ATC Budgetary Crisis Report

(this got rather long, so I will post a short version in reply).


They are at it again! We want fees they say?!

I just read the summary of a report at:

http://www.rppi.org/ps332polsum.pdf

I have not read the full report, and will likely not. Apologees to the
authors if the summary has led me astray.If not, they have an argument
unbefitting their name (reason.org).

The biggest lie comes in the middle where they propose to exempt piston
airplanes. They present good reason for this, and it's the best part of
their paper. Unfortunately, we all know that once the toll booths are up,
it will be a simple matter to start demanding pistons pay as well. After
all, a common thread of their reasoning throughout is that a 767 and an RJ
take the same amount of management, and thus cost, from ATO. A flawed and
oversimplified statement that shows they are not looking at the issues in
depth.

As we all know, the entire system is built around big iron and it's needs.
So ignoring that fact and then saying all the blips on the screen cost the
same to manage is just ignorant. I don't know how many times I have to say
this before it sinks in (but apparently the alphabets are now saying it!).
Saying that an RJ, Gulfstream or Pitts costs the same to manage as a 747 is
silly. Cars and 18 wheelers must cost the same to manage as well.
Unfortunately, it costs more to build the highways and maintain them for the
ground bound big iron as well. That's why the big iron should pay more.

-------------------------

One of the other common threads is the funding crisis. They rightly and
correctly point out many of the reasons for the lack of funding, but fail to
note incredibly simple solutions that belie the fact that its a crisis at
all.

First they rightly point out that the 7.5% tax on airline tickest is a bad
idea. As the more efficient carriers lower the overall costs of tickets,
funding drops. The tax should not be tied to the price. So, change it.
That doesn't mean we have to yell crisis and go for user fees.

Second, they make the old projected revenue argument. Nice. These are
ALWAYS WRONG! Always. They are useful tools for analysis, but lousy when
used for specifics. They assume no changes in anything except when they
assume trends continue in intensity, which is rarely the case.

----------------------

In their section rethinking how we pay for ATC, they make some other common
mistakes.

They point out that the rest of the world uses fees. I always love this
argument. It's a great reason for those who use it to leave the rest of us
here in our misery and move out of the USA. Otherwise, it's (almost) ALWAYS
WRONG!.

They give two primary reasons why fees would be good. 1) they grow with
activity (true) and 2) they would provide the basis for issuing bonds (oh
holy crap, Batman!) Bonds are where todays politicians take credit for
accomplishments while passing the costs plus interests to the next guy and
simultaneously hide their mismanagement in the past.

Which brings us to another common thread, they want to get Congress out of
the equation. While the mercurial nature of Congressional funding is
agreeably a bad thing, and they apparently have been lowering rather than
raising the budget for ATO, they are a good oversight group. Which the FAA
needs badly.

Oversight will not be provided by trying to create a "customer-provider"
relationship. They use the USPS as an example, but unfortunately for them,
its a lousy example. First, the USPS has competition. Second, it is not as
reliable as it used to be, and lastly, it has warped the cost structure in
favor of the mass mailers to the dissatisfaction of almost everyone else.
Useful and important mail is now being consistently lost or even thrown away
due to the overburdening of the system with unwanted crap. The formerly
dependable service is now useless for anything important. I may be
overstating the case, but will anyone argue that the failure rate for actual
mail is not much higher now?

The claims that fees would make the ATO more business like are simple
wishful thinking. If that's what is desired, then a business should be
hired.

-----------------------

The controller shortage, due to retirements is cited as another problem this
would supposedly help alleviate. While it may be a source of savings to
only train the new controllers on the new system after implementation, and
one could follow that reasoning to support a big investment now, it seems
kind of week. How about figuring out if the mandatory retirement age is
really such a good idea instead?

-----------------------

They dismiss the fuel tax based mostly on the fact that Congress gets the
money and they therefore can't get it used for as collatoral for a Bond
issue. Good. They also equivocate aircraft the cost of servicing planes
here. Too bad they couldn't think their way out of that paper bag.

They completely have no idea how much the fees will need to be to actually
be revenue positive. I think at $25 the net will be $5 on your 152 (heavy).
Admittedly, its a guess.

They throw out a bunch of potential cost savings, but that of course make me
ask why then, do they need more money?

The real tell here is that they think that charging for services will
somehow make more money without costing the airlines anything. Yep, its a
big fee shift. What do you guys say that we get everyone at Oshkosh to head
down to O'hare one year, just for fun! After all, a plane is a plane. They
wouldn't deny us a slot or anything, would they?


--------------------

So, who are these folks? They claim to be libertarians. I used to think I
was a libertarian, until I saw how libertarian think tanks completely bollux
up everything they try to get involved in. When it comes to business issues
they really seem to miss the mark. Oh, and the main author is an airline
consultant, pilot, etc.

So, for those of you who read my whole rant, thanks!

The short version of what the Reason.Org guys got wrong in their argument
for user fees.

There is no crisis unless you believe government projections, which are
always wrong. Its a problem, not a crisis.

Congress is no more likely to give up control than to give more money.

You can't raise the money coming in without raising the amount the airlines
pay unless you shift more costs to non airline users.

Making the collections less efficient will not help.

The whole system was set up FOR the airlines, so of course they are the ones
paying. Has anyone calculated how much fuel we waste because we have to
deal with the system that is set up for them? I waste a LOT.

Setting up user fees will not make the ATO more like a business to anyone.
It may mean the airlines get more influence, but the rest of the users will
just "get the business".

The USPS is not a great case to recommend as a model for a service where
people die due to system failures.

Piston flyers will not believe that they will not end up paying the fees.
We know its just a tactic to keep us out of the fight.