User fees in Obama's budget proposal

[Anthony]

Pay attention.

I already decribed how the beneficiaries of an airport includes far more than pilots.

The example you quoted mentioned a road for a single logging company.

If an airport was built with government funds for a single company's use, that would be a subsidy.

A public use airport is like a road or highway. It allows goods and services to come a go, like any other transportation aid.

 

[mantakos]

If an airport was built with government funds for a single company's use, that would be a subsidy.

You're hiding behind excessively literal interpretations. The key point isn't that it's "a single company", it's that the benefit applies disproportionately to a small subset of the population. The government provides us with a whole bunch of infrastructure, and we benefit disproportionately from our use of it, so it's not unreasonable for them to expect us to absorb some of the cost.

Obviously, we don't have a "pay as you go" system. One reason for this is that it's not feasible to meter every car's use of a highway, or every person's use of a weather report. Another reason is more social, we understand the requirement for a progressive tax system, and we don't want to have to write a check to the fire department for their call (in effect, we prefer to share the burden of those expenses, and for the rich to shoulder a greater share of that burden).

But these reasons apply less and less as the size of the audience using the resource gets smaller, and as their usage of it gets more "personal".
-harry

 

[mantakos]

A public use airport is like a road or highway. It allows goods and services to come a go, like any other transportation aid.

If I build a house 100 miles from the nearest population center, will the government build a highway to it? What if I build a big housing development for a few thousand people, 5 miles out of town?

What principles will they apply in making their decisions?
-harry

 

[Anthony]

If I build a house 100 miles from the nearest population center, will the government build a highway to it? What if I build a big housing development for a few thousand people, 5 miles out of town?

What principles will they apply in making their decisions?
-harry

Dunno. Meet me at Obrycki's and we'll try to decide. I'll subsidize.

 

[mantakos]

Meet me at Sissons and we'll try to decide. I'll subsidize.

We're gonna need a government-subsidized time machine, as Sissons closed down a few years back, but where there's somebody offering to buy the beer, there's always a way.
-harry

 

[Anthony]

We're gonna need a government-subsidized time machine, as Sissons closed down a few years back, but where there's somebody offering to buy the beer, there's always a way.
-harry

Just noticed that. Changed it to one of my other favorite places. Used to love Sissons. Great beer. Why did they close?

 

[mantakos]

Used to love Sissons. Great beer. Why did they close?

Hugh Sisson has his own micro-brew company, Clipper City, so I guess he just moved on to new pastures.

I think the premiere Baltimore brew-pub is Brewer's Art, these days. Excellent Belgian-style beer, though the place, itself, is an odd conglomeration of a hipster basement bar with a very froofy restaurant upstairs.
-harry

 

[KennyFlys]

Airport Operational Statistics (KAUS)
Aircraft operations: avg 570/day[SIZE=-1] *[/SIZE]
46% commercial
36% transient general aviation
12% air taxi
3% military
2% local general aviation
[SIZE=-1]* for 12-month period ending 28 February 2007[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]According to Airnav it looks like 50% of the traffic at Austin is GA, and since KAUS is tower controlled, ATC needs to talk to all of them.[/SIZE]

Yes, but once outside of Charlie, much of the GA is on its own with exception of those on flight following or IFR (GA jet and heavier twin piston traffic). I would fall into that 2% local traffic it refers to.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes, but once outside of Charlie, much of the GA is on its own with exception of those on flight following or IFR (GA jet and heavier twin piston traffic). I would fall into that 2% local traffic it refers to.

Not necessarily. I've read the threads where you file and then try to negotiate different routes with ATC. This is probably more of a pain for them than airplanes that willingly follow canned routes.

 

[KennyFlys]

Not necessarily. I've read the threads where you file and then try to negotiate different routes with ATC. This is probably more of a pain for them than airplanes that willingly follow canned routes.

While trying to figure out what was happening, it was a pain for everyone. ATC was fitting all flights into a mold rather than accommodating what really worked best for the specific flight intended. In other words, we were treated in routing as if we were also flying out of the area just as the airliner headed for Phoenix. The the airliner's transition point was our destination but without the routing we desired for training purposes in a smaller, slower aircraft. That's far from getting what I'd be paying for.

I've since learned how to "game" the system to eventually get the routing I need. But, in such situations I'm also IFR. That's entirely different from 90% of our training flights which are under VFR.

 

[flyersfan31]

Hugh Sisson has his own micro-brew company, Clipper City, so I guess he just moved on to new pastures.

I think the premiere Baltimore brew-pub is Brewer's Art, these days. Excellent Belgian-style beer, though the place, itself, is an odd conglomeration of a hipster basement bar with a very froofy restaurant upstairs.
-harry

Sisson's closed? Man that shtinks. Is Baltimore Brewing Co still open? I was friendly with the Brewmaster back in my Balto days, but I haven't seen him in a number of years, since we moved away. Got a great behind-the-scenes tour from him in exchange for working the booth at Artscape one year.

Wharf Rat has great stuff if you like cask-conditioned. Used to stop in there a lot.

 

[Everskyward]

That's entirely different from 90% of our training flights which are under VFR.

Even when you are VFR you are still using the tower. Some towers are there entirely for GA, like KPDK where you flew out of before and KAPA where I am based. Sure GA doesn't use the system as much as the airlines but we are kidding ourselves if we think we only use an insignificant part of their services.

 

[mantakos]

Is Baltimore Brewing Co still open?

Nope...
-harry

 

[KennyFlys]

Even when you are VFR you are still using the tower. Some towers are there entirely for GA, like KPDK where you flew out of before and KAPA where I am based. Sure GA doesn't use the system as much as the airlines but we are kidding ourselves if we think we only use an insignificant part of their services.

It is insignificant. At PDK, once I left that Class Delta I had no interaction with ATC until I returned to PDK. If to the north or east, there was nothing in our path. To the west, we could climb over those Class Ds.

In Austin, once a couple miles outside of Charlie we can head off on our own. Again, there's no interaction until we return. Other traffic on flight following or IFR will be with them for another twenty miles or so then handed off to center.

That being said, the services I use are indeed paid for through taxation of me personally or the fuel I use. Until I see a more efficient government, I won't be in favor of any further taxation or fees of any kind on general aviation.

 

[mantakos]

That being said, the services I use are indeed paid for through taxation of me personally or the fuel I use.

This isn't something that a person can simply assert, it's an argument that is inherently arithmetic, and you've made no reference to any numbers, so I have to wonder how you know this to be true.

In other words, if you earned less money, and thus paid less taxes, would your assertion still be true? What if you paid no income tax at all? If the fuel tax was halved, would it still be true? If the FAA paid to repave all the runways at PDK, would your assertion still be true?

Is your assertion simply inherently true, and wholly independent of any specifics of how much you pay and how much the FAA spends?
-harry

 

[KennyFlys]

This isn't something that a person can simply assert, it's an argument that is inherently arithmetic, and you've made no reference to any numbers, so I have to wonder how you know this to be true.

In other words, if you earned less money, and thus paid less taxes, would your assertion still be true? What if you paid no income tax at all? If the fuel tax was halved, would it still be true? If the FAA paid to repave all the runways at PDK, would your assertion still be true?

Is your assertion simply inherently true, and wholly independent of any specifics of how much you pay and how much the FAA spends?
-harry

According to the federal fuel tax rates cited in previous posts, it is true and a reasonable assertion on my part.

Considering my students are taxed on their earnings, I'm taxed on my earnings and my employer is taxed on his earnings and then the mechanic who keeps up maintenance is also taxed on his earnings... I'd say there's more than enough tax collected on everyone to cover any ATC services received during the course of that flight.

 

[Trapper John]

According to the federal fuel tax rates cited in previous posts, it is true and a reasonable assertion on my part.

Considering my students are taxed on their earnings, I'm taxed on my earnings and my employer is taxed on his earnings and then the mechanic who keeps up maintenance is also taxed on his earnings... I'd say there's more than enough tax collected on everyone to cover any ATC services received during the course of that flight.

Which is simply a long-winded way of saying you are ignoring the facts and making a pronouncement based on nothing.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

Even when you are VFR you are still using the tower. Some towers are there entirely for GA, like KPDK where you flew out of before and KAPA where I am based. Sure GA doesn't use the system as much as the airlines but we are kidding ourselves if we think we only use an insignificant part of their services.

Yeah, but...

As an example, the MGW CT is a contract tower. That means the controllers are employed by a company, not the FAA.

Mylin pharmaceuticals airplanes the hangared at MGW.

The city of Morgantown contributes some portion of the MGW CT costs, the FAA pays some small percentage.

When the city cried "uncle," Mylin agreed to pick up the city's share of CT fees.

Why?

The insurance for a Hawker at a non-towered field would be far more than one with a CT.

Another consideration -- whenever I take students to MGW for pattern work, the Controllers thank me.

Why?

Every landing and every approach is logged. The number of each helps determine annual allocations.

So by flying a GA plane into MGW, I'm helping MGW appeal for funds.

Anyway, I'm not picking on you, but I'm a bit annoyed by the simplistic "GA SHOULD PAY NOTHING" vs "GA SHOULD PAY EVERYTHING" claptrap.

 

[Anthony]

The insurance for a Hawker at a non-towered field would be far more than one with a CT.

Yep! That is why my former home base, KFTG got a PRIVATE tower. The airport wanted to position itself as a bizjet hub.

 

[ScottM]

Considering my students are taxed on their earnings, I'm taxed on my earnings and my employer is taxed on his earnings and then the mechanic who keeps up maintenance is also taxed on his earnings... I'd say there's more than enough tax collected on everyone to cover any ATC services received during the course of that flight.

Yet the data aka facts show that to not be the case and that GA underfunds the services it uses by 81%.

 

[Everskyward]

Anyway, I'm not picking on you, but I'm a bit annoyed by the simplistic "GA SHOULD PAY NOTHING" vs "GA SHOULD PAY EVERYTHING" claptrap.

I think GA should pay their share, just not through user fees. The fuel tax is a better idea.

KAPA is a busy public tower with no airline service at all. In my mind, the airlines don't need to be financing it because they don't use it. I disagree with Kenny's statement that GA use of the airspace system is insignificant. It's certainly a minority position but it's not insignificant.

Airport Operational Statistics (KAPA)
Aircraft operations: avg 919/day[SIZE=-1] *[/SIZE]
43% local general aviation
41% transient general aviation
16% air taxi
1% military[SIZE=-1]
* for 12-month period ending 31 December 2007[/SIZE]

 

[ScottM]

KAPA is a busy public tower with no airline service at all. In my mind, the airlines don't need to be financing it because they don't use it.

If KAPA is a reliver airport that makes it more efficient for the airlines to use another airport and thus carry out more commercial operations. Then they should support it, they are deriving a benefit from it.

I disagree with Kenny's statement that GA use of the airspace system is insignificant. It's certainly a minority position but it's not insignificant.

Airport Operational Statistics (KAPA)
Aircraft operations: avg 919/day[SIZE=-1] *[/SIZE]
43% local general aviation
41% transient general aviation
16% air taxi
1% military[SIZE=-1]
* for 12-month period ending 31 December 2007[/SIZE]

Pretty clear to me.

 

[ScottM]

I think GA should pay their share, just not through user fees. The fuel tax is a better idea.

I agree with that. IF we have to pay more for our services let it be through the fuel tax NOT additional user fees.

 

[Everskyward]

If KAPA is a reliver airport that makes it more efficient for the airlines to use another airport and thus carry out more commercial operations. Then they should support it, they are deriving a benefit from it.

Actually there was a huge controversy at KAPA 10-15 years ago. There were some people who wanted to bring airline operations in there for shorter regional flights. The airport authority would not allow this and the airport almost lost their federal funding. I think the compromise was that the airport would allow airlines but only with airplanes with 9 or fewer seats. This was not seen as economically viable for anyone so nobody has tried.

 

[dmccormack]

I think GA should pay their share, just not through user fees. The fuel tax is a better idea.

I agree -- to a point.

"Pay their share" implies there is some incontrovertible analysis that states what the "share" is.

The quoted activity percentages are interesting, but there's no direct correlation between Number of operations and "costs to service that airplane."

If we had to levy tax or fee based on services rendered, the lost kid in the C150 is gonna have quite the bill when he finally lands.

I wonder what that will do to the pilot population?

 

[Everskyward]

"Pay their share" implies there is some incontrovertible analysis that states what the "share" is.

The quoted activity percentages are interesting, but there's no direct correlation between Number of operations and "costs to service that airplane."

That's true. It's hard to figure out what is "fair" in any situation. The problem I have is with people who think that GA should pay very little or nothing because the system is there for the airlines and GA only tags along. The reality is that there busy airports like KAPA and KPDK which exist only for the purpose of GA and others like KAUS which are shared by both. That's only considering ATC services. There are many other GA airports which receive federal funding for improvements.

 

[dmccormack]

That's true. It's hard to figure out what is "fair" in any situation. The problem I have is with people who think that GA should pay very little or nothing because the system is there for the airlines and GA only tags along. The reality is that there busy airports like KAPA and KPDK which exist only for the purpose of GA and others like KAUS which are shared by both. That's only considering ATC services. There are many other GA airports which receive federal funding for improvements.

ALL aviation benefits from government spending, BUT government realizes increased revenues in taxes generated by all aviation activity.

When government treats an airport as a revenue stream the airport dies. Case in point: Connellsville Airport.

The airport is owned by Fayette County. The attitude of the couty commissioners is that fuel will pay for the airport AND a whole mess of other things desired/required by the county (eg General Fund).

After all, airplanes are for rich guys, right?

So no one flies to VVS for fuel, more hangars are used for cottage industries and car collections than airplanes, and the taxiways and rest of the infrastructure crumbles.

Just up the road another government owned airport sells fuel at competitive prices, maintains the field, and rents out a bunch of newly-built hangars.

There's a restaurant on the field, two FT mechanics, an EAA chapter, and lots of activity.

Build a toll road next to a freeway and guess which one has heavy traffic?

Now a fuel tax makes sense, but cannot be the sole source of revenue. Airplane mechanics, restaurant owners, avionics shops, and the rest dont pay fuel taxes, and yet benefit from the existence of aviation and airports.

 

[Everskyward]

Now a fuel tax makes sense, but cannot be the sole source of revenue. Airplane mechanics, restaurant owners, avionics shops, and the rest dont pay fuel taxes, and yet benefit from the existence of aviation and airports.

I never said anything or anyone should be the sole source of revenue. The public should pay some through taxes, airlines should pay a percent and so should GA.

 

[dmccormack]

I never said anything or anyone should be the sole source of revenue. The public should pay some through taxes, airlines should pay a percent and so should GA.

OK, I misunderstood.

I also oppose user fees for the same reason.

 

[tdager]

Here are some of the earmarks for airport improvements...

Then you had better consider EVERYTHING in ANY bill an "earmark".

One area the government does have a place to be is INFRASTRUCTURE within the nation.

Bridges, roads, ports, and yes AIRPORTS, are legitimate functions of government. Thus I do not see earmarks in that list, I see real-live, this is what they should be spending money on, infrastructure spending.

 

[ScottM]

Then you had better consider EVERYTHING in ANY bill an "earmark".

One area the government does have a place to be is INFRASTRUCTURE within the nation.

Bridges, roads, ports, and yes AIRPORTS, are legitimate functions of government. Thus I do not see earmarks in that list, I see real-live, this is what they should be spending money on, infrastructure spending.

Those are the earmarks in the budget. If you think otherwise I would suggest that you may not really understand what an earmark is and how they are handled. This is one of the 'inside baseball' items of politics you hear a lot about but may not really know what it means. "Earmarks" has become a pejorative term, but it has been a fact of life for Congress since the very first time they met and has helped a great many people and communities. But like anything good it can be used to excess. It makes no difference what the focus of the earmark is, it is how it got on the budget that defines it as an earmark.

I am attaching the entire database of earmarks on the budget for you to see as well.

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills.

http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/