Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Interesting article on user fee issue

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Interesting article on user fee issue

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9



---------------------------------------------

This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.

http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:50 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea.  In central KY, 

where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've learned that an 

airport that can handle jets is essential to the local economy.  Somerset's 

facilities and runway were in dire need of upgrades to service their jet 

customers.  Our Danville airport is doing a runway widening project, soon, 

and finally got a corporate hangar because our airport serves the jet 

community on a regular basis to support local factories in at least two 

counties.  Jobs that we sorely needed have come into our area because of the 

airports, colleges, etc.   I appreciate the fact that my wife, son, and 

neice are working in a factory that was brought here with the help of our 

local airport.  The folks who write these articles haven't a clue to the 

impacts of airports to smaller economies.  Maybe they're living in ritzy 

enough areas that they don't have to worry about such things.  In Kentucky, 

we do.



Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs  via 

fuel taxes.  I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough to 

justify the kind of airports we have.  Grass would work fine for us.  Jets 

need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame for the costs. 

We probably don't use the system for our local flights nearly as much as 

those who write these articles against us think, either.  I rarely use the 

system for my local engine warm ups, short trips for hamburgers, etc.  I use 

other resources and tell my friends where I'm going, just in case.  That 

costs the FAA nothing.



What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots come 

from our ranks.  If our level is hit with fees and taxes like other 

countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't be pilots 

for the airlines unless they come from the military.  We won't be able to 

afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless someone else pays for 

it.  Our airplanes will become worthless junk.  Thousands of jobs at FBOs 

will disappear, and the revenues from those jobs will go along with them. 

But, I'm preaching to the choir.  Someone needs to write to the fellow who 

wrote that article to enlighten him.  Maybe AOPA already has.



Oh, yeah.  The guy was right about one thing.  When charges start flowing 

our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services.  There will 

become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get reduced taxes from 

the airlines and few fees from us because we'll just stop using the system. 

That's the way the guys in Europe can afford to fly; and, those guys are 

wealthy enough to be able to afford it.  Based on AOPA's article, it's 

dangerous to fly there because more scud running is done, now.  We'll see 

aviation accidents increase in leaps and bounds.



For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs have gone 

up.  I was lucky to get into aviation when I did.  I wouldn't be able to 

afford it, if I were making comparable wages to what kids make today.  Add 

fees to my already iffy budget for aviation; and, I'll be just another 

onlooker at the airport, just like those folks in other countries.  It's no 

wonder many of us are talking amongst ourselves about getting out of 

aviation.  It's not as much fun, anymore, when we have to worry about 

increased costs in a hobby we can barely afford, as it is.  We start 

thinking we'd better get out before our airplanes become worthless because 

only the very rich will be able to afford to operate them, just like the 

warbirds are afforded by the few, today.



Jim Sears in KY

do not archive



---

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

Jim, great post.  Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir.  Send it 

to AOPA and your state reps (they have an interest too) and those in 

Washington.

You made my biggest point .... "We'll see aviation accidents increase in 

leaps and bounds. "   By the time the magnitude of the accidents becomes 

apparent ..... it'll be too late to say "I'm sorry".

Linn

do not archive



Jim Sears wrote:



[quote] 



 Unfortunately, those who write those articles have no idea.  In 

 central KY, where the mentioned Somerset airport is located, we've 

 learned that an airport that can handle jets is essential to the local 

 economy.  Somerset's facilities and runway were in dire need of 

 upgrades to service their jet customers.  Our Danville airport is 

 doing a runway widening project, soon, and finally got a corporate 

 hangar because our airport serves the jet community on a regular basis 

 to support local factories in at least two counties.  Jobs that we 

 sorely needed have come into our area because of the airports, 

 colleges, etc.   I appreciate the fact that my wife, son, and neice 

 are working in a factory that was brought here with the help of our 

 local airport.  The folks who write these articles haven't a clue to 

 the impacts of airports to smaller economies.  Maybe they're living in 

 ritzy enough areas that they don't have to worry about such things.  

 In Kentucky, we do.



 Granted, we private pilots use the system and pay little of the costs  

 via fuel taxes.  I know we don't use the airports and pay taxes enough 

 to justify the kind of airports we have.  Grass would work fine for 

 us.  Jets need the runways we're getting; and, we still get the blame 

 for the costs. We probably don't use the system for our local flights 

 nearly as much as those who write these articles against us think, 

 either.  I rarely use the system for my local engine warm ups, short 

 trips for hamburgers, etc.  I use other resources and tell my friends 

 where I'm going, just in case.  That costs the FAA nothing.



 What the general public isn't being told is that the airline pilots 

 come from our ranks.  If our level is hit with fees and taxes like 

 other countries, who send their pilots here for training, there won't 

 be pilots for the airlines unless they come from the military.  We 

 won't be able to afford to fly, or get the neccesary training, unless 

 someone else pays for it.  Our airplanes will become worthless junk.  

 Thousands of jobs at FBOs will disappear, and the revenues from those 

 jobs will go along with them. But, I'm preaching to the choir.  

 Someone needs to write to the fellow who wrote that article to 

 enlighten him.  Maybe AOPA already has.



 Oh, yeah.  The guy was right about one thing.  When charges start 

 flowing our way for using the system, we'll stop using the services.  

 There will become a void of income to the FAA because they'll get 

 reduced taxes from the airlines and few fees from us because we'll 

 just stop using the system. That's the way the guys in Europe can 

 afford to fly; and, those guys are wealthy enough to be able to afford 

 it.  Based on AOPA's article, it's dangerous to fly there because more 

 scud running is done, now.  We'll see aviation accidents increase in 

 leaps and bounds.



 For us, wages have not increased much over several years and costs 

 have gone up.  I was lucky to get into aviation when I did.  I 

 wouldn't be able to afford it, if I were making comparable wages to 

 what kids make today.  Add fees to my already iffy budget for 

 aviation; and, I'll be just another onlooker at the airport, just like 

 those folks in other countries.  It's no wonder many of us are talking 

 amongst ourselves about getting out of aviation.  It's not as much 

 fun, anymore, when we have to worry about increased costs in a hobby 

 we can barely afford, as it is.  We start thinking we'd better get out 

 before our airplanes become worthless because only the very rich will 

 be able to afford to operate them, just like the warbirds are afforded 

 by the few, today.



 Jim Sears in KY

 do not archive



 ---

jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

I think Matt strips those I copy to.  I did copy AOPA on this.  I also 

mentioned I was preaching to the choir.  We already understand.  I may have 

to look at sending it to our reps, though.  It wouldn't be the first time 

I've done it on this subject.  In fact, I'm finally beginning to write to my 

congressmen on a more regular basis on subjects that have bothered me, of 

late.  We all should do that.  I'll see what I can do on this one.



Jim in KY

do not archive

---

shempdowling2(at)earthlin
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

Speaking of user fee's, I just got an envelope in the mail from NavCanada 

with a one page, unexplained bill for 18 bucks.  Im assuming this is a user 

fee for flying into their airspace last September.  Yep, 7 months.  They 

didnt even explain what service Im paying for.  Oh well, this is a good 

example of what not to do here, if we can fight it.



Shemp/Jeff Dowling

RV-6A, N915JD

320 hours

Chicago



do not archive



---

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting 

mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the 

FAA/airline position.



I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride.  $2.88 USD



When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or close to 

that of arriving aircraft.  I talk with COS approach for traffic advise 

and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS.  Imagine 

what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly 

airspace user?  You guessed it.  I would stop talking to COS approach.



I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked around 

by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER Denver 

Class B.  Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN?   I have no idea. 

Don't care.  I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no 

longer try to play nice with them.  



 



---------------------------------------------

This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.

http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/

jpl(at)showpage.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

The head of the Minneapolis guys talked at a Wings a year or two  

ago.  He was there to explain why they were enlarging the Class B and  

also to talk to GA pilots about some of our flying habits.



One thing he noticed is that the pilots tend to skirt the edges of  

class B -- either barely below it, barely above, or barely outside.   

He felt we thought we were "getting away" with something.  I've flown  

just under and just outside class B here, and I did it so that I  

could stay out of the way of the busy controllers, but he basically  

told us, "the controllers prefer to talk to you rather than guess  

what it is you're doing".



If you add user fees for me to talk to the controllers, I'll go back  

to my old habits of never talking to them.  I'll use free weather  

services, I'll never file a flight plan unless it's IFR, and I won't  

file IFR if I think I can safely scud run.  When I practice my  

approaches, I'll only shoot approaches that don't involve talking to  

any controllers.  I won't file PIREPs in fear that talking to anyone  

will cost me more money, and besides -- why should I file PIREPs if  

they're going to charge some other pilot to hear them?



I will, however, fly at legal distances -- barely -- from both Class  

B airspace and local clouds, blithely not talking to anyone at all.   

That airliner will just have to go around me.



Is that really what anyone wants?



-Joe



On Apr 16, 2007, at 3:34 PM, ronlee(at)pcisys.net wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I did not state in my original post that the article was interesting

 mainly because it seemed to be slanted in a way to support the

 FAA/airline position.



 I paid my first landing fee Saturday at Telluride.  $2.88 USD



 When I fly around my airport I am often at the same altitude or  

 close to

 that of arriving aircraft.  I talk with COS approach for traffic  

 advise

 and to maneuver to facilitate commercial traffic flow into COS.   

 Imagine

 what would happen if they decide to charge me for being a friendly

 airspace user?  You guessed it.  I would stop talking to COS approach.



 I know that this is a probable response since after being jerked  

 around

 by Denver approach I no longer speak with them when flying OVER Denver

 Class B.  Does that impact traffic into or out of DEN?   I have no  

 idea.

 Don't care.  I tried to be cooperative and was treated poorly so I no

 longer try to play nice with them.

T.gummo(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

I have had the same experience with Las Vegas Approach Control.  Several 

times, I attempted to contact them while over flying their class B airspace. 

One time, a controller was very pleasant and even gave me a small vector to 

help an airliner out.  Every other time, all I got is a bunch of static from 

them.

I now just over fly and stay on 122.0 Flight Watch.  I use ATIS to get a 

current-local altimeter setting.

Last time, I came within a mile of several airliners and I can be sure they 

had to be vectored to avoid me.  So be it.  Keep your head out and eyes 

open.  



Tom Gummo

Apple Valley, CA

Harmon Rocket-II



do not archive



http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html



---

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

No, they don't want you to do that; they just want you to stop flying.

Economic flush and drain.  I bet somebody has a spreadsheet somewhere that

has estimated the cost of losing the marginals.  Both in terms of lives,

lawsuits and hard cash.  I'm writing my elected reps today.  I encourage

everyone to hit this with both fists, two feet and anything else you can

throw at it.  



John Jessen

  #40328



do not archive.   



--

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue

 	  jpl(at)showpage.org wrote: 	
		  Is that really what anyone wants?



-Joe

	




Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think that's what America wants.



I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the middle of nowhere. 



I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does -- and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.



Frustrating, ain't it?

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/ticket_taxes_9

 


	


I sure hope our friends at the AOPA try to get the other side out to 

this journalist.



"A study released in February by the FAA said it cost $2.4 billion just 

to provide air traffic control for private and corporate planes in 2005. 

The industry contributed just $516 million in fuel taxes that year."



Does anyone have a link to this study?  I'd like to see how they came up 

with the $2.4 billion number.  Sounds like a *slight* exaggeration.



The thing that is annoying is that almost no one ever mentions that if 

there were no airliners in the sky, then GA would not need ATC or the FAA.



"Advocates of private and corporate aviation, which accounts for more 

than half of all air traffic, ..."



Wow - I'd like to see how they justified that statement!



"Some airports have used AIP money to buy up surrounding property to 

create noise barriers between aircraft and neighboring residential 

areas. But an FAA audit found that six airports that used AIP funding 

for noise mitigation later sold the land and used $82 million from the 

sales for unapproved purposes."



If true, this is bad.  There must be more to the story.



"Sardy Field, in the ultra-rich mountain playground of Aspen, Colo., has 

received $27.2 million in funding since 2005. While Aspen does offer 

service by major airlines, private jets and other general aviation 

aircraft make up the majority of its traffic, airport officials said."



Ahh, it's not just those bad "rich" people, now it's "ultra-rich" 

people!  They should close the airport so those ultra-bad people will 

drive SUVs hundreds of miles to their mountain playground.  Right! 

That'll provide a boost to the economy.



"California's Napa Valley Airport collected $6.3 million in taxpayer 

dollars over the past two years, even though it mainly serves private 

jets and small planes in addition to being a pilot training base for 

Japan Air Lines."



We don't want those evil "ferners" coming over here to the USA to spend 

their money now, do we?  Heck, if we chased them back to Japan, think 

about all the hotel rooms and restaurant space that wouldn't be all 

booked up.  Not to mention those flight instructors - they could get a 

*real* job at Walmart or Home Depot.



I could go on and on, but I'm sure I'm boring you - sorry, but I'm just 

in a ranting mood on this issue!

-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue

I don't think a dollars-and-sense "defense" is going to work. AOPA has been trying that for years and even *I'm* not interested in it.



I think the way to justify these is to note that without the support for airports for private pilots, -- and specifically, I'm thinking that this story cited several of the reliever airports in Minnesota -- the skies get more crowded and all of a sudden commercial passengers (that would be the voters)  are at risk



http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml

We're going to have to hit the non-flying public where it hurts the most -- how it affects THEM.



Right now, everyone who flies commercially knows it s*cks. So stress that if the relievers -- like a Flying Cloud in the Twin Cities -- disappears, there'll be fewer takeoffs at MSP. That's longer waits and runway delays.



There's the safety issue.



There's the benefits issue.  In our neck of the woods, the forests have a nasty habit of burning. These airports provide the ability to provide services to fight them (this is especially true int he aforementioned Rep. Oberstar's district, which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness).  Close the airport, let it burn, and then where are you non-flying hikers going to camp and hike?



Hopefully, everyone kind of avoids the not-so-subtle "rich jet jockey"  or rich pilot  message of the article.  Anybody who's ever watched the Land Yachts come rolling into Camp Scholler during AirVenture know there's some validity to that. (g)

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

burnsm(at)suddenlink.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

--

jamie(at)jpainter.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

We also need to publicize instances such as the recent incident where a Comair CRJ made an emergency landing at RMG (Rome, Georgia) after a disgruntled flight attendant set an intentional fire in the lavatory.  I bet those passengers and crew were glad Rome was there.  There have been innumerable instances where GA airports have played such a role in emergencies. 



There is definitely the wealth-envy portion of the equation.  But from my observations most pilots aren't ultra-wealthy.  Granted, you're not going to do a lot of flying on a minimum wage salary (some do), however the overwhelming number of pilots are solidly in the middle-class.  The overwhelming number of pilots don't use ATC that much.  Even those of us that are IFR current...what percentage of flight time are you IFR?  How much infrastructure are you *really* using on a VFR x/c across the state? 



The most annoying thing about the article is that it categorizes GA airports as ones that don't serve the general public.  Hmm....that's what a public GA airport does!  Anyone with an airplane is allowed to fly into/out of there.  That's the point.  Not *everyone* flies on the airlines.  In fact, I'm from a rural farming background.  My brother and I are the only people out of several hundred family members that have taken airline rides, yet all of my relatives paid to bail out the airlines after 9/11.  I love how short-lived the airline execs collective memory is when it comes to the billion dollar taxpayer bailouts they received.   I guess Hartsfield-Jackson doesn't service the general public?  It certainly does nothing for my family. 



Jamie



do not archive



On 4/16/07, Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net)> wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" < bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net)>



I don't think a dollars-and-sense "defense" is going to work. AOPA has been trying that for years and even *I'm* not interested in it.



I think the way to justify these is to note that without the support for airports for private pilots, -- and specifically, I'm thinking that this story cited several of the reliever airports in Minnesota -- the skies get more crowded and all of a sudden commercial passengers (that would be the voters)  are at risk 



http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml (http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/psa182.shtml )

We're going to have to hit the non-flying public where it hurts the most -- how it affects THEM.



Right now, everyone who flies commercially knows it s*cks. So stress that if the relievers -- like a Flying Cloud in the Twin Cities -- disappears, there'll be fewer takeoffs at MSP. That's longer waits and runway delays. 



There's the safety issue.



There's the benefits issue.  In our neck of the woods, the forests have a nasty habit of burning. These airports provide the ability to provide services to fight them (this is especially true int he aforementioned Rep. Oberstar's district, which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness).  Close the airport, let it burn, and then where are you non-flying hikers going to camp and hike? 



Hopefully, everyone kind of avoids the not-so-subtle "rich jet jockey"  or rich pilot  message of the article.  Anybody who's ever watched the Land Yachts come rolling into Camp Scholler during AirVenture know there's some validity to that. (g) 



--------

Bob Collins

St. Paul, Minn.

RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

http://rvhotline.expercraft.com





Read this topic online here:



 



	


-- 

Jamie D. Painter

RV-7A N622JP

http://rv.jpainter.org  [quote][b]

gcomfo(at)tc3net.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:49 pm Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

-



Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think

they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the

sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think that's

what America wants.



I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to

recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim

Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the

middle of nowhere. 



I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really

screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --

and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a

process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.



Frustrating, ain't it?



--------

Bob Collins

St. Paul, Minn.

RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

http://rvhotline.expercraft.com



It's more alarming than frustrating.  I suspect that the FAA's goal, in

addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that is

not under the thumb of congress.  Once in place the rates could be

manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself.  Ever try to lobby a

bureaucracy?  They also want to free up the trust fund to use for

operations.  It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel taxes

or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is

doubtful the fuel tax would disappear.  The U.S. House and Senate are not

exactly loveable organizations  but they do respond somewhat to the

electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable

and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with

respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds.  God help

us all if this all comes to pass.



Gordon Comfort

N363GC

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: Interesting article on user fee issue

It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel taxes

 	  Quote: 	
		   or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is

 doubtful the fuel tax would disappear.


	


Fuel taxes go from around 19 cents a gallon to around 70 cents a gallon.  

Best recollection from AOPA article.



Ron

Lee



---------------------------------------------

This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.

http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue

 	  jamie(at)jpainter.org wrote: 	
		  

There is definitely the wealth-envy portion of the equation.  But from my observations most pilots aren't ultra-wealthy.  Granted, you're not going to do a lot of flying on a minimum wage salary (some do), however the overwhelming number of pilots are solidly in the middle-class. 	




It would actually be illuminating to see a survey like that. Of course, most people consider themselves to be in the "middle class," so it has a wide ranging definition.  It's kind of like, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.



I consider myself middle class, but if you've got two Cheltons in your panel and live on an airpark, you be rich in my book (g).



People -- non flyers -- have asked me how I afford to fly (which, I actually can't),  so I tell them "I don't drink and I don't chase women, so I use the money that you spend on those things for flying instead."



BTW, was I dreaming or did I read somewhere in the last few days that the user fees effort was pretty much dead. I could swear I read it but I don't know if it was a flying source or a political newsletter.

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum