Are those mentioned taxes related to the ever rising public debt of the USA? Guess you gotta start saving somewhere. Increased taxes on aviation are probably just the start of what is to come. Never knew Mr. Ford was an aviator (apart from piloting the Millenium Falcon). Perhaps his opinion carries some weight, but I doubt it. Tough times...

Are those mentioned taxes related to the ever rising public debt of the USA? Guess you gotta start saving somewhere. Increased taxes on aviation are probably just the start of what is to come. Never knew Mr. Ford was an aviator (apart from piloting the Millenium Falcon). Perhaps his opinion carries some weight, but I doubt it. Tough times...

He's a very avid pilot, and a big contributor with the EAA and AOPA.

He has a Beaver, Cessna 206, Citation Sovereign, Bell Helicopter

Read this...... http://hoglogblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/gama-and-other-alphabet-groups-are-not-the-answer/ Kevin makes some GREAT points.....

He's a very avid pilot, and a big contributor with the EAA and AOPA.

Yeah just looking at the aircraft he has, but also how open he is and how it took part in humanitarian missions and many other thing. I rememebr a long time ago hearing a news he had resued someone with his helicopter. I really like that celebrity, he might be famous but he seems to still be very humble and accessible. Was very nice to look at this video and learn a little about his passion from the man himself.

Can you imagine contemplating not shooting the ILS because you don't want a fee? Weird doesn't quite sum it up... By the way, this is no "hobby" for me. It's my education!

Appreciate that it's your education, then you'll definitely know how expensive it is.I don't buy this argument about making a decision of whether or not to use an ILS approach because of fees... 1) if you got stuck in weather, it's your fault. Why make mom and pop not even remotely interested in GA pay for the ATC time to guide you? 2) if you need a life saving IFR approach in weather.... $15-30 is the last thing you're thinking about. If it is, you need to reprioritize life. 3) by the time you have invested in an IFR license to do approaches or are getting qualified, you should already know how expensive it is... Another $15-30 isn't dramatic. If you're using a class Bravo for training, while its good practice, you should know better to practice there every time.

Why should it cost anything? It doesn't cost them anything to send out a signal...plus the money that is spent on airports and the FAA is minimal compared to the $14 Trillion, it wouldn't matter much. We SHOULDN't have charges for ILS approaches; GA is a very important part of the United States, we have 15,000 airports in this country, and only 380 have commercial service. it is costly enough that gas prices are so high, and we've had this freedom for so long being comprimised, that they shouldn't charge for instrument procedures, or landings. If you land at LAX or JFK, yeah pay a landing fee...but if I want ot fly into an airport liek Van Nuys or Paine Field (home to Boeing widebodies) no way should they charge to land, almost all roads in tjis country are free, why should runways cost money? No fees of any kind for aircraft operations...

Why should it cost anything? It doesn't cost them anything to send out a signal...

Why should it NOT cost something? It does cost something to run a transmitter. It's called electricity. And, despite what some dreamers may say, electricity comes from burning dead dinosaurs too.

... plus the money that is spent on airports and the FAA is minimal compared to the $14 Trillion, it wouldn't matter much.

Death by a thousand spending non-cuts.

...We SHOULDN't have charges for ILS approaches; GA is a very important part of the United States, we have 15,000 airports in this country, and only 380 have commercial service. it is costly enough that gas prices are so high, and we've had this freedom for so long being comprimised, that they shouldn't charge for instrument procedures, or landings. If you land at LAX or JFK, yeah pay a landing fee...but if I want ot fly into an airport liek Van Nuys or Paine Field (home to Boeing widebodies) no way should they charge to land,...

Substitute just about any special interest in here and you can make a similar case why the many should be taxed for the benefit of a few. You have no freedom to fly. If you were free to fly, you wouldn't need a pilot's LICENSE.

almost all roads in tjis country are free, why should runways cost money?

The roads are not free. You pay for them time and time again, mostly through gasoline taxes. This system of gasoline taxes is simply more practical than a user fee on any other per unit-of-travel basis. The people doing the most driving with the vehicles that cause the most wear and tear (i.e. big, gas guzzling) pay the most taxes. Seems fair. And road travel is not an entitlement program. There's also a tax on avgas, but it is apparently insufficient to cover the cost of the system. Not many have argued that air travel is an entitlement, but that sure is what your post sounds like, Peter. If you want to win the debate in the public eye and in congress, you need to reframe your talking points radically. You should not debate that aviation as a whole must pay its own way. No airline and no private pilot should expect John Q Public to subsidize his business's operation or his weekend fun. The debate needs to be about who, among the aviation community, is going to pay the tab, in what proportion, and by what means. The airlines want general aviation to subsidize the airlines. AOPA wants the airlines to subsidize GA. Quite frankly, the public doesn't care, but they sure don't want to pay "their fair share" to subsidize the both of you. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I realize that the moderators are all busy preparing a ground-breaking product at the moment, but perhaps this is not PMDG-related? Here is a good place for talking about millionaire pilots and politics: http://forum.avsim.net/forum/120-hangar-chat/

If you want to win the debate in the public eye and in congress, you need to reframe your talking points radically. You should not debate that aviation as a whole must pay its own way. No airline and no private pilot should expect John Q Public to subsidize his business's operation or his weekend fun. The debate needs to be about who, among the aviation community, is going to pay the tab, in what proportion, and by what means. The airlines want general aviation to subsidize the airlines. AOPA wants the airlines to subsidize GA. Quite frankly, the public doesn't care, but they sure don't want to pay "their fair share" to subsidize the both of you.

This is what, I guess, AOPA is failing to educate people upon. What everyone is not seeing, is that there will be changes. If the mindset is, "we deserve this", or "they're taxing us" those can and are trying to do so, will take everything they can. If everyone would understand its about being part of a whole, I think GA can survive quite nicely.

I realize that the moderators are all busy preparing a ground-breaking product at the moment, but perhaps this is not PMDG-related? Here is a good place for talking about millionaire pilots and politics: http://forum.avsim.n...20-hangar-chat/

Love your avatar, made me spill my coffee

Why should it NOT cost something? It does cost something to run a transmitter. It's called electricity. And, despite what some dreamers may say, electricity comes from burning dead dinosaurs too. Death by a thousand spending non-cuts. Substitute just about any special interest in here and you can make a similar case why the many should be taxed for the benefit of a few. You have no freedom to fly. If you were free to fly, you wouldn't need a pilot's LICENSE. The roads are not free. You pay for them time and time again, mostly through gasoline taxes. This system of gasoline taxes is simply more practical than a user fee on any other per unit-of-travel basis. The people doing the most driving with the vehicles that cause the most wear and tear (i.e. big, gas guzzling) pay the most taxes. Seems fair. And road travel is not an entitlement program. There's also a tax on avgas, but it is apparently insufficient to cover the cost of the system. Not many have argued that air travel is an entitlement, but that sure is what your post sounds like, Peter. If you want to win the debate in the public eye and in congress, you need to reframe your talking points radically. You should not debate that aviation as a whole must pay its own way. No airline and no private pilot should expect John Q Public to subsidize his business's operation or his weekend fun. The debate needs to be about who, among the aviation community, is going to pay the tab, in what proportion, and by what means. The airlines want general aviation to subsidize the airlines. AOPA wants the airlines to subsidize GA. Quite frankly, the public doesn't care, but they sure don't want to pay "their fair share" to subsidize the both of you. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

General Aviation and their voices like AOPA aren't asking for subsidies, they ask to keep what they've had since 1903: the ability to fly safely, freely, and do what they wish. Do you know why a Chinese Corportation owned by teh government of China bought the Cirrus Aircraft Company? Not for more money (well thats partly a reason), its because they've realized how much commerce is surrounded aroudn general aviation, and they want to provide it to their people, set up a way for the chinese people to fly much like we do, with more control of course, they've got 3-times more people than we do. You think they should tax us on this? U.S Tax money pays for airports too...and roads. So, we don't pay extra to use the Interstate system, so why should we pay extra to use a runway? Its people like you who want to tax the heck out of us...and its wrong. I'd like to say that the amount of commerce that general aviation gives is so huge, if you began charging us fr thigns like that, towns liek Yellowpine in Idaho's backcountry wouldn't be able to get daily mail service, or fresh food, that is flown in daily; Alaskan towns would slowly vanish because their ownly lifeline is aviation. Another thing, Airlines, since their inception nearly 100 years ago, almost never make money. The government has, and still does regulate that industry, very much so in teh U.S. The government's involvment harasses airline customers, taxes them, regulates everything they do, and they have always been doing things that cost the airlines money. At one point, Northwest decided they wanted to charge cheap rates from Reno-Minneapolis-St. Paul, so they could get business from RenoAir. Well, there was a lawsuit, and Northwest lost, the government punished them, and thus, they are always hindering free enterprise in this realm. The U.S government should deregulate our airline inustry, allow airlines to buyout and merge with whomever they wish (of course at each airline's consent, and within Chapter 11 court's approval when applicable). They shoudl allow airlines to compete liek a normal business, allow them to charge whatever rates they wish, and shouldn't hinder their growth. You don't realize this, but airline's are so undermined, its not even funny. You don't know how much they have to put up with, and their customers put up with. Why don't we stop wasting our taxmoney on other things, than tax something that is so vital!!!

I concede the utility and potential of Cirrus. But why does that mean that we should not pay for the services we use? Your road argument still holds no water. We do pay for roads by indirect tax. If you're fooled by this system, then I propose that we do not charge per ILS approach, we'll just charge every pilot $6/gal of avgas. Free runways for everyone!!! Hooray! I do agree with you that airlines should compete just like any other business and pay taxes like any other business. But in the same breath you're arguing that general aviation is entitled to a free ride? Take half a step back from your personal situation and the contradiction should be painfully obvious. That said, our system is riddled with carve-outs, earmarks, and loopholes. I understand why everyone wants to get in on the game, get increased profits or a free ride off the government. But where do we stop? If we collectively haven't learned our lesson after the past month, economic disaster awaits us all. General aviation's access to runways will be the least of your future concerns.

The car industry has gotten a pretty free ride too, and its cheap as heck. Cars don't need rigorous FAA certififcation. Our taxes pay for roads and runways. So why should we pay to use roads and runways if our taxes already pay for them? Our tax money pays for the FAA, ATC, and all airport services. There shouldn't be a charge, there never has been.

First thing that passed my mind while seeing him was his famous catchphrase: "Get off my plane!"