GA User fees

by Jose Dec 21, 2005 at 04:36 PM


If there is a charge for a specific service, and that service is not
used, you will not be subject to the charge.

However, since GA is in reality a heavy user of FAA capital
infrastructure...

First, I asked about your =reasoning=, not about the premises
themselves. You responded with the premises. First, to deal with that:

The flaw is:
1: the use that GA makes of some of the services is because they are
mandated, not because they are needed.
2: the infrastructure does not really benefit the GA aircraft that are
using it - at least not to the extent that it benefits other parties.

Consider Bogus Internal Airport (BIA). It's a small field, GA has been
using it for years with no tower, and no real services. So, I should
not pay (much) in user fees to land my Archer there. However,
Humongougs Airlines Incorporated decides that it would make the perfect
gateway to Lesser Paradise, a little island that is growing in
popularity. To do so, the runway is lengthened and a tower is added.
None of this benefits me. Now the airspace is class D and communication
is required. I have to buy a radio with my own money, but the reason is
to accomodate Humongous Airlines, not to accomodate me. Every time I
take off, I would pay a user fee for this new long concrete runway and
the spanking new tower, and the fees for transmitting on the radio, and
I'd use more gas because my flight path has changed to keep me out of
the way of the approaching jets which don't interest me in the
slightest, except that I would be a bug splat on their windshield.

I fly out of there and do touch and goes. They have five flights a day
and are in discussions with three another airline for connecting flights.

I'm a "heavy user" of this infrastructure because I use the concrete and
the tower and the radio EVERY TIME I go around the pattern, but I'm not
really a beneficiary of it. It wasn't put there for me. The airlines
are benefitting from the infrastructure, and from the procedures
designed to keep me away from their windshield. Now, while I also
benefit by not becoming a bug splat, that benefit is more like the
benefit of stopping hitting my head with a hammer.

Granted, the airport is ficticious, but the principle is valid.

Now, on to my original question, which related to your =reasoning=, not
the truth (or falsity) of the premises.

You posted words to the effect that iit is disengenuous to think that
both
(1) GA uses few services...
and
(2) user fees would be prohibitively expensive.
could be true at the same time.

They can certainly both be true at the same time, depending on how "uses
services" is defined, and how user fees are allocated.

It is disingenuous to think that, given the political clout of GA vs the
airlines, these definitions would not be skewed in their favor, in the
same way that flying was restored to the harmless airliners shortly
after 9-11 while spam cans were still banned from the skys (and are even
today virtually banished from the capitol, where, granted, there is so
much hot air you don't really need an airplane to fly!)

Jose

Jose: You are a reasonable guy. I understand your fictious example.

Here's a real case: Lets pick a GA airport that has 100,000 plus
operations per year. It has a tower with about 7 controllers (contract).
No commercial service. It receives a 95% grant from the FAA for all its
capital improvements, plus it receives the $150K per year FAA operating
subsidy, plus various state funds. There are no landing fees. The vast
majority of the flights are for training or recreation. Tie down fees are
less than $10/night.

Who is paying the tab? The flyers?

Jose: Here's the beef. I expect Tom can't find this stuff, and relies on
the AOPA to think for him.....

See especially page 17 for amount GA pays in av gas taxes.....

BTW, I'll be flying in the right seat of the 172 next week from ISP to
Danbury. Is ground (car rental) transportation pretty easy to get there?

Jose: You are a reasonable guy. I understand your fictious example.

Here's a real case: Lets pick a GA airport that has 100,000 plus
operations per year. It has a tower with about 7 controllers (contract).
No commercial service. It receives a 95% grant from the FAA for all its
capital improvements, plus it receives the $150K per year FAA operating
subsidy, plus various state funds. There are no landing fees. The vast
majority of the flights are for training or recreation. Tie down fees are
less than $10/night.

Who is paying the tab? The flyers?

Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote:
...
This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The
primary beneficary is the airlines, who can now
schedule more flights and have fewer delays...


Exactly, and the issue is not just small GA planes. Our City goes
further by charging the $1 million annual operating deficit of the
reliever directly to the air carriers in the user fees they pay to the
port authority. If the reliever field closed, corporate aviation and
the fleet of medevac helicopters would have to move to the big airport,
causing serious delays. Peak times for bizjets are the same as for air
carrier.

Fred F.

by Jose teacherjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 21, 2005 at 07:38 PM


Who is benefitting? Not just the flyers. The airport you describe is
probably close to a metropolitan area, which has an even larger airport
nearby, which does have commercial service. That larger airport may
even be more convenient for many GA operations, but the airlines do not
want us mixing up in there. We get in their way. So, instead of having
us land on their concrete (and putting hardly any wear and tear on it at
all), they would prefer we land, well, "elsewhere" and just stay out of
their hair. This is what a reliever airport is. It's a way to keep
spam cans out of the way of big aluminum tubes. The primary beneficary
is the airlines, who can now schedule more flights and have fewer delays
(just imagine what American Airlines would think of a 152 doing pattern
work at JFK).

So, who benefits from this reliever airport? The airlines. And as the
airport gets bigger (think Westchester), the airlines start moving in
there too, demanding concrete and ether that spam cans usually can do
without, but would have to pay for under your plan.

Jose

Jose: I don't have a plan. I'm simply trying to debunk the AOPA nonsense
about AV gas taxes being an efficient and fair funding mechanism that
covers the cost of the GA subsidies.

Seems like, from your new argument about GA reliever airports providing
indirect benefit to commercial airports, you agree that GA airports are
subsidized.

I obviously disagree with this most recent argument. But, next week, I
will enjoy the tax subsidies when we are soaring above CT in the 172.

Happy Holidays, Skylune out.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous
financial
burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be
less
inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
disingenous reasoning.

There was a very good article on GA user fees in the latest Flying magazine
(I think that's where I saw it).

What it boils down to is that GA is basically using the excess capability of
a system that has to be in place for the airlines anyway. If GA goes away
the cost of providing the services to the airlines will hardly be affected,
and the system would not see much, if any, downsizing. The end result is
that GA is not really adding much to the cost of the services it uses - they
would be there with or without GA.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:55:03 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Skylune, in a different, way OT thread, intones...
It kinda reminds me of AOPA logic. For example, user fees: they argue
simultaneously that (1) GA uses very few FAA services and therefore user
fees are not necessary and (2) user fees would impose a ruinous financial
burden on the GA industry and reduce safety (because pilots might be less
inclined to use ATC, flight following, etc.) This is weird and
disingenous reasoning.


Serveral things need to examined.

1) If user fees are implemented, then there will a large majority of
users that will avoid them by flying to places where they are
non-existant or decline services. If these fees can't be avoided,
then people will stop flying. Either way, the funding will not be
raised. Private pilots will be taxed out of the sky. Should I be
squeezed out of airspace in favor of commercial operations? No.

2) Commercial operators should pay a larger share because businesses
exploit resources for profit and are very efficient at it. I don't
mean this in a negative way, it is just the purpose of business.
Highway use taxes are much higher for commercial operators because
they consume percentage wise more of the highway infrastructure. I
don't know about you, but I've never used a weigh station or an escape
ramp. The weigh stations are there because companies were overloading
the roads. Should I be penalized because businesses are require more
overhead? No.

3) Left unchecked, business entities will consume all of a given
resource. SPAM is a wonderful example of this. Email is free and
most of it is commercial. Eventually, email will not be free and why
is that? Because of commercial abuse of the resource. Fees balance
social cost. Airlines pack in flights and require increased
infrastructure to support their schedule. If they spaced their
flights over a 24 hour period, congestion would be less of a problem.
I as a private individual can choose to fly during non-peak hours and
I do. The ATC infrstructure is not designed for me. Should I pay for
large percentage of it? No.


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org