User fees in Obama's budget proposal

[ReverendSlappy]

Guess you're the self appointed moderator.

I'm not trying to moderate anything; I'm just pointing out that the kind of rhetoric we've seen in this thread is meaningless and callow at best and counterproductive at worst.

Garbage like the condescending diatribe above is why you can't be taken seriously.

If you think the kind of nonsensical ranting and cheap partisan sarcasm that has permeated this thread already is the best way to have a discussion about a specific legislative issue on which we all already pretty much agree, then I'm entirely certain that I'm not the one that needs to be worried about being "taken seriously."

 

[Trapper John]

Of course the fuel taxes don't pay the entire cost.

And therein lies the problem.

We all pay the price (as we should) for supporting our military and part of this cost is FAA and ATC support. They use the same ATC and NAVAIDs that commercial and GA uses. They use the same approaches in IFR. some of the cost should come from the general fund.

It works the other way around, too! We all use GPS for free, courtesy of DoD.

This is not subsidizing me and my little plane.

Sorry, you lost me.


Trapper John

 

[SkyHog]

And therein lies the problem.



It works the other way around, too! We all use GPS for free, courtesy of DoD.



Sorry, you lost me.


Trapper John

Then take simple numbers you can comprehend.

It costs $100 day for aviation

GA costs about $10 to the total aviation system
Military Costs about $30
Airlines cost about $60

From there, you should be able to figure out why we're already OVER paying, not being subsidized.....unless you're incapable of looking at it objectively.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Then take simple numbers you can comprehend.

It costs $100 day for aviation

GA costs about $10 to the total aviation system
Military Costs about $30
Airlines cost about $60

From there, you should be able to figure out why we're already OVER paying, not being subsidized.....unless you're incapable of looking at it objectively.

I think the point John is making is that it costs $10 but only brings in $6.

 

[Trapper John]

Sure, but not in the same way. Let's say we were charged a per-landing fee like they are at most places in Europe, and that fee went to maintaining runways. How many people would go out and practice touch-and-goes if every single one cost them $10? Your hour of T&G's in the pattern just cost $200 instead of $100. Practice goes down, landing accidents go up.

There is a cost associated with making the facilities and services available. If a pilot can't afford to be proficient, and uses a silly excuse not to be, like landing fees, then he or she shouldn't be flying. Taking your logic to the extreme, we should just provide free instruction for all pilots, that way they won't crash.

Not really. A C-150 is very unlikely to file a lot of IFR flight plans. For every hundred C-150 flights, there may only be one IFR plan filed. For every hundred King Air flights, there will be 95 IFR plans filed, for every hundred Baron flights there may be 70 IFR plans filed. So if you look at it strictly in terms of ATC used, the C-150's of the world are getting screwed!

I specifically mentioned a per IFR flight plan fee. It looks like you missed that. But speaking of getting screwed, the private, public use airports really get hosed. Sell fuel, collect the tax, submit the tax and it's almost impossible to get FAA funds for improvements.

But look at the rest. The King Air is heavier than the Baron and will cause more wear and tear on runways, taxiways and ramps. It's got greater range and is faster, and thus will generally go on longer trips where it communicates with more controllers.

The fuel taxes are not only very closely aligned with the amount of services used, they are VERY efficient from a collection perspective.

Yes, it's an efficient system of collection, but insufficient. Maybe the solution is just raising the fuel tax instead of having airline passengers disproportionately contribute.


Trapper John

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I agree with you but wouldn't a fuel tax do the same thing without all the added burden of creating a bureaucracy to collect all these user fees?

For sure - and I think that's a MUCH better way to address the issue. Excellent point.

 

[Trapper John]

Then take simple numbers you can comprehend.

It costs $100 day for aviation

GA costs about $10 to the total aviation system
Military Costs about $30
Airlines cost about $60

From there, you should be able to figure out why we're already OVER paying, not being subsidized.....unless you're incapable of looking at it objectively.

How do you derive your breakdown? How could GA only cost 10% when there are about 5,500 public use airports, of which only 10% have scheduled commercial service? In other words GA has 90% of the airports but only 10% of the costs?


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I agree with you but wouldn't a fuel tax do the same thing without all the added burden of creating a bureaucracy to collect all these user fees?

For sure - and I think that's a MUCH better way to address the issue. Excellent point.

And I think -- I hope, anyway -- that if there is any kind of an increase in GA taxes that it'll take the form of an increase in the fuel tax, and not user fees.

 

[SkyHog]

How do you derive your breakdown? How could GA only cost 10% when there are about 5,500 public use airports, of which only 10% have scheduled commercial service? In other words GA has 90% of the airports but only 10% of the costs?


Trapper John

Because GA doesn't always (or even mostly) use the ATC system. The only cost that GA, on the whole, causes is repair and maintenance of the airports themselves.

 

[ScottM]

The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who has been a staunch opponent of user fees, released a statement saying, “I note that the budget appears to propose some type of aviation user fee. Aviation user fees have been proposed several times in the past by OMBs of various administrations, and have not been adopted by Congress.”
Earlier this month Fuller testified in support of Chairman Oberstar’s bill, H.R.915, to finance the FAA through the current system of aviation excise taxes.
“We have already contacted White House officials to express our concern and to reiterate the negative effects that user fees would have on the general aviation industry. We look forward to an open dialogue with the president on the best way to finance the modernization of our air traffic control system and the FAA’s continued operations.”

The highlighted part is the key. Those of us who believe that government has a role to play in running infrastructure should continue our fight with our Congress critters and lobbyists in DC to prevent this from happening. Those of us who may believe that the government is already too big and people should only be paying for what they use can sit back and enjoy that in this line item they got their conservative wish.

The White House OEM proposes a budget to run all of their agencies and sets an agenda of how they would like to manage themselves. But it is Congress that will write the final budget. Their OMB will have a lot to say on this. Then they will present that final budget to the POTUS for his take it or leave it signature. There is no line item veto.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Because GA doesn't always (or even mostly) use the ATC system. The only cost that GA, on the whole, causes is repair and maintenance of the airports themselves.

But again, are we all in agreement that whatever GA's current share of the cost of the system is that GA-derived fuel tax revenue doesn't cover it?

In other words, using your example, is it true that if GA comprises $10 of the overall $100 cost, it's only bringing in, say, $6 or $8-worth of revenue?

I'm asking because I don't know and that seems like an important starting point for discussing the issue.

 

[SkyHog]

But again, are we all in agreement that whatever GA's current share of the cost of the system is that GA-derived fuel tax revenue doesn't cover it?

In other words, using your example, is it true that if GA comprises $10 of the overall $100 cost, it's only bringing in, say, $6 or $8-worth of revenue?

I'm asking because I don't know and that seems like an important starting point for discussing the issue.

I actually disagree with that assessment. I don't have the numbers offhand (I'm at work), but IIRC, we are actually paying more than our share through the taxes, if you use accurate percentages of use.

If you use the airline's insane 60% number (they claim GA uses something like 60% of the aviation infrastructure), then we are horribly underpaying our share, and we are, in fact, subsidized.

If you use a more realistic number - AOPA's number had us near 10% IIRC, we are paying more than our share currently.

If you use something in between, say 20% or 25%, we're probably pretty close to breaking even.

 

[ScottM]

But again, are we all in agreement that whatever GA's current share of the cost of the system is that GA-derived fuel tax revenue doesn't cover it?

I have not seen any definitive numbers to show if it does or does not. Only supposition. I expect that is because a lot of GA airport costs are also funded by state and local taxes. What I would like to see is what we pay for the ATC system and how much we get for it. Does anyone have those numbers? REAL NUMBERS??

 

[SkyHog]

I have not seen any definitive numbers to show if it does or does not. Only supposition. I expect that is because a lot of GA airport costs are also funded by state and local taxes. What I would like to see is what we pay for the ATC system and how much we get for it. Does anyone have those numbers? REAL NUMBERS??

AOPA does, but unfortunately, AOPA's numbers are just as skewed as the airlines' numbers, but in the opposite direction.

 

[Ted]

Option #1 is not an option for most and only really works if you don't intend to fly anywhere but just bore holes in the sky.

Correct, that wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously.

Option #2 mmmm well that will show them. The could care less if we stop flying. Sadly though you are on to what a good portion of the flying community will do because they have no other choice and then only the super wealthy will fly because if enough folks get financially forced out of flying then the cost will soar even higher. The A&P who could rely on 4 planes amonth for annuals can only now rely on perhaps 2 in a good month. Wow the cost of that annual just went up a lot. same thing applies to AV fuel and Pilot supplies etc.

Hold on a second, who said I was trying to show anyone anything? I know they could care less if I stop flying, but my point is that if I get past a certain frustration level, it's just not worth it for me, the same as for a number of other activities. Sadly, it does seem that is the direction things are going, but hopefully we as a community can make enough positive strides that it doesn't get there. Ultimately, we're a small community that is misjudged by the masses and I do believe probably takes up more resources than we put in the system (that's just my guess, no basis on fact here).

We all benefit from more people flying. If we could get the number of pilots out there to grow rather than shrink, we'd be better off. So that's where we come in individually. The problem is that it needs to become affordable enough and accessible enough for the masses in order to that to happen. $100/hour for a beat up PA-28 or 172 is not that.

Your right its time to right some stern letters.

Yep. And I'll keep on flying.

 

[ScottM]

AOPA does, but unfortunately, AOPA's numbers are just as skewed as the airlines' numbers, but in the opposite direction.

Then AOPA's numbers would not be definitive.

Fuel tax is an easy way to collect taxes for ATC. Considering that many plans not using the ATC system are paying fuel taxes one could argue that they are inherently unfair to the vast majority of piston planes that fly more VFR than IFR. So would not user fees be of a benefit to those aircraft?

I know in the UK that landings are expensive. The flying magazines actually hand out coupons for free landings. I do agree that user fees will reduce flights for proficiency and that will increase accident rates in the US. That is bad. But I think the goal here is to kill GA. The DHS has no love for us, we just make work for them.

 

[SkyHog]

We all benefit from more people flying. If we could get the number of pilots out there to grow rather than shrink, we'd be better off. So that's where we come in individually. The problem is that it needs to become affordable enough and accessible enough for the masses in order to that to happen. $100/hour for a beat up PA-28 or 172 is not that.

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce liability, which is something that is long overdue anyway, IMHO.

Theo only was to both reduce cost and increase numbers would be to make it easier to get a certificate. Most pilots are too "elite" to allow this to happen.

We're shooting ourselves in the foot, unfortunately.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I actually disagree with that assessment. I don't have the numbers offhand (I'm at work), but IIRC, we are actually paying more than our share through the taxes, if you use accurate percentages of use.

If you use the airline's insane 60% number (they claim GA uses something like 60% of the aviation infrastructure), then we are horribly underpaying our share, and we are, in fact, subsidized.

If you use a more realistic number - AOPA's number had us near 10% IIRC, we are paying more than our share currently.

If you use something in between, say 20% or 25%, we're probably pretty close to breaking even.

I have not seen any definitive numbers to show if it does or does not. Only supposition. I expect that is because a lot of GA airport costs are also funded by state and local taxes. What I would like to see is what we pay for the ATC system and how much we get for it. Does anyone have those numbers? REAL NUMBERS??

Ehhh... I'm not sure that just using ATC numbers really covers it, though.

This is the real issue here, in my mind. The numbers should be easy to come up with -- with one exception. Finding out the total of federal on budget outlays for civil aviation as a whole should be easy. Finding the total of GA-derived fuel tax should be relatively easy. But finding the true cost of GA operations to the overall system might be a bit tricky.

If Nick's right and it does pay for itself already, it's a much better argument: Not only does is GA currently revenue neutral, but imposing user fees is the most costly method by which to collect revenue -- revenue which, again, isn't needed.

If Nick's not right and it is subsidized, then there's still the argument of user fees being costly. But the above info needs to come first.

AOPA does, but unfortunately, AOPA's numbers are just as skewed as the airlines' numbers, but in the opposite direction.

That's likely true... I pay them to advance a GA-centric agenda in DC, not to tell the truth.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

And therein lies the problem.



It works the other way around, too! We all use GPS for free, courtesy of DoD.



Sorry, you lost me.


Trapper John

The DoD is paid from the general fund. Fair use of taxes. People other than aviators use these services (Cell phone systems, truckers, golfers, ships, people driving, and citizens of other countries with GPS).

As for losing you- I don't know if you are being deliberately obstinant- my fuel taxes are paying for the services I use.

Of those 5500 airports you mentioned with no commercial air service, the military does use them as well. I have seen military aircraft at Lincoln, NE, Atlantic City, NJ, Millville, NJ, Solberg, NJ, Wildwood, NJ. Only 2 of those have commercial air service. I do not go to the other airports here in NE enough to get a feel for their military presence. Some of those 5500 airports are privately owned with public access. New Jersey has ~50 airports. ~1/2 are privately owned so they get relatively little from the trust fund.

The 5500 airports are used for medical or other emergency flights as well.

 

[Trapper John]

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce liability, which is something that is long overdue anyway, IMHO.

What kind of liability?

Theo only was to both reduce cost and increase numbers would be to make it easier to get a certificate. Most pilots are too "elite" to allow this to happen.

Isn't that what the recreational pilot certificate was all about?

Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

...my fuel taxes are paying for the services I use.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is the crux of the issue, in my mind: Are they really paying for the services you use? If so, great, and we've got a much better argument to make.

But if not, we're left to argue, "Okay, we're open to a tax increase, but not the imposition of user fees." Which isn't a bad argument... I just wanna make sure we're talking about the right one.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There is a cost associated with making the facilities and services available. If a pilot can't afford to be proficient, and uses a silly excuse not to be, like landing fees, then he or she shouldn't be flying. Taking your logic to the extreme, we should just provide free instruction for all pilots, that way they won't crash.

If the cost of an hour of touch and goes is doubled, a lot fewer pilots could afford to be proficient. You think we should all just quit flying? Fewer pilots, even higher costs, even less people able to fly - It's a snowball effect.

I specifically mentioned a per IFR flight plan fee. It looks like you missed that.

No, I didn't. My point was that the fuel taxes are *already* very proportionate to the use of services. The system ain't broke, and fixing it will cost a lot more money (in terms of the bureaucracy required to administer and collect user fees).

But speaking of getting screwed, the private, public use airports really get hosed. Sell fuel, collect the tax, submit the tax and it's almost impossible to get FAA funds for improvements.

True - But hey, private enterprise probably doesn't want to take direction from the gov't, and even if the gov't got them to agree to the 20 or 25 year deal for getting airport funds, the gov't can't be sure that said private enterprise will be around to live up to their end of the bargain 25 years from now!

Yes, it's an efficient system of collection, but insufficient. Maybe the solution is just raising the fuel tax instead of having airline passengers disproportionately contribute.

You really think airline pax are contributing disproportionately?

How do you derive your breakdown? How could GA only cost 10% when there are about 5,500 public use airports, of which only 10% have scheduled commercial service? In other words GA has 90% of the airports but only 10% of the costs?

Okay, let's look at this.

Cost of a small GA airport: A bit of land, a strip of asphalt say 3,000 x 50 or a chunk of concrete with the same dimensions say 6 inches thick (total 8333 cubic yards), some lights, and a small terminal - Say a 60x60 hangar with an attached lounge, an office, and a flight planning room. One airport manager who runs the FBO. Cost to build in the low millions, cost to operate less than $100,000/year.

Cost of an airline airport: A much larger piece of land, generally in an area where the cost of land is orders of magnitude higher. Six runways averaging 10,000 x 150, 4-foot thick (so I've heard) concrete (total one MILLION cubic yards). Hundreds of full-time staff for airport operations, ARFF, security (of the non-TSA variety), groundskeepers, janitors, etc. A 24-hour tower and TRACON staffed with dozens more highly-trained individuals. Cost to build in the hundreds of millions or low billions, cost to operate in the tens of millions per year.

Then, there's the ATC system, of which 95% would have to exist just for the airlines and military alone (you could shut down a few towers at GA-only facilities and eliminate a couple of the low-altitude ARTCC positions at each Center, but that's it).

If anything, GA is paying MORE than our fair share.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

If anything, GA is paying MORE than our fair share.

I'm generally inclined to think that's true (probably primarily because I want that to be true) but I haven't seen any numbers that convincingly prove that. I haven't seen any numbers that convincingly prove the opposite, either.

 

[Ted]

I actually disagree with that assessment. I don't have the numbers offhand (I'm at work), but IIRC, we are actually paying more than our share through the taxes, if you use accurate percentages of use.

If you use the airline's insane 60% number (they claim GA uses something like 60% of the aviation infrastructure), then we are horribly underpaying our share, and we are, in fact, subsidized.

If you use a more realistic number - AOPA's number had us near 10% IIRC, we are paying more than our share currently.

If you use something in between, say 20% or 25%, we're probably pretty close to breaking even.

My question is what is the definition of "infrastructure" being used? I'm guessing each one is using different definitions, and there's where the confusion comes in.

AOPA is probably looking at the number of commercial flights talking to ATC in a day, or maybe even number of hours spent talking. In that case, commercial is going to be, hands down, higher than GA.

The airlines are probably looking at the number of airports that have commercial operations vs. the number of airports that are strictly GA. In that case, GA is going to be, hands down, higher than commercial. We have many airports available to us that commercial pilots don't use.

GA costs others virtually nothing so long as we are only VFR, stay out of towered airports, and the airports we land at don't require public funds in order to keep open. For a certain number of us that may be the case, but a lot of us fly IFR (or get flight following), land at towered airports, and those airports are public owned and receive public funding to keep their doors open. I can honestly see both arguments and I have no idea whether we're subsidized or subsidizing others.

A fuel tax would be fair (and the way I'd like them to go), but a 152 takes up just as much bandwidth from ATC as a Navajo or a 747, both of which burn exponentially more fuel. So, I can see the argument from the airlines for user fees that may tax us more.

The only way to reduce cost is to reduce liability, which is something that is long overdue anyway, IMHO.

Now that is absolutely correct. When you look at how much most of the purchase price of aviation commodities goes to liability, it's pretty insane. If the liability insurance wasn't so expensive, prices would go down significantly, and this stuff would become a lot more affordable for all.

Theo only was to both reduce cost and increase numbers would be to make it easier to get a certificate. Most pilots are too "elite" to allow this to happen.

We're shooting ourselves in the foot, unfortunately.

I'm having trouble with the word "easier" you use. I don't believe that we should relax the standards for the certificates and ratings we currently have in place (although the Sport Pilot license is a good example of fewer requirements with more restrictions). I do believe we should make it more affordable and accessible for people to become pilots. In that regard, we absolutely need to try to make it easier. It comes down to affordable and accessible. I know that I, for one, would not have bothered were it not for the particular situation I had that allowed me to do my training (cheap, good planes). I've not come across pilots who are elitist and want to restrict flying only to them. Really, everyone I meet is encouraging and wants to see more people learning how to fly. The local pilot's group has a mission that includes to help make it more feasible for others to learn to fly, especially the younger crowd. Get more kids flying means that you'll get more people who grow into it and participate.

Light Sport aircraft are, to me, excellent at helping make it more affordable for people to learn to fly. Experimentals are excellent at making it more affordable for people to buy planes that are still new and have capabilities wel past what certified aircraft in the same price range would be.

It comes down to we need to get more people flying and get more people to think positively of GA. I think we all try to do it in our own way.

 

[Trapper John]

As for losing you- I don't know if you are being deliberately obstinant- my fuel taxes are paying for the services I use.

Let's look at that claim. Let's say you fly a C-172 for 100 hr/yr. At 8 gallons/hr, that's 800 gal x $0.194/gal tax which is $155.20. I find it very hard to believe the benefit received from airports and ATC is only $155 for 100 hours of flying!


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

If anything, GA is paying MORE than our fair share.

I'm not so sure...see this http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=416909&postcount=65


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Let's look at that claim. Let's say you fly a C-172 for 100 hr/yr. At 8 gallons/hr, that's 800 gal x $0.194/gal tax which is $155.20. I find it very hard to believe the benefit received from airports and ATC is only $155 for 100 hours of flying!


Trapper John

That certainly seems awfully low. But if I had to guess (and really all any of us are doing is guessing at the moment), I'd say that if you limited it to just ATC costs that it's probably a lot closer than if you also include airport and other outlays.

So then the question is whether or not it's appropriate to fund operating expenses (like but not limited to ATC) with the fuel tax but not capital expenses like airport improvement, etc. That's probably a better question.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is the crux of the issue, in my mind: Are they really paying for the services you use? If so, great, and we've got a much better argument to make.

But if not, we're left to argue, "Okay, we're open to a tax increase, but not the imposition of user fees." Which isn't a bad argument... I just wanna make sure we're talking about the right one.

I am open to a tax increase but not user's fees. A tax increase that represents fair use of the system.

 

[ScottM]

I am open to a tax increase but not user's fees. A tax increase that represents fair use of the system.

But isn't user fees, people paying for what they use and not all of us paying a subsidy for what a few may be using?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I am open to a tax increase but not user's fees. A tax increase that represents fair use of the system.

If GA is currently generally revenue negative (and I'm not sure that it is), I'm inclined to agree: Bump up the fuel tax. That only makes sense.

But my only point is that if GA is revenue neutral or positive, it makes the argument against user fees that much more effective.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Let's look at that claim. Let's say you fly a C-172 for 100 hr/yr. At 8 gallons/hr, that's 800 gal x $0.194/gal tax which is $155.20. I find it very hard to believe the benefit received from airports and ATC is only $155 for 100 hours of flying!


Trapper John

You are avoiding the issue that the military makes use of these facilities. You also avoid the issue that GA uses the extra capacity the system has (and needs to have).

I rarely used ATC when I was in NJ, preferring to duck around, under or over the Class B, C, and D airspace. In Nebraska, the ATC I use is here only for the commercial air carriers and Air Force/ANG/Army air. They from the bulk of the use and if GA went away, their costs wouldn't go down a penny. They would lose our contribution to the system.

When I land at an airport, I pay for fuel- some of the fuel price goes to the FCO or airport authority. I also pay landing fees at some airports. I still pay the fuel tax. The airport is also supported by me paying tie-down or hanger rent (even if I rent the plane, I contribute to this cost).

 

[Trapper John]

That certainly seems awfully low. But if I had to guess (and really all any of us are doing is guessing at the moment), I'd say that if you limited it to just ATC costs that it's probably a lot closer than if you also include airport and other outlays.

I think we would need to lump in FSS into the ATC costs. Since I don't think airlines really use FSS to any real degree, because they have their own people covering those functions, what happens if we assign all of the costs of FSS to GA?

Lockheed-Martin's FSS contract is $1.9 bn for five years, or $380,000,000/yr. If we take that $380 million and divide by the 612,000 pilots out there, that's $620 per pilot per year, which is far more than the $155/year C-172 fuel tax example. Even if you say GA only uses half of the FSS services, it's $305/year/pilot, which is twice the fuel tax revenue collected from our example. So, it's pretty obvious to me that GA doesn't pay its own way.

So then the question is whether or not it's appropriate to fund operating expenses (like but not limited to ATC) with the fuel tax but not capital expenses like airport improvement, etc. That's probably a better question.

Exactly. It becomes a public policy question, like other infrastructure. Is the cost associated with the infrastructure going to provide economic benefit that makes sense?


Trapper John


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I think we would need to lump in FSS into the ATC costs. Since I don't think airlines really use FSS to any real degree, because they have their own people covering those functions, what happens if we assign all of the costs of FSS to GA?

Lockheed-Martin's FSS contract is $1.9 bn for five years, or $380,000,000/yr. If we take that $380 million and divide by the 612,000 pilots out there, that's $620 per pilot per year, which is far more than the $155/year C-172 fuel tax example. Even if you say GA only uses half of the FSS services, it's $305/year/pilot, which is twice the fuel tax revenue collected from our example. So, it's pretty obvious to me that GA doesn't pay its own way.

That's a good example, and certainly goes to your point... But I'd still be interested to know what the aggregate numbers are. One way or another, I'm betting it's a lot closer than that scenario indicates.

Exactly. It becomes a public policy question, like other infrastructure. Is the cost associated with the infrastructure going to provide economic benefit that makes sense?


Trapper John


Trapper John

I think there's a very good case to be made there (and I find the popularity of the "most important main street of any town" tactic heartening in that regard.)

 

[Cap'n Jack]

But isn't user fees, people paying for what they use and not all of us paying a subsidy for what a few may be using?

Scott- I don't understand the question.

If you consider the existing taxes to be user fees, OK. I usually don't use much of the system since most of my flying is take off, do some airwork or practice take offs/landings in a quiet field and come back.

 

[mikea]

long held belief GA is being subsidized.

if all of GA went away, exactly how much money would the FAA save?

if small GA went away (ya know, like the C-172 and PA-28-161), exactly how
much money would the FAA save?

If all of GA went away, how much would it cost the airlines to train 0 hour students in 747s?

 

[TMetzinger]

But isn't user fees, people paying for what they use and not all of us paying a subsidy for what a few may be using?

There are two issues behind User Fees that I want to comment on.

Shifting the FAA budget from a tax revenue standpoint to a fee-based system takes Congress out of the loop. Now, anyone will tell you I'm no fan of the Congress, but I'm even LESS of a fan of the FAA management, and of the executive branch deciding how it's gonna spend it's fee-based revenue stream without the checks and balances of the Congress.

Second, our society as a whole (even those who never get in an airplane) benefits from the systems the FAA manages. It's proper that some of that funding come from the general tax revenues.

With that said, when someone can show me a reasonable way of determining how much cost the FAA incurs to support my flight in excess of capabilities they would already have to have in place anyway to support the airlines and military, then I'll be happy to pay those costs (preferably through an easy-to-collect system like fuel excise taxes). And I'll be understanding that when I'm IFR, I'm operating in a system sized and designed primarily for the airlines and paid for primarily by them (and their customers), and I'll understand that I may get a slightly lower level of service.

But, if you want me to pay my "fair" share of the total cost of the system. based on the number of airplanes, or to pay a fee for ATC services, than I better get equal priority, equal routings, and an equal voice at the table as any other airspace user. Which means that NWA can wait for ME instead of the other way around. And I'd better never hear UNABLE from ATC when calling for a bravo transition through ORD.

 

[Trapper John]

You are avoiding the issue that the military makes use of these facilities. You also avoid the issue that GA uses the extra capacity the system has (and needs to have).

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm pointing out your claim that you fully pay your way is specious.

I rarely used ATC when I was in NJ, preferring to duck around, under or over the Class B, C, and D airspace. In Nebraska, the ATC I use is here only for the commercial air carriers and Air Force/ANG/Army air. They from the bulk of the use and if GA went away, their costs wouldn't go down a penny. They would lose our contribution to the system.

I don't suppose you used FSS or any navaids, either.

When I land at an airport, I pay for fuel- some of the fuel price goes to the FCO or airport authority. I also pay landing fees at some airports. I still pay the fuel tax. The airport is also supported by me paying tie-down or hanger rent (even if I rent the plane, I contribute to this cost).

OK, so you pay a little beyond federal fuel tax, but I seriously doubt that it's enough beyond to cover the value of what you are getting.


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

There are two issues behind User Fees that I want to comment on.

Shifting the FAA budget from a tax revenue standpoint to a fee-based system takes Congress out of the loop. Now, anyone will tell you I'm no fan of the Congress, but I'm even LESS of a fan of the FAA management, and of the executive branch deciding how it's gonna spend it's fee-based revenue stream without the checks and balances of the Congress.

Second, our society as a whole (even those who never get in an airplane) benefits from the systems the FAA manages. It's proper that some of that funding come from the general tax revenues.

With that said, when someone can show me a reasonable way of determining how much cost the FAA incurs to support my flight in excess of capabilities they would already have to have in place anyway to support the airlines and military, then I'll be happy to pay those costs (preferably through an easy-to-collect system like fuel excise taxes). And I'll be understanding that when I'm IFR, I'm operating in a system sized and designed primarily for the airlines and paid for primarily by them (and their customers), and I'll understand that I may get a slightly lower level of service.

But, if you want me to pay my "fair" share of the total cost of the system. based on the number of airplanes, or to pay a fee for ATC services, than I better get equal priority, equal routings, and an equal voice at the table as any other airspace user. Which means that NWA can wait for ME instead of the other way around. And I'd better never hear UNABLE from ATC when calling for a bravo transition through ORD.

Amen to all of that.

 

[Richard]

Tim, very well stated.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Tim, very well stated.

At the right time we need to all send that to our congress critters.