User Fees again?

[rawheels]

Getting the flood of emails about user fees again, and of course the associated requests for money to prevent them. I really appreciate the various groups fighting against the fees, but it seems like this is becoming a yearly event. So, we are paying a yearly fee to prevent a fee. I'm not saying we need to give up the fight, but what is it going to take to finally end this so that it doesn't come up again?

[RV8505]

It seems that they will come year after year untill we become lazy, Lack of Apathy by not recruiting young aviators or are busy infighting amoug ourselfs about about who should be in the Magazine

[Zack Baughman]

what is it going to take to finally end this so that it doesn't come up again?

Just to hazard a guess, probably a POTUS that is a private pilot.

[tonycondon]

Just to hazard a guess, probably a POTUS that is a private pilot.

doubt it.



Personal Information


GEORGE WALKER BUSH

Address is not available


Medical


No Medical Available.







Certificates


COMMERCIAL PILOT
Date of Issue: 12/8/1969
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT Print this certificate
Ratings:
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

[Joe LaMantia]

I just got another AOPA alert on this subject and it is really getting old. This keeps coming up because we have a party that won't pass any major bills under the current President. The Nextgen funding bill is suppose to take the FAA forward with a long term plan to upgrade ATC, user fees are buried in this pile of paperwork. We have plenty of congressional support to keep user fees out coming from both parties, but we've got 80 "representatives" who will not vote for any long-term spending, so we get all these little short-term funding bills that bring up the big issues every 3 months. This is why the public approval rating for congress is at an all time low!

Joe
:rollseyes:

[Frank Giger]

Sorry, the POTUS is the wrong guy to look to.

Congress is the focus; it's the lack of folks with general aviation ties that causes concerns.

This is why AOPA and EAA efforts with the aviation caucus is so critical.

[rawheels]

It does seem like most of the recent emails are pointing fingers at the President this time. Maybe he thinks he can get some PAC money from EAA & AOPA for the election campaign.

[Racegunz]

If I'm reading it right it's a hundred dollars every use of ATC services? What exactly is that considered? and how many non commercial pilots actually use ATC? Sure would make it tough around a Class-B,C airspace but a boom for the smaller dying airports, hangars would be full from big city/airport exodus.

[Dana]

Apparently the current proposal doesn't apply to "recreational piston aircraft":
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/attachments/rules-regulations-flight-safety-better-pilots/15444d1326766607-us-user-fees-administration-wants-100-per-flight-faa.jpg

[Mike Switzer]

Anyone who lives in Illinois knows that Chicago politicians are real good about the camel's nose - tent thing, and I don't believe they have defined "recreational" anywhere.

Does this mean if I fly a club plane on a business trip I have to pay? I don't believe I have ever flown in uncontrolled airspace, there isn't much of that around these parts.

[MEdwards]

If I'm reading it right it's a hundred dollars every use of ATC services? What exactly is that considered? and how many non commercial pilots actually use ATC? Sure would make it tough around a Class-B,C airspace but a boom for the smaller dying airports, hangars would be full from big city/airport exodus.So far they're only talking about fees for bizjets, but of course that can change at any time. Once they get the user fee concept established, it will expand and grow. Nobody knows yet what would be considered use of ATC services; so far it's just somebody's idea of what oughta be done. Details TBD. But here the devil isn't just in the details, it's in the basic concept itself.

How many non commercial pilots actually use ATC? Huh? Lots! I fly into airports with control towers all the time. I often call for radar service around big airports and sometimes flight following enroute. I fly IFR very rarely, but many noncommercial pilots file IFR everywhere they go. I live near a huge complex of restricted areas that seem to open/close on a whim, and I often call Center to check their current status. Every one of those things is a service looking for a fee if the user fee system gets adopted. And safety would definitely be impaired, because fewer of us would file IFR, use radar service, or call ATC for necessary information.

Your point about outlying airports is interesting--you're right, outlying airports might see a big increase in business. But I'll bet the FBOs at those airports aren't supporting user fees any more than the rest of us.

[Racegunz]

Your point about outlying airports is interesting--you're right, outlying airports might see a big increase in business. But I'll bet the FBOs at those airports aren't supporting user fees any more than the rest of us.

I'm not suporting it either (in case anyone thought I did) I also believe the camel's nose and all that about politicians. I'm not instrument rated and with the costs of things likely I won't be, just doesn't make sense for me. Thanks for describing your use of ATC, I know that all the big city boys use them just for clearance. That said, I can understand the non-aviators view point though, all the federal monies that go into public use airports comes mostly from tax payers that will never use them. I know that literally millions of dollars have been poured into the local airports surrounding me and they are all non-towered and seldom used, my view may not be popular but I don't see how it's fair to the masses. :confused:

[Mike M]

all the federal monies that go into public use airports comes mostly from tax payers that will never use them:confused:

NOT TRUE. ever fedex/ups a package, you used the system. etc, etc, etc. besides, most of the money comes from fuel taxes and passenger fees, not the treasury. darn it, folks, see this for what it is! class warfare! "i won't raise YOUR taxes, only that other cheapskate that's leeching off you." HOW STUPID ARE YOU ANYWAY? it's not the camel's nose, it's the camel's male reproductive organ!! don't massage the darn thing, chop it off!

[Frank Giger]

He's writing from Joe Average's viewpoint, not his own.

I was talking to someone that was shocked to find out that there are six airports in the Birmingham area, not just the one big commercial one.

"Why don't they just consolidate all of them and save tax dollars?"

Half an hour later of explaining general aviation and the different needs of pilots and safety concerns that would have to be addressed with putting all the different aircraft and pilots together he saw it my way - it's a function of education!

Heck, people are suprised like all get out that a guy like me (non-bizillionare) is a pilot and airplane owner (some assembly required). The perception is that GA is the sole realm of Lear Jets and WWII restorations.

[FloridaJohn]

That said, I can understand the non-aviators view point though, all the federal monies that go into public use airports comes mostly from tax payers that will never use them. I know that literally millions of dollars have been poured into the local airports surrounding me and they are all non-towered and seldom used, my view may not be popular but I don't see how it's fair to the masses. :confused:
You can tell "the masses" that most of the funding for airports, ATC, etc. does not come from the general fund. The large majority of it (95%+) comes for the aviation fuel tax and commercial airline passenger taxes. Most people do not pay anything for aviation if they are not using it. The only money for the FAA that comes from the general fund is the amount of money it takes to run the administrative functions of the FAA. Airport improvements, etc. is all coming from aviation fuel taxes.

[MEdwards]

Before this discussion gets shunted off into politics, we need to remember this is not the first time user fees have been proposed by an Administration in Washington. It's not even the tenth time. Every Administration for decades has trotted them out to some degree, and every time EAA and AOPA have had to mobilize and ask for money to beat them down in Congress. And every time so far they have been successful.

EAA and AOPA, and even city and state governments, have made estimates of the economic benefit of GA airports to local communities (like my own which is 50 miles from the nearest big airport) in real dollars, and it's significant. It's services, like UPS and Fedex mentioned above, and it's aviation businesses, sales, jobs, and taxes paid locally by all of those. We need to get those numbers out again and tell our nonflying friends about them. Can anybody point us all to some of that information?

[Racegunz]

He's writing from Joe Average's viewpoint, not his own.

.

Thanks for that frank.
I know this is a passionate subject sorry I seem "STUPID" (to some) but if you can't reasonably convince a fellow aviator that's on your side without reducing yourself to insults the battle is lost. I don't believe it's class warfare either. Convince me that the money spent is from aviation fuel taxes ( I will research it myself also) and if so that it is well spent on GA. I can guarantee you that the MILLIONS spent here locally did not come from local GA fuel taxes. I do agree that not many care if another's hobby is taxed.... well it's GA's turn. My other hobbies were/are heavily regulated and taxed, I doubt many aviators cared. Commercial passengers probably aren't supportive of paying taxes so Joe aviator can have basically free ATC services, especially if they are insulted/attacked by aviators that are flying 100k plus airplanes for recreation. So put your best foot forward and convince ME, then you might have a shot at the general populace. I personally think we will lose this battle shortly if not this time around, and I say "we" loosely, because the more I get involved with fellow aviators the more I'm deciding I don't have much in common with them.

[Racegunz]

It's services, like UPS and Fedex mentioned above, and it's aviation businesses, sales, jobs, and taxes paid locally by all of those. We need to get those numbers out again and tell our nonflying friends about them. Can anybody point us all to some of that information?

That is info that would be stepping in the right direction. Probably a hard sell here locally but at least a defensible position. Thanks for that.

[steveinindy]

Heck, people are suprised like all get out that a guy like me (non-bizillionare) is a pilot and airplane owner (some assembly required). The perception is that GA is the sole realm of Lear Jets and WWII restorations.

Then maybe we should stop showcasing warbirds at every airshow in the country. It's bad publicity. ;)

[steveinindy]

That is info that would be stepping in the right direction. Probably a hard sell here locally but at least a defensible position. Thanks for that.

In one of the few moves I agree with from the complete blithering pithed moron that is the Mayor of Indianapolis, he is sort of pro-aviation because one of the few major employers that is not looking to leave town or downsize in this G-d forsaken backwater is FedEx. Hell, they are planning a fourth runway for the main airport here to deal with the expected increase in cargo traffic over the next few years.

[Racegunz]

In one of the few moves I agree with from the complete blithering pithed moron that is the Mayor of Indianapolis, /G-d forsaken backwater .

That got a chuckle from me , backwater? clearly you've never lived in Louisiana LOL! I'm glad Fed-ex is doing well perhaps I can get a A/P job with them making double minimum wage someday if I really apply myself. oh and spend 35k going to Vincennes to get the creds. Pfffftt.

[steveinindy]

That got a chuckle from me , backwater? clearly you've never lived in Louisiana LOL!

For a state capital, this place is a backwater. I can't wait to get out of here.

[Mike Switzer]

For a state capital, this place is a backwater. I can't wait to get out of here.

You come from Terre Haute, and you call Indy a backwater. I find that amusing. :D

(What do you call Terre Haute? ;) )

[steveinindy]

You come from Terre Haute
I was born and grew up around there. I've also lived in Missouri, DC, Maryland and Michigan.


What do you call Terre Haute?

It's a backwater as well. The only differences between Terre Haute and Indy are more crime (negative for Indy), crappier mass transit (negative for Indy), a commercially served airport (+ for Indy) and a couple of professional sports teams (negative for Indy; it brings out the annoying fans of such groups). The best that can be said for Indy is that it is not Detroit.

[Mike Switzer]

The best that can be said for Indy is that it is not Detroit.

Hey now, them's fightin words. I'm a Tigers fan. (And we just signed Prince Fielder!!!!)

[steveinindy]

Hey now, them's fightin words. I'm a Tigers fan
The Tigers were the last MLB team I liked. I was referring to the city itself. I used to work at John R. and Canfield so....

[Mike Switzer]

I know - I wouldn't want to live in Detroit either. Distant suburbs maybe, but not in town. :)

[RV8505]

I was born and grew up around there. I've also lived in Missouri, DC, Maryland and Michigan.



It's a backwater as well. The only differences between Terre Haute and Indy are more crime (negative for Indy), crappier mass transit (negative for Indy), a commercially served airport (+ for Indy) and a couple of professional sports teams (negative for Indy; it brings out the annoying fans of such groups). The best that can be said for Indy is that it is not Detroit.


I was there in 78 as a kid when Steve martin called it NOWHERE U.S.A. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzCKBmlO1Ds

I rmember Steve Martin said "BE SOMEBODY" and I got out!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPpa5anHKfM

I'm living here in Connecticut and what I pay in property taxs monthly is what I paid in Indiana yearly.. The grass isn't always greener.

[Frank Giger]

Hey, now, leave off of Indianapolis!

Back a zillion years ago when Ft. Ben Harrison was alive and kicking so was I as a young single Soldier.

Ah, Indy. Though your stories will never be recounted for the benefit of the wife they will be fondly remembered.

Racegunz, there isn't a lot of dipping into the General Fund for airports - gas taxes really do pay for the bulk of it. It seems counter-intuitive because it's hard to believe that the standard County airport that seems deserted most of the time isn't a tax revenue (or Treasury Bill) funded money pit....until one realizes it's a national pool of cash.

The big airports fund all the little ones.

What would be very interesting to see is how much of the total cash for GA airports comes from the top four commercial air hubs of the nation - my two dollar bet is that they account for a third of all the in flow.

Living in the #2 state in the nation for frequency of tornadoes, lemme tell you that local County airport is far more than a home for playthings.

I do smile at the 100K airplane line, though. I only know one person that owns a 100K airplane, and he rents it out for training to defray the cost. Maybe that was what most of them were worth when they were new, but our airfield is populated with Cessnas that would sell for half of that based on age and use. Maybe the restored Cub on the field could fetch 100K; put me down for two guys I know.

And I make no excuses for having flying as a hobby. Nobody should. We don't cast aspersions on the guy who buys a big RV, a custom bike, a bass boat with a big truck to pull it, jet skis, golf clubs, or any number of expensive things that go with useless hobbies.

Should we close boat ramps and marinas because most people can't afford a decent fishing or skiing boat? Charge a fee to them every time they contact the weather service, Coast Guard, or Fish and Game?

Yes, I fly because I can. It's a helluva good time, and one of the most personally rewarding things I've done. I shouldn't have to make excuses for it any more than I should have to pay some extra fee just because of it above the taxes I'm already paying.

If they charge ten bucks a landing, the hour of touch and goes is extinct. That's smart, ain't it?

If they charge ten bucks to open a flight plan and another ten to close it, they won't get filed. Even better!

[Racegunz]

Okay after several minutes of searching and with noone really giving any references just parroting what AOPA or EAA says here's a breakdown from FAA.gov website it's older
Air Traffic and Certification Fees (53% of FAA's total budget)

Jet and turboprop flights currently subject to the ticket tax—including domestic, international, passenger, cargo, charter, air taxi, and fractional operators—would pay for their use of the air traffic system via terminal and enroute service fees. The proposal sets broad parameters for how these fees would be structured and how users would be consulted as they are established.
Collecting fees to recover the cost of air traffic services is a widely accepted practicearound the world. Fees would be based on data derived from FAA’s cost accounting and allocation systems, and would cover nearly three-fourths of the Air Traffic Organization’s budget.
To cover equipment, personnel, and other costs directly related to managing traffic in and around these facilities, our proposal gives FAA the authority to charge a limited, cost-based congestion fee for flights that land at the nation’s most congested airports.
FAA would charge modest fees to recover the cost of some FAA certification services since current fees are set well below the cost of providing the service. Fees would cover 10% of the Aviation Safety organization’s budget, with 90% still covered by the General Fund.
Fuel and International Passenger Taxes (28% of FAA's total budget)

GA and piston users will pay their fair share of FAA costs through a fuel tax, their preferred mechanism. The tax rates are based on a detailed cost allocation, and would change every two years in line with an updated cost allocation study.
All domestic commercial and GA users will also pay a common fuel tax of 13.6 cents per gallon to fund AIP, the Essential Air Service program and FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development account. International commercial passenger flights will pay a $6.39 passenger head tax to fund these services.
General Fund Contribution (19% of FAA's total budget)

A General Fund contribution would continue to pay for public good functions such as safety regulation, military use of air traffic services, and flight service stations. The contribution would account for approximately 19 percent of the FAA’s budget.
I'll leave this up but this looks like it was a proposed change, I can't find a breakdown of how much and where the money comes from, typical gov't accounting, I'll keep diggin though. I also found a current state of the AATF (aviation/airport Trust Fund) that is where the money is pooled for FAA funding, another money game the Gov't plays. The numbers there don't add up to what I saw elsewhere.

[Racegunz]

The big airports fund all the little ones.

I do smile at the 100K airplane line, though. I only know one person that owns a 100K airplane, and he rents it out for training to defray the cost. Maybe that was what most of them were worth when they were new, but our airfield is populated with Cessnas that would sell for half of that based on age and use. Maybe the restored Cub on the field could fetch 100K; put me down for two guys I know.

And I make no excuses for having flying as a hobby. Nobody should. We don't cast aspersions on the guy who buys a big RV, a custom bike, a bass boat with a big truck to pull it, jet skis, golf clubs, or any number of expensive things that go with useless hobbies.

Should we close boat ramps and marinas because most people can't afford a decent fishing or skiing boat? Charge a fee to them every time they contact the weather service, Coast Guard, or Fish and Game?

Yes, I fly because I can. It's a helluva good time, and one of the most personally rewarding things I've done. I shouldn't have to make excuses for it any more than I should have to pay some extra fee just because of it above the taxes I'm already paying.

If they charge ten bucks a landing, the hour of touch and goes is extinct. That's smart, ain't it?

If they charge ten bucks to open a flight plan and another ten to close it, they won't get filed. Even better!

I know of dozens of airplane owners that have 100k or close in their airplanes, Van's RVs mostly,and I'm a newbie to aviation so I figure you must know several too,there's been recent posts on this forum telling others to quit complaining about the price of the 100k plus LSA market, I can only guess what they have in theirs. The point I was trying to make was lost I guess, and I'm not asking anyone to apologize for anything, I'll fly out of a farmfield if I can't afford to do otherwise. Aviation is a rich man's sport/hobby that has a few options (for now) for the working class crowd (that's me and apparently you as well) down to ultralites if that's all you can swing. And with the info I'm finding on the.gov websites it's still the same answer. The big airports do seem to pay for the little ones, but it's the commercial customers paying for that price tag in passed on excise taxes. I do believe that users fees will kill GA as we know it, but it seems to be dying a slow death anyways with the dream getting further out of reach with every new regulation, and economics are playing a big part in it too.

[S3flyer]

Raceguns pointed out:

Air Traffic and Certification Fees (53% of FAA's total budget)[/h]

Jet and turboprop flights currently subject to the ticket tax—including domestic, international, passenger, cargo, charter, air taxi, and fractional operators—would pay for their use of the air traffic system via terminal and enroute service fees. The proposal sets broad parameters for how these fees would be structured and how users would be consulted as they are established.
Collecting fees to recover the cost of air traffic services is a widely accepted practicearound the world. Fees would be based on data derived from FAA’s cost accounting and allocation systems, and would cover nearly three-fourths of the Air Traffic Organization’s budget.
To cover equipment, personnel, and other costs directly related to managing traffic in and around these facilities, our proposal gives FAA the authority to charge a limited, cost-based congestion fee for flights that land at the nation’s most congested airports.
FAA would charge modest fees to recover the cost of some FAA certification services since current fees are set well below the cost of providing the service. Fees would cover 10% of the Aviation Safety organization’s budget, with 90% still covered by the General Fund.
Fuel and International Passenger Taxes (28% of FAA's total budget)[/h]

GA and piston users will pay their fair share of FAA costs through a fuel tax, their preferred mechanism. The tax rates are based on a detailed cost allocation, and would change every two years in line with an updated cost allocation study.
All domestic commercial and GA users will also pay a common fuel tax of 13.6 cents per gallon to fund AIP, the Essential Air Service program and FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development account. International commercial passenger flights will pay a $6.39 passenger head tax to fund these services.
General Fund Contribution (19% of FAA's total budget)[/h]

Which I'll accept as fact conceptially but is off in at least one area: taxes. Current aviation fuel taxes (irs.gov) are: $0.196 for avgas, $0.219 for Jet (for non-commercial operations) and $0.044 for Jet (commercial/airline operations). Note that GA pays approximately 5x the tax per gallon as the airlines.

Next, the above shows that 81% of budget is generated from various fees. I think we can agree that 53% come mostly from taxes levied at airports that have commercial operations. 28% comes from the fuel tax which I'll grant the majority is borne by commercial operations. Let's go nuts and say 95% (just a WAG)is commercial. This would mean that commercial ops fund 80% of the FAA budget.

But where does this money go? The AIP has granted about $1.3B to various airports throughout the US this year with at least $1B going to airports with commercial air service. This equates to 80% of the budget. My numbers could be off slightly since I spent only 10 minutes doing a manual review of the 900+ grants only assigning commercial grants to those airports I knew had scheduled service. I also filtered those grants above $1M (to around 250 lines iteams). Basically, I'm probably low-balling the commercial beneficiaries.

We could spend a lot more time arguing about a percent or two but it looks like the current system does a reasonable job of matching those who pay to those who get the benefit.

Another point -- the fuel tax example cited by the OMB for a flight from the LA to SF is entirely incorrect. In this case, the OMB is either grossly incompetent or avertly dishonest. You decide :) AOPA disputes the "$1300-$2000" cost and counters with a more accurate $68 (vs. $87 for a general aviation Gulfstream). Seeing as we can't trust AOPA either, let's figure it out ourselves:


AA schedules LAX->SFO for 1.25 hrs. A 737-800 burns 800 g/h which yields a total burn of 1000. At 4.4 cents per gallon this comes to $44.
I could not find a fuel burn for a Gulfstream so I went with an average Citation (200 g/h) which would take about 1.25 hrs as well. At 21.9 cents per gallon this comes to $55.

One should also break this down into to cost per person enjoying the ATC benefits. Let's put 100 people on the AA flight and 6 in the Citation. Commercial travel between LAX and SFO now costs only $4/person while GA is more than twice as much at $9/person. I would incur about $3 in fuel taxes in my Sting :)
In summary, commercial air operators are essentially getting back what they paid into the system. Corporate aviation easily pays 2x that of commerical airlines. Exactly what is a $100 User Fee supposed to fix? If there is a real revenue issue, then proportiately raise the fuel tax which seems to be applied equitably already. Or we should mount a movement so we only pay our fair share and cut our taxes so we are more in line with airline fees :D

[MEdwards]

I do smile at the 100K airplane line, though. I only know one person that owns a 100K airplane...
Frank, where's the "100K airplane line"? Is it quoted somewhere on these messages, or did you find it someplace else?

[MEdwards]

The Government says, "For example, a large commercial aircraft would pay between $1300 to [sic] $2000 in taxes for a flight from Los Angles [sic] to San Francisco while a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same FAA air traffic services would pay about $60 in taxes."

S3flyer's very useful message above shows us where the "about $60" comes from, from the fuel tax. Where does the $1300 to $2000 come from? Does that include the 10% ticket tax paid by each passenger? And does that assume a full widebody airliner making the flight?

[Mike M]

Collecting fees to recover the cost of air traffic services is a widely accepted practice around the world...our proposal gives FAA the authority to charge a limited, cost-based congestion fee...modest fees to recover the cost of some FAA certification services since current fees are set well below the cost...commercial and GA users will also pay ... to fund AIP, the Essential Air Service program and FAA’s Research, Engineering and Development...General Fund contribution would continue to pay for public good functions such as safety regulation, military use of air traffic services, and flight service stations....numbers there don't add up...

widely accepted practice? i've had foreign students come here - round-trip air fair, stay months - precisely because it's cheaper than the "widely accepted" death-of-a-thousand-cuts fees at home. some nations have beautiful but expensive flying clubs, others have people flying out of wholly-owned properties, but few have the mix of options we have here. i remember Athens in the mid-70's, about 25 light planes on the field. think they were at the reliever airports? WHAT reliever airports? Sorrento, mid-80's, still had WWII bombs in half of one sod runway because there wasn't enough use to merit bothering to dig them up. etc etc etc do we want what they have? cost, complexity, disuse? if so, here's a way to get it - fast.

limited fees? only because the camel is still young.

modest fees to cover certification? certification? isn't THAT is the prime "public-benefit" purpose of ALL the faa jobs? obviously the poster child for general fund support, and ONLY general fund support. i mean, get real, who benefits the most from certification? besides lawyers and bureaucrats, of course.

why should general aviation flights fund the essential air service and faa research and development? EAS should obviously come from ticket taxes alone! EAS only exists because politicians and the military demand air service to uneconomical points. and just read Sport Aviation to find out who's done the research and development for GA since 1953.

as to "the numbers don't add up"? well, what do we expect from a government so far in the hole we can see China through the bottom but is still digging, a government that hasn't passed a budget in years, a government that can't even count votes properly?

oh, wait a minute, the government is US!?!?!?!?!?!?!? never mind.

[7478ti]

It is going to take fundamental adjustment to the current obsolete ATS system, both nationally and globally. Wasteful costs were unnecessarily built in to the airspace separation processes over the past 80 years. Those unnecessary costs were also built in to related archaic supporting infrastructure (e.g., Outdated Navaids, radars, and ATS essentially hand separating airplanes nearly 1:1, and jurassaic 2 way party line voice com). Even NextGen as presently configured is unlikely to fix the problem. NextGen doesn't yet fix the excessive "Cost per unit separation service" and unnecessarily expensive infrastructure that is ultimately leading to demands for GA user fees. In fact, current ill-advised plans to misuse ADS-B for "pseudo radar" could even make it worse in the long run. Hence the fully allocated costs (if truthfully examined) of the currently provided services, and even for NextGen, even for VFR VMC aircraft are and will be far higher than fee income collected. The problem is further compounded by some organizations in GA inappropriately still supporting entirely obsolete and wasteful systems or procedures like the $4B dollar WAAS system (which has been unnecessary since 30+ SVs are flying and SA is off), and LPV (which just wastes airspace with its outdated angular straight-in procedures, versus the much more efficient, and lower cost, and infinitely better "RNP" procedures, which even the smallest GA aircraft could have already been using). So at least some of GA's problem with this fee issue is due to still advocating for outdated and expensive concepts that we no longer need, and no longer need to pay for. It is time for GA to wake up and start getting serious about advocating for the real change that is needed in NextGen and SESAR (like dumping WAAS, EGNOS, and LPV, and instead adopting RNP and GLS for GA, and introducing the needed data links, in some modern equivalent version to the old Narco Mark 12, ....and simplifying and consolidating FSS functions etc.. Then and only then will we have any real chance of successfully and reasonably addressing the user fee issue. But the user fee issue isn't going to go away if we stay on our present GA course.