Every driver should pay every time they drive on a public road. Every boater should pay every time they use a public boat ramp. Every mother should pay every time they take their kids to a public park.
2 Likes
Let me get this straight…a private enterprise is going to use a Federally funded system (ADSB) to collect a fee from users of a Federally funded airport but yet the same private enterprise probably isn’t going to pay anything for such ability. Seems like the government should charge an equivalent for use of the ADSB in such an occasion.
Which now brings up the topic of having available facilities in which GA aircraft can access. If the FBO has the only transient ramp on the airport and also charges a fee, wouldn’t this more than likely be “double dipping” on the part of the airport?
You seem to not understand that the USA system was created for safety first and then for safety next as well. If you call helping GA safety “subsidizing” then you misunderstand the history and traditions and purpose of GA in the USA.
OK Bill, I’ll bite. My airport, KSSI, a small nontowered airport, but very active, according to our county, produces around 21 million dollars to the area’s coffers. Our county has 3 airports that produce about 160 million economic impact.
General Aviation, including “private pilots” is demonstrably a huge economic driver for communities all over the country.
To say we are overly subsidized is akin to saying “it’s just rich guys playing with their toys at our expense”.
Project 2025 is an obscure boogie man of the left wing politicians. There is no possibility of the crazy parts of this becoming law.
And just where does 2025 even enter into this?
Stirring the pot, huh!
This will spread out of greed and stupidity. Those with separate ADS/B units will likely turn them off when not near Class B & C airspace. There is also a way to make ADS/B anonymous through the FAA. Maybe everyone will sign up for this. See link. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy
Volvo, Ford and others have abandoned ground based EVs as impractical. Fossil fuel is stored solar energy, stable and safe. EVs depend on manufacture of peak demand, stable terrestrial energy and there is only one solution: Nuclear power which the same folks that think solar cells will power the world block by any means possible.
The proposed landing fees are unnecessary, especially when fuel taxes already provide sufficient revenue for airport maintenance. Adding extra fees just increases the financial burden on GA pilots without offering significant benefits to airport infrastructure. Additionally, using ADS-B data for invoicing is a misuse of the system—it’s designed for safety, not billing. These fees could harm flight training programs and local aviation communities. Instead of creating more obstacles, we should support the growth of general aviation in Florida and everywhere else. AOPA’s stance is correct…
1 Like
Excellent points. I get FlightAware alerts that my aircraft departs an airport near Santa Barabara, California. It happens multiple times a year. I have asked both the FAA and flight aware about this, but it continues and has for years. I am based more than 2000 nm from there. Long before ADS-B, I got a bill from PHX for a landing fee at an airport I’ve never visited. The dispute process was tedious even though I had flight logs to prove the airplane at the time was down for engine overhaul and was based in the east. I can’t imagine a spoofed/misprogrammed ADS-B transponder dispute nightmare. Sort of like Redflex speed traps, I imagine, except you don’t even need to be there.
Some of us private pilots purchase airplanes for $25,000 and pay thousands in taxes, hangar fees, annual inspections, transponder certs, and nuisance fees. which are distributed to airports to insure their availability. Corollary: Pay a fee to use a freeway entrance ramp, another for the exit ramp, another for each rest stop you pass, another per ton-mile tax, and the gas taxes which pay for all the highways. Pretty soon that trip to grandma’s will cost you $500 plus gas and gas taxes. We pay for every mile we fly through avfuel taxes and the government does not need to lay more than a mile of asphalt at each end. Give us a couple of miles of runway and we are free to roam. Give the governments an inch of taxation and they will take 10000 times that.
That is a sound basis for discussion and the data is a good justification for the government’s involvement in the airport world. However, wouldn’t such data also be the basis to say that passengers, airlines and cargo operators shouldn’t pay fees as well? The question becomes what should the role of the government be here and how are private ops different from commercial ones? I’m not endorsing a radical departure from the current model - but I think a cost benefit discussion is appropriate on every level of airport operations. I really appreciate the data - it makes the discussion more constructive.
I agree that user fees are a slippery slope and that the government has grown larger than it should be. Airport fees are a tough discussion. Most airports work to defer their maintenance projects in order to match the funds that they receive. I think that we have a rapidly deteriorating system that is going to need more funding to keep it viable. I don’t think that will come from the traditional sources in the needed amounts. Small aircraft landing fees may need to be part of the solution.
"Small aircraft landing fees may need to be part of the solution’
Adding more costs has never have been a solution for growth.
We know this by simply looking at GA in Europe.
Such ideas are demonstrably non-productive.
Are you nuts!! How did you get from a ‘green’ website to this one. This is for supporters of aviation not anti-supporters. 
In my opinion, this discussion shows a lot of different viewpoints, from dismissive, sarcastic, and caustic comments to more thoughtful ones. A lot of people are upset about using ADS-B data to charge fees, which isn’t what the system was made for. ADS-B was created to improve safety and air traffic control, so using it for billing seems like a bad move. There’s also a real concern that pilots might start turning off their transponders to avoid these fees, which could make flying less safe.
Another big issue is whether these fees are even needed, especially since some of the airports have gotten plenty of federal funding and seem to be doing just fine. AOPA made a good point that the fees don’t seem necessary, and I agree with that. It feels like there’s a disconnect between what’s being said about needing more revenue and the actual financial situation at these airports.
On the flip side, some people made good suggestions that could be a better solution. Instead of charging landing fees, why not focus on things like selling more fuel, collecting fees for overnight parking, or encouraging more local business? It seems like a smart way to keep the airports financially healthy without putting extra pressure on private pilots.
The best ideas in the conversation are the ones that try to balance the needs of the airports with the concerns of the pilots. Some suggested that flight schools should be exempt or that fees should target commercial flights instead of general aviation. That sounds fair to me. Others also mentioned that there should be rules to stop ADS-B data from being used in ways that hurt the aviation community, which seems like a sensible step.
In the end, while there’s frustration, I think there’s a chance for a productive conversation. The aviation industry is changing, but we need to make sure we’re keeping safety, fairness, and the growth of general aviation in mind when we make decisions like this.
More government has never been the solution either. By the time a dollar of tax money that is destined for an airport filters through the federal channels, how much makes it to the purpose. Landing fees stay local and have a direct benefit to your airport on a dollar for dollar basis. The idea may be distasteful but the discussion is certainly worthwhile.
Nope, it’s not “worthwhile” if you want to just go out and shoot 10 T&G’s at your airport and they charge for each one of them. Saying this is a benefit for local pilots is laughable.
Well said. The issue is not black and white, nor is every airport’s financial picture the same. I know that most are behind on their maintenance programs on both airport infrastucture and facilities. Funding from state and local sources vary widely, and some areas of the country support aviation better than others.
While it is convenient to paint with a broad brush, this is probably more appropriate as a local conversation.
I think that we can all agree that I was correct when I said “I know this is going to be controversial…”!
Keep on Flyin’
How can this be happening in Florida, the state with no income tax and led by Governor DeSantis? How can he allow this to happen in his state?
1 Like