“Don’t put the gear down just yet,” said the instructor, who also happened to be the owner of the flight school where I was getting my commercial multi training. I was in the midst of performing the requisite 10 night takeoffs and landings in a Piper Seneca and this was my third or maybe fourth circuit in the pattern. The instructor smiled and added, “It’s my way of saving on fuel.”
While striving for maximum efficiency in our flying is commendable, the need for small businesses to stay afloat in a tough economy is what really drives the owner of a flight school or small charter outfit to always be on the lookout for ways to save on costs. You and I might not mind paying for the so-called $100 hamburger, but if a company can save $100, that’s $100 they don’t need to worry about earning today. And those one hundred dollar bills add up.
Unfortunately, the imposition of a $100-per-flight user fee on turbine-powered airplanes operating on IFR flight plans will give many of these small operators an all-too-enticing way of saving money: don’t file.
While the big corporate flight departments and large charter outfits will begrudgingly pay the White House’s $100 fee if it is adopted, scores of small operators that are struggling just to get by no doubt will suggest that their pilots fly VFR rather than incurring the charge. Passengers won’t know the difference – or realize that their pilot could be putting them at risk to avoid paying a government fee.
What would that mean for aviation safety? Your guess is as good as mine, but I’m fairly positive the net long term effect would mean more accidents and more people killed. After all, the minute the government dreams up a new tax, the people who are expected to pay it start looking for the loopholes.
Comments (9)
Post a comment
All Comments
Submitted by userfeesarenotcool on February 15, 2012.
And this compromise of money vs. safety is a debate many of us are having at our local FBO and flight schools. Should this pass what will the limits/restrictions be? Will flight following constitute use of ATC, will use of ground control at a small Delta Class airport? How about use of clearance delivery? Just flying in call Echo airspace? So far we know nothing and just hope this won’t pass, but should it and its limits defined to just use of any ATC, well then, how many people will leave their towered airports and move into somewhere uncontrolled? How many will fly at 17000, and 17500 and not talk to a single person? Worse yet, I counter, after lamenting the above is, when all the large charters and renters begrudgingly pay the fee, and all the individuals with the funds to pay it for their turbo commander, turbine Lanceair, TuroCarravan, all start to pay and the buzz dies down in 2015, what’s to stop the next administration from beginning to asses those fee’s to the large piston GA community…falling in love with flying appears to be worse than falling in love with a redhead….
Submitted by Rvttgt on February 15, 2012.
I think you are mistaken. Yes, it could impact safety, but after working in aviation maintenance for 20+ years, these shoestring operators are jeopardizing safety everyday. If $100 a flight will break them, then maybe they do not need to be in business because that means the next maintenance event will break them too! If you can not afford the maintenance and operating costs, you don't need to own or operate the aircraft. As we all know, in the free market system, these $100 fees will just get passed along to the customer, when everyone does it, then the price of the ticket will go up and we will all adjust, just as we all adjust to price hikes because of fuel prices!
Submitted by socal_aviatrix on February 15, 2012.
During a recent visit to SoCal TRACON, I asked the controllers their position of user fees over funding to upgrade the system. Each was unanimously in favor of "no user fees."
As a pilot that flies both IFR and always with VFR, flight following, I appreciate that extra set of eyes helping to ensure not only separation from other traffic, but the fact someone knows where I am at all times.
The controller appreciate the ability to communicate with any traffic in their sector since it positions them with the ability to ensure not only everyone’s safety from mid-air accidents, but more efficient routing for aircraft to their destination.
User Fees will undoubtedly lessen the number of aircraft controllers have to talk to, but it will not decrease the workload because the stress level shoots up as they try to route traffic they are talking to around traffic that they can't talk to nor have any idea what their intentions are.
I am not sure about the accident rate significantly changing. But in congested areas, it will certainly make the skies more dangerous because of pilots avoiding fee services. As far as the proposal only affecting turbine aircraft, hey, this is the government looking to fill their overspent pockets with our money, you know that this would eventually end up affecting even the small single engine private pilot. It is just a matter of time.
Submitted by dougbrec on February 15, 2012.
I have first hand experience in user fees and its impact on flight safety. And, it isn't the operator avoiding the fee that should worry as much as it is everyone both on the ground and in the air.
In the U.K., I had hired an instructor to take me up in a Twin Comanche. The flight was from Blackpool, England to Prestwick, Scotland for a round of golf. When we arrived at Prestwick on a VFR flight plan, we were on top of a broken layer. The instructor immediately began a descent through the clouds on the ILS approach without an IFR clearance. When questioned, he didn't want to pay the "fee" associated with the IFR clearance and approach.
If everyone starts taking this approach to IMC weather conditions, basically we are no longer going to have an effective and safe airspace system.
I am sensitive to the budget deficit and the need to pay for the ATC services I am using. If we are going to have fees, it needs to be funded in a manner that isn't optional.
Submitted by Lord Bowdon on February 15, 2012.
When are we going to accept that logical argument against user fees is a losing argument. Obama has one objective when it comes to private aircraft - GROUND THEM. Listen to his populist rhetoric - we are always lumped in with "those millionaires and billionaires" i.e. enemies of "the people".
Look at his attempts to ground us through Security Directive 8-F - such that AOPA had to warn its members not to do web searches for it because the FBI would come calling. That attempt was challenged, but just like user fees, will rear its ugly head again. Who would use their plane if they are going to be held prisoner in it every time they land at an airport other than their home one?
Look at the EPA's "zero tolerance" for lead, which if implemented (and it may be if Obama wins in November and has Democrat controlled House and Senate), which will ground 95% of the piston fleet.
Obama is dead set on grounding us because he has calculated that there are more votes to be had from the plebians when he rails against us, than votes lost from pilots and rural communities affected by loss of GA flights.
I thought we pilots were winning in September when the head of the Machinists Union said he was "disappointed" with Obama bashing corporate aviation, but I guess that the IAM doesn't have enough sway in the AFL/CIO to make Obama pay attention.
The only way we will win this battle is to show that enough votes are at stake in swing states that bashing pilots may cause him to lose delegates in swing states. Hopefully Colorado, where I am, is close enough and has enough rural airports that if we get the message out ta Obama is anti-private aircraft, we may turn this state Republican.
Submitted by weintx on February 15, 2012.
"These shoestring operators" who operate on the edge of being in business or not, the 100 bucks just might be the breaking point and close the door whether your cutting corners or have top notch maintenance. To say they all "jeopardize safety everyday" is pretty narrow minded Rvttgt , and just the type of attitude that were fighting. If we can't afford the extra 100 bucks on top of the skyhigh fuel taxes and parts, we should all sell our planes huh?
Submitted by Bullfrog on February 15, 2012.
Let's see, these guys are burning 100 to 300 gallons/hour at at least $5/hour. The typical flight is perhaps 2 hours so that's about $2,000 for fuel and probably the same in other operating costs. $100 is going to be a major burden? Take a look at the jet traffic at the Superbowl or the Masters. Are they really going to stop flying their Challengers due to a $200 charge. I know corporate aviation and many times there is one or two people on board for a $10,000 flight. Let's get real.
Submitted by scopedoc58 on February 15, 2012.
The concept of user fees is so wrong in so many ways. As pilots we must aggressively fight against user fees and educate the public as to how this will negatively impact individuals and small businesses. We must keep in mind that once the fees are put into place it will be much easier to increase the amount and also extend them to piston aircraft. Please don't be so narrow minded to think that you may be immune to these fees forever if you own a piston aircraft! Also, it is not fair for a single engine turboprop going on a 45 min IFR flight to add $100 to his flight (owners of these aircraft are not the rich and famous).
Submitted by rok_hunter on February 16, 2012.
$100 per flight won't kill most carriers. But when every trip costs $200 (round trip), and assume you've got a small carrier that runs just two trips a day, you're looking at $400 per day. Fly Monday through Friday, and you're up to $2,000 for the week. My math puts that at $8,000 a month, for a small carrier that only flies two round-trip flights per day. So no, $100 per flight isn't much. But $8,000 a month IS.
As a result that "shoestring carrier" is left with the choice of accepting more risk to fly everywhere VFR so they can buy a new plane to expand, upgrade equipment on their existing aircraft, or increase the pay and benefits of their employees.....or pay that measly $100 per flight, and not have as much of a profit margin with which to expand.
Top Rated
Your Comment
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
