Reaction To 'We The People' Petition Response Overwhelmingly Negative

ANN certainly struck an nerve when we asked for your comments following a fairly perfunctory response from the Office of Management and Budget concerning a petition against aviation user fees. Some went to far as to call for a boycott, with pilots refusing to fly for a day in an effort to point out how GA and the economy are intertwined. Many drew parallels to Europe, where user fees have made a huge impact on GA flights. "The obstacles and expenses of flying have already severely curtailed my aviation activities, decreasing the economic benefit I have been contributing for years.  User fees have almost killed aviation in Europe and Canada.  I will not vote for anyone or any party that supports them," said reader Brian P.

The message that spurred all this ... should we say vitriol ... came from Dana Hyde, OMB's Associate Director for General Government Programs. "In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes it’s essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation system help pay for its ongoing operation," Hyde wrote. "And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share."

Many of our readers blasted the "fair share" comment. " ... (H)ow is it "equitable" to have 150 people on an LAX to BOS flight split a $100 fee, but a flight of 2 people fly from IND to FWA would pay the same fee?  The morons at the White House ... need to drop the "fair share" crap and acknowledge that the "rich" already pay MORE than their 'fair share'." wrote Jim B.

That sentiment was echoed by several others. "$100 fee for any flight.... not dependent on distance?  We pay for the distance factor with the fuel tax. How is it fair to pay $100 for a 150 nm  flight and a $100 for a 900nm flight?" wrote Dana P.

Paul M. took a bit of a different tack. "It may be  "Fair" for business jets to pay a surcharge for Air Traffic Control services in the US just as they do in Socialist Europe," he wrote, "However, I don't think it is appropriate for the US government to make such an attack on business. The administration would rather promote the image of business jets as excessive luxuries rather than seeing them as valuable business tools. This is not a big surprise from an administration that demonizes business and would prefer the whole world existed as government departments."

Some of our readers were skeptical about the exemption for piston aircraft, as well as air ambulances and flights that do not take place in controlled airspace. "The fed’s can assess all the fees they like. I, for one will not pay them. I believe that once the user fee “camel’s head” is in the door, we’ll never get him out of the tent. And the promises of immunity for the “little guy” (small piston-powered aircraft) will soon go by the wayside, These people are simply not to be trusted. Whatever they say to us, if there’s money to be had, they’re gonna get their grubby little mitts on it," wrote reader Daniel R.

"Even though they intend to initially exempt a number of GA operations from these user fees, once implemented can be easily changed to add the previously exempted operations. Meanwhile, any general aviation (including experimental aircraft) with a turbine engine requesting a weather brief would be subject to those fees.  The experimental aircraft portion of general aviation has provided significant technological developments benefiting the entire aviation community – this government would seek to stifle that creativity." That comment from aircraft builder Ralph C.

Most, however, were just outraged that after all the comments and testimony from the people who actually use the system. "I was one of the original signers of the petition and I was annoyed and appalled by the White House’s response," wrote Lisa S. of Vero Beach, FL. "They completely ignored the valid points in the petition and the reasoning behind it. They went forward with their own misguided ideas and agenda without any real attempt to acknowledge its opposition to their position. The most annoying part of the response was that its arrogant tone implied that the signers of the petition must agree with them. It was written as if they had not even read it."

"This fight is crucial and it must be won by the Aviation Industry. I couldn't believe it when I read that concept of $100 PER FLIGHT for the privilege of 'using' ATC!  Not only would it NOT raise anything near what they're dreaming of, it would destroy General Aviation. Perhaps that's their aim?" commented Michigan resident Mary M.

Ron I. said additional fees would be "disastrous." "I'd like to tell whoever is pushing this idea that I didn't hire a consultant to study the feasibility of user fees the way the government does. I've lived it for the last 30 years as I've watched the slow decline of aviation and the drop in traffic around the country. I've watched as pilots I know who fly for the major and regional carriers take pay cuts or lose pensions. I've watched as Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft and others shut down production lines. And now we are going to turn around and tell these people they have to pay an additional fee per flight," he wrote."

But at least a few of our readers were supportive, if not effusive, of the idea of user fees. "Very fair" was the entire comment from reader Fred L., who did not indicate where he lives. And a reader who identified himself only as John D. wrote "I do not have a jet I don't use the system and I just can not believe 100 dollars is going to take them down."

FMI: You Can Still Comment!