User Fees

[Palmpilot]

The fuel tax is proportional to how much fuel you purchase, not your use of ATC resources. Consider a flight school aircraft performing multiple practice instrument approaches while receiving ATC services versus a crop duster not receiving any ATC services. The flight school airplane burns a lot less fuel than the crop duster and pays less even though they use more services.

The infrastructure to charge for ATC services, landing fees, etc is already in place. Airports such as BKL will send a bill for the landing fee to the address on the aircrafts registration. The FAA charges for ATC services if you don't either land or takeoff from a U.S. airport. Billing for services isn't difficult.

The quest for precision in allocation of ATC costs is not worth the cost in the form of the safety disincentive, IMO. I would also argue that having an effective air traffic control system is a benefit to everyone, not just to the people who happen to be using it on any given day.

 

[James331]

The quest for precision in allocation of ATC costs is not worth the cost in the form of the safety disincentive, IMO. I would also argue that having an effective air traffic control system is a benefit to everyone, not just to the people who happen to be using it on any given day.

Yeah, problem is we have and had a effective ATC system before the ADSB, before the user fee push, actually we have the best ATC system on earth.

But you know the saying, if it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

 

[Everskyward]

The infrastructure to charge for ATC services, landing fees, etc is already in place. Airports such as BKL will send a bill for the landing fee to the address on the aircrafts registration. The FAA charges for ATC services if you don't either land or takeoff from a U.S. airport. Billing for services isn't difficult.

Right now when you get charged a "landing fee" it does not go to pay for ATC services. Generally speaking, it goes to the entity which owns or manages the airport. The "ramp fee" or "handling charge" goes to the FBO. So, the infrastructure to charge for ATC services is not already in place on a federal level.

 

[James331]

Right now when you get charged a "landing fee" it does not go to pay for ATC services. Generally speaking, it goes to the entity which owns or manages the airport. The "ramp fee" or "handling charge" goes to the FBO. So, the infrastructure to charge for ATC services is not already in place on a federal level.

Poor ATC, I didn't realize they were soooo underpaid, let me cry some pilot tears on their horrible pay and benifits

Really all this is fixing something that doesn't need fixing

 

[coloradobluesky]

Just tax the fuel.

 

[SbestCFII]

Yeah, problem is we have and had a effective ATC system before the ADSB, before the user fee push, actually we have the best ATC system on earth.

But you know the saying, if it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

That's all I'm saying too!

 

[nddons]

PalmPilot said it best. The debate is not about whether we should pay user fees. We do, right now. The question is how user fees should be assessed and collected. Right now, we pay them through fuel taxes. The proposal is that we pay them per flight or per interaction with ATC. The debate should be about which of these is more efficient. If per-flight or per-ATC interaction replaces fuel taxes, some of us will pay more, but some of us will pay less. VFR-only fliers who use uncontrolled airports would pay less, while those who fly IFR will pay more. This means that an organization like AOPA has a conflict of interest on this issue. Of course, if per-flight or per ATC-interaction fees were in addition to current fuel taxes, the objection is to a hike in user fees. That turns the debate into one about the amount of the fee rather than to the way it's assessed. As I recall, the NBAA said it was willing to discuss the amount but wants the amount, whatever it is, to be collected through fuel taxes rather than on a per-use basis, because it considers that to be the more efficient method. The question of whether controllers should be government employees or corporation employees is entirely different from how the tax should be collected, and it should be discussed and decided separately.

Per interaction with ATC? That will be very confusing. Can you imagine how many aircraft will say their call sign is "123 Foxtrot Uniform"?

 

[James331]

Per interaction with ATC? That will be very confusing. Can you imagine how many aircraft will say their call sign is "123 Foxtrot Uniform"?

Hence the ADSB push.

 

[n12365]

Right now when you get charged a "landing fee" it does not go to pay for ATC services. Generally speaking, it goes to the entity which owns or manages the airport. The "ramp fee" or "handling charge" goes to the FBO. So, the infrastructure to charge for ATC services is not already in place on a federal level.

The FAA charges for ATC services when you don't land or takeoff at a U.S. airport. You pay either $56.86 or $21.63 per 100 mm and can even pay online at pay.gov. You can see the payment schedule at

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees/

If the FAA is set up to bill for international flights using ATC services, then I would say the infrastructure already exists at the federal level.

 

[Everskyward]

The FAA charges for ATC services when you don't land or takeoff at a U.S. airport. You pay either $56.86 or $21.63 per 100 mm and can even pay online at pay.gov. You can see the payment schedule at

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees/

If the FAA is set up to bill for international flights using ATC services, then I would say the infrastructure already exists at the federal level.

I would say that it doesn't because the number of international flights passing overhead without landing is a minuscule percentage or the total flights. Besides, if the flights don't land, how are they charged "landing fees"?

 

[Bob Noel]

I would say that it doesn't because the number of international flights passing overhead without landing is a minuscule percentage or the total flights. Besides, if the flights don't land, how are they charged "landing fees"?

It'll simply be a fee for a service that the flight should have used (ever hear of imputed income?)

 

[n12365]

I would say that it doesn't because the number of international flights passing overhead without landing is a minuscule percentage or the total flights. Besides, if the flights don't land, how are they charged "landing fees"?

It is not a landing fee (which is normally charged by the airport authority). It is an overflight fee for the use of ATC services and is charged by the federal government. The international flights are a small percentage of the total, but this shows the infrastructure is already in place to charge for ATC services at the federal level.

 

[Palmpilot]

Wouldn't that infrastructure have to be scaled up to support the current proposal? If so, maybe it would be possible to estimate the cost.

 

[Dav8or]

Just be happy it isn't a across the board annual $500-1000 airspace use tax.

We already have that. It's called the Jeppeson/Garmin tax!

 

[James331]

If we are all mandated to have ADS-B out, what would the need for ATC services be at uncontrolled fields when IFR or even for most of the enroute structure? We will be able to see everyone, and that should eliminate the need for ATC, right?

Heck if it actually works like that, which it won't, I would demand to see the existing fuel taxes and any other fees be removed.

We already have that. It's called the Jeppeson/Garmin tax!

There is that lol, it's like 550 for the US, Canada and MX on both my 530 & 430,

I wish all the computer whiz pilots could make a opensource free community update source for the Garmin boxes.

 

[Bonchie]

It's hard to dispute that users of a product should be the ones to pay for the product. I think most of us believe that for most things in life. I'm not sure how user fees might be structured but in principal I can't say they're a bad idea. The problem is it'll become an added tax and won't be offset by any reduction of tax elsewhere to reflect the change in funding.

People that never drive a day in their life pay for roads. People that never attend a public school pay for them.

We, as taxpayers, already pay for our use of the ATC system. We also pay for it with fuel taxes. The fact that most only take advantage of it via commercial travel vs. talking to them themselves like we do is inconsequential.

 

[Bob Noel]

People that never drive a day in their life pay for roads. People that never attend a public school pay for them.

assuming, of course, they actually pay any taxes. Schools funded through property taxes are only paid for by property owners. Roads paid for through fuel taxes and general taxes are only paid for by people who drive and/or pay income taxes.

 

[Palmpilot]

assuming, of course, they actually pay any taxes. Schools funded through property taxes are only paid for by property owners. Roads paid for through fuel taxes and general taxes are only paid for by people who drive and/or pay income taxes.

Property taxes are part of the costs of landlords, so they have an effect on how much rent they have to charge to make a go of it. Thus, renters indirectly pay property taxes.

Similarly, fuel taxes and general taxes affect the cost of virtually all goods and services, so people who don't drive or pay income taxes indirectly pay those taxes too.

There's no free lunch.

 

[SbestCFII]

If more money is required, it would be much more efficient to effect a marginal increase in the excise tax (currently 19.4 cents per gallon), that to implement a new government sponsored corporation and a fee collection system for specific ATC services.

The cost of avgas fluctuates quite a bit and frankly, even a 50% increase (9.7 cents/gal.) in the tax wouldn't noticeably affect the flying of the majority of piston aircraft fliers. For my plane, that would amount to $ 4.80 more per fill-up from dead empty. Less than average cost of a single gallon of avgas at my home-drome.

I'd much rather have that that get invoiced from Lockheed-Martin for $20.00 for using ATC services on every IFR flight. Whatever fees they impose and collect, you be darn sure that they'll exact far more than we're currently paying in excise tax. At least as a business, I can deduct the cost of avgas used in the course of the business and fees for the cost of ATC services. As an individual, that wouldn't be deductible and could get expensive really fast if you fly a lot.

 

[wsuffa]

That is not accurate.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the union supports a reliable, steady funding source disconnected from Congress. While they specifically don't support "for profit" privatization, one option that the head of the union stated they might support is a non-profit, private or semi-private corporation.

So, privatization is one option that they would negotiate and potentially support, provided it's not a "for-profit" organization.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/20/air-traffic-control-rinaldi-natca-aero-club/26072065/

 

[bflynn]

So if there's an accident and it's determined that it could have been avoided if one or both parties had been paying money to talk to ATC, I guess the answer won't be that fees are evil because they cause safety issues, right?

 

[Bob Noel]

So if there's an accident and it's determined that it could have been avoided if one or both parties had been paying money to talk to ATC, I guess the answer won't be that fees are evil because they cause safety issues, right?

Consider unintended consequences.

 

[MarkZ]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the union supports a reliable, steady funding source disconnected from Congress. While they specifically don't support "for profit" privatization, one option that the head of the union stated they might support is a non-profit, private or semi-private corporation.



So, privatization is one option that they would negotiate and potentially support, provided it's not a "for-profit" organization.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/20/air-traffic-control-rinaldi-natca-aero-club/26072065/

Thank you, the distinction needed to be made,. There is a big difference between establishing a funding structure unburdened by political winds, and flat out privatization of ATC.

Here is Mr. Rinaldi's congressional testimony.

 

[hindsight2020]

If people don't think scud running isn't gonna go up as a result of user fees, I got a time-share in Syria to sell them.

Just like everything in America, people need to spill blood before Congres goes "oopsie, guess that wasn't such a hot idea, sorry corporate overlords (airlines), the plebes are ****ed, we gotta turn this s%it off". Maybe that's what needs to happen...

This is more of the same. Greedy fng airlines looking to stick it to a market segment competitor (biz 91/135) and steamrolling us recreational/flight training GA guys as a bonus. The irony is that this whole push is being made under the auspices that we can afford it, when the entire recreational sector is in economic life support and all we need is one more high-cost item (5K/yr+ in ATC fees would be that for most everybody) to let the bottom fall out the used aircraft market.

 

[nddons]

If people don't think scud running isn't gonna go up as a result of user fees, I got a time-share in Syria to sell them.

Just like everything in America, people need to spill blood before Congres goes "oopsie, guess that wasn't such a hot idea, sorry corporate overlords (airlines), the plebes are ****ed, we gotta turn this s%it off". Maybe that's what needs to happen...

That's how it "should" work, but it'll never happen this way.

The new funding source will stay (it always does) and the GA community will get yet another layer of oppressive regulation cast upon them, so that FedGov can say that the shish-ka-bob bodies in the wreckage are dead because they broke the rules. It NEVER comes back on the Feds. Ever.

 

[James331]

That's how it "should" work, but it'll never happen this way.

The new funding source will stay (it always does) and the GA community will get yet another layer of oppressive regulation cast upon them, so that FedGov can say that the shish-ka-bob bodies in the wreckage are dead because they broke the rules. It NEVER comes back on the Feds. Ever.

Sure it will, enough civil disobedience, finger pointing and voting and the people always win.

If more money is required, it would be much more efficient to effect a marginal increase in the excise tax....

I disagree, they have a budget to preform a service, live within your budget, if you can't lower your employes pay and benefits, less vacation time, maybe some lay offs. I'm really sick of this fantasy world we allow government to live within.

 

[jbarrass]

There's one other reason, and it's driving this recent push. The budget control act limits non-defense, discretionary spending to $530 Billion next year and similar amounts in the out years.

It they change the FAA to a Government Supported Enterprise (GSE) of some sort, (i.e. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, FDIC, whatever), it is no longer "non-defense, discretionary spending" and the total is removed from the cap and they can spend the amount on some other boondoggle. It's a way of getting around the caps.

It necessarily leads to direct user fees, since the gas taxes are collected into the general fund, and if they give them to the FAA they count against the caps. Much like Freddie collects "fees" on new mortgages, the FAA could collect "fees" for use of the system and it stays "off-budget".

 

[ralarcon]

"Pay-per-flight would be the death toll for GA."

This !

 

[beestforwardspeed]

If people don't think scud running isn't gonna go up as a result of user fees, I got a time-share in Syria to sell them.

Just like everything in America, people need to spill blood before Congres goes "oopsie, guess that wasn't such a hot idea, sorry corporate overlords (airlines), the plebes are ****ed, we gotta turn this s%it off". Maybe that's what needs to happen...

This is more of the same. Greedy fng airlines looking to stick it to a market segment competitor (biz 91/135) and steamrolling us recreational/flight training GA guys as a bonus. The irony is that this whole push is being made under the auspices that we can afford it, when the entire recreational sector is in economic life support and all we need is one more high-cost item (5K/yr+ in ATC fees would be that for most everybody) to let the bottom fall out the used aircraft market.

Not to mention that the airlines ONLY pipeline for future pilots (GA) will dry up even faster if their user fee wish comes true. When that happens, how will they find pilots to keep their own planes moving??

Talk about extreme myopia and biting the hand that feeds them!

 

[Dav8or]

Not to mention that the airlines ONLY pipeline for future pilots (GA) will dry up even faster if their user fee wish comes true. When that happens, how will they find pilots to keep their own planes moving??

Talk about extreme myopia and biting the hand that feeds them!

Adjust their pay scales/benefits to convince youngsters it worth it to pay even more to be trained. Then pass the additional cost off to consumers. They're a business that provides a now indispensable service to the world. They'll figure it out and be just fine.

The hobbyists and convenience travelers like most of us, not so much.

 

[docmirror]

It'll go something like Oregon(solidly democrat) is going now with a few caveats. 1. You will NEVER get a rebate on fuel taxed. 2. The feds won't make it a voluntary trial. 3. The prices will be stratospheric compared to the gentle bite that Oregon is taking.

Oregon is just the proving grounds. It'll be digested, and then the fed version will be finalized. But like I said, there will never be a reduction or credit for av fuel taxes paid.

I'm one of the scofflaws already. I rarely use ATC services unless landing at a C or D. I rarely buy avgas. Also, I always fill out a fuel tax credit form at the end of year for non-road use fuel taxed but not driven on highways(used in aviation). So, I'm currently skirting most of the system as it were, and I plan to maintain my ways.

It also occurs to me that there are several large airports just outside the 30NM ring of major metro areas(or outside the boundaries of the C ring) that are setup nicely for dodging ADS-B/ATC service use charges. Rickenbacher in Columbus, MIddletown or Wright Bros in Cincy, New Castle - Pitt, Sandusky - Cleveland, and of course in TX we've got half a dozen around DFW, Austin Exec, Stinson or Boerne/stage in San Antone, and Houston Exec on I-10 right outside the energy corridor.

This tells me that there are plenty of people who will just forgo the joy of flying right into the beast and use a lesser airport outside the ring, and to hell with all the fee-based aviation. As stated, plenty of scud running, and the common term '3 miles vis' will take on a whole new meaning, with many pilots developing a keen x-ray vision through clouds.

 

[Mason]

This tells me that there are plenty of people who will just forgo the joy of flying right into the beast and use a lesser airport outside the ring, and to hell with all the fee-based aviation. As stated, plenty of scud running, and the common term '3 miles vis' will take on a whole new meaning, with many pilots developing a keen x-ray vision through clouds.

This seems to be they way they are doing it now in Europe, to avoid the horrendous user fees for ATC.

If anyone doubts the final outcome of user fees getting the nose under the tent, see Europe, and Australia.

 

[aterpster]

This seems to be they way they are doing it now in Europe, to avoid the horrendous user fees for ATC.

Do you have any cites for that?

 

[MadseasoN]

It's hard to dispute that users of a product should be the ones to pay for the product. I think most of us believe that for most things in life. I'm not sure how user fees might be structured but in principal I can't say they're a bad idea. The problem is it'll become an added tax and won't be offset by any reduction of tax elsewhere to reflect the change in funding.

Is the TSA funded by user fees?

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Adjust their pay scales/benefits to convince youngsters it worth it to pay even more to be trained. Then pass the additional cost off to consumers. They're a business that provides a now indispensable service to the world. They'll figure it out and be just fine.

The hobbyists and convenience travelers like most of us, not so much.

All of those things you mention are not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.

That will still cost them more than what it does now with the current system.

 

[dtuuri]

It's hard to dispute that users of a product should be the ones to pay for the product.

It's not a "product" it's a regulation and should be paid for by the demanders. I doubt the participants (us) demand to be regulated as much as the non-participants demand us to be.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah, whatever happened to the concept that we shouldn't have unfunded mandates? That's an area where Reagan had the right idea.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Just tax the fuel. User fees are a pain. Its like toll roads. They shouldn't exist. Just tax the fuel. Have to overcome the oil lobby, which isn't easy.

 

[nddons]

Just tax the fuel. User fees are a pain. Its like toll roads. They shouldn't exist. Just tax the fuel. Have to overcome the oil lobby, which isn't easy.

That just won't fly. The fees have to be even. This big jets with hundreds of paying customers use SO MUCH FUEL that it would disproportionately cost the airlines so much! A fully loaded 747 should pay just as much as a Skyhawk.

 

[Jim Logajan]

http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/contact/

The NBAA does not represent my interests and may actually be opposed to them. That page gives absolutely no background info of course - just a mindless "No!" to three different things without giving good reasons why:

Oppose Privatized ATC and User Fees
Stop Proposed Per-Flight User Fees

For those interested in the background of what is likely to be proposed and why this subject is even alive (no legislative details have been released; just broad principles,) here is what Rep. Bill Shuster's has recently said:

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/aero_club_speech.pdf

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/faa_bill_principles.pdf

The current FAA authorization expires in September....