should have said Wm, Ken and SkyhawkB, not the informed Tom. Sorry.
Actually, opposing user fees is pro-little-guy and anti-big-business. It is the airlines that have pursued these fees, apparently because they want to drive the small aircraft out of the system and shift costs in a way that they think will benefit them.
The user-fee proposal would set up a new bureaucracy that would charge fees each time an aircraft talks to an FAA facility for services. That sounds fair on the surface, but it overlooks the fact that those services are currently paid for by taxes on aviation fuel, Everyone who flies pays for them whether they actually use the controllers or not, but since the controllers direct the planes they ARE talking to away from all planes, whether they are talking to them or not, even those who are not participating in air-traffic control services benefit.
If you have to pay per service, it would discourage private aircraft from using air traffic control services, which would mean more accidents, since fewer planes would be telling the controllers what they are going to do. The controller might be able to tell the airliner that there is a small plane out ahead of him, but he’d have no way of knowing whether that plane is going to turn, climb or descend.
With the current fuel-tax-based funding system, anyone who buys gas to fly pays for these costs, so they have no financial incentive not to increase the safety of everyone by using air-traffic-control service.
This silly idea was proposed by the Bush administration at the behest of the airlines who see it as a way to save money, but the Democratic congress (with th agreement of many Republicans) appears ready to squelch it.
If the current system is paid for by a fuel tax than i would expect that the major airlines bear the majority of the cost burden. This makes since being that 747’s take more fuel than a Beechcraft, etc…
So why is this legislation being proposed? I think someone said it earlier, to shift burden from airlines to the smaller aircraft, making them “equal”. I can see both sides of this one, but I would have to say on a per-person aspect, the airlines actually have the advantage currently. I bet that they pay less “tax” per person than the private guys do…
Anyone know the numbers so we can check this?
“When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,I did not speak out;I was not a Jew.When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”Martin Niemöller
The proposed 70 cents per gallon fuel taxes which accompany the proposed user fees specifically exempt the airlines. So much for equality.
You know all this hype about airplane owners being rich is not true. I own a plane that cost less than a late model used car. ($15,000) If you want to tax the rich for using large fuel wasters how about user fee’s for Hummer owners. Instead Hummer owners actually get an extra TAX deduction for having a large heavy car by pretending they use it in a bus.
I have to travel from the LA area to the company headquarters in Las Vegas several times a year. I can fly my little plane there and back in about half the time as driving using less gas. For safety I usually get flight fallowing so air traffic knows where I am and can advise me of others in the area. It costs the Faa no more to do that and makes the skies a lot safer. Mostly the controllers are there for the commercial airlines flying above 30,000 feet on an Instrument flight plan. What the airlines want (Those multi-Billion dollar corp.) is to take control of that process away from the FAA and make us little guys pay for it. Their tactic is to convince you lay people we are rich and just use airplanes as toys, like your Hummers.I wonder where the airlines think that NEW pilots come from. Most get their training from small flight schools. The pool of the Viet Naum era trained military pilots is about to retire and the airlines will be hard put to find new pilots. Now the want us little guys to pay for a system they want to control and are the largest users of.
WE ALL know once any tax is put in place with the con “Well it is only a little tax” very soon becomes a very large tax. Every time money is needed even for unrelated reasons they raise the tax.
In California our Gas tax was once used only for roads. Now that gas tax is used for the general fund and California now ranks about 45th or 47th in the nation for the worst roads. We used to be #1.
Truthfully how long do you think it would take before that happened to user fees? Just rip off the little guy to put money in the pockets of big corporations. Like they did by giving billons in tax breaks to the oil company’s that made 79 BILLON in profits last year. (How much is it costing you to fill up you tank today)We little guys pay for our fair share for air traffic control now in the form of a gas tax. The bigger the plain the more fuel the more tax is paid. With user fees I would have to pay the same for my little 100 HP 2 place, as the guy in the multi- engine 1000 HP 10 passenger corp. twin.
User fees have all but wiped out general aviation in Europe. So do not be a fool and believe what the airlines tell you. Take control of your life away from corp. America that buys elections. Why do you think they pay high priced lobbyists? Just look at the millions their CEO’s make per year. They make more per DAY then a lot of us make in a YEAR.
As Chairman/President of the Air Care Alliance I would like to provide a few comments.
We are an umbrella group for the several dozen volunteer pilot organizations whose members fly needy patients for care, provide emergency relief following disasters, fly search and rescue missions, introduce youth to aviation careers, perform environmental support flying, and use aviation in many other ways to help others.
The FAA funding is not just about user fees. It is about who will end up setting public policy on taxation – Congress or the airlines.
It is also about who will decide which aircraft get access to aviation facilities, including the the air traffic control system, Congress or the airlines.
We are very concerned because the “user fee” scheme not only shifts more of the economic burden away from the airlines – for whom the system was designed and who it best serves – but it also removes public oversight and user group involvement in decisions affecting the nation’s aviation capabilities.
And the biggest losers would be the tens of thousands of medium and small communities that do not receive service from the airlines.
Think of this when your small airport closes and you no longer have access to air transport for patients, or “just in time” delivery of components critical for the repair of equipment at a local manufacturing plant.
Think of a pilot in the soup in deteriorating weather with patients aboard making the decision of whether to fly into an airport with minimal weather equipment provided for a low “user fee” or into a nearby fully equipped airport where the airlines have imposed a thousand dollar “use fee.”
General aviation is the nation’s best kept secret because most folks use cars or the big planes and simply do not realize how many vital community services and jobs depend on the small planes and small airports.
The user fee scheme would impose a massive, bureaucratic collection system in place of the efficient collection system we have now, based on fuel and ticket taxes. It would permit the airlines to say who can or cannot participate in the nation’s air transportation system, and would remove your voice from having a say in such matters, through your elected officials. It would be putting the foxes in charge of egg production.
I agree we have many extremely pressing matters of concern for every citizen. But it is absolutely correct to say that this issue is a top priority for this year’s legislative agenda, and all citizens should be united in outrage that the nation’s most vital and complex transportation system could be handed over lock, stock, and barrel to the airlines and removed from the oversight and control of our elected representatives.
Thank you for your concern,
Rol MurrowAir Care Alliancewww.aircareall.org
Thank you Rol for your educated entry here on the blog.
I must admit ignorance on the issue.
Unfortunately, the entire discussion is about greed (airlines) and envy (stick it to the rich airplane owners). The rest is just detail…
…Welcome to the world where emotion trumps logic and reason; witness the death of common sense.
I guess they’ll have to start building freeways in Alaska for all the Prius owners :)
Bob,
I’d like to address your comments about looking out for the residents of Kansas. Cessna aircraft is no doubt a very important company to the people of Kansas, and would be affected in a very negative way if these user fees go through.
I’m your neighbor in Colorado, and like you, we also have a healthy industry that includes General Aviation. User fees would cripple the GA industry, and would put a lot of middle class folks out of a good job.
I’m also a pilot, and am just a lower-middle class guy trying to stay ahead. There’s a lot of pilots like me out there, and we just want other Americans to have the same chance that we did.
I’m not rich, and I don’t work for any GA industries. I’m just a working American that is strongly opposed to the special interest groups and self-serving politicos trying to pull yet another one on us. Please take the time to be informed on this issue. Thanks.
I applaud Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard and only wish we didn’t have a loser in Florida who takes the opposite psoition . . . loser because I’ll certainly vote against our clown, John Mica, R 7th District of FL.
Am I against the FAA user fee idea? Am I that transparent? Am I a rich guy?
Rich is relative but my ‘56 Cessna costs less than a new pick-up truck. For example, we use our plane to be more efficient in our work. We also have it available to visit our daughter in college 5 driving hours away. This gets us back to work more quickly, and gives us a better life as a result . . . but wait, I guess that makes me one of those fat cat rich guys!
I don’t know whom Tom really is, but his shallow take on this KS representative may be indicative of a shallow take on other issues as well – perhaps he’s one to ignore if this is his best contribution.
Bravo Rep. Todd Tiahrt, bravisimo! Keep up the good fight because otherwise, we in America may someday awake to find ourselves resembling our neighbors in Canada (and those socialist idiots in Europe) where the work of the few pays for the many.
Folks, I’m willing to shoulder my fair share of the air traffic control costs – a system enacted for the airliners by the way and not the little guys of the world. But did you know that system costs, as they’re presently allocated (via taxes on fuel) is plenty fair? I.e. the more you burn the more you pay – and little guys already lay a higher percetage of tax, let’s roll that back tot he same level as the airlines pay how about it? Anyway, this is a simple and easy to administer system whilst the proposed new fee system would if nothing else create a new bureaucracy – one to administer and collect the fees – thereby making the new system more costly if in nothing else that we would have more steps required to “collect” the fees!
Tom reminds me of the object (and I’m paraphrasing) of, “He who says nothing is presumed wise whilst he who opens his yap lets the whole world know he’s an fool.”
i applaud this guy. tom i thinkyou need to do some aviation research, i think if you do, you might find that you dont know what your talking about.1 userfees drive demand down for all aviation products we GA pilots buy2 userfees do not equal more money for airports they slash thos funds3 poor people fly planes, do you know what keeps an airplane flying, money from us poor people. thats right the average ga pilot rents and if he owns he owns a small portion the bank owns the rest.
it appears that you hate this guy so much tom that you will say anything, even if its unintelligent, just to show your dislike for him. so. tom being the expert that you are, me being a student of flight, of management and of life, who has taken econimics and accounting classes i want to ask you several thought provoking questions based on econimics. bare with me. cost=supply+demand, demand=Jobs and Salaries.
Do you like having a job and feeding your family? if you answered yes, then you would be one of 1.2 million people in the aviation like that too, and odds are through 6 degrees of seperation you know some of them or their families.
Do you like safety? if you answered yes then your like the rest of us flyin in the worlds largest safest airspace, a place where pilots take the safe approach, not the cheap approach. ever have a plane crash into your house in bad weather? prolly not because its free to fly ifr, the training is expensive but ifr doesnt cost.
Do you have a budget? if yes, then your like the rest of america, you spend only what you make, and you dont charge drastic fees to cover your lavish expense account.
do you think government should have oversight so that your tax money gets spent properly? if you answered yes, then youd be against congressional oversight through budget allocation, because thats how congress oversees the faa and makes sure its following its mandate to ensure safety.
Do you think the FAA is fiscally responsible? if you answered yes, your wrong the faa has 5 million in unaccounted assets they lost?
Do you think the FAA is lying about the current system not being able to pay for NEXTGEN? you answered no i take it, your wrong two seperat govt. offices said that is a lie.
The FAA is REGULATOR, not an ACCOUNTANT. what happens when you go from having safety as your first priority, to collecting fees as your first priority? safety takes a back seat tom, and this might affect your flight, or the flight of your loved ones. so do us all a favor and do some research before hating someone who is tryin to protect you and your loved ones from greedy government
I think it’s pretty amazing that this blog has been invaded by so many out-of-towners.
To those of you who are not from the Wichita area, understand that *you* are not his constituents. *We* are, and quite a number of us believe that we’re not getting the representation we should be getting.
Not a single poster has offered any evidence that the Bush Administration’s user fees will somehow cost Wichitans their jobs; in fact, Wichita has lost 30% of its aircraft manufacturing jobs since the mid-90s peak. This was *before* Bush’s user fees became an issue.
Coincidentally (or not), the job losses in Wichita correspond almost year for year with Tiahrt’s tenure as our congressman.
It looks like these fees are basically a cost allocation squabble between commercial airlines and general aviation pilots. Most of your posts have been nothing but a whine about how unfair you believe the Bush Administration’s proposal is.
It may be a priority of *yours,* but again, you don’t live here. We do.
Thanks for writing.
Tom: The issue here is not whether or not you have a lousy representative. The discussion started as an argument as to whether or not battling user fees is a worthy cause. This blog was posted on a popular web site: avweb.com – hence the overwhelming response of pilots jumping on your back because of your comments on user fees.
The war in Iraq, immigration, Social Security, etc etc etc are all important issues, but if they’re resolved and, in the end, I can’t afford to fly because during that time the FAA has nickled and dimed me out of the sky, I’m still going to be upset. I’m glad someone’s looking out for the GA pilots – most of whom are the regular Joe next door, not the rich elite.
Hopefully he’ll win this battle, then you can vote someone else in. :)
“Wichita has lost 30% of its aircraft manufacturing jobs since the mid-90s peak. This was *before* Bush’s user fees became an issue.”
Um… Hello! This was also before 9/11!!! The aircraft industry took a major downturn after that and so many people lost their jobs! I’m not saying that people didn’t lose their jobs before that but if you’re going to keep pulling that 30% figure, you need to look at ALL of the reasons behind it.
As a retired pilot with a C172F, user fees and the hike in fuel tax would end my flying. It would also destroy the value of my plane. The FAA admin referred to the fuel tax as no more than a Starbucks latte. On my last trip from WI to ICT it would have increased my cost by over $45.00. That’s a lot of lattes of coffee. To trivialize the cost increase makes me believe that she thinks GA pilots only fly in the pattern and nothing more. Shame on the FAA.
Tom, if you want evidence, read back through these “posts”. Most of these fine folks are pilots that would stop or severely curtail their flying activities. If GA flying stops whose going to purchase the aircraft Cessna, Beech, Lear, etc. make? If no aircraft are purchased guess what, that’s right Textron and the other manufacturers start laying off workers. I was a witness to that post 9/11. Wichita’s economy took a serious hit from 2003 to late 2005, you were there, due to layoffs at the aircraft plants. I don’t want to see that again because it affects all of us and yes I live here. If user fees are put into place I can guarantee you will see it again.
On the bigger picture, Tom, have you discussed with either Todd, or his aides, what his priorities (plural) are for this legislative session? What are yours besides getting rid of Todd?
I know from over a decade of personal experience that Todd Tiahrt listens to the common man. I don’t have big bucks to give his campaign and yet after establishing a civilized repoire with the man while disagreeing with his views on a point he did more research on an issue and actually changed his view to support that of other constituents in his district who were more informed on the issue than the vocal minority who had sought to lead him to support special interest.
If user fees and the tax that is proposed as part of the package are instituted all FedEx, UPS and DHL air shipments, all LifeFlight, EagleMed and LifeWatch flights to the remote parts of Kansas will have to be suspended. Your aunt Tillie will just have to die if involved in a car accident in Hoxie or if she runs short on medicine. Why, besides the terrific increase in the cost to fly those routes, a little known fact is funds to rural airports will shrivel up with the demise of general aviation. GA airports compete for a very small part of the tax revenues for grants to keep the airports safe.
Since 1966 I have paid the direct cost of almost every hour of flight I’ve made as a pilot. Within that direct cost has been fuel tax. I now pay ten fold what I paid in 1966 for the same system. And until the current federal funding bill became a topic there were no predictions of a lack of funding.
The Aviation Trust Fund has paid since the late 1920’s to build the air traffic control system the airlines now dominate on the backs of the little airplanes. You see the airlines don’t pay nearly the same fuel tax either per gallon, or in total, as the general aviation fleet. As a special interest group, the airlines won huge tax concessions over the years and this is just another attempt for others to pay the cost for the goverment to subsidize airline operations.
By the way, the numbers on which FAA, and the administration, base their prediction that the current funding source will not cover future costs are based upon being unable to continue current operations AND fund the NEXTGEN modernization of the FAA air traffic control hardware and software. Tell me, if the FAA has been unable to report within writing what that NEXTGEN consists of, how can they predict the cost? And another thing, how much did a business computer cost twenty years ago? How much does one with that same capacity cost today? Is that a signigicant cost increase? Nope. It is actually less expensive to replace all of the Air Traffic Control systems hardware and software than it is to maintain the current system under the current budget.
So talk to Todd, his number in Washington is listed. And he does, eventually, return your call. Better yet discuss your concerns with one of his aides and then ask them to have him give you a call. Or ask one of his aids to keep you informed as to the congressman’s concerns and efforts. Then if you don’t agree with his position, inform him. It is a right we have that few exercise. Others seem to prefer hanging a politician in the court of public comment instead.
This from the FAA web site. I’m quite sure that those against FAA User Fees and increased fuel taxes number more than a few, and most would not classify as rich guys.
FAA Funding DebateAP STORY PAINTS DIM VIEW OF GA, PILOTS SET MEDIA STRAIGHTWhat happens when you paint with broad strokes? You miss quite a few spots. Case in point. The Associated Press recently sent a national story across the wires about the FAA funding debate. Basically, the story said that small airports are getting billions of dollars from taxes paid by airline passengers and using the funds with little oversight “at the expense of an increasingly beleaguered air transportation system.” The good news is that at the local level, thanks to further research conducted by AP’s own reporters, a much brighter and truer picture emerged. GA is important for everything from disaster relief to economic evelopment. “It’s amazing what facts will do for a story,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer, a former ABC executive. “When you put more on the table, the flaws in this radical FAA funding scheme become readily apparent. We encourage our members to write their local media and let them know how you feel.” Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs, had spent 45 minutes on the phone with the reporter who put together the national story, but little of what Cebula said wound up in the final draft. AOPA has received hundreds of outraged phone calls and e-mails from our members, and many of those are using AOPA’s recommendations to set the record straight by contacting their local newspapers. See AOPA Online.
AOPA MEMBERS MAKE VOICES HEARD ON CAPITOL HILLThey’re listening. The list of senators and representatives opposing the FAA’s proposed user fees and aviation fuel tax increase is growing—and that’s in part because of AOPA members telling their politicians exactly how the proposal would devastate general aviation. “Even though we have a lot of support in Congress, we still have a tough battle ahead of us,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer. “And so far, we’ve seen that the legislators who are supporting us in this fight are our allies because their constituents have told them to oppose user fees and the avgas tax hike.” Key members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have responded to AOPA members’ correspondence, saying that they share the same concerns as the GA community. “Like you, I am very concerned about the FAA’s proposal,” wrote Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.), a member of the House aviation subcommittee, to an AOPA member. “The proposed user fees and taxes will have a significant impact on general aviation, which could deter pilots from flying and cause financial problems for general aviation airports.” See AOPA Online.
For in-depth coverage of the FAA Funding Debate, see AOPA Online.
Sun ‘n Fun NewsTHOUSANDS SIGN PETITION AGAINST USER FEES AT SUN ‘N FUNThousands of pilots have rushed to sign AOPA’s petition opposing the FAA’s funding proposal during Sun ‘n Fun in Lakeland, Florida. The FAA’s proposal would increase general aviation fuel taxes by nearly fourfold and, for the first time in U.S. history, impose a pay-to-fly user fee system. “We’ve had to order more of the petition forms because of the demand and the passion this issue has generated. Congress is already sitting up and taking notice. The FAA and Administrator Marion Blakey need to as well,” said AOPA President Phil Boyer, who signed the petition himself. After signing the petition, members sounded off against the proposal. “To put it frankly, I’m rather upset at our government,” said D.J. Merrill of Durham, North Carolina, after he signed the giant petition in front of AOPA’s Big Yellow Tent. “The proposal that came out of the White House is stupid, shortsighted, and if it actually goes through in its current form, it’s going to kill aviation as we know it.” See AOPA Online.
Correction. Above was from AOPA web site.