Administration proposes user fees for GA

Dave Siciliano

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Siciliano
Turbine aircraft would be charged $100 per flight if IFR. It' like the Twilight Zone. We've been through all this before and it doesn't seem to matter.

Best,

Dave
=========================================
 Corporate Jets Face Flight Fee in Obama Plan

By Alan Levin - Mon Sep 19 20:31:21 GMT 2011

Enlarge image
The interior of a Raytheon Hawker 800, used by Blue Star Jets, is seen at Teeterboro airport in New Jersey on Aug. 10, 2011. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg



President Barack Obama’s administration proposed a $100 per-flight fee on corporate jets and other turbine-powered planes that use the U.S. air-traffic system.
The fee would raise an estimated $11 billion over 10 years, according to the president’s recommendations to the 12-member congressional committee charged with finding ways to trim the deficit. The fee is aimed at private aircraft, which currently don’t pay their fair share of costs of operating the aviation system, the administration said today.
About two-thirds of the air-traffic system is paid for by aviation excise taxes, including levies on airline tickets and on fuel. Last year these taxes raised $10.8 billion, according to the Department of Transportation.
There is a disparity between what airlines and their passengers pay into the system and what users of private aircraft pay, the plan said.
An airline flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco would generate $1,300 to $2,000 in taxes, depending on the number of passengers and what they paid for tickets. A private jet, which requires almost the same services from air-traffic controllers, would pay about $60 in fuel taxes, the plan said.
“General aviation users currently pay a fuel tax, but this revenue does not cover their fair-share use of air traffic services,” the plan said.
Opposition Mounts

A coalition of nine U.S. associations representing users and manufacturers of corporate and private aircraft issued a joint statement “expressing our unified opposition” to the proposal.


http://tinyurl.com/3e84bul
 
And so it begins.......

Another tax to be passed onto the consumer, as another cost of doing business.

Will our little piston planes be far behind?
 
It need not be *extremely* political; user fees have been a goal for the last two administrations (at least).

It is disappointing that this proposal, one which would substantially harm one of the few industries we have remaining in which American manufacturers - *and* American workers - are well-represented, with high-value jobs.

We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.
 
bartmc said:
We'll just go VFR.
Click to expand...

I'd expect to see a lot of that, and I'd expect to see a lot more "Egh, it was only a little cloud, I really didn't need to file IFR."
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought turbines were supposed to be inefficient at the altitudes available to VFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

Probably right, don't know much about the turbine world, I tend to not pay my fair share in 50 year old spam cans.
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought turbines were supposed to be inefficient at the altitudes available to VFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

Most of the turboprop owners I know will fly in the 20-24k range (depending on the plane and the range). Sometimes, especially in the northeast, I'll see turboprops flying at 17,500 because they can fly higher and more direct VFR than IFR due to routing.

Most turboprops on long trips will find it worth the money, because it'll be cheaper. But for us piston guys, and for the shorter turboprop flights, this would result in an increase in VFR, and I think also result in people pushing to fly VFR when they should be on IFR.
 
I love the way they characterize "fair share." The ATC system was created for, and is in every respect optimized for, airlines.

In addition, this ludicrous, bumbleheaded proposal would charge the same $100.00 to a turbine-converted Bonanza flying a 200 mile segment, as a G650 flying transcon.
 
Here it is from the horse's ... er, mouth (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf) (emphases added):

More equitably share payments for air traffic services.

Roughly two-thirds of the air traffic control system’s current costs are financed by aviation excise taxes. Most of the tax revenue is collected from commercial aviation through ticket taxes, segment fees, international head taxes, and fuel taxes. General aviation users currently pay a fuel tax, but this revenue does not cover their fair-share-use of air traffic services. All flights that use controlled air space require a similar level of air traffic services. However, commercial and general aviation can pay very different aviation fees for those same air traffic services. For example, a large commercial aircraft would pay between $1,300 to $2,000 in taxes for a flight from Los Angles to San Francisco while a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic services would pay about $60 in taxes. To reduce the deficit and more equitably share the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community, the Administration proposes to establish a new mandatory surcharge for air traffic services. This proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted. The revenues generated by the surcharge would be deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years. Assuming the enactment of the fee, total charges collected from aviation users would finance roughly three fourths of airport investments and air traffic control system costs.

​
 
Ted DuPuis said:
and I think also result in people pushing to fly VFR when they should be on IFR.
Click to expand...
Exactly - I think you will definitely see more instances of continued VFR flight into IMC (along with the usual consequences) if this does come down to affect all GA.
 
SCCutler said:
We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.
Click to expand...


When you got the old lady on your back whatcha gonna do?

"Yo *****, I needs more shoes. I ain foolin wid dat fly like a G-V, I wanna shoe like Imelda. Make it happ'n baby."

"Well, I s'pose I get all user fee like."
 
SCCutler said:
In addition, this ludicrous, bumbleheaded proposal would charge the same $100.00 to a turbine-converted Bonanza flying a 200 mile segment, as a G650 flying transcon.
Click to expand...

"Is that a turbine Bonanza?" "Uhh... no. It's a turbo Bonanza."
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly - I think you will definitely see more instances of continued VFR flight into IMC (along with the usual consequences) if this does come down to affect all GA.
Click to expand...

To be fair, in Canada you have lots of times when you're flying legally, IFR, in IMC, not talking to anybody. No separation (or any other) services provided.
 
All flights that use controlled air space require a similar level of air traffic services.
Click to expand...

That's just plain false!

That's one reason I don't use flight following very often. I don't want to add justification to the argument that GA is not paying its fair share.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's just plain false!

That's one reason I don't use flight following very often. I don't want to add justification to the argument that GA is not paying its fair share.
Click to expand...
Assuming you agree that FF increases flight safety, you would sacrifice safety to avoid "...justification to the argument...", an argument which is based upon an erroneous perception?
 
Its about 'tax the rich' as the assumption is 'rich jet owners'. Wait for the first lawsuit by a jet owner that pays the fee but gets inferior service compared to airlimes.

via Tapatalk
 
ATC and Airports should operate like the roads of the US. Paid for mostly by the public because it is a necessary and economically stimulating infrastructure. And also paid for in part by fuel taxes - big commercial operators pay a bit more because they are on the roads more often and use more fuel.

For the roads this means they pay more because big trucks, running all the time tend to tear the roads up. For airlines, this relates because they are flying all the time, and they are always IFR so they are using more ATC resources than us bugsmashers

I have no problem with a toll for an expensive new road as long as its reasonable, and the toll is discontinued when the road is paid off. Unfortunately there is no expensive new road (they have no word on financing next gen yet, obama is going to spend this money elsewhere) and the toll is unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Proposed $1.1B over 10yrs for user fees.........
Infastructure for tracking and issuing charges $.5B
New department of fee management in FAA $.3B
Additional accounting staff for tracking and collections $.8B
Total cost of implementation $1.6B..........
 
Cruiser said:
Proposed $1.1B over 10yrs for user fees.........
Infastructure for tracking and issuing charges $.5B
New department of fee management in FAA $.3B
Additional accounting staff for tracking and collections $.8B
Total cost of implementation $1.6B..........
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
And the next question should be.........

How much does it REALLY cost ATC to handle a IFR flight .:dunno::idea:
 
I wish politicians would stop talking in terms of revenue and cost savings per decade. It won't be the same congress or president in ten years, so it's a totally phony number. They're just trying to make it so thay can say a bigger number.
 
From page 3 of Obama's plan:

"This provision will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year."

And here's what I found:
"According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%"

What was that about "fair"? 1.7% is fair?
 
MadseasoN said:
From page 3 of Obama's plan:

"This provision will provide a tax cut of $1,500 to the typical family earning $50,000 a year."

And here's what I found:
"According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%"

What was that about "fair"? 1.7% is fair?
Click to expand...

How about you take the tax debate over into Spin Zone and leave this thread focused on aviation and the proposed user fees?
 
Pilawt said:
The revenues generated by the surcharge would be deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years.
Click to expand...

.. which will promptly be siphoned off for purposes other than supporting the FAA or aviation in general (let alone general aviation).
 
Pilawt said:
This proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

I take this to mean anything other than class-G? There's a heckuva lot of traffic in and out of our airport that is other than 'recreational piston aircraft'. All the charters that fly turboprops, turbine engine helicopters, those fat cats in their jets, and many more. All this is in controlled airspace, it's a class-D airport and class E is everywhere.
 
Do the published numbers include the expensive build-out of ADS-B, or no?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Turbine aircraft would be charged $100 per flight if IFR.
Click to expand...

We already have a system in place for raising money from GA aircraft. Its called a gas tax. A more efficient way to raise the money would be to increase the tax rate on jet fuel. If I remember correctly, AOPA has even supported increases in fuel taxes in the past.

Ryan
 
wsuffa said:
How about you take the tax debate over into Spin Zone and leave this thread focused on aviation and the proposed user fees?
Click to expand...

There's no tax debate. Someone else posted a link to the entire proposal and mentioned 'fairness' so I figured it was relevant to the discussion. Excuse the heck out of me. Now that I know about the 'spin zone' I'll take it there. :rolleyes:
 
There currently is something in place to charge fees in some instances. Just for background.

Best,

Dave
========================================================

To give you some idea where this could be going, the FAA currently charges overflight fees for aircraft that receive IFR ATC services in US-Controlled airspace but neither land nor take off in the USA. The fees are $33.72 per 100NM for enroute traffic and $15.94 per 100NM for oceanic traffic. "Enroute" would be flying over any of the continental US - eg: a shortcut across Michigan or Canada->Mexico non-stop. It also includes the Bahamas above 6,000 feet (which is where I learned of it). Oceanic is the blue-water stuff. These fees are based on an analysis of actual costs to provide the service - at least that's what the NPRM claimed the last time the FAA changed the fees.
 
Trying to stay factual, I would like to remind all how and why the AMT was created. I'm not trying to argue merits, but point out how well intended programs can become bureaucratic nightmares.

Best,

Dave
=============================================================

[FONT=&quot]Mr. Obama, meet Joe Barr. As LBJ's last Treasury Secretary—he served only 30 days—Barr became famous for his January 1969 testimony before Congress that 21 millionaires had paid no income tax in 1967. No fewer than 115 tax returns reporting income above $200,000 had also paid no income tax, and Barr predicted a "taxpayer revolt" unless something was done about it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Washington proceeded to bend tax policy to chase those 21 millionaires, and so we got the Minimum Tax of 1969 that later became the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT now hits some four million taxpayers, and 27% of households that paid it in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less. [/FONT]
 
Richard said:
Assuming you agree that FF increases flight safety, you would sacrifice safety to avoid "...justification to the argument...", an argument which is based upon an erroneous perception?
Click to expand...

Even with flight following, the original premise is false.

Therefore, the conclusions of the joint committee are suspect.

How many other errors are that report/statement?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
There currently is something in place to charge fees in some instances. Just for background.

Best,

Dave
========================================================

To give you some idea where this could be going, the FAA currently charges overflight fees for aircraft that receive IFR ATC services in US-Controlled airspace but neither land nor take off in the USA. The fees are $33.72 per 100NM for enroute traffic and $15.94 per 100NM for oceanic traffic. "Enroute" would be flying over any of the continental US - eg: a shortcut across Michigan or Canada->Mexico non-stop. It also includes the Bahamas above 6,000 feet (which is where I learned of it). Oceanic is the blue-water stuff. These fees are based on an analysis of actual costs to provide the service - at least that's what the NPRM claimed the last time the FAA changed the fees.
Click to expand...


OK, so if a blip is a blip... why is Enroute more than Oceanic?

But let's take 33.72 per 100 NM, and let's assume that's accurate. to fly 100 NM in a C172 is probably 8 gal of 100 LL. Can someone tell me the current fuel tax per gallon?
 
Pilawt said:
Here it is from the horse's ... er, mouth (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf) (emphases added):

More equitably share payments for air traffic services.

Roughly two-thirds of the air traffic control system’s current costs are financed by aviation excise taxes. Most of the tax revenue is collected from commercial aviation through ticket taxes, segment fees, international head taxes, and fuel taxes. General aviation users currently pay a fuel tax, but this revenue does not cover their fair-share-use of air traffic services. All flights that use controlled air space require a similar level of air traffic services. However, commercial and general aviation can pay very different aviation fees for those same air traffic services. For example, a large commercial aircraft would pay between $1,300 to $2,000 in taxes for a flight from Los Angles to San Francisco while a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic services would pay about $60 in taxes. To reduce the deficit and more equitably share the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community, the Administration proposes to establish a new mandatory surcharge for air traffic services. This proposal would create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the FAA, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace. Military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights would be exempted. The revenues generated by the surcharge would be deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. This fee would generate an estimated $11 billion over 10 years. Assuming the enactment of the fee, total charges collected from aviation users would finance roughly three fourths of airport investments and air traffic control system costs.

​
Click to expand...

Where in existing regulations is the term "recreational piston aircraft" defined?

Are we going to have to file additional papwork or submit proof to claim the exemption?
 
Palmpilot said:
I wish politicians would stop talking in terms of revenue and cost savings per decade. It won't be the same congress or president in ten years, so it's a totally phony number. They're just trying to make it so thay can say a bigger number.
Click to expand...

And in addition to that, the calculation is totally bogus.
It is based on the projected number of flights starting from now with (optimistically estimated) increases in traffic.
Didn't we learn with the "Yacht tax" that the power to tax is the power to destroy? The number of flights subject to the new "fee" will steadily decrease over time making less than the projected revenue and stunting the entire business from the users back through the owners/maintainers to the manufacturers. And thus another mostly American business will die off.
 
The Old Man said:
And in addition to that, the calculation is totally bogus.
It is based on the projected number of flights starting from now with (optimistically estimated) increases in traffic.
Didn't we learn with the "Yacht tax" that the power to tax is the power to destroy? The number of flights subject to the new "fee" will steadily decrease over time making less than the projected revenue and stunting the entire business from the users back through the owners/maintainers to the manufacturers. And thus another mostly American business will die off.
Click to expand...

I suspect that is one of the objectives.
 
TMetzinger said:
OK, so if a blip is a blip... why is Enroute more than Oceanic?

But let's take 33.72 per 100 NM, and let's assume that's accurate. to fly 100 NM in a C172 is probably 8 gal of 100 LL. Can someone tell me the current fuel tax per gallon?
Click to expand...

19.4¢/gal as of 2011

To let wikipedia elaborate.... and throw some more ?'s into the equation.
Aviation gasoline (most often used to fuel small General Aviation aircraft) is taxed at 19.4¢/gal as of 2011.[2] Legislation is currently pending to raise this tax to 24.2¢/gal.[3]
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 .[4] A bill has been introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that would completely eliminate the tax paid by commercial jets, while more than doubling the tax on non-commercial jet fuel users to 49¢/gal.[5]
These taxes mainly fund airport and Air Traffic Control operations by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), of which commercial aviation is the biggest user.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
User fees are the antithesis of a tax. They are ala carte charges to the users of a service and in the case of GA set the stage for privatization of a government service. I have heard people on this board say many times that the government cannot do ANYTHING as well as private industry. Well, you are gonna get what you want eventually. ATC will be privatized and as efficient as ATC in Europe.

The message that has been heard in Washington is loud and clear. No new taxes, no raising existing taxes, make those that use service pay for them and get out of the service business whenever and where ever possible. That a small and almost silent, by comparison to the majority, group of pilots think that fuel taxes are the way to fund the ATC is completely lost in noise. User Fees, for whatever service. are what the majority of Americans have been calling for in ALL aspects of government.

This is what happens when political positions become absolutes. There is no middle ground, no ability to reason and no place for compromise. That is why they have been in draft legislation for a lot years now. This fight has been going on for a long time, it is not new nor unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top