User Fees

It's going to get more and more difficult to hold off the wolves. All pilots after all are rich. And for the fees were going to receive a what?
 
This ought to give pause to people who think that electing members of a certain political party will solve all their problems. :(
 
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.
 
We already have user fees: they're collected at the gas pump.
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

They don't need anymore money. The amount of money needed for ATC and the FAA is such small potatoes compared to our national budget, it's funny.

Also per your logic, I don't need or will ever use food stamps, Medicare, etc, I don't feel threatened by "terrorists" so I don't need people waging war in my name in the Middle East, I don't feel safer by having TSA, or huge militarized police, I don't need CPS, don't have any kids in school so I don't need to pay for that, I don't bank with any of the banks that were bailed out, I could go on.

I would LOVE to only pay for the govt "services" I use.

According to your logic I should receive a MASSIVE tax cut.
 
James331 said:
They don't need anymore money. The amount of money needed for ATC and the FAA is such small potatoes compared to our national budget, it's funny.

Also per your logic, I don't need or will ever use food stamps, Medicare, etc, I don't feel threatened by "terrorists" so I don't need people waging war in my name in the Middle East, I don't feel safer by having TSA, or huge militarized police, I don't need CPS, don't have any kids in school so I don't need to pay for that, I don't bank with any of the banks that were bailed out, I could go on.

I would LOVE to only pay for the govt "services" I use.

According to your logic I should receive a MASSIVE tax cut.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Maybe they saw the news about the electric cri-cri and are trying to get ahead of the arbitrage curve.

Palmpilot said:
We already have user fees: they're collected at the gas pump.
Click to expand...
 
Stewartb said:
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.
Click to expand...

I normally agree with your logic. In this case however I don't. The general public benefits from the aviation infrastructure that exists in this country even if they never directly use the infrastructure. The funds for maintaining and operating our airspace/airports should come from the general fund. Not user fees.
 
James331 said:
They don't need anymore money. The amount of money needed for ATC and the FAA is such small potatoes compared to our national budget, it's funny.

Also per your logic, I don't need or will ever use food stamps, Medicare, etc, I don't feel threatened by "terrorists" so I don't need people waging war in my name in the Middle East, I don't feel safer by having TSA, or huge militarized police, I don't need CPS, don't have any kids in school so I don't need to pay for that, I don't bank with any of the banks that were bailed out, I could go on.

I would LOVE to only pay for the govt "services" I use.

According to your logic I should receive a MASSIVE tax cut.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The cost of living in society is the aggregate redistribution of funds for things we don't always use directly. Politics is the manner in which we agree to said redistribution. It's not something we can opt out individually for.

Pay-per-flight would be the death toll for GA. It would be an effective way of swatting us out the sky. There's no way I could justify my aircraft ownership based on such a high per-sortie tax. Limiting my sortie count just grounds me permanently for the fixed cost incurred. Staying outside of radar service or class charlies and bravos is a non-starter for most peoples flying, even recreational. I don't have a problem paying my share to subsidize the idle and marginalized in this Country, but getting swatted out the sky like that, it would seriously make me question the reasons I serve in the US military for, and I'm not being hyperbolic either. Let's just put it this way: Mexico and Northern South American countries pay top dollar for US trained bilingual military experience, and the kind of pay they offer would allow me to live like a king down there, and I'm already culturally and natively bilingual mind you, so the gringo contrast (target) factor is NA for me. Like a ninja, I'd blend into the culture immediately.

I don't do it because I believe in MY Country, and I believe there's something still worth sticking my neck out for. The feeling seems anachronistic at times, when I see our name brand corporations regard such nationalism with eye rolls. I certainly don't appreciate their flagless profiteering on the backs of the law and civil order my life and daily work provide.

These kinds of Western European proposals are not helping my resolve though, and I already feel politically marginalized as a non-partisan voter mind you. If I wanted to raise my son in Europe, I'd be in Madrid by now. Not pretty either, the economic landscape of those debtor members of the EU...

I don't understand why we're in such a hurry to emulate the matured Western European former empires. That landed gentry submissive at-large European Union lifestyle seems so meek and cowardly to me. There's more to life than touring boring old f*ing castles and drinking room temperature soda for the sake of medical coverage, lax work ethic and the subjugation of being priced out of any avocation that doesn't strictly involve watching said boring castles and drinking said room temperature soda. It's like they're deathly afraid of dying, as a consequence of Living....

/rant
 
The tax on fuel is a simple and efficient way to collect tax and provides a tax proportional to your use of the system. A user fee system is inherently less efficient because a structure has to be created and maintained (and paid for) to identify each use and bill you for it. If more money is actually needed, then the way to get it is by raising the fuel tax. It is currently about 25 cents per gallon on jet and 18 cents per gallon on avgas. The FBO pays it when they pay for a load of fuel into their storage tank and collect it back from you in the price of every gallon of avgas that you buy.
 
Graueradler said:
The tax on fuel is a simple and efficient way to collect tax and provides a tax proportional to your use of the system. A user fee system is inherently less efficient because a structure has to be created and maintained (and paid for) to identify each use and bill you for it. If more money is actually needed, then the way to get it is by raising the fuel tax. It is currently about 25 cents per gallon on jet and 18 cents per gallon on avgas. The FBO pays it when they pay for a load of fuel into their storage tank and collect it back from you in the price of every gallon of avgas that you buy.
Click to expand...

One change I would support is making it a percentage of the price instead of a fixed amount per gallon.
 
This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a decade. A Congressman is trying to give up the right of Congress to levy taxes. Insane.

This usually comes from the Executive. Now its coming from the legislative, and is very frightening.
 
Palmpilot said:
We already have user fees: they're collected at the gas pump.
Click to expand...

Those taxes go into the federal general fund, not to aviation. Congress has been under no obligation to spend that money on aviation. And GA has traditionally gotten a sweet deal from the current funding setup. All us recreational GA flyers are basically getting subsidized airport and ATC services, so it doesn't surprise me that so many here are opposed to having to actually pay for things they currently get at a substantial discount.

The single biggest downside to any tax is that congress stands between the collection and final disbursement. If congress had been out of the funding loop a decade or two ago, user fee funding would have prevented (or at least greatly ameliorated) the ADS-B boon-doggle. That is because an ATC entity void of regulatory authority could not have mandated any such beast. Witness what happened with ADS-B in Canada, which has no plans to mandate ADS-B for GA aircraft. That is because Nav Canada was constrained by it not having authority to mandate such a thing and because the capital cost couldn't be justified by the user base (and Nav Canada is governed by its users: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx)
 
Jim Logajan said:
Those taxes go into the federal general fund, not to aviation. Congress has been under no obligation to spend that money on aviation. And GA has traditionally gotten a sweet deal from the current funding setup. All us recreational GA flyers are basically getting subsidized airport and ATC services, so it doesn't surprise me that so many here are opposed to having to actually pay for things they currently get at a substantial discount.
Click to expand...

The NAS system and ATC network exist to service the needs of commercial freight and airline carriers. It's not as if any of that goes away when GenAv dies. The incremental cost for us FLIBs is a pittance, and out share of fuel excise taxes more than covers our end. No one in GenAv is getting a "sweet deal," especially considering how we're getting gored by FAA regulatory BS, we're only paying our share and no one else's. An appalling thought to ever-expanding government types.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Those taxes go into the federal general fund, not to aviation. Congress has been under no obligation to spend that money on aviation. And GA has traditionally gotten a sweet deal from the current funding setup. All us recreational GA flyers are basically getting subsidized airport and ATC services, so it doesn't surprise me that so many here are opposed to having to actually pay for things they currently get at a substantial discount.
Click to expand...

If aviation fuel taxes go into the general fund, that does not mean that the revenue should not be counted as general aviation's contribution to FAA funding. GA is not responsible for how Congress spends the money. If it can be demonstrated that it is too low, I'm not opposed to raising it. It should have been set up as a percentage all along, to provide automatic adjustment for inflation. Let's just not set up fees for each use of ATC, because that would create collection inefficiencies and safety disincentives.

The single biggest downside to any tax is that congress stands between the collection and final disbursement. If congress had been out of the funding loop a decade or two ago, user fee funding would have prevented (or at least greatly ameliorated) the ADS-B boon-doggle. That is because an ATC entity void of regulatory authority could not have mandated any such beast. Witness what happened with ADS-B in Canada, which has no plans to mandate ADS-B for GA aircraft. That is because Nav Canada was constrained by it not having authority to mandate such a thing and because the capital cost couldn't be justified by the user base (and Nav Canada is governed by its users: http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/governance.aspx)
Click to expand...

I have no basis for evaluating those claims. :dunno:
 
Setting up ATC fees for each flight wil just have fewer GA planes using ATC services. Expect LOTS of scud running, and probably a good number of VFR blast offs through low ceilings. It would probably encourage folks to move their planes to I towered airports away from Class B & C areas, too, as well as avoiding them enroute.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I normally agree with your logic. In this case however I don't. The general public benefits from the aviation infrastructure that exists in this country even if they never directly use the infrastructure. The funds for maintaining and operating our airspace/airports should come from the general fund. Not user fees.
Click to expand...

Well said. The only reason another government-sponsor non-profit corp. would exist for ATC services and collecting fees is for someone's gain at the taxpayer's expense. It's a relative certainty that the "Honorable" Mr. Scheister has received some type of lobbyist's "contribution" (aka bribe) to sponsor this. In any case, if the new airspace mgmt corp or whatever it would be called loses money, then it will be subsidized by the taxpayers, and if it makes money, then that will diverted to cover other federal shortfalls (and there are never any shortage of those). Whomever gets the contract to run this will get significant sums in terms of management fees, bonuses, etc. regardless.

Turning Air traffic over to a corp. (profit or not) would be the same as turning the interstate highway system over to a corp and charging cars for the use of the road. The airspace system is for the good and use of the public, including businesses and it benefits the entire economy. Turn it over to any form of a corporate entity and the costs to users (and by extension, the customers of users) will increase, steadily, every year. The only winners will be the ones holding the contract and the politicians whose palms get greased.

Consider a non-profit healthcare system, or an insurance company, like the giant BCBS. They profit immensely and this get funneled to the CEO, CFO, COO types rather than to shareholders, as would be the case in a "for profit" business. Profit or non-profit, somebody always profits...only it is never to the benefit of the customers, who see rates and premiums continually rise every year.

The FAA isn't perfect, but they have been doing a good job for decades. Sure, improvements could be made...and are being made, but the system isn't broken and there is no reason why the federal government should turn this over to a corporation that will only raise the costs to users, just so they can skim more money.
 
Stewartb said:
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.

Perhaps, but my question is always, what do I get for the first $24K that I sent the Fed?
Click to expand...
 
DJTorrente said:
The NAS system and ATC network exist to service the needs of commercial freight and airline carriers. It's not as if any of that goes away when GenAv dies. The incremental cost for us FLIBs is a pittance, and out share of fuel excise taxes more than covers our end. No one in GenAv is getting a "sweet deal," especially considering how we're getting gored by FAA regulatory BS, we're only paying our share and no one else's. An appalling thought to ever-expanding government types.
Click to expand...

Not exactly a pittance. The majority of the instrument approach procedures in this country are at FLIP airports. They are expensive to develop and expensive to maintain. And, they cannot be used without air traffic services.
 
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?
 
DJTorrente said:
The NAS system and ATC network exist to service the needs of commercial freight and airline carriers. It's not as if any of that goes away when GenAv dies. The incremental cost for us FLIBs is a pittance, and out share of fuel excise taxes more than covers our end. No one in GenAv is getting a "sweet deal," especially considering how we're getting gored by FAA regulatory BS, we're only paying our share and no one else's. An appalling thought to ever-expanding government types.
Click to expand...

Remember the politics on this. The airlines are somewhat less concerned about small GA, and very concerned about Biz Jets. This is not the first run they've made at user fees - but due to consolidation they're larger and more powerful now.

From the airline CEO perspective, bizjets are using services that the airlines partially fund, so they see it as "subsidizing" bizjets. They also see (as they have reduced services & driven away high-revenue customers) that they might garner more revenue if they can impact the "competition". It's a classic business move - instead of substantially improving your services, try and create a barrier to competition.

The selling point for the general public is that the ATC services for airline passengers are now essentially built into a per-passenger cost - moving it to a "per aircraft" cost, the cost per passenger will go down. But the passenger won't really see a change - like with reduced fuel costs, fares will remain the same and this will create additional profit.

SbestCFII said:
Turning Air traffic over to a corp. (profit or not) would be the same as turning the interstate highway system over to a corp and charging cars for the use of the road. The airspace system is for the good and use of the public, including businesses and it benefits the entire economy. Turn it over to any form of a corporate entity and the costs to users (and by extension, the customers of users) will increase, steadily, every year. The only winners will be the ones holding the contract and the politicians whose palms get greased.

The FAA isn't perfect, but they have been doing a good job for decades. Sure, improvements could be made...and are being made, but the system isn't broken and there is no reason why the federal government should turn this over to a corporation that will only raise the costs to users, just so they can skim more money.
Click to expand...

Just a note: turning over parts of the highway system to private toll entities has been happening over the past few years, with the blessing of the government. I don't really have an objection where new roads are built (except where the contracts prohibit governments from improving parallel roads, which is a common condition), but in some cases the publicly-funded roads are being transferred to a private entity. For example, in Virginia, the private operator built 2 new lanes on the Capitol Beltway and they collect tolls - don't mind that other than government guaranteed loans. But the I-95 reversible lanes in Virginia were previously 2 lanes - the private contractor expanded them to 3 lanes and now charges tolls on ALL THREE (the two publicly funded lanes were effectively "sold" to the private contractor).

But if you're the selected contractor or an investor, this can be a very good business.

On the FAA side, I also note that the ATC union is favoring privatization....
 
If user fees are the govt's ultimate goal then so be it.
Let's do it with lets say schools to start, only pay when and if you have kids and only when they attend school.( Won't work)
Health care only when you use it (I think we used to have that) not now, it's mandatory.( People that can pay pay for those who can't or won't)
Parks,roads,etc .,etc.We all pay for things now that we never use.
A pay as you play society,welfare,only pay if you use it. HMMMM, hows that gonna work?

Maybe if they are looking for more money they should go after those who do not pay social security,have their own different than Obama care health insurance, and insane retirement plans from each position they hold or have held.
When we broke away from England we thought we had rid ourselves of our former Kings ,Lords and masters.
We have consolidated them into one group now, they are called our "polititions"

No one wants to admit it but it is the time for the U.S. to go the way of the Dodo bird. All former great societies, Great Britain, Roman, Greek, Persian and that is to rot from the inside out. Pity, nice ride for a time.
History truly does repeat itself and all humans on this planet can't seem to figure it out.
Communism didn't work. Too much corruption as leadership seems to always live better than the peons and it's a hard sell for the hardworking to see they receive the same compensation as the dumb or lazy.
Socialism doesn't work, well it does until the people paying for it runs out of money.
Monarchy,some work for awhile until the Royal family either screws up in a war,has a few dumb prince's, or get's too greedy with taxing.

Our Democracy, hmmm, sounds like a combination of all the above.
 
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.
 
Just be happy it isn't a across the board annual $500-1000 airspace use tax.
 
Lon33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The "surprise!" Is who will most likely own the "ATC Corporation." You guessed it: the airlines.
 
It's hard to dispute that users of a product should be the ones to pay for the product.
Click to expand...

Ok, then I want all those years of paying school tax back - never had kids in school (parents paid for mine).

And what to tell all those people who never drive, can they get their fed/state highway system tax back?

Many examples of this.
 
aterpster said:
The "surprise!" Is who will most likely own the "ATC Corporation." You guessed it: the airlines.
Click to expand...

Why do you say it'll be owned by the airlines? I thought the proposal was for a federally-chartered corporation, like the U.S. Postal Service, that isn't really "owned" by anyone, but does have to cover its own expenses because those would no longer be a federal budget item.

I'm not challenging your statement. I'm sincerely asking what makes you think it'll be airlines.
 
Lon33 said:
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.
Click to expand...


:no::no: :no: :no:


Lolz

First off, if we let the congress critters implement the euro style anti-GA user fees, were going to be paying WAY more per flight hour, however the services rendered to pilots are not going to be proportionately WAY better compared to before user fees, so right there user fees should be blown out of the water, and anyone who wants them should be throughly scrutinized as to their motives.


Second, you got to be super nieve to think that after user fees are implemented that the fuel tax is going away, ain't how govt works, heck look at the airlines and the fuel sure charges, they never go away.

Real world, you'd be paying a user fee ON TOP of the existing fuel tax.
 
Lon33 said:
Why do you say it'll be owned by the airlines? I thought the proposal was for a federally-chartered corporation, like the U.S. Postal Service, that isn't really "owned" by anyone, but does have to cover its own expenses because those would no longer be a federal budget item.

I'm not challenging your statement. I'm sincerely asking what makes you think it'll be airlines.
Click to expand...

Who has more money to lobby for how the fees are to be doled out, who gets preference, and everything else that goes with it? The airlines or you and I?
 
Graueradler said:
The tax on fuel is a simple and efficient way to collect tax and provides a tax proportional to your use of the system. A user fee system is inherently less efficient because a structure has to be created and maintained (and paid for) to identify each use and bill you for it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lon33 said:
Why do you say it'll be owned by the airlines? I thought the proposal was for a federally-chartered corporation, like the U.S. Postal Service, that isn't really "owned" by anyone, but does have to cover its own expenses because those would no longer be a federal budget item.

I'm not challenging your statement. I'm sincerely asking what makes you think it'll be airlines.
Click to expand...

Some statements in trade journals in the past year. They basically "own" the 10th Floor at 800 Independence Avenue as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top