Administration proposes user fees for GA

That's the thing, the fuel tax *is* a user fee. And it works. Adjust the rate. Adjust the payouts from the Trust.

This is one area of government that makes sense. Many of the other areas, simply don't.

(Or they won't tell is what they really spend it on. Or they buy $1000 toilet seats. Or they pay AT&T to tap their network. Etc.)

The public outcry and reaction to those systems will suck in and pull down good ones.

That and over-spending by every new Congress by instituting taxes that won't take effect until they're out of office.

(Although I'm not sure ADS-B is a good way to spend FAA money, and let's face it, some airports milk the renovation money hard and overpay for those services too.)

What most people are saying is that Government leadership needs to set and publish priorities. And in the case of this fee, tell us why the fuel tax isn't working.

Same thing with this goofy Buffett law as they're calling it. If the Alternative Minimum Tax was set up to make sure "everyone pays their fair share" why isn't it working? Perhaps other laws were passed that usurp it? Why?

Not trying to send this to SZ. Just saying the public wants visibility and accountability not necessarily no taxes. The sentiment that taxes shouldn't be raised is more like asking the teenager, "Hey, I already gave you 40% of my paycheck. What did you spend it on? You're broke. Deal with it. You probably can't go to that fancy dinner with your friends from the lobbyists tonight, kiddo. Should'a thought of that before you spent it all."
 
This isn't about the merits of the proposal/how it makes sense/doesn't make sense, or any of that.

Politically speaking, aviation is an easy target because the percentage of constituents who care about aviation is tiny. On top of that, it's also a very good target because saying things like "we're making people with jets pay their share" sounds good.

So, the only thing standing in the way are the various interest groups. Reason isn't important here. Be thankful for AOPA PAC.
 
sba55 said:
Politically speaking, aviation is an easy target because the percentage of constituents who care about aviation is tiny. On top of that, it's also a very good target because saying things like "we're making people with jets pay their share" sounds good.

So, the only thing standing in the way are the various interest groups. Reason isn't important here. Be thankful for AOPA PAC.
Click to expand...

Ironic that we pay for these very same politician's "private" jet travel, isn't it?

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/

Aviation needs to be less of a target and more of a snarling dog fighting back. Cessna's ads were pretty funny in response to the attacks on private jets, for example.

AOPA PAC, sadly... is part of the bigger picture problem. It's just a game of who pays the Congress the most money.

I don't see a reasonable alternative to them, but they're part of the machine, not changing it.
 
denverpilot said:
Ironic that we pay for these very same politician's "private" jet travel, isn't it?

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/

Aviation needs to be less of a target and more of a snarling dog fighting back. Cessna's ads were pretty funny in response to the attacks on private jets, for example.

AOPA PAC, sadly... is part of the bigger picture problem. It's just a game of who pays the Congress the most money.

I don't see a reasonable alternative to them, but they're part of the machine, not changing it.
Click to expand...

Easy way to cure that irony is for all the FBO's to band together and in the next election cycle refuse to sell fuel to ANY politicians private aircraft as they are flying around trying to get re elected..... :yesnod::yesnod::wink2:.

I bet that will get their attention REAL quick.:idea::idea:.

All it takes is a backbone in the FBO's business plan. IMHO.

Ben.
 
Okay I consider this a bad approach. That's the up-front I don't like this.

That being said, everyone agrees we have a smaller community than 2 decades ago. The smaller your community is, the more likely you are to be ignored. Worse yet, the easier a target you are. Add in: the airlines looking to pawn off as much cost as possible, an economic & political climate where no one wants to admit that you can't have guns & butter, absolutist political positions, et al.

You can see how quickly we get to this.

There is no way to fix this other than more pilots. The only way to get more pilots is to lower cost of access and to increase outreach. Then you'll have a larger percentage of voters, and be tougher to push around. How do you decrease costs? I can't offer much except improvements to the basic technology.

Everyone starts VFR. We don't need glass panels for that. Yeah, it's pretty, but it's not necessary. Maybe a G300 is cheaper to buy / maintain than a six-pack, transponder, and radio. I doubt it though.

Engines haven't really changed in forever, which is part of our fuel problem. (Part of me hopes that Mistral gets their G-Line certified and takes a lot of business from TCM & Lycoming and can therein finish their K-Line. A stretch, I know.)

I'm not going to let the FAA off the hook here either. They're so scared (by the media circus that would be sure to follow) they've created a pretty tough certification regime. Sometimes, it's pretty arbitrary too. I won't even go into the fuel fiasco with them.

Next is the media circus. A car crash gets a collective "meh" unless it's huge or horribly graphic. A plane can "crash land" (gear down, no damage) on a road (note, it doesn't have to damage anything or hurt anyone) and it's freaking national news.

Finally, it's us. Well, some pilots anyway. I'll be honest, a percentage of us are freaking jerks. Kind of hard to get people on your side, when you have some of us act like a self-absorbed twits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
ScottM said:
Told ya.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Did you read the comments ?

W0X0F 1 hour ago
With GPS, Collision Avoidance systems, and satellite communications the only place ATC is needed is at large airports. Let each city airport authority pay for it, and abide by FAA regulations.

Like
Reply

Apilot 1 hour ago
I avoid flying in Canadian airspace. Too many controllers micromanaging movements, so that they can collect trivial fees. I'm reluctant to file IFR, as I would in the US, because of the high extra charges. This lowers the safety level of the whole system. Its easy to have an impressive safety record with a small fraction of the US air traffic density. Its always a relief to get back to the superbly managed US airspace !


Pretty much where I am with it.
 
bartmc said:
19.4¢/gal as of 2011

To let wikipedia elaborate.... and throw some more ?'s into the equation:

Jet fuel (called "kerosene for aviation" by the IRS) is taxed at 21.9¢/gal for the 2007 tax year unless it is used for commercial aviation (airlines such as American Airlines and US Airways and small commercial jets commonly chartered by entertainers, politicians, and business VIPs). Because such commercial operations are subject to the federal transportation tax, they are subject to a reduced fuel tax of 4.4¢/gal .
Click to expand...

Sooo....4.4 cents vs. 19.4 cents? The airlines aren't paying their fair share?
 
rpadula said:
Right. I've seen that. Aren't those the taxes & fees that show up on the passenger's ticket? If so, the airlines ain't paying it.
Click to expand...

Which means that the poor general public who cannot afford to ride on private biz jets are having to subsidize all these rich business jet folks.
 
Since the airlines get their money from the passengers, whether it appears on their ticket or not, the passengers pay it.

That's why I've never understood the whole "tax corporations" thing. It always _has_ to pass through to their customers. If they lose money, they go out of business.

John
 
jsstevens said:
Since the airlines get their money from the passengers, whether it appears on their ticket or not, the passengers pay it.

That's why I've never understood the whole "tax corporations" thing. It always _has_ to pass through to their customers. If they lose money, they go out of business.

John
Click to expand...


I never understood that either. We pay the taxes they get charged by various government entities, Fed, State, Local, etc built into the product costs. Then we pay sales tax on their products, with money that's already been taxed as income by the Feds, State, Local.

If we buy their stock, and it increases in value, we pay tax on any capital gains. It never freakin ends. How many layers of taxes are we going to put up with to fund union scams, and payoffs?
 
Looks like I will be doing a lot of compassion flights.
 
bartmc said:
Which means that the poor general public who cannot afford to ride on private biz jets are having to subsidize all these rich business jet folks.
Click to expand...
Not on a per-passenger basis, they're not.

What's a 737 hold, about 150 passengers? Divide the $1300-$2000 estimated taxes for the commercial flight in the OP by 150, and we're looking at an average of $8.66 to $13.33 per passenger.

Business jet loading is what? 4-6 passengers? At $60 in taxes, that's $10 to $15 per passenger.
 
Don't feel bad, the proposed fees are for airlines too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/21/travel/main20109407.shtml

The aviation fees are part of Obama's deficit-cutting plan that was released Tuesday. The plan would:

— raise the passenger security fee — now $5 to $10 per round trip — to $15 by 2017 and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.

— impose a surcharge of $100 per flight to help pay for air traffic control.

The administration portrayed the $100 surcharge as a tax on corporate jets, whose owners pay fuel taxes but not ticket taxes and other fees already paid by airlines and their passengers. However the surcharge would also apply to regular airline flights — providing most of the $11 billion that the surcharge would raise over 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
Wait a second... They should just call it an "Admission fee" or "toll" for Class A airspace.

Boy, some of those turboprops are looking better.

Actually, I don't like the fee, but if it will apply to ALL jets including airlines, that's at least a tacit admission that the current pricing (lower tax on 121 but add ticket taxes) is "fair" between airlines and other jets.
 
Isn't this all sorta like peeing in the pool? No matter who does it or where, we're all gonna get it on us. whoever you chose to apply it to directly and point at as enemy of the day is just going to roll it to their customer. Just don't want to see safety compromised or another needless bureaucracy sprout up because there's a new creative way to do the same thing we've been doing for hundreds of years, taxing the consumer.
 
Interestingly, I'm at AOPA Summit, where you'd expect this to be a topic of great interest. I've heard it mentioned by perhaps one person. It doesn't sem to have notice even among the pilot community.
 
Is Babbitt going to be speaking?
 
Palmpilot said:
Is Babbitt going to be speaking?
Click to expand...

Yes, this morning.

8 a.m. - 9 a.m., Connecticut Convention Center

No single agency has more influence on how we fly than the FAA. Hear directly from FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt as he answers the questions pilots are asking—questions about funding, priorities, regulatory policy, the role of general aviation in the national transportation system, and more. Administrator Babbitt will share his perspective on the state of general aviation today and talk about the FAA’s focus for 2012 and beyond in an in-depth conversation with AOPA President Craig Fuller.
Click to expand...
 
rpadula said:
Right. I've seen that. Aren't those the taxes & fees that show up on the passenger's ticket? If so, the airlines ain't paying it.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter which party the tax is levied against. When you tax something, the buyer and seller share the tax burden. See microeconomics 101.

And the burden is not always shared equally; it depends on elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. When the FAA was shut down and the ticket taxes were lifted, airlines raised fares to match. When the FAA resumed, the fares were lowered again. This is empirical evidence that airlines pay most of the burden, otherwise they wouldn't have changed fares when the taxes changed.
 
rpadula said:
Not on a per-passenger basis, they're not.

What's a 737 hold, about 150 passengers? Divide the $1300-$2000 estimated taxes for the commercial flight in the OP by 150, and we're looking at an average of $8.66 to $13.33 per passenger.

Business jet loading is what? 4-6 passengers? At $60 in taxes, that's $10 to $15 per passenger.
Click to expand...

One one hand a business jet and a 737 use equal amount of government air traffic services. Each plane still has to be separated from the other by X miles, requires X minutes of a controller's time, etc.

However, most of these services exist because of the airlines and the military...if it weren't for them would they even be needed? (I've never seen a line of 20 business jets on approach all at once.) I think the services are used by private/corporate aviation not because they are needed but because they're already there.

In other words, sorry if this doesn't make sense, but for airlines the value received vs. cost paid for various government aviation services is equitable. For a business jet it's probably not.

and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.
Click to expand...
Is that legal?
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
That's not how it works. It doesn't matter which party the tax is levied against. When you tax something, the buyer and seller share the tax burden. See microeconomics 101.

And the burden is not always shared equally; it depends on elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. When the FAA was shut down and the ticket taxes were lifted, airlines raised fares to match. When the FAA resumed, the fares were lowered again. This is empirical evidence that airlines pay most of the burden, otherwise they wouldn't have changed fares when the taxes changed.
Click to expand...

hmmm, maybe it was easier to keep the prices charged the same instead of going through the expense/bother of lowering prices and then raising them and dealing with the resulting nonsense from complaining paxs.
 
In an era where government at every level, Fed, State and Local are involved and funded by taxes for things never intended for government to do and regulate, I find it really insulting that the Feds would ask for additional funding for a NATIONAL transportation requirement. This is one issue that benefits much of the populace through the ability for people, and GOODS to travel.

Reduce spending for non-essential government services, and just fund national transportation without more fees, and taxes!
 
dmspilot said:
That's not how it works. It doesn't matter which party the tax is levied against. When you tax something, the buyer and seller share the tax burden. See microeconomics 101.

And the burden is not always shared equally; it depends on elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. When the FAA was shut down and the ticket taxes were lifted, airlines raised fares to match. When the FAA resumed, the fares were lowered again. This is empirical evidence that airlines pay most of the burden, otherwise they wouldn't have changed fares when the taxes changed.
Click to expand...

At the simplest level companies (and indeed consumers) have no source of money other than income. Companies income comes from customers (I'm intentionally leaving out interest income, infusions o f venture capital and loans because sooner or later the income has to pay for all those things.) Customers _must_ pay for all of a companies expenses or the company will go out of business. If it costs you $1.05 and you charge $1.00 you can't make it up in volume.

John
 
dmspilot said:
One one hand a business jet and a 737 use equal amount of government air traffic services. Each plane still has to be separated from the other by X miles, requires X minutes of a controller's time, etc.
Click to expand...

Even business jets avoid the crazed rush at "bank time" at airline airports that are hubs in the hub-and-spoke system.

I'd say the Class Bravo airports cost a lot more in traffic services than smaller airfields. And most have draconian landing fees to economically keep non-airline traffic out as much as possible.

When airlines are fighting and clawing for slots at the busiest airports it's hard to claim traffic costs are based on separation standards. They're based on -- traffic.

Some guy launching out of North Platte, NE in a bizjet isn't triggering the use of nearly as many FAA resources as every JetBlue flight into JFK, for example.
 
jsstevens said:
Companies income comes from customers (I'm intentionally leaving out interest income, infusions o f venture capital and loans because sooner or later the income has to pay for all those things.) Customers _must_ pay for all of a companies expenses or the company will go out of business. If it costs you $1.05 and you charge $1.00 you can't make it up in volume.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly agree with that...I think we're saying the same thing, just with different explanations.

As I was saying in response to rpadula, just because ticket taxes are collected from passengers doesn't mean the passenger pays 100% of the tax and the airline 0%. Economically, that's just not the way it works.

denverpilot said:
Even business jets avoid the crazed rush at "bank time" at airline airports that are hubs in the hub-and-spoke system.

I'd say the Class Bravo airports cost a lot more in traffic services than smaller airfields. And most have draconian landing fees to economically keep non-airline traffic out as much as possible.

When airlines are fighting and clawing for slots at the busiest airports it's hard to claim traffic costs are based on separation standards. They're based on -- traffic.

Some guy launching out of North Platte, NE in a bizjet isn't triggering the use of nearly as many FAA resources as every JetBlue flight into JFK, for example.
Click to expand...

I agree...and actually said something similar in the paragraph after the one you quoted. Basically what I meant was that the real cost of the services are not 1:1 per each aircraft but it's not 1:1 per passenger either...it's quite complex actually with numerous factors that change depending on a particular flight.

Personally, I still think fuel taxes are the best way to raise revenue for air traffic services. It prevents the safety hazard of people dodging safety services because of not wanting to pay for them, and it is the easiest and cheapest way to collect the revenue. Plus, although it isn't "perfect", generally the amount of fuel you use is proportional to the amount of FAA services you use.

In addition:
~ Abolish the TSA and let the free market take care of security again. Government policy before 9/11 dictated that box cutters were "approved" items. The TSA adds no value.

~ The federal government has no reason to fund airport improvements such as building new runways as such. Reduce taxes from the money saved and leave the responsibility for raising revenue and funding improvements to the states and individual airport commissions. For airline tickets, why is there an "airport facility charge?" Why not have the airport charge the fees, and spend the money however it wants?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top