Shakeup in funds allocated to GA airports

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,480
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
Somehow I wonder whether this is good news.
A shakeup in the methods by which federal funds are allocated to GA airports through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) could soon be in the works. At last week’s American Association of Airport Executives General Aviation and Safety Conference, FAA director of airport safety and standards Michael O’Donnell said his agency will be assembling a committee to examine the means by which it doles out the approximately $4.5 billion a year in airport funding.

“General aviation doesn’t fit well in the AIP structure the way it’s set up right now,” he said. “We are going to go into a new initiative with GA, to better define its roles, what its functions are, the infrastructure needs and then review and update their criteria for adding and removing those airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airports and Systems [NPIAS].

Some 2,600 airports–or 75 percent of those listed in the NPIAS–are in the non-reliever GA category. According to O’Donnell, once the review process gets under way it could take several years before stakeholders see benefits.

“It’s going to be better than where it is now,” he concluded.
Click to expand...
http://www.ainonline.com/ainmxrepor...onsidering-boost-to-ga-airport-funding-25278/
 
“It’s going to be better than where it is now,” he concluded.
Click to expand...

That sure sounds a lot like "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you".....:rolleyes:
 
wsuffa said:
That sure sounds a lot like "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you".....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

we aren't happy until you aren't happy.....
 
Those sucking at the government teat ought not to complain about the taste of the milk.
 
steingar said:
Those sucking at the government teat ought not to complain about the taste of the milk.
Click to expand...

I suck out of that government tit all I can to make this airport safer and better for you all to fly into and out of. When I see all the crap government money goes for, I'll get all I can before I let it go for studying the sex life of a dung beetle or something similar.
 
Fuel taxes pay only a fraction of the cost of airport construction, maintenance, and upgrades.
 
Whatever tax dollars that go to GA its us taxpayers that fund it. The money doesn't come "from the government". IT COMES FROM US.
 
If they paid for the cow and all the feed, they may think they should get at least enough for cream for their coffee. The big pails of milk have long since been handed out, and airplane owners weren't on the list of recipients.

steingar said:
Those sucking at the government teat ought not to complain about the taste of the milk.
Click to expand...
 
What you're missing, Steingar, is that the cow has a brand on its left side that reads "Bob."

And the milk has not yet been homogenized.

Get it?
 
You can use all the cow analogies you like, but the fact remains that GA is taxpayer subsidized. If it weren't , there wouldn't be so much upset over proposed user fees.
 
The user fee argument is because the airlines want to re-trade the deal and shift the fee structure in their favor. They say GA uses the system more than they do, and should therefore pay more. GA says it only uses the system because it was built to accommodate the airlines, and the fuel taxes paid more than offset their incremental use of the system. Which position do you think to be more meritorious?


Trapper John said:
You can use all the cow analogies you like, but the fact remains that GA is taxpayer subsidized. If it weren't , there wouldn't be so much upset over proposed user fees.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The user fee argument is because the airlines want to re-trade the deal and shift the fee structure in their favor. They say GA uses the system more than they do, and should therefore pay more. GA says it only uses the system because it was built to accommodate the airlines, and the fuel taxes paid more than offset their incremental use of the system. Which position do you think to be more meritorious?
Click to expand...

The "incremental use" argument really only addresses ATC and the large airports that airlines use. No, I don't think the airlines should tilt the game, but if you sum up the costs for the facilities that airlines don't use, specifically small airports and FSS, it's pretty clear that the federal $0.219 tax per gallon of avgas isn't going to pay the bills.
 
Trapper John said:
The "incremental use" argument really only addresses ATC and the large airports that airlines use. No, I don't think the airlines should tilt the game, but if you sum up the costs for the facilities that airlines don't use, specifically small airports and FSS, it's pretty clear that the federal $0.219 tax per gallon of avgas isn't going to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just the avgas tax. Airports have other sources of income (hangar rent, tiedowns, fuel sales, other building leases). I looked into my local county's budget, and the airport seemed to break even on an operating basis.

This whole philosophical debate makes me wonder: are any of our transportation infrastructures completely "paid for" by the corresponding fuel taxes collected? Are our roads all paid for by the gasoline and diesel taxes?
 
The money peggy is talking about is from the AIP which is funded by the trust fund that is funded by.... the fuel tax on GA and ticket tax on airlines. None of that money comes from the general fund.

So, the debate is not whether the non-flying public pays for the AIP - they don't. I think the only legitimate debate on this topic is how much of that money is spent on airline-related airports (including relievers) and how much is spent on airports that the airlines cannot use, when compared to the money contributed to the fund.

If there's a subsidy or bias toward GA-only airports, like KDFK or KJYO, I'm not sure the airlines would want it to go away because then the airplanes based there would move to KIAD or KBWI and further reduce capacity there. So I think a certain amount of "I'll throw money at you to maintain your little airport so you'll stay out of my big airport" is reasonable.
 
rpadula said:
Well, it's not just the avgas tax. Airports have other sources of income (hangar rent, tiedowns, fuel sales, other building leases). I looked into my local county's budget, and the airport seemed to break even on an operating basis.
Click to expand...

Basic operations are one thing, improvements are another. If your airport has an AWOS, I'll bet the county didn't pay for it, an FAA grant administered by your state did. Same goes for rebuilding/extending runways, establishing instrument approaches and so on.

This whole philosophical debate makes me wonder: are any of our transportation infrastructures completely "paid for" by the corresponding fuel taxes collected? Are our roads all paid for by the gasoline and diesel taxes?
Click to expand...

A lot of public infrastructure isn't going to be self-supporting. But if we're going down the philosophical path, it's probably useful to talk about benefit cost analysis...
 
TMetzinger said:
The money peggy is talking about is from the AIP which is funded by the trust fund that is funded by.... the fuel tax on GA and ticket tax on airlines. None of that money comes from the general fund.

So, the debate is not whether the non-flying public pays for the AIP - they don't. I think the only legitimate debate on this topic is how much of that money is spent on airline-related airports (including relievers) and how much is spent on airports that the airlines cannot use, when compared to the money contributed to the fund.

If there's a subsidy or bias toward GA-only airports, like KDFK or KJYO, I'm not sure the airlines would want it to go away because then the airplanes based there would move to KIAD or KBWI and further reduce capacity there. So I think a certain amount of "I'll throw money at you to maintain your little airport so you'll stay out of my big airport" is reasonable.
Click to expand...

They're addressing the "News at 11! Congressperson Dingle has obtained $nn millions in subsidies for the airport in East Jesus that hasn't had a passenger in over 5 years!" Then they show the long-long shot of the empty terminal with the soulless check-in counter and empty roped off lines.

"THIS when thousands of people have lost jobs and and we have record deficits and there are businesses in need of bailouts!"
 
The fact is that Joe sixpack in our community and state benefits from the airport being here. The company he works for would not be able to effectively function if they had to use the airlines to visit their facility. It is hard enough now to compete with China without cutting down on our infrastructure. What I am saying is that everyone benefits from the airport, not just the pilots who base their airplanes there.
 
somorris said:
The fact is that Joe sixpack in our community and state benefits from the airport being here. The company he works for would not be able to effectively function if they had to use the airlines to visit their facility. It is hard enough now to compete with China without cutting down on our infrastructure. What I am saying is that everyone benefits from the airport, not just the pilots who base their airplanes there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you used too many words.

There's also the idea that the airlines don't take new hires with zero hours and sit them down in a 747 to begin to learn how to taxi.
 
mikea said:
Yeah, but you used too many words.
Click to expand...

But left out a key word. Cost.

Here's a real world example. Our local airport has a 5000 x 100 foot runway and a 3855 x 75 runway. The short runway is actually 4200, but has a displaced threshold. The local airport brain trust decided it would be good to tap the feds for money to buy land and move a street so the whole 4200 would be usable. So the Feds (us) are paying $1.975 million for the land and the airport authority (us) are paying $850k to jog the street. So we get 345 feet of extra runway for $2.825 million. That's about $8,200 per additional foot of runway, or, $109 per square foot of concrete (that already exists). Don't forget we already have a 5000 foot runway, so it's pretty hard to rationalize and say, "XYZ company will come here now in their Citation because the runway is longer!"

Maybe stuff like this is why FAA is saying they are going to change how they hand out money. At least I hope that's why. It's a nice airport and it deserves improvements now and then. But then I compare this exercise in dumbness to my old field that was private public use, who couldn't get a plug nickel for anything from the Feds and I just shake my head.

There's also the idea that the airlines don't take new hires with zero hours and sit them down in a 747 to begin to learn how to taxi.
Click to expand...

That's why we have such fine institutions as ERAU and Colgan. They raise pilots like Tyson's raise chicken.
 
Hmm... I know a few Colgan pilots who are quite good. I believe one of them just upgraded to Captain too.
 
Trapper John said:
You can use all the cow analogies you like, but the fact remains that GA is taxpayer subsidized. If it weren't , there wouldn't be so much upset over proposed user fees.
Click to expand...

Can you show how GA Is taxpayer subsidized?
 
Trapper John said:
The "incremental use" argument really only addresses ATC and the large airports that airlines use. No, I don't think the airlines should tilt the game, but if you sum up the costs for the facilities that airlines don't use, specifically small airports and FSS, it's pretty clear that the federal $0.219 tax per gallon of avgas isn't going to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

Please show your math. As for the costs for the facilities that airlines don't presently use, many of these were built for the military and the airlines. If FSS closed today I wouldn't miss it.
 
Trapper John said:
Basic operations are one thing, improvements are another. If your airport has an AWOS, I'll bet the county didn't pay for it, an FAA grant administered by your state did.
Click to expand...

Automated weather observations at these airports aren't used exclusively by GA, the data is also used in weather forecasting.
 
Trapper John said:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01airex.pdf

and this:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?fi.../cc2005033.pdf
Click to expand...

What about them?

Or, you could take 186 million gallons of avgas sold a year, multiplied by the $0.219 tax, which gives about $41 million. Lockmart gets about $380 million/year to run FSS. Guess who's making up the difference?
Click to expand...
Does FSS serve GA exclusively? With regard to weather briefings, I'm all for direct user fees. I haven't used FSS for a weather briefing or to file a flight plan in over fifteen years.
 
roncachamp said:
What about them?
Click to expand...

Sources and uses of funding. Showing that GA is not self-supporting. Which you asked about...

Does FSS serve GA exclusively?
Click to expand...

Would Lockmart serve GA for $41 million a year? I think not.

With regard to weather briefings, I'm all for direct user fees. I haven't used FSS for a weather briefing or to file a flight plan in over fifteen years.
Click to expand...

That's an option. But given the level of bitching when Lockmart took over FSS, you might be in the minority.
 
Trapper John said:
Sources and uses of funding. Showing that GA is not self-supporting. Which you asked about....
Click to expand...

I asked if you could show how GA is taxpayer subsidized. What on those pages do you believe does that? Make your case.

Would Lockmart serve GA for $41 million a year? I think not.
Click to expand...

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top