Jet-A users get screwed

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

U.S. Private-Jet Fuel Taxes Rise 65% in Senate Accord

By John Hughes

April 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. business-jet owners would pay 65 percent more
in fuel taxes to finance federal air-traffic control upgrades, under an
agreement among Senate leaders.

The levy would increase to 36 cents a gallon from 21.8 cents now, under the
accord announced in a statement today in Washington by Senator Jay
Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat. Airline passenger fees and taxes
wouldn't rise, he said.

The agreement between Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate aviation
subcommittee, and Montana Democrat Max Baucus, who runs the Senate Finance
Committee, ends a seven-month standoff that stalled an aviation-funding
bill. Today's deal clears the way for an April 28 vote to bring the bill to
the full Senate.

Rockefeller wanted to double fuel taxes for corporate aircraft while cutting
fees for airlines, which he said paid disproportionately for aviation
services. Instead, he settled for the smaller boost, so that small-jet
owners will pay 5 percent of federal aviation costs, up from 3 percent.

``This agreement is a good down payment toward ending the growing inequities
that exist between airline passengers and corporate jet users,'' Rockefeller
said in the statement.

The House approved its version of the funding legislation, which would
finance the Federal Aviation Administration through 2011, on Sept. 20.

The House bill, which would boost business jet-fuel taxes to 35.9 cents a
gallon, and the final Senate proposal would need to be reconciled in a
conference committee before being sent to President George W. Bush for his
signature.

Bush Veto Threat

The Bush administration threatened in June to veto the House legislation,
saying it doesn't meet needs such as creating user fees to pass on even
higher charges to business-jet operators. U.S. airlines backed the Bush
position on user fees.

Today's Senate agreement means that the user fees, which business-jet owners
viewed as more burdensome than higher fuel taxes, are in neither version of
the legislation.

The National Business Aviation Association, a Washington- based trade group
for business-jet operators, said its members support funding the FAA and
improving air-traffic control technology ``with a reasonable fuel tax.''

``We applaud the continuing work Congress has done on this very important
issue,'' Ed Bolen, the association's chief executive officer, said in a
statement.

Airlines' View

An airline trade group called the tax increase for business-jet users ``a
step in the right direction.''

``It still falls short of the costs they impose on the system,'' James May,
president of the Washington-based Air Transport Association, said in an
e-mailed statement. ``We will remain engaged with these committees as the
remainder of the package is developed.''

While losing the battle for user fees, airlines gained other benefits in the
Senate legislation, which doesn't increase their costs. The House version
raises airline passenger ticket charges for airport improvements to as much
as $7 from $4.50, which would generate $1.1 billion a year.

The Senate bill also creates a new $400 million FAA account dedicated to
upgrading the air-traffic control system. Raising the excise tax on fuel
used by private jet owners will bring in an additional $240 million a year.
************************************************** **************************************************

As always with tax laws, "divide and conquer" is the order of the day. The
strategy is to get each segment of aviation pointing at each other, so that
we all forget the fact that there is NO reason to give the Feds a nickel
more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[skym]

> As always with tax laws, "divide and conquer" is the order of the day. *The
> strategy is to get each segment of aviation pointing at each other, so that
> we all forget the fact that there is NO reason to give the Feds a nickel
> more.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Well, I agree that we don't want to see costs go up. Aside from
complaining, what do you suggest as a solution?

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> As always with tax laws, "divide and conquer" is the order of the day.
> The strategy is to get each segment of aviation pointing at each other,
> so that we all forget the fact that there is NO reason to give the Feds
> a nickel more.

What is your basis for saying this? Do you have data that shows that
aviation today is contributing more to the Feds than we are getting back
in services? I haven't seen much data on that, but what I saw some
years back showed just the opposite to be true. I know that for the
small airports near me, there is no way that the revenues these airports
generate come even close to supporting the airport. The revenues don't
even support the operating costs of the airport let alone the capital costs.

It isn't an equation I like to admit, but it certainly is the reality.
One can probably make the same case for highways though so I'm not sure
how best to form an argument here, but we need to be very careful when
we suggest that we are getting more that we pay for as I just don't
think that is true for most aspects of aviation.

Matt

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> What is your basis for saying this? Do you have data that shows that
> aviation today is contributing more to the Feds than we are getting back
> in services? I haven't seen much data on that, but what I saw some years
> back showed just the opposite to be true.

This is the 600 pound gorilla in the room at every anti-airport,
anti-aviation meeting, and, as pilots and aviation supporters, we must be
prepared to counter these assumptions. We also must counter some very
ingrained beliefs amongst the electorate.

Sadly, I know what I'm talking about. (I wish I didn't.) As the founder of
my airport support group, Friends of Iowa City Airport, and also my AOPA
airport support network volunteer, I'm involved with this debate every day.
Here are a few thoughts...

- We must counter the assumption that *of course* taxes must go up, because
that's what they always do. Citizens are so used to this preposterous
state of affairs that they don't even question it anymore.

Taxes DON'T have to go up, nor should they. We, the people, should not be
condemned to the concept that we must eternally pay a larger percentage of
our income to government. We must reassert our control of this process.

- We must counter the attitude that "Oh, they can afford to pay it." This
is the classic "divide and conquer" theory of tax implementation that our
government has used successfully against its citizens since 1913 or so, when
the first income tax was enacted. By pitting one group against another,
they are able to obscure the reasons for raising the tax in the first place.
It's a classic, time-honored ploy that over time has resulted in each of us
paying over half of what we earn to our overseers.

- Airways and airports are a public trust, not a private enterprise, same as
highways and roads. My airport costs $112K per year in direct city taxpayer
support, and (according to a 2000 Iowa State University study) brings $5.5
million annually into the local economy. Sounds like a pretty damned good
investment to me. Multiply that times thousands of airports, and you've
spot-lighted the underlying reasons for supporting general aviation.

- Over the last 70 years the federal government (through first the CAA, now
the FAA) has incrementally expanded its control over the the system, some
would say unnecessarily. There is little question that the FAA (as with
most of our federal government) is bloated, top-heavy, slow moving, and
inefficient. Instead of enacting another huge increase in Jet-A taxation to
support this enormous entity, demand efficiency.

These are just a few things to talk about at your next cocktail party. I
don't have time right now to expand these arguments (I've got to head off to
work here shortly), but there are many other tactics to use when confronted
with anti-airport, anti-GA rhetoric. Many are philosophical, many are
factual, and many involve contrasting wasteful government spending habits
against what is actually spent on aviation.

The public is generally ignorant about what GA does for their communities.
If we want to continue to have airports to land at, it's our duty to spread
the good word.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> What is your basis for saying this? Do you have data that shows that
>> aviation today is contributing more to the Feds than we are getting
>> back in services? I haven't seen much data on that, but what I saw
>> some years back showed just the opposite to be true.
>
> This is the 600 pound gorilla in the room at every anti-airport,
> anti-aviation meeting, and, as pilots and aviation supporters, we must
> be prepared to counter these assumptions. We also must counter some
> very ingrained beliefs amongst the electorate.
>
> Sadly, I know what I'm talking about. (I wish I didn't.) As the
> founder of my airport support group, Friends of Iowa City Airport, and
> also my AOPA airport support network volunteer, I'm involved with this
> debate every day. Here are a few thoughts...
>
> - We must counter the assumption that *of course* taxes must go up,
> because that's what they always do. Citizens are so used to this
> preposterous state of affairs that they don't even question it anymore.
>
> Taxes DON'T have to go up, nor should they. We, the people, should not
> be condemned to the concept that we must eternally pay a larger
> percentage of our income to government. We must reassert our control
> of this process.
>
> - We must counter the attitude that "Oh, they can afford to pay it."
> This is the classic "divide and conquer" theory of tax implementation
> that our government has used successfully against its citizens since
> 1913 or so, when the first income tax was enacted. By pitting one group
> against another, they are able to obscure the reasons for raising the
> tax in the first place. It's a classic, time-honored ploy that over time
> has resulted in each of us paying over half of what we earn to our
> overseers.

This a different and broader discussion than just GA.


> - Airways and airports are a public trust, not a private enterprise,
> same as highways and roads. My airport costs $112K per year in direct
> city taxpayer support, and (according to a 2000 Iowa State University
> study) brings $5.5 million annually into the local economy. Sounds
> like a pretty damned good investment to me. Multiply that times
> thousands of airports, and you've spot-lighted the underlying reasons
> for supporting general aviation.

It only costs $112K annually because the capital costs are largely
subsidized by the federal government. If the TRUE cost of the airport
were being paid by the local government, it would cost a LOT more than
what you have quoted. Do you know what one decent sized runway costs?
Do you know what the amortization of that is per year assuming even a 30
year runway life?

I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in
data driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs
$112K per year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.


> - Over the last 70 years the federal government (through first the CAA,
> now the FAA) has incrementally expanded its control over the the system,
> some would say unnecessarily. There is little question that the FAA (as
> with most of our federal government) is bloated, top-heavy, slow moving,
> and inefficient. Instead of enacting another huge increase in Jet-A
> taxation to support this enormous entity, demand efficiency.
>
> These are just a few things to talk about at your next cocktail party.
> I don't have time right now to expand these arguments (I've got to head
> off to work here shortly), but there are many other tactics to use when
> confronted with anti-airport, anti-GA rhetoric. Many are philosophical,
> many are factual, and many involve contrasting wasteful government
> spending habits against what is actually spent on aviation.
>
> The public is generally ignorant about what GA does for their
> communities. If we want to continue to have airports to land at, it's
> our duty to spread the good word.

Absolutely, the benefits should be communicated widely and often.
however, we shouldn't try to hide the real cost of the airport either as
that simply makes us look like financial amateurs.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 11:08 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> What is your basis for saying this? Do you have data that shows that
> >> aviation today is contributing more to the Feds than we are getting
> >> back in services? I haven't seen much data on that, but what I saw
> >> some years back showed just the opposite to be true.
>
> > This is the 600 pound gorilla in the room at every anti-airport,
> > anti-aviation meeting, and, as pilots and aviation supporters, we must
> > be prepared to counter these assumptions. We also must counter some
> > very ingrained beliefs amongst the electorate.
>
> > Sadly, I know what I'm talking about. (I wish I didn't.) As the
> > founder of my airport support group, Friends of Iowa City Airport, and
> > also my AOPA airport support network volunteer, I'm involved with this
> > debate every day. Here are a few thoughts...
>
> > - We must counter the assumption that *of course* taxes must go up,
> > because that's what they always do. Citizens are so used to this
> > preposterous state of affairs that they don't even question it anymore.
>
> > Taxes DON'T have to go up, nor should they. We, the people, should not
> > be condemned to the concept that we must eternally pay a larger
> > percentage of our income to government. We must reassert our control
> > of this process.
>
> > - We must counter the attitude that "Oh, they can afford to pay it."
> > This is the classic "divide and conquer" theory of tax implementation
> > that our government has used successfully against its citizens since
> > 1913 or so, when the first income tax was enacted. By pitting one group
> > against another, they are able to obscure the reasons for raising the
> > tax in the first place. It's a classic, time-honored ploy that over time
> > has resulted in each of us paying over half of what we earn to our
> > overseers.
>
> This a different and broader discussion than just GA.
>
> > - Airways and airports are a public trust, not a private enterprise,
> > same as highways and roads. My airport costs $112K per year in direct
> > city taxpayer support, and (according to a 2000 Iowa State University
> > study) brings $5.5 million annually into the local economy. Sounds
> > like a pretty damned good investment to me. Multiply that times
> > thousands of airports, and you've spot-lighted the underlying reasons
> > for supporting general aviation.
>
> It only costs $112K annually because the capital costs are largely
> subsidized by the federal government. If the TRUE cost of the airport
> were being paid by the local government, it would cost a LOT more than
> what you have quoted. Do you know what one decent sized runway costs?
> Do you know what the amortization of that is per year assuming even a 30
> year runway life?
>
> I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in
> data driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs
> $112K per year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.
>
>
>
> > - Over the last 70 years the federal government (through first the CAA,
> > now the FAA) has incrementally expanded its control over the the system,
> > some would say unnecessarily. There is little question that the FAA (as
> > with most of our federal government) is bloated, top-heavy, slow moving,
> > and inefficient. Instead of enacting another huge increase in Jet-A
> > taxation to support this enormous entity, demand efficiency.
>
> > These are just a few things to talk about at your next cocktail party.
> > I don't have time right now to expand these arguments (I've got to head
> > off to work here shortly), but there are many other tactics to use when
> > confronted with anti-airport, anti-GA rhetoric. Many are philosophical,
> > many are factual, and many involve contrasting wasteful government
> > spending habits against what is actually spent on aviation.
>
> > The public is generally ignorant about what GA does for their
> > communities. If we want to continue to have airports to land at, it's
> > our duty to spread the good word.
>
> Absolutely, the benefits should be communicated widely and often.
> however, we shouldn't try to hide the real cost of the airport either as
> that simply makes us look like financial amateurs.
>
> Matt

I wouldn't want to hide the true cost of anything, but I would like a
level playing field.

None of the streets in my city pay for themselves--they all get paid
for by property taxes and other taxes, even if the property owner
walks and rides a bike.

No street generates its own revenue. But they all enable revenue to
be generated by the people and business that use them. Try having a
community with no streets.

Then, why does an airport have to "pay for itself"? It is a
transportation center, a business center, and it enables other
businesses to flourish. Those businesses and people pay the taxes
that support the community in general, as well as the airport.

The federal government supports lots of crap (The latest agriculture
bill has millions for thoroughbred horse racing. Go figger.) As long
as they tax me to support that, it's only fair to tax others to
support airports.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in data
> driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs $112K per
> year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.

The direct, taxpayer support of Iowa City voters for our airport is $112K
per year, and they reap $5.5 million in economic return. Those are the
facts.

Now, if you want to talk about state airport expenditures, like grants for
taxiway paving and hangar construction, that's another story. At our
airport these are fairly rare (too rare, most airport users would assert)
and are similar to what our state gummint spends maintaining and building
other gummint structures and facilities. Our runways haven't been repaved
since WWII, so I figure the state has gotten their money's worth out of
them.

Now, if you want to talk FEDERAL expenditures, those are REALLY rare, and
are so laced with stupidity, pork and lard as to drive strong men to drink.
For example, Rwy 25 here at KIOW has finally been extended 500 feet, and is
now slated to open in July.

This project has been in the works since (I kid you not) WWII. It was first
proposed sixty years ago, and denied or delayed countless times. Every time
it was proposed, new, more stringent regulations were in force, so all
previous EPA studies were invalidated and had to be redone -- at huge
expense.

If you add up the numerous "environmental impact statements", "obstruction
mitigation studies", and all the other ridiculous crap that the FAA
requires, that stretch of pavement becomes the single most expensive piece
of concrete in the history of the world. I can personally count several
MILLION dollars for that runway extension, which you or I would have had
paved for a tiny fraction of that...

In fact, if the interstate system was paved using the same criterion as our
runway extension, we STILL wouldn't have ten miles of it finished, some 50
years after it was begun.

Airport support is a complicated subject.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:mP9Rj.139404$yE1.14402@attbi_s21:

>> I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in
>> data driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs
>> $112K per year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.
>
> The direct, taxpayer support of Iowa City voters for our airport is
> $112K per year, and they reap $5.5 million in economic return. Those
> are the facts.
>
> Now, if you want to talk about state airport expenditures, like grants
> for taxiway paving and hangar construction, that's another story. At
> our airport these are fairly rare (too rare, most airport users would
> assert) and are similar to what our state gummint spends maintaining
> and building other gummint structures and facilities. Our runways
> haven't been repaved since WWII, so I figure the state has gotten
> their money's worth out of them.
>
> Now, if you want to talk FEDERAL expenditures, those are REALLY rare,
> and are so laced with stupidity, pork and lard as to drive strong men
> to drink. For example, Rwy 25 here at KIOW has finally been extended
> 500 feet, and is now slated to open in July.
>
> This project has been in the works since (I kid you not) WWII. It was
> first proposed sixty years ago, and denied or delayed countless times.
> Every time it was proposed, new, more stringent regulations were in
> force, so all previous EPA studies were invalidated and had to be
> redone -- at huge expense.
>
> If you add up the numerous "environmental impact statements",
> "obstruction mitigation studies", and all the other ridiculous crap
> that the FAA requires, that stretch of pavement becomes the single
> most expensive piece of concrete in the history of the world. I can
> personally count several MILLION dollars for that runway extension,
> which you or I would have had paved for a tiny fraction of that...
>
> In fact, if the interstate system was paved using the same criterion
> as our runway extension, we STILL wouldn't have ten miles of it
> finished, some 50 years after it was begun.
>
> Airport support is a complicated subject.

And obviously way over your head.


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:mP9Rj.139404$yE1.14402@attbi_s21...
>> I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in data
>> driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs $112K per
>> year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.
>
> The direct, taxpayer support of Iowa City voters for our airport is $112K
> per year, and they reap $5.5 million in economic return. Those are the
> facts.

No...that's a "false alternative".

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> No...that's a "false alternative".

In what way?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> And obviously way over your head.
>
>
> Bertie

Wow, yeah, you got him there Squirty. Really good point.


.......what was it?

God you're stupid.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:KXbRj.58533$QC.11776
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> And obviously way over your head.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wow, yeah, you got him there Squirty. Really good point.
>
>
> ......what was it?


Over your head, obviously.
>
> God you're stupid.
>
>

Nope.

Bertie
>

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:YwaRj.139457$yE1.111620@attbi_s21...
>> No...that's a "false alternative".
>
> In what way?

It's a classic breech of logic - it portrays that X would not happen at all
if not Y. It deliberately confuses a _convenience_ with a _necessity_.

The number is likely correct, but it's relatively meaningless.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:YwaRj.139457$yE1.111620@attbi_s21...
>> No...that's a "false alternative".
>
> In what way?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:YwaRj.139457$yE1.111620@attbi_s21...
>> No...that's a "false alternative".
>
> In what way?

See also: the "broken window fallacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy (Shifting economic costs)

[RST Engineering]

Wow, short pants that can think for themselves. What a concept!!!


>
> It's a classic breech of logic

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in
>> data driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs
>> $112K per year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.
>
> The direct, taxpayer support of Iowa City voters for our airport is
> $112K per year, and they reap $5.5 million in economic return. Those
> are the facts.

So, Iowa City taxpayers pay no state and federal taxes? Wow, I'm going
to move out! How are the housing prices??


> Now, if you want to talk about state airport expenditures, like grants
> for taxiway paving and hangar construction, that's another story. At
> our airport these are fairly rare (too rare, most airport users would
> assert) and are similar to what our state gummint spends maintaining and
> building other gummint structures and facilities. Our runways haven't
> been repaved since WWII, so I figure the state has gotten their money's
> worth out of them.
>
> Now, if you want to talk FEDERAL expenditures, those are REALLY rare,
> and are so laced with stupidity, pork and lard as to drive strong men to
> drink. For example, Rwy 25 here at KIOW has finally been extended 500
> feet, and is now slated to open in July.

So where do these funds come from since Iowa City residents don't pay
state and local taxes? Are you saying that a PA resident like me is
paying for your airport??


> This project has been in the works since (I kid you not) WWII. It was
> first proposed sixty years ago, and denied or delayed countless times.
> Every time it was proposed, new, more stringent regulations were in
> force, so all previous EPA studies were invalidated and had to be redone
> -- at huge expense.
>
> If you add up the numerous "environmental impact statements",
> "obstruction mitigation studies", and all the other ridiculous crap that
> the FAA requires, that stretch of pavement becomes the single most
> expensive piece of concrete in the history of the world. I can
> personally count several MILLION dollars for that runway extension,
> which you or I would have had paved for a tiny fraction of that...
>
> In fact, if the interstate system was paved using the same criterion as
> our runway extension, we STILL wouldn't have ten miles of it finished,
> some 50 years after it was begun.
>
> Airport support is a complicated subject.

Yes, that is a fact.

Matt