ATC expenditures on GA. Was: Accident Prone Pilots

"Skylune" wrote:
You will see that GA is the most heavily subsidized form of
transportation in the country. By far. And avgas taxes contribute
next to nothing to the AV trust fund.

Are you ready for some serious numbers and analysis Skylune?

Assume for the moment that the burden on air traffic services is roughly
proportional to the number of IFR hours flown.

Using statistics from [1], there were 28.1 million hours flown by GA and
air taxi service in FY 2004. The number of IFR flight plan hours flown
(see table 4.7 in [2]) was 9.7 M, or 35% of the total. According to [3],
the number of flight hours for large air carriers was 1996 was 11.9 M,
must of which would likely have been flown IFR. (I could not find
comparable data for 2004 for large air carriers, but the tables in [4]
indicate 1996 GA hours were 26.9 M hours. Assuming the ratio of GA to
air carrier hours stayed about the same, the number of IFR hours for
large air carriers in 2004 is probably 11.9*(28.1/26.9) ~= 12.4 M
hours.)

Likewise, table 1.6 in [4] suggests that personal flights account for
~35% of the 9.7 M IFR hours flown, or ~3.4 M hours.

So crunching all the numbers, the "burden" to ATC seems to fall out like
this:

IFR flight hours requiring ATC attention:

Personal GA flights: ~3.4 million flight hours.
Large air carrier flights: ~12.4 million flight hours.
Other GA and taxi service flights: ~6.3 million flight hours.

So if my math and assumptions are correct (probably not), then GA
personal flights "use" ~15% of ATC resources. The FAA 2004 FY budget [5]
indicates the amount spent on air traffic services was ~$6,000M. A 15%
fraction yields ~$900M. According to the reference you supplied,
actual avgas tax revenues for were ~$178M. The gas tax would have to
increase by at least a factor of 5 to cover the ATC expenses for just
the personal flights.

Or looked at another way, ATC appears to expend ~$265 for each GA IFR
flight hour and ~$411 for each air carrier flight hour.

My own conclusions:

The FAA ATC system is obscenely inefficient. Removing personal GA
flights entirely from the skies would reduce the air traffic service
load only by about 15%. Setting user fees proportional to alleged actual
burden would effectively remove most GA flights and the additional tax
burden would end up costing the airlines that much more. Any attempt by
airlines to offload their tax burden to GA would fail because the money
simply isn't there.

The first step appears to be to reduce the size and cost of the FAA. It
is spending an astounding ~$30,000/year on each aircraft in the GA fleet
(i.e. ~$6000M/~200k aircraft). Or about $750,000/year on each aircraft
in the airline fleet (i.e. ~$6000M/~8k aircraft).

[1] http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...iation/CY2004/

[2] http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...FAA_2004_4.xls

[3] http://amelia.db.erau.edu/onlinebkup/RAC1033.pdf

[4] http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...FAA_2004_1.xls

[5] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...a/BIB-2004.pdf

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Skylune" wrote:
You will see that GA is the most heavily subsidized form of
transportation in the country. By far. And avgas taxes contribute
next to nothing to the AV trust fund.

Are you ready for some serious numbers and analysis Skylune?

Assume for the moment that the burden on air traffic services is roughly
proportional to the number of IFR hours flown.

Using statistics from [1], there were 28.1 million hours flown by GA and
air taxi service in FY 2004. The number of IFR flight plan hours flown
(see table 4.7 in [2]) was 9.7 M, or 35% of the total. According to [3],
the number of flight hours for large air carriers was 1996 was 11.9 M,
must of which would likely have been flown IFR. (I could not find
comparable data for 2004 for large air carriers, but the tables in [4]
indicate 1996 GA hours were 26.9 M hours. Assuming the ratio of GA to
air carrier hours stayed about the same, the number of IFR hours for
large air carriers in 2004 is probably 11.9*(28.1/26.9) ~= 12.4 M
hours.)

Likewise, table 1.6 in [4] suggests that personal flights account for
~35% of the 9.7 M IFR hours flown, or ~3.4 M hours.

So crunching all the numbers, the "burden" to ATC seems to fall out like
this:

IFR flight hours requiring ATC attention:

Personal GA flights: ~3.4 million flight hours.
Large air carrier flights: ~12.4 million flight hours.
Other GA and taxi service flights: ~6.3 million flight hours.

So if my math and assumptions are correct (probably not), then GA
personal flights "use" ~15% of ATC resources. The FAA 2004 FY budget [5]
indicates the amount spent on air traffic services was ~$6,000M. A 15%
fraction yields ~$900M. According to the reference you supplied,
actual avgas tax revenues for were ~$178M. The gas tax would have to
increase by at least a factor of 5 to cover the ATC expenses for just
the personal flights.

Or looked at another way, ATC appears to expend ~$265 for each GA IFR
flight hour and ~$411 for each air carrier flight hour.

My own conclusions:

The FAA ATC system is obscenely inefficient. Removing personal GA
flights entirely from the skies would reduce the air traffic service
load only by about 15%. Setting user fees proportional to alleged actual
burden would effectively remove most GA flights and the additional tax
burden would end up costing the airlines that much more. Any attempt by
airlines to offload their tax burden to GA would fail because the money
simply isn't there.

The first step appears to be to reduce the size and cost of the FAA. It
is spending an astounding ~$30,000/year on each aircraft in the GA fleet
(i.e. ~$6000M/~200k aircraft). Or about $750,000/year on each aircraft
in the airline fleet (i.e. ~$6000M/~8k aircraft).


I can't wait for any ATC guy or girl to respond to this...... The
numbers look VERY real to me and spell a sad story for the FAA and
their operation. What we really need is two sets of fuel pumps at
every airport. If we want to fly VFR and not use flight following or a
towered field then we can buy 100LL without the taxes added. If we want
to go with on a flight using the FAA services then bill us for the
additional perks, nothing more, nothing less......


Flame suit on.........


Lil ben..

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:53:29 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Setting user fees proportional to alleged actual burden would effectively
emove most GA flights

Mr. Poole used to advocate exempting GA from user fees if ATC were
privatized. I haven't hears his position lately. Is this it?


http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...user%20fees%22
We recommend that only that small segment of general aviation
which makes extensive use of air traffic control services—jets and
turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be represented on the
stakeholder board. The large majority of piston-powered general
aviation would continue to pay the aviation fuel tax, which would
help to support the airport grants program. And we consider the
Flight Service Station program used by general aviation to be
basically a safety function, which should be paid for out of FAA’s
safety budget; in no cases should there be user fees for those
services.



So, it appears that ATC user fees are to be used to fund ATC
modernization and privatization while the existing ATC system remains
in place during construction and implementation. That would mean that
the ticket and fuel taxes would remain in place as usual, and
ADDOITIONAL user fees for existing ATC services would imposed.

Here's the blurb:

http://www.reason.org/atcreform35.shtml
Why the "No Funding Crunch" Claim is Wrong

Opponents of the shift from aviation taxes to ATC user fees
continue to claim that there is no ATC funding crunch. Last year
this was the mantra of controllers' union NATCA. Today the same
song is being sung by the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association. In
forum after forum, Phil Boyer and Andy Cebula keep repeating that
airline yields are rising, the Aviation Trust Fund will have a
growing surplus, and the status quo is just fine, thank you. What
are they leaving out?

First, on the question of airline yields, they are seizing on a
short-term trend that is very unlikely to be sustained. Since
bottoming out at an all-time low in 2005, yields have been
increasing for the past year. But they are still 16% below the
level of early 2001. More important, the overwhelming long-term
trend, over many decades, is of ever-declining yields. That trend
was already evident prior to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,
but the resulting creation of low-cost carriers reinforced it, by
making the industry far more competitive. My colleague Vaughn
Cordle, of Airline Forecasts Inc., expects yields to fall in 2007,
resuming their long-term downward trend. He points out that
airlines have gone through a massive restructuring that has
significantly reduced their costs, but those savings have not yet
been passed along due to high fuel costs. Moreover, airlines right
now are operating at historically high load factors, which are not
likely to be sustained once more capacity enters the market,
probably by next year.

But the larger point is one that I made last month, when the
JPDO's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee
released its cost estimate for implementing the next-generation
system. Their best estimate is that it will cost $25 billion over
20 years, over and above what FAA can realistically project their
current funding sources to provide. Don't forget, they have to
operate and maintain the existing legacy ATC system while
developing, testing, and implementing the new one. When AOPA and
others talk about Trust Fund surpluses, that is before the cost of
NGATS!

The most businesslike way to come up with $25 billion is to issue
revenue bonds, to be repaid by a reliable stream of user-fee
revenues over the lifetime of the new system. That is why, contra
AOPA, user fees are essential to bringing about the
next-generation system.



A compilation of Reason's air traffic control research and commentary
is available at http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/index.shtml.

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...user%20fees%22
"We recommend that only that small segment of general aviation
which makes extensive use of air traffic control services—jets and
turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be represented on the
stakeholder board..."

So now he advocates that small GA not be represented? We'll continue to pay fuel tax, but won't have any say in ATC services. That looks like the first step in a freeze-out.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:42:14 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...user%20fees%22
"We recommend that only that small segment of general aviation
which makes extensive use of air traffic control services—jets and
turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be represented on the
stakeholder board..."

So now he advocates that small GA not be represented? We'll continue
to pay fuel tax, but won't have any say in ATC services. That looks
like the first step in a freeze-out.


Boyer said it was a divide-and-conquer strategy. He also indicated
that ATC privatization was an attempt by the airlines to curb GA jets
from encroaching on their 1st class business by increasing costs for
them.

If the TSA continues to make air travel so unattractive, the projected
increase in air traffic may be quite a way away. The whole government
privatization fad smells to me like an attempt by big business to get
their hands on our tax dollars.

Jose wrote:
http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...tion%20exempt%
20user%20fees%22 "We recommend that only that small segment of
general aviation which makes extensive use of air traffic control
services—jets and turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be
represented on the stakeholder board..."

So now he advocates that small GA not be represented? We'll continue
to pay fuel tax, but won't have any say in ATC services. That looks
like the first step in a freeze-out.

Poole mentions representation later in the document (pgs 31 & 32):

"In Canada, where GA activity looks a lot more like American GA flying
than European flying, Nav Canada decided to implement a form of GA user
fee when it took over air traffic control as a user-controlled nonprofit
company. The underlying rationale was, as noted earlier, the principle
of “user pay means user say.” As an important category of airspace user,
GA wanted a place at the table (i.e., a seat on the board), and you did
not get to say unless you agreed to pay. But for a variety of reasons,
including concerns about both safety and affordability, the type of
charge agreed upon for most GA aircraft is a flat annual charge
proportional to the weight of the plane (ranging from C$60 for a plane
of less than two metric tons to C$210 for one weighting three metric
tons). That approach has been generally accepted by the Canadian GA
community.

On the other hand, since a large proportion of GA flight activity does
not make use of ATC services, a fairness question arises about charging
such a fee to all GA aircraft. The GA fuel tax goes into the Aviation
Trust Fund, which supports the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in
addition to the ATC system. Since all public-use airports are eligible
for AIP grants, most GA pilots do benefit from AIP even if they do not
benefit from ATC. This provides an argument for retaining the GA fuel
tax, as providing a better nexus between payment and benefits received
for the average GA pilot than would an annual ATC fee."

I would assume from the above that since Poole advocates GA paying a
portion of its way, it still gets a say.

Unfortunately the Reason paper doesn't touch on the issue of whether the
FAA's current expenditures are reasonable. It does mention that Canada's
switch allegedly prompted a tight fiscal policy and also mentions
advanced technology promises dramatic productivity increases - with
presumed cost reductions. But that's about it.