Simviation Forum - Why oh why does Obama have a grudge against aviation?!

Jan 27^th, 2012 at 10:28am

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

Being an EAA member I follow their news closely and ever since Obama took office he has worked against aviation. First it was bashing the auto execs for using corporate jets. Having both parents working in corporate aviation I can tell you after that remark, my parents both almost lost their jobs! My dad ended up spending several weeks with almost no flights. His flight dept had to cut back on pay for its pool of 30+ pilots and around 30 maintenance, linemen, and flight coordinators because of that remark. Then he proceeds to kill the manned flights to the moon and the manned flights to Mars. THEN he proceeds to bring up a bill that would implement a $100 PER FLIGHT fee for General Aviation even though EAA turned over a petition with 8,900 signatures (5,000 only were needed) AND members of both parties are strongly against this fee, yet Obama insists he will find any way he can to implement it.
This is why I cannot stand him.

Tailwinds,
Adam

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jan 27^th, 2012 at 11:00am

ftldave Offline
Colonel
"Here we go!" - Yuri Gagarin
Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Gender:
Posts: 115

Lots of very incorrect statements in that one. Yep, the auto execs were heavily criticized for flying corporate jets when they came to DC to ask for bailout money. Blame the corporate morons for their own stupidity. Nope, the Obama administration actually allocated an extra billion dollars to NASA. The space agency's unresolved problems and issues go way beyond funding. And, yes, perhaps the airlines should cut back on their huge executive pay and help shoulder the costs of maintaining aviation infrastructure. Then the focus would not only be on general aviation to pay more. But guess how many high-paid lobbyists for the airlines will oppose that? Political diatribes should be fact checked. This probably isn't really a forum for wahubna to exclaim personal political preferences. The topic is REAL AVIATION, isn't it?

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
- Werner von Braun

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jan 27^th, 2012 at 11:46am

beaky Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA

Gender:
Posts: 14187

Also worth noting is that this is not the first administration to attack GA, mostly on behalf of the airlines. And no, I'm not talking about the last Democratic administration... Wink

And I'm not happy about the proposed $100/flight surcharge, either, but it does not apply to all GA flights. I would agree, though, that it's probably going to lead to user fees for everybody if it passes. There's already a "pay at the pump" tax system that works (and makes more sense), and ATC and other services are steadily being privatized, and ground-based navaids, Flight Servie Centers, FSDOs, etc are all going the way of the dodo, which will eliminate a lot of expense. So this idea that more fees for GA will cut gov't spending is hogwash... it will require more administration, and all of that needs to be paid for.
It's just like all the highway and bridge tolls in the USA that were supposed to be eliminated once the projects were paid for, but we still pay to drive there- I guess to pay the salaries of toll-takers and pay for maintenance on the infrastructure related to toll plazas. Meanwhile, in many parts of the country, the highways are like goat paths, and getting worse. Roll Eyes

I see the same bumpy road ahead if GA user fees are foisted on us.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jan 27^th, 2012 at 12:58pm

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

ftldave wrote on Jan 27^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Lots of very incorrect statements in that one. Yep, the auto execs were heavily criticized for flying corporate jets when they came to DC to ask for bailout money. Blame the corporate morons for their own stupidity. Nope, the Obama administration actually allocated an extra billion dollars to NASA. The space agency's unresolved problems and issues go way beyond funding. And, yes, perhaps the airlines should cut back on their huge executive pay and help shoulder the costs of maintaining aviation infrastructure. Then the focus would not only be on general aviation to pay more. But guess how many high-paid lobbyists for the airlines will oppose that? Political diatribes should be fact checked. This probably isn't really a forum for wahubna to exclaim personal political preferences. The topic is REAL AVIATION, isn't it?

Um..okay..if you say Aviation Week, EAA, and my personal experiences are false then sure...
This pertains to real aviation...because it AFFECTS real aviation. Political decisions in regards to aviation are aviation related right?

At any rate, business flight depts pay a lot for a lot put bluntly. They also employ a lot of people, as I said, both of my parents are in business aviation as well as the vast majority of family friends so my point of view is from the flight depts and the pilots. Also NASA did lose a crap load of funding. My student group had funding provided through AIAA and NASA yet we took a hit. One of my class mates is a hard-core NASA fan (currently trying to get an internship with NASA). He follows NASA news maybe TOO much and the funding cuts were particular upsetting to him. I personally did not care too much, NASA only spends 5% of their budget on aviation, the rest is space related.

@ beaky, very true, almost every administration has gone after GA. Just so happens Obama is the current president Wink

The so called GA Caucus is bi-partisan so I really was not try to make this a Liberal vs Conservative thing. I was more of saying that those of us in aviation cannot just sit back and ignore politics as they frequently affect aviation.

In short folks, you CANNOT ignore politics, the fate of Meigs field should be a reminder to all of us. As well how I have never heard of a new local airport being built, but I have known of several in Ottawa County that closed plus many more country wide. Again, this is bi-partisan, party lines do not mean a thing in aviation, its those of us in it and those that are out of it.

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jan 27^th, 2012 at 2:39pm

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Politics, 'nuff said!

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: