Yet more smoke on the ATC User Fees issue:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 18a -- May 2, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FUTURE OF FAA FUNDING...
You never get a bill for it, and there's no entry for it on your books
or your tax form, but that doesn't mean access to the National
Airspace System is free. And just how (perhaps more important, who's)
to pay for the increasingly expensive system was the subject of
invitation-only meetings between FAA officials and aviation industry
representatives last Monday and Tuesday. Nothing was resolved, but FAA
spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb aviation is changing and the FAA must
adapt its method of doing business to meet forecast increases in
traffic -- while revenues decrease. "To suggest that the status quo
remain in place is appallingly naive," Martin said in an exclusive
interview with AVweb. "It just doesn't add up." The FAA maintains that
a number of divergent factors have precipitated the current funding
situation.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189670

....WHO WILL PAY...
And it now appears the initial softening-up period on the potential
for user fees is over. The term was, until recently, banished from the
FAA lexicon, but the volatile verbiage is now clearly on the table.
"Some groups have some very strong views when terms like 'user fees'
are used," Martin acknowledged. At the same time, he insists they are
not a foregone conclusion. "I don't think there's any predetermined
direction to go in this," he added. But he did say the intention is to
dissolve the Trust Fund at the end of the current budget-allocation
period in 2007, and that the new system that replaces it will need
more revenue. "There is no revenue [now] for the FAA that matches up
with what it costs," he said. And, as he predicted, the U-word
provoked a voluble response.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189671

....FEES CAN BE COSTLY TOO...
While some of the attendees, Boyer included, came away with the
impression that user fees are the favored option, the National
Business Aviation Association's position is that the current system of
fuel taxes is perhaps the most fair. "There's no simpler and more
accurate way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the
system than to measure the amount of fuel burned," President Ed Bolen
said. He also noted that the introduction of user fees would require
establishment of another bureaucracy to administer, bill and collect
the money. He claimed it cost some user-fee-based agencies in Europe
up to $125 to process each transaction. And while opinions varied on
revenue creation, there was virtual unanimity on the need for the FAA
to get control of spending.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189672

....CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) weighed in
with a 52-page analysis of not only the FAA's funding situation but a
comparison with the way other countries fund and manage their aviation
systems. NATCA's broad conclusion is that aviation affects virtually
all facets of modern life and should therefore be a shared burden. The
report, authored by NATCA Executive Vice President Ruth Marlin,
acknowledges that direct consumers of aviation activities (i.e.,
passengers and cargo customers) should pay a significant portion of
the FAA's costs but "they should not be required to fund the entire
cost as there is a portion of the costs that is clearly in the public
interest and therefore appropriately funded by the general treasury."
The FAA's Martin said it's a simplistic argument considering the other
pressures facing the government.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#189673