gbigs Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-criticize-faa-234849?cmpid=sf Trump's meeting with airline CEOs today brought up three big aviation sore points that may soon see change: 1. Huerta, an Obama appointee is not a pilot and has no experience in the aviation industry (this is the guy that just let Santa Monica airport die) 2. Nexgen and ADS-B are out of control and wasting billions 3. ATC privatization (the airlines want this and Trump wants to reduce the size of government) The medical reform and Part 23 reform do not seem to be affected by Trump regulation freeze, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Trump is an idiot. I thought we were not going to get political here. Delete your post and I'll delete mine. I think you are making a bigger deal about his post than is merited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I do not agree with: 1) because it is not true - the courts have said Santa Monica must stay open until 2028 and cannot penalize the FBOs or take any other punitive actions against the airport. 2) Nextgen and ADS-B are added value and to stop it now would be damaging to GA. 3) privatization is fixing a problem that does not exist by setting up a system that may well have staffing issues (and others). Otherwise, if we are heading down this road - I'm with Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I think there are pros and cons to privatization. There would certainly be short term pain as changes are made, but the longer-term benefits might be worth it. Canada has had a private ATC system in place for a while now, and it has been a great success. What I would not want to see is implementation of user fees in addition to the aviation fuel tax. It should be one or the other. If they need additional revenue to improve the system, then adding some fees for commercial flights might be appropriate, but not for recreational or personal flights. IIRC that is how Canada does it -- they impose fees on all flights, but exempt aircraft under a certain weight and non-commercial flights. And remember the US proposal is for ATC to be run by a non-profit Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), a corporation similar to NPR. That would mean that all collected funds would go to aviation purposes, and not to any shareholder profits. So even those skeptical of corporate motives should be okay with the organization of it in theory, even if you still don't like the idea of privatized ATC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I looked up the NAV Canada fees. For the type of aircraft we fly, the per flight hour cost is insignificant: For propeller driven aircraft up to 2.0 metric tons (4400lb): 67.64 dollars (Canadian) per *year*. up to 3.0 metric tons (6600lb): 225.84 dollars (Canadian) per *year*. In US Dollars instead of Canadian, that is $0.87 to $2.95 per flight hour if you fly 100 hours annually. I'd gladly pay that to get what Canada has: and ATC system that has won three awards for best ATC system worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I do not agree with: 1) because it is not true - the courts have said Santa Monica must stay open until 2028 and cannot penalize the FBOs or take any other punitive actions against the airport. 2) Nextgen and ADS-B are added value and to stop it now would be damaging to GA. 3) privatization is fixing a problem that does not exist by setting up a system that may well have staffing issues (and others). Otherwise, if we are heading down this road - I'm with Tim. The ORIGINAL agreement the government had with Santa Monica was "in perpetuity." Huerta capitulated and says the city can close the airport by 2028. The impact is immediate however; the city is immediately allowed to shorten the runway from 4000 feet to 3500 feet. There is a lot of angst over this roll-over by Huerta on other aviation sites (Flying Magazine has hundreds of comments on the story.) The airport is seen as a major part of the Los Angeles basin's aviation infrastructure. When the rest of it is plowed under, some 70,000 flights a year will need to jam into LAX. and GA owners will have no hangar for their planes. It is not a pretty picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I looked up the NAV Canada fees. For the type of aircraft we fly, the per flight hour cost is insignificant: For propeller driven aircraft up to 2.0 metric tons (4400lb): 67.64 dollars (Canadian) per *year*. up to 3.0 metric tons (6600lb): 225.84 dollars (Canadian) per *year*. In US Dollars instead of Canadian, that is $0.87 to $2.95 per flight hour if you fly 100 hours annually. I'd gladly pay that to get what Canada has: and ATC system that has won three awards for best ATC system worldwide. $3 bucks an hour? No thanks. But I am torn because I don't like anything government run except the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 $3 bucks an hour? No thanks. But I am torn because I don't like anything government run except the military. Um...it's government run now. This is for the privatized system. EDIT: Oops, I see what you mean about being torn. Your Cirrus would be $0.87 an hour, unless your gross is over 4400lb. Even at $3/hr, you'd save more than that in fuel taxes in an hour at the 15gph+ you burn. The ATC cost either way would be an insignificant portion of your total hourly costs. And the more hours you fly, the lower the hourly cost of ATC. You can't get something for nothing...everything costs, one way or another. I'd rather have the costs up front and visible than hidden in fuel taxes, income taxes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Um...it's government run now. This is for the privatized system. EDIT: Oops, I see what you mean about being torn. Your Cirrus would be $0.87 an hour, unless your gross is over 4400lb. Even at $3/hr, you'd save more than that in fuel taxes in an hour at the 15gph+ you burn. The ATC cost either way would be an insignificant portion of your total hourly costs. And the more hours you fly, the lower the hourly cost of ATC. You can't get something for nothing...everything costs, one way or another. I'd rather have the costs up front and visible than hidden in fuel taxes, income taxes, etc. In my opinion , user fees are going to be an unavoidable consequence of ATC privatization, just like the progression to smaller seats and sitting space in commercial airliners. My concern is that fewer General Aviation aircraft will be talking to ATC due to those fees. And if you are flying cross country, using different ATC corporations , as you go along, the fees could mount quickly. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Um...it's government run now. This is for the privatized system. EDIT: Oops, I see what you mean about being torn. Your Cirrus would be $0.87 an hour, unless your gross is over 4400lb. Even at $3/hr, you'd save more than that in fuel taxes in an hour at the 15gph+ you burn. The ATC cost either way would be an insignificant portion of your total hourly costs. And the more hours you fly, the lower the hourly cost of ATC. You can't get something for nothing...everything costs, one way or another. I'd rather have the costs up front and visible than hidden in fuel taxes, income taxes, etc. Well, in order to collect they would have to tax the fuel. Otherwise no one will pay. That means everyone will pay whether you use ATC or not. The NORDO and non Mode C guys will have a fit betcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I am no certain exactly how this applies, but two thoughts/concerns- First, Canada has no where near the traffic we have in the US. Second, there is a concern that the best service goes to the most lucrative customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Well, in order to collect they would have to tax the fuel. Otherwise no one will pay. That means everyone will pay whether you use ATC or not. The NORDO and non Mode C guys will have a fit betcha. Or, they get your tail # and send you a bill by mail. No pay ?, no can use again. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Well, in order to collect they would have to tax the fuel. Otherwise no one will pay. That means everyone will pay whether you use ATC or not. The NORDO and non Mode C guys will have a fit betcha. It will be an annual bill you get in the mail, you will not be legal to fly unless you pay it. It's not going to be a voluntary payment. They may end up with fuel taxes and a user fee, but I'd hope not. I'm not opposed to fees in principle, and I think they are generally better than "hidden" taxes like the fuel tax. What we definitely DON'T want is European-style per-operation landing fees that make GA totally unaffordable and a huge PITA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I am no certain exactly how this applies, but two thoughts/concerns- First, Canada has no where near the traffic we have in the US. Second, there is a concern that the best service goes to the most lucrative customers. I don't think that would happen, since all users are paying into the system. Besides, just go to any Class C airport to land and you will quickly find the big boys already get priority over you in your CT...nothing would change about that. And honestly, it's reasonable for an airplane with a hundred travelers on board to be prioritized over one with a single pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Or, they get your tail # and send you a bill by mail. No pay ?, no can use again. Cheers Yeah, I'd expect the easiest way would be to make the aircraft registration renewable annually instead of every five years, with the ATC fee rolled into that charge. Don't pay? You are no longer airworthy, and if your transponder code or tail number comes across ATC, expect a visit from the FAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I really fail to see any up side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I really fail to see any up side. Better ATC and less wasteful use of money. The GAO has blasted the FAA for their use of money for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Bingo. That's the Republican agenda. Privatize everything except the military. Huge tax reduction for the wealthy. Eliminate all need based programs. Wealthy pay for what they use/want. To hell with everyone else. It's the party of greed, fear, and racism. Look at the greed exhibited by some here. ATC privatization has been proposed by both parties, and the Canadian party that implemented it there is left of center. I have no idea what you are going on about. Racism...yeah, that'w what ATC privatization is about. So much for having a rational discussion of pros/cons of a proposed program that affects us as pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Last time I looked at any information on what was being proposed, there was nothing on an actual pricing structure. If that is indeed the case and that won't be decided until the board that runs it is formed, then we could wind up with almost anything. I believe the airlines will have more seats on the board than any other user; and they have no motivation to be friendly to GA. Part of the reason that Basic Med got watered down from the original proposal was because of opposition from ALPA; and my experience sitting with them as an EAA rep on a user group for the San Diego TCA when it was formed in the late 70's/early 80's's was they tolerated us because they had to. That could change with that structure. Class C and B terminals are already predicated on airline passenger emplanements; Presidential TFR's already impact GA and business aviation but NOT the airlines. I am also concerned about the lack of safety studies associated with this proposal. I can't see any advantage to this for GA; today we can get services if we meet requirements (both pilot and aircraft) and they are available; no guarantee that will be the case with this proposal. I can encourage fellow pilots and use flight following when I feel it enhances flight safety; it's going to be more than sad if you can't get it because you simply can't afford it. This is coming along at the same time many of us are having to equip for ADS-B; frankly, I'm starting to look hard at how much longer I can hang in financially as an aircraft owner. If this becomes honerous, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. (And speaking of ADS-B, are they going to bill you if your system shows up in their computer logs, even if you're not talking to Approach or Center?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 This is the exact reason why you have been removed from this website under all of your other user names. Others are discussing in a civil manner and you go this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 It will be an annual bill you get in the mail, you will not be legal to fly unless you pay it. It's not going to be a voluntary payment. They may end up with fuel taxes and a user fee, but I'd hope not. I'm not opposed to fees in principle, and I think they are generally better than "hidden" taxes like the fuel tax. What we definitely DON'T want is European-style per-operation landing fees that make GA totally unaffordable and a huge PITA. Well, it is fair that we who fly pay for what we use..and we do for everything except the FAA and ATC and fed money spent on airports. The airlines and we in GA are subsidized. The trend now is to move away from that model given our massive debt and deficits. It would seem we are headed for a hit. No matter what form the payments take and how they are collected. The flip side is whether the FAA itself gets downsized and regulations are cut from the picture making planes less expensive. We may also, unless it's too late, get a break on ADS-B for those that are still worrying about the expense of the upgrade. I have both TCAS and ADS-B and frankly there is redundancy there in regard to traffic avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Both the AOPA and EAA have vigorously opposed privatization in the past. I suspect the NBAA has also. Some fairly strong voices. I don't think that will change. On the other hand they are also experimenting with an automated tower. I don't think the Republican administration has a clue about any of this. Maybe they have learned something, but I see no indication of that, so I expect them to try to do this by fiat and have a court battle on their hands. Congress is in charge and the Republicans in congress opposed this last two times around when Obama proposed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Pros and cons of a privatized ATC is a useful discussion. Bashing a political party in ways unrelated to ATC issues simply damages this forum. Please don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Both the AOPA and EAA have vigorously opposed privatization in the past. I suspect the NBAA has also. Some fairly strong voices. I don't think that will change. On the other hand they are also experimenting with an automated tower. I don't think the Republican administration has a clue about any of this. Maybe they have learned something, but I see no indication of that, so I expect them to try to do this by fiat and have a court battle on their hands. Congress is in charge and the Republicans in congress opposed this last two times around when Obama proposed it. Congress is in charge of budget money. The president is in charge of the federal agencies, including the FAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 But it is related. Ask Gbigs Angle how or go to his web site to see for yourself. But I agee, these political discussions are best had somewhere else. You are the only one who keeps mentioning that site. You must really like it if you are trying to get other to take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.