Weight-based User Fee Might Incentivize Smaller Planes

Those advocating Air Traffic Control user fees are revealed in this
document:


http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05333sp.html

National Airspace System:

Experts' Views on Improving the U.S. Air Traffic Control
Modernization Program

April 13, 2005.


The suggested initiatives included replacing taxes with user fees
based on the cost of air traffic services, allowing the ATO to
manage those fees, and giving the ATO borrowing and leasing
authority. The panelists advocating these kinds of initiatives
said the initiatives would help the ATO address the predicted
funding shortfall and free it from the constraints of the federal
budget process, as well as enable the ATO to pay for the technical
expertise and the technologies it needs to deliver efficient,
cost-effective service. In addition, these panelists said,
removing the ATO's funding from the appropriations process would
establish a direct relationship between the ATO and its customers
that could promote efficiencies and improve service. According to
these panelists, customers would monitor the ATO's spending to
ensure that the ATO addressed their priorities, and the ATO would
provide better service because it would try to please the
customers rather than the appropriators who now fund its
activities. Restructuring the financing of the modernization
program could streamline and strengthen the ATO's management, they
said. According to these panelists, this kind of financing
arrangement would allow program managers to make decisions
quickly, on the basis of business rather than political
considerations, and could provide the ATO with the management
tools needed to fully execute its mission. While not disagreeing
with the potential benefits of the proposed structural changes,
other panelists cautioned against investing too much effort in
them, since, in the view of these other panelists, the changes
were, for the most part, politically infeasible. Moreover, as one
panelist noted, even if the structural changes were implemented,
it would be important to consider what problems they were creating
as well as what problems they were addressing. He suggested,
for example, that a weight-based user fee might incentivize
smaller planes and more planes, thereby having the unintended
effect of increasing demands on the ATC system's capacity.
Finally, one panelist said, restructuring could resolve the
conflict of interest inherent in FAA's dual responsibility as the
regulator and the operator of air traffic services.

User fees are set by the agency, services that are required
for the convenience of the government are priced by the
government so that all costs are covered. When the number
of users drops, the cost for the agency does not go down
because the equipment and GSA employees are there, so the
cost per user goes up.

User fees will kill aviation. When tax is based on fuel
consumption, the government is forced to live with the
available money, user fees will increase, just bas stamps
will soon cost $0.42.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Those advocating Air Traffic Control user fees are
revealed in this
| document:
|
|
| http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05333sp.html
|
| National Airspace System:
|
| Experts' Views on Improving the U.S. Air Traffic
Control
| Modernization Program
|
| April 13, 2005.
|
|
| The suggested initiatives included replacing taxes with
user fees
| based on the cost of air traffic services, allowing the
ATO to
| manage those fees, and giving the ATO borrowing and
leasing
| authority. The panelists advocating these kinds of
initiatives
| said the initiatives would help the ATO address the
predicted
| funding shortfall and free it from the constraints of
the federal
| budget process, as well as enable the ATO to pay for
the technical
| expertise and the technologies it needs to deliver
efficient,
| cost-effective service. In addition, these panelists
said,
| removing the ATO's funding from the appropriations
process would
| establish a direct relationship between the ATO and its
customers
| that could promote efficiencies and improve service.
According to
| these panelists, customers would monitor the ATO's
spending to
| ensure that the ATO addressed their priorities, and the
ATO would
| provide better service because it would try to please
the
| customers rather than the appropriators who now fund
its
| activities. Restructuring the financing of the
modernization
| program could streamline and strengthen the ATO's
management, they
| said. According to these panelists, this kind of
financing
| arrangement would allow program managers to make
decisions
| quickly, on the basis of business rather than political
| considerations, and could provide the ATO with the
management
| tools needed to fully execute its mission. While not
disagreeing
| with the potential benefits of the proposed structural
changes,
| other panelists cautioned against investing too much
effort in
| them, since, in the view of these other panelists, the
changes
| were, for the most part, politically infeasible.
Moreover, as one
| panelist noted, even if the structural changes were
implemented,
| it would be important to consider what problems they
were creating
| as well as what problems they were addressing. He
suggested,
| for example, that a weight-based user fee might
incentivize
| smaller planes and more planes, thereby having the
unintended
| effect of increasing demands on the ATC system's
capacity.
| Finally, one panelist said, restructuring could resolve
the
| conflict of interest inherent in FAA's dual
responsibility as the
| regulator and the operator of air traffic services.

According to
these panelists, customers would monitor the ATO's spending to
ensure that the ATO addressed their priorities, and the ATO would
provide better service because it would try to please the
customers rather than the appropriators who now fund its
activities.

For this to happen, two other things would need to occur. They a

1: There would need to be several different independent companies
providing the services on a competitive basis.

2: There would need to be an absence of a requirement to procure =any=
kind of briefing, and no prosecution of anybody who came to grief
because he did not procure an acceptable briefing.

These things won't happen.

For it to be fair, a third thing would have to happen - to wit: the end
of all taxes on fuel.

That won't happen either.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:08:25 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::


1: There would need to be several different independent companies
providing the services on a competitive basis.

I strongly suggest you read the full document; it is quite
enlightening. The document acknowledges the monopolistic aspect of
the proposed user fee funded ATC system.

2: There would need to be an absence of a requirement to procure =any=
kind of briefing, and no prosecution of anybody who came to grief
because he did not procure an acceptable briefing.

What makes you say that?

These things won't happen.

For it to be fair, a third thing would have to happen - to wit: the end
of all taxes on fuel.

IMO, it is doubtful Congress will repeal ticket and fuel taxes. The
report indicates that trust fund accounts for about nine of the $14B
annual FAA budget. Nobody's going to kill that golden goose. And
rightfully so. It's a far more equitable and cost effective way of
colleting the revenue than what occurs in other countries who have
privatized ATC.

I strongly suggest you read the full document; it is quite
enlightening. The document acknowledges the monopolistic aspect of
the proposed user fee funded ATC system.

I read the full post; I've saved the post for later perusal of the full
document. In brief, what does it say about the monopolistic aspect of
the user fee funded ATC system? Saying "we know we've got you by the
balls, nyah nyah" is not very satisfactory (though it would be
enlightening

2: There would need to be an absence of a requirement to procure =any=
kind of briefing, and no prosecution of anybody who came to grief
because he did not procure an acceptable briefing.
What makes you say that?

The thing that kills the normal give and take of free economics is a
middleman who calls the shots. This is what happened to health care -
once the insurance companies got in between the patient and the doctor,
costs were free to spiral out of control (to respond to this point,
please prepend POL to the subject line). In this case, the FAA (and the
probably soon the insurance companies), by requiring a briefing, remove
one avenue of cost feedback in the system (too expensive, don't buy it).
If the other is removed (too expensive, go to a competitor) there will
be no incentive to control the price of a briefing, or of other ATC
services.

[Fuel taxes are] a far more equitable and cost effective way of
colleting the revenue than what occurs in other countries who have
privatized ATC.

I agree. But they shouldn't be imposed IN ADDITION to user fees for the
things the fuel tax is supposed to cover.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:04:14 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
BKUyg.84612$ZW3.13139@dukeread04::

User fees will kill aviation.

According to the document, they will provide the FAA with the fiscal
autonomy necessary to prevent implementing "the world's most perfect
system from 1956."

What do you suggest be done to prepare for the coming deluge of ATC
operations in the face of 50% of the ATC workforce retiring by 2011?

Free flight, use GPS and allow IFR over most areas without
ATC. Keep the public happy with ATC from then ground up
around air carriers [class B and C] and above FL 250. Use
electronic CAS in aircraft.

We did better during the 1981 controllers strike with a
bigger reduction than that and we didn't have modern
electronics. The FAA and controllers union are trying to
cover their jobs.



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:04:14 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote in
| BKUyg.84612$ZW3.13139@dukeread04::
|
| User fees will kill aviation.
|
| According to the document, they will provide the FAA with
the fiscal
| autonomy necessary to prevent implementing "the world's
most perfect
| system from 1956."
|
| What do you suggest be done to prepare for the coming
deluge of ATC
| operations in the face of 50% of the ATC workforce
retiring by 2011?
|
|

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:49:14 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::


Seriously, skim the document, and just read the interesting parts;
don't neglect the appendices. It's easy to get a feel for who is
trying to get hold of the government's purse strings without
congressional oversight. http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05333sp.html


The thing that kills the normal give and take of free economics is a
middleman who calls the shots.

There are at lease multiple providers of health care.

The administration has twisted reality to the point of saying the
government is free to abnegate its control of our nation's navigable
airspace by declaring ATC to be "inherently commercial."

Under President Clinton, air traffic services were defined as
"inherently governmental," meaning that they could not be provided
by the private sector. In June 2002, President Bush issued
Executive Order 13264, which revised that definition and opened
the way for FAA to contract with private companies for services on
a test basis, as directed by OMB Circular A-76.

The performance-based Air Traffic Organization (ATO) was created
in February 2004 to improve the management of the modernization
effort.

In February 2004, FAA merged its Office of Air Traffic Services,
Office of Research and Acquisitions, and Free Flight Program
Office to create the ATO.


I wonder how the USAF feels about user fees?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
What do you suggest be done to prepare for the coming deluge of ATC
operations in the face of 50% of the ATC workforce retiring by 2011?

In what way does the projected ATC demand relate to the funding model? Or,
put another way, in answer to your question: whatever you think might be
done to prepare for projected demand under the user fees funding model, you
do the same thing, only you pay for it through the existing funding model.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:48:22 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
What do you suggest be done to prepare for the coming deluge of ATC
operations in the face of 50% of the ATC workforce retiring by 2011?

In what way does the projected ATC demand relate to the funding model?

That's a good question. I'll bet you won't find the answer he
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05333sp.html

Or, put another way, in answer to your question: whatever you think might be
done to prepare for projected demand under the user fees funding model, you
do the same thing, only you pay for it through the existing funding model.

Well, that's the point. The FAA has a history of inability to
innovate ATC, so the panel is advocating privatization to inject
innovative technical solutions into the system.

Please at least skim the document. It's worth the insight it provides
into the airlines' user fee argument.