That $100 thing

[onwards]

How real is it?

Seems like congress, via the GA caucus, is pretty adamant in its opposition. Can it really happen?

And if it does, what would it do to you? I know that, for me, it will basically kill most of my flying, making it so uneconomical as to be pointless. I will likely continue to fly occasionally but certainly a lot less than the 10 hours a month or so I average now. I presume my skills will lessen considerably over time. Is that a consideration at all?

I have also put the plane buying project on indefinite hold at the moment, which is unfortunate because I was looking forward to the experience of ownership. It's just that if I am going to fly only 30-40 hours a year, owning really doesn't make sense.

What do you folks think? are these concerns common? seems to me like this would drastically reduce general aviation, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Jim Logajan]

How real is it?

Less real than NextGen - barely.

The FAA has big plans needing large amounts of money. We'll be footing the bill, one way or another. Or whoever is left.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Done correctly, I do not think privatizing ATC would cause GA much damage.

However, a "user fee" as proposed by the Obama (and past) administrations is not the same as privatizing ATC, since the FAA can institute a user fee while keeping ATC a part of the FAA. In that scenario a user fee is the worst of all possible scenarios.

Nav Canada was privatized years ago and its user fee schedule is tiered based roughly on the value of the ATC services to the customers, not on the unit cost to provide such services. So a Cessna 150 flying IFR isn't charged the same a Boeing 747 flying IFR. So far as I can tell by the Nav Canada Customer Guide, the owner of the C-150 pays a flat C$68/year to use ATC services. No per flight or per kilometer charge. Only aircraft of 3 metric tons or more see per flight usage charges. If you fail to pay the charges, you will be denied ATC services (except in emergencies.)