PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: MarkZ on February 05, 2016, 10:19:25 AM
-
I'm surprised no one posted yet. I pulled a random source for the story.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bill-shuster-faa-air-traffic-controllers-218633
Thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Same old, same old. In the 22 years I've been flying, I think this has come up every year. Privatize, user fees........
How come the thing government SHOULD be involved in, they don't want to be? National transportation sounds like a government function, and I deplore government outside of what they should be doing Constitutionally, but this sounds like one of them.
-
To be fair...
Though talks of privatization have permeated headlines for the last few decades, this is the first FAA Reauthorization that delineates such a thing.
But this also isn't privatization per se, in that it will not be taken by a for profit company. The NAS components will be taken into a not for profit organization.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Wow..no opinions (save for one) on this? Really?
(Question for moderators, is this thread publicly viewable?)
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Wow..no opinions (save for one) on this? Really?
(Question for moderators, is this thread publicly viewable?)
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Mark I find it troubling since it represents the camel's nose in the tent. The small plane alphabet soup org's have all spoken out against it since we would be substantially underrepresented on the board as proposed - so long as the costs are distributed along those same ratios it might not kill GA as we know it - but I have no doubt that will not be the case and we will be seen as 'freeloaders' and demands will be made for us to pay our 'fair share'.
Which union are you in and what is their position? Do you agree with their position?
'Gimp
-
Wow..no opinions (save for one) on this? Really?
(Question for moderators, is this thread publicly viewable?)
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
SSDD.
-
I'm a member of NATCA, who supports the measure. At first, I was tepid and didn't agree. After reading more into it, I'm not against it. The more I read about the NPO, and the more I read about other systems, the more I think this might be the way to go.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
SSDD.
Sorry I asked. It's not same shit different day.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Sorry I asked. Apparently you don't have any idea what's going on here.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Sorry, Mark. I just can't yet get excited about a proposal. I was looking at an old AOPA Pilot magazine from February 2014, I think, and they implied in that issue that they were THIS CLOSE!! to third class medical reform. Two years later, we are THIS CLOSE.
So no, I don't have a clue, because it hasn't risen to my level of worrying about it yet. It is tax season after all. Plus I've been made the maintenance officer for our CAF Wing, so my plate is full.
-
Plus I've been made the maintenance officer for our CAF Wing, so my plate is full.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/224a987625db84fc9715235e8af9850a3dc30eb3/c=46-0-755-532&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/AirForceTimes/2014/08/16/airfighterpilot2.jpg)
-
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/224a987625db84fc9715235e8af9850a3dc30eb3/c=46-0-755-532&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/AirForceTimes/2014/08/16/airfighterpilot2.jpg)
Thanks. I'm pretty excited about it. I'm not an A&P, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night. :)
My job is to make sure the maintenance gets done, logbooks are correct, and occasionally turn a Dzus tool for things like replacing the ELT battery and other owner/operator things that can be done by a mere private pilot under FAR Part 43 Appendix A.
Our wing has a 1943 PT-26, and a 1943 SNJ.
.
-
Privatization, or some sort of user fee program has been proposed by every occupant of the White House since I began flying.
-
I'm a member of NATCA, who supports the measure. At first, I was tepid and didn't agree. After reading more into it, I'm not against it. The more I read about the NPO, and the more I read about other systems, the more I think this might be the way to go.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
You know all the usual arguments against user fees, but I'm curious as to your opinion. Why are you not against it? What is good about it from a private pilot's perspective?
-
You know all the usual arguments against user fees, but I'm curious as to your opinion. Why are you not against it? What is good about it from a private pilot's perspective?
From the bill...
90311(c)
(4)Charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided with respect to—
(A) aircraft operations of piston engine aircraft; or
(B) noncommercial aircraft operations of turbine engine aircraft.
(5) Charges and fees may not be imposed foroperations of air taxis in remote locations.
I think that settles the GA user fee argument.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
From the bill...
90311(c)
(4)Charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided with respect to—
(A) aircraft operations of piston engine aircraft; or
(B) noncommercial aircraft operations of turbine engine aircraft.
(5) Charges and fees may not be imposed foroperations of air taxis in remote locations.
I think that settles the GA user fee argument.
really? you seriously think it is settled?
If so, I have some water front property to sell you (and I'll throw a bridge in for no additional charge)
-
I think that settles the GA user fee argument.
Camel, nose, tent.
Once the collection mechanism is in place it is a simple matter to add GA to the list of contributors. And nothing in the bill about reducing current taxes such as fuel tax.
-
If this bill passes with the quoted clause un amended...changing the fee structure would require congressional action. The new corporation would be unable to charge Joe Blow and his Cessna 172 unless congress changed federal law.
You guys are worse than a sewing circle.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
If this bill passes with the quoted clause un amended...changing the fee structure would require congressional action. The new corporation would be unable to charge Joe Blow and his Cessna 172 unless congress changed federal law.
You guys are worse than a sewing circle.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Yes. and the income tax, as originally passed was to be applied only to millionaires, and only at 1%.
And social security was 1%. And toll road tolls were supposed to be phased out once the road was paid for.
Once a tax and the collection mechanism are in place, it grows like a cancer. Show me something where that has not happened.
-
Yes. and the income tax, as originally passed was to be applied only to millionaires, and only at 1%.
And social security was 1%. And toll road tolls were supposed to be phased out once the road was paid for.
Once a tax and the collection mechanism are in place, it grows like a cancer. Show me something where that has not happened.
The last sentence is your opinion, not fact nor logical. You present a slippery slope and assume it's factual, but have no basis for the claim.
You are attempting to draw a parallel between the federal government and a proposed not for profit corporation that would use a fee based structure to attain funding. Those fees, like I've posted, are restricted by federal law.
If, however, you believe your statement is logically sound (it isn't), I suggest you get in your congress critter's ear and tell them to stop screwing with funding, and properly legislate appropriations for the NAS. Good luck.
That's the main reason this stuff is going on...lapses in funding due to lack of appropriations.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Yes. and the income tax, as originally passed was to be applied only to millionaires, and only at 1%.
And social security was 1%. And toll road tolls were supposed to be phased out once the road was paid for.
Once a tax and the collection mechanism are in place, it grows like a cancer. Show me something where that has not happened.
Not that I disagree entirely but we had the toll booths torn down on a section of highway here in the Atlanta area. It was done by a Republican governor and Republican legislature.
-
The last sentence is your opinion, not fact nor logical. You present a slippery slope and assume it's factual, but have no basis for the claim.
No basis? <sigh> those ignorant of history (or deliberately ignoring it) are doomed to repeat it.
-
Yes. and the income tax, as originally passed was to be applied only to millionaires, and only at 1%.
And social security was 1%. And toll road tolls were supposed to be phased out once the road was paid for.
Once a tax and the collection mechanism are in place, it grows like a cancer. Show me something where that has not happened.
The issue here is that the "collection mechanism" would be orders of magnitude more complex to go after GA.
The bill sets up a mechanism that basically covers Part 121 and Part 135 operators (ie. no non-commercial). The number of those is at least a couple orders of magnitude less than the number of Part 91 operators out there. So, no, it does not create a collection mechanism that could simply be wholesale dropped on GA.
-
The issue here is that the "collection mechanism" would be orders of magnitude more complex to go after GA.
The bill sets up a mechanism that basically covers Part 121 and Part 135 operators (ie. no non-commercial). The number of those is at least a couple orders of magnitude less than the number of Part 91 operators out there. So, no, it does not create a collection mechanism that could simply be wholesale dropped on GA.
Not necessary. For example, the IRS uses Form 720 for businesses to self-report and remit Federal Excise Taxes. That includes environmental taxes, air transportation taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes on coal, tires, fishing and archery equipment, medical devices, and "Patient Centered Outcomes Research Fee."
For the last one, the form has you input "Avg. number of lives covered" multiplied by "Rate for avg. lives covered" equals "Fee."
The point is that an ASEL pilot can be compelled to self-report usage and remit a fee/tax/whatever. Just like businesses, there would be no matching program (submitting proof of sales, etc.) but pilots would be subject to audit.
Easy Peazy. Here is a link for the form. It's a one-stop shopping tax and fee collection form. Did you know you pay the Feds $0.49 for every arrow shaft sold? Madness. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f720.pdf
-
From the bill...
90311(c)
(4)Charges and fees may not be imposed for air traffic services provided with respect to—
(A) aircraft operations of piston engine aircraft; or
(B) noncommercial aircraft operations of turbine engine aircraft.
(5) Charges and fees may not be imposed foroperations of air taxis in remote locations.
I think that settles the GA user fee argument.
I am a little bit suspicious. If I read the article right, the airline industry is backing this bill, however the airlines have been the ones over the years that have said that us GA piston guys aren't "paying our fair share", yet now they back this where we clearly pay nothing?
What does this mean for the fuel tax I wonder? I bet they keep charging it just the same. It would be nice to see it go away.
I also question the quality of service us piston GA guys will get. The composition of the Board of Directors is as such-
- The CEO of this new company
- 4 members nominated by the airlines.
- 2 members nominated by a GA organization (like AOPA).
- 1 member nominated by the ATC union.
- 1 member nominated by airline pilot's union.
- 2 members nominated by the Secretary of Transportation.
So it is likely that airlines will have an easy majority in decisions. How much that dictates operational policy IDK. While there is language in the bill that clearly states that piston operators are not to be denied access to the NAS, I wonder about the quality of that service. Stuff like VFR flight following. How easy will it to actually get that, or keep that during your flight? How long will they keep you holding? What kind of routing will you get?
-
It's starting to look a little more clear as to why the unions are supporting this:
High Cost to Taxpayers and a Sweet Deal for Unions
This is the first FAA bill in twenty years to be introduced without a including a way to pay for the bill.
The 30,000-plus current ATC employees and all U.S. ATC assets would be transferred, an undertaking of huge magnitude and cost that H.R. 4441 does not adequately capture.
Under H.R. 4441, air traffic controllers would retain all the benefits of a federal government union, but would no longer be subject to federal salary caps.
These employees can also choose to stay in federal pension programs and continue to draw federal healthcare benefits, even though they no longer are government employees.
The special interest-run entity would be given billions of dollars’ worth of equipment originally paid for by taxpayers.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/leaked-memo-shows-house-freedom-caucus-is-really-fighting-this-new-faa-restructuring-plan/
-
Stan, I read the ramblings of this vitriolic author, and had a good chuckle. He knows a lot, about so little. Sorry.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
It's starting to look a little more clear as to why the unions are supporting this:
High Cost to Taxpayers and a Sweet Deal for Unions
This is the first FAA bill in twenty years to be introduced without a including a way to pay for the bill.
The 30,000-plus current ATC employees and all U.S. ATC assets would be transferred, an undertaking of huge magnitude and cost that H.R. 4441 does not adequately capture.
Under H.R. 4441, air traffic controllers would retain all the benefits of a federal government union, but would no longer be subject to federal salary caps.
These employees can also choose to stay in federal pension programs and continue to draw federal healthcare benefits, even though they no longer are government employees.
The special interest-run entity would be given billions of dollars’ worth of equipment originally paid for by taxpayers.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/leaked-memo-shows-house-freedom-caucus-is-really-fighting-this-new-faa-restructuring-plan/
Sounds like another perfect government boondoggle in which the taxpayers lose, again.
-
Stan, I read the ramblings of this vitriolic author, and had a good chuckle. He knows a lot, about so little. Sorry.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
So, tell me where he's inaccurate.
-
So, tell me where he's inaccurate.
Considering that the bill is going for markup (amendments) as we speak, it would be premature to do so at this time.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Considering that the bill is going for markup (amendments) as we speak, it would be premature to do so at this time.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Uh huh.
-
Uh huh.
Well, for starters, bills such as these can see all sorts of kooky amendments that effectively mark it DOA.
I'll respond to your hot-headed hyperbolic author's points (and by author, I am referring to whoever the bozo was writing the memo for the the Freedom Caucus, not the author of the anti-union/government/factual information website you frequent) once I've had a chance to see if this bill is worth discussing anymore.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Well, for starters, bills such as these can see all sorts of kooky amendments that effectively mark it DOA.
I'll respond to your hot-headed hyperbolic author's points (and by author, I am referring to whoever the bozo was writing the memo for the the Freedom Caucus, not the author of the anti-union/government/factual information website you frequent) once I've had a chance to see if this bill is worth discussing anymore.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Stan, I read the ramblings of this vitriolic author, and had a good chuckle. He knows a lot, about so little. Sorry.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
So, tell me where he's inaccurate.
You seemed to know what the author doesn't know, so I thought you would be able to enlighten me about it.
At least someone knows something about it. The President of the NBAA testified against H.R. 4441.
https://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/testimony/20160210-nbaa-bolen-testimony-house-hearing-review-of-atc-reform-proposals.pdf
-
You seemed to know what the author doesn't know, so I thought you would be able to enlighten me about it.
At least someone knows something about it. The President of the NBAA testified against H.R. 4441.
https://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/testimony/20160210-nbaa-bolen-testimony-house-hearing-review-of-atc-reform-proposals.pdf
Some of NBAA's users would be included in the user fees, where they never paid any such before. There is nothing in 4441 that helps NBAA, aside from possibly the certification portion of the bill.
OF COURSE he's against 4441. He'd be a crappy president of the NBAA were he for it.
An hour ago the committee passed an amendment making congress, not the secretary, the final approval body before "the corporation" makes changes to fee structures. One of the "complaints" from the Freedom Caucus that the memo mentioned.
Like I said, things are changing with this bill. Exciting stuff, huh?
-
House Transportation Committee just voted to Pass this - more steps to come but I think this might be as far as this has ever gotten - I don't think I like it.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/269210-panel-approves-plan-spin-air-traffic-control-off-from-feds
'Gimp