What you said is right on. I would add, that they are looking at this from the corporate side of general aviation and not people flying any single engine aircraft. For any one burning kerosene $100.00 per trip is spitting in the ocean. For small aircraft it is setting up a dangerous scenario. Pilot with an instrument ticket is taking a short trip - 150 miles - 1,000 ft ceiling - what is he or she going to do - pay $100.00 to fly IFR or borderline skud run VFR? Raising the fuel tax one cent wold raise as much money - I suspect.

I'm all for people paying their fair share but this user fee proposal is absurd. I am a private pilot and I fly a small, six passenger, turbo prop airplane. I usually fly alone, mostly for business. I just checked my logbook and I flew 160 flights of varying distances and durations over the past 12 months. Most less than one hour. At $100 per flight, this proposal will add $16,000 to my annual flying expense. Today, I spend $26,000 per year on fuel, another $20,000 on insurance, hanger, and maintenance for the plane. So my annual outlay will increase by 35% based on this proposal. Clearly, this entire, and growing category of aircraft has been overlooked by this proposal. The point of $100 per flight being a "drop in the bucket" does not apply here and it is an extraordinary disincentive to owners and operators of these airplanes. I also fully agree with the points made regarding the cost of the infrastructure both for the government and for business to manage this proposed system. Even more concerning is the path that could be taken on this type of taxation over time. Now it is just turbines. Soon, it could easily be all flights and I can even imagine the "menu of services" approach that has been proposed in the past. This wholes idea creates real safety concerns in my mind. A good example is the 15 minute flight I make frequently for maintenance on my plane. According to this proposal, if I can remain in "uncontrolled" airspace for the whole flight, I don't get charged. Hardly seems worth a hundred bucks to go 15 minutes away and I can avoid controlled airspace by flying low, avoiding the use of ATC traffic avoidance services, and avoiding the use of ATC flight plans, all of which increase the risk of flight to me and others in the area. I don't know why nobody is talking about safety. Maybe the safety concerns will be mitigated by the fact that GA will simply stop flying. If we need to better fund the US aviation infrastructure, I'm OK with paying my fair share, even if that means increased annual costs to me and my business. But let's make sure we find a way through mechanisms that fairly measure that share. The current fuel taxation system works quite well. This flat tax is just wrong.

It's true, we all want something for nothing. For corporate aviation (calling it "general" aviation is a misnomer), they want the same ATC services and infrastructure that the airlines pay much more for. They want it subsidized. It's not unnatural to want to take advantage of a situation to the fullest extent possible. So I propose, make the fuel tax so high that it's unbearable, then we'll lose REAL general aviation at the same time. Somehow we have to raise revenue, and it's not enough that there are all the corporate tax breaks out there (especially for corporate aviation). Don't think for one second that corporate aviation is doing this to "save" general aviation. By opposing the $100/flight tax to pay for ATC services, you just might hurt general aviation more in the long run. $15/g gas anyone?

I don't think anyone is proposing that we should receive something for nothing. We already pay into the system via excise fuel taxes - those of us who fly more tend to use more services and pay more. Those who fly less and use less services pay less. There's no taking advantage of the situation, it's a fair method of tax collection. A fuel tax increase would need to be voted upon by Congress. Therefore, the likelihood that they would raise taxes to the point of being $15/gallon isn't realistic. We're fortunate enough to have many representatives in the House who understand the huge value General Aviation brings to businesses and the communities they serve - and the devastating effects that would come with such an outlandish increase. On the flip side of this proposal, a user fee could however be increased without Congressional approval. That's scary. In terms of raising revenue, it's important to note that this proposal does not stipulate the money raised would even go towards the aviation system. If our government has a shortfall, we need to work together to find ways to cut costs and determine who is actually using which services. It doesn't make sense that we should add an arbitrary $100 per flight fee to airplane operators to help make up for the general budget deficit. Lastly, I for one am "corporate aviation" and I am doing this to "save" general aviation. I run a business, I employee great people, I contribute positively to my community. There are thousands of others just like me who use their airplanes for business each and every day. Each of us are a part of the General Aviation community and the Corporate Aviation community. We're willing to step forward and do our fair share, but fair doesn't necessarily equate to equal in such a complex situation.

It is sad to see that well-meaning members of the aviation community such as Mr. Pierce and the redoubtable Ms. King of King Schools fame are being used by a privileged minority to preserve the entitlement status of the corporate-jet crowd. Shame on Mr. Graves for employing well-meaning Americans in such a Dog and Pony Show, such a calculated misdirection. To abuse their desire to serve the aviation community, and the nation, to take their good intentions and place them in the service of a corrupt political party and a still-born supply-side economic ideology is a travesty. For over thirty years this nation has endured tax policies that, without merit, without equity, without sound economic reasoning, have shifted the tax burden to the middle class and granted irrational entitlements to the affluent and the corporate class. Thank Mr. Reagan and the puppeteers who made his mouth move for these abominations. User Fees are a sideways admission, made by politicians of all stripes, much as they dread to admit it, that starving the government of the revenue it uses to maintain an infrastructure that benefits all Americans, is profoundly stupid. And to grant affluent Americans and corporations exemption from contributing to the maintenance of said infrastructure is right-wing madness. All that income and all those assets sheltered in off-shore tax havens must be documented and taxed. It's the patriotic thing to do, though the affluent freeloaders have no particular loyalty to this nation. With such diversified assets, as well as hidden assets, they have no particular stake in the economic health of the United States. It is a toy to play with, a mouse the cat likes to bat around. Hmmm...what does the cat finally do with the mouse? Credit Mr. Graves and his handlers for skillful spin-doctoring, though. Hide the goals of the affluent freeloaders behind legitimate small-business owners and hint these admirable Americans, the latter group that is, might become the victims of that regulatory/taxing demon of legend. Never mind that the current crop of politicians are failing to act responsibly for the benefit of this and future generations, failing to resist the temptations of affluence, failing to choose the more lasting and tangible rewards of legislating with integrity instead of short-term partisan gain. They do, in fact, hold the reins of that regulatory/taxing demon, but lack the balls to tax their wealthy campaign contributors at an equitable level. Recognize the User Fees proposal as a bargaining position, used to force a discussion about how we fund our aviation infrastructure. As currently proposed, it is a non-starter. Exemptions need to be added for turbine-engined crop dusters, for example. Thoughtful contributors have pointed out other problems, such as the status of training flights and recreational use of business-registered aircraft. But these oversights can be hammered out. Recognize, too, that “...GA drives approximately 16 percent of the costs of air traffic services. Nearly 10 percent is related to high performance GA aircraft such as corporate jets, while 6 percent is related to piston GA aircraft...In contrast, GA currently contributes just over 3 percent of the taxes that flow into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.” “The proposal would increase GA’s share of the user taxes and fees to 11 percent — with 10 percent coming from jets and other high performance aircraft and only 1 percent from piston users. While this is higher than GA’s current share, it is still well below their share of the costs.” “Simply adjusting the fuel tax rates for inflation would result in rates of roughly $0.36 per gallon for jet fuel and $0.32 per gallon for aviation gasoline. However, these rates would still not cover the air traffic control costs that GA activity drives.” (Source: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=8747) We who support private aviation don't need to be concerned about a User Fee for the corporate class and the trust fund babies. It's a mere poke in the eye, directed at those who have enjoyed decades of unearned ease, and deferential treatment from the government, at the expense of the rest of us. Private pilots, I say to you that this alphabet-soup of aviation advocacy groups are, sadly, mouthpieces, influence peddlers and apologists for an affluent minority who want to perpetuate the status quo, i.e., their subsidized air travel carve-out. Why else have they tried to focus your attention on User Fees and away from a taxing, legislative and economic climate that works to benefit only a minority of Americans? To protest User Fees is to reach for the low hanging fruit. To defeat them is to achieve a short-term victory that does nothing to invigorate private aviation. It will, however, comfort the comfortable. What we need to do is vote in a congress that passes tax reform legislation to restore taxing equity. Enough of these tax breaks and entitlement programs for the already wealthy. They benefit from the infrastructure my taxes built for them, but insist their prosperity was self-made? Psychotic delusion. Megalomania. Avarice-addiction Syndrome. You want to see all talk of User Fees vanish? Elect a real congress, focused on restoring taxing equity. And then, what has for decades passed as normal, this prolonged malaise, this suffocation of the economy by supply-side entitlement programs, this deregulatory dementia, this strangulation of the middle class, this decades-long class warfare, will be seen for the aberration it is.