I was referring to the comment suggesting that GA is most significantly for hobbyists.

I have been planning to see how this shakes out before I start my rotor PPL. It's already expensive enough now without these increases. Any increase beyond what it is already and I will just stay a virtual pilot.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 @ 893Mhz | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 575/900 | Seagate 2x 320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

I haven't read through it all but this might give some more answers:http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/

I'm very>hopeful that GA will still be an affordable proposition for my>two preschool-aged boys in a decade or so. These new fees>could sink that dream in a hurry.>>>John G.>>.And if global warming is ignored, your boys might not even have anywhere to takeoff from?'Waterworld' was a film, it could well become reality.

Dave - Waterworld was science fiction, and long on "fiction". And I'm not prepared to sacrifice grassroots aviation, or our modern global economy, to a theory that might not even be correct. I grew up in the '70's watching Canadian environmental propaganda aimed at kids, predicting all kinds of dire consequences if we didn't change our dependence on fossil fuels. And none of those predictions came to pass, mostly because market-driven technology (with a little push from government regulations) resulted in cleaner, more efficient engines for cars and aircraft. And general aviation's turn is next, with a number of innovative new engines for small planes in development. But they'll never see the light of day if general aviation in the U.S. is strangled by this proposed new fee structure.New bumper sitcker idea: "They'll have to pry my $100 hamburger from my cold, dead fingers.":D

>I haven't read through it all but this might give some more>answers:>>http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/it is intellectually dishonest to state one side of the argument.http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/post_11.html#morethis gives the other.

Thanks for posting that. I'd encourage everyone to read the comments as well, because many of them state the GA side of the argument more persuasively than the original pro-airlines editorial does for its side, IMHO.Any article that purports to paint GA pilots like me as "wealthy individuals" worthy of excessive taxation misses the mark, IMHO. I don't feel very wealthy when I'm tooling around for 50 hours a year VFR in a 32-year-old Cessna 150 with faded paint and worn carpet, making minimal use of ATC services along the way. Lucky, yes, but wealthy, no.John G.

{Sorry; First paragraph redacted... that's going too far. My sincerest apologies to anyone who read that and was offended by it. I am not racist or anti-semetic, and I do not intend to devalue the sacrifices of the holocaust.}I would have no problem giving consideration to the other side of this argument if it weren't a series of misrepresentations and biased half-truths designed to mislead the public and ensure that I can't fly anymore. This won't "force corporate jets from the runway" like the commenter in your linked article wishes, and it won't prevent the rich from jetting wherever they wish - They can afford to pay. It won't make ticket prices substantially cheaper - The airlines will lower prices by some token amount and pocket the remainder. It won't remove any tax burden from the public - The government will put that tax money to other uses, or in their own pockets. The only thing this does is ensure that myself and people like me can't fly.

>You are right-highways and roads should also not be>subsidized by the general taxpayer either-after all cars are>also just another viable and practical form of>transportation. :-)>>By the way-Ga traffic makes up about 80% of the total air>traffic in the US-but uses an extrememly small proportion of>the services (most Ga traffic is vfr). Guess who uses the>majority-yet wants Ga to pay for it?the latest ATA offer excluded all piston driven aircraft from the bill. the AOPA appears more interested in representing NetJets and Corporate a/c than they do in the 172 and sr-22 ranks........

>I would have no problem giving consideration to the other side>of this argument if it weren't a series of misrepresentations>and biased half-truths designed to mislead the public and>ensure that I can't fly anymore. This won't "force corporate>jets from the runway" like the commenter in your linked>article wishes, and it won't prevent the rich from jetting>wherever they wish - They can afford to pay. It won't make>ticket prices substantially cheaper - The airlines will lower>prices by some token amount and pocket the remainder. It won't>remove any tax burden from the public - The government will>put that tax money to other uses, or in their own pockets. The>only thing this does is ensure that myself and people like me>can't fly."my" arictle? i was simply showing you a discussion of BOTH sides of the aisle, or did you not read past the article?i am happy you realize what cheapskates airlines are though. the travelling public feeds on this though with their insatiable appetite for cheap air fare. the problem with the airline industry is bad management, but us looking in the mirror as we are also the problem.

Your link, not your article. I should have worded that better.