GA's "fair share"

by "Steve Foley" Nov 4, 2005 at 08:07 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

Consider air traffic control (ATC). The writer, National Air
Transportation Association President James Coyne, argued that “the
basic
rationale for ATC is … to protect airline passengers.” ATC actually
exists
to provide safe guidance to all aircraft that utilize its services.
Each
user should pay its fair share.

I agree with Coyne on this point. I'll never believe ATC was created to
serve GA.


The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for FAA
operations and ATC. General aviation is a major user of FAA services,
accounting for 40 percent of flights handled by FAA centers, and 69
percent of operations handled by FAA towers. However, GA contributes
less
than $200 million per year into the fund via fuel taxes—about 2 percent
of
all user contributions. Commercial passenger and cargo airlines, and
our
customers, pay the other 98 percent.

How quickly will the 40% drop off if I have to pay for each call? Does
anyone really believe that I will pay the same fee that a landing
clearance
that a revenue-producing 747 will pay? So what happens whan I stop
calling?
The FAA still has to pay the center controllers. They still have to
maintain
the navigation aids. They'll simply have fewer people using the services,
and more unidentified targets on the radar screens.

As for the 69% of tower opertions, GA accounts for 100% of the traffic at
several local towered airports. The cities are hoping for the return of
commercial traffic, and don't want to let go of their precious towers. In
fact, the controllers frequently ask the local pilots association to
practice there to 'keep the numbers up'. The same question remains: When
they start charging for a landing clearance, what will the 69% drop to?

GA flights not using ATC still benefit from FAA Flight Service
Stations,
which exclusively serve general aviation and cost the government $532
million annually—nearly three times more than GA pays into the Trust
Fund.

I call flight services because I have to call flight services. I can get
better weather info on line, but I have to be sure my tail number is on
their tape so when an un-announced TFR shows up, I'm covered.


“[i]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

Again, what are the incremental costs GA imposes? I can stop using those
services entirely. Delta cannot."

In that case, maybe you should argue in favor of substituting user fees
for the current AV gas levy. By not utilizing any of the services funded
from the FAA from tax $ (including runways, lighting, nav aids, etc.),
costs would decrease dramatically.

The truth is that GA is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and commercial
airline passengers. I am eagerly awaiting an objective analysis from the
AOPA that shows the amount of AV gas tax collections relative to the
operating and capital grants that GA facilities receive. I am positive
they are working on this, as it will prove their point once and for all.


(For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA heavily
subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

Not a good analogy. Private marinas handle virtually all recreational boat
traffic. They receive no government subsidy. Nor do they require
continous dredging. In fact, I know of two private marinas on eastern LI
that are paying for dredging and increasing dock fees.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

(For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA heavily
subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)

AOPA, like every lobby group out there, has to fight tooth and nail against
any proposal limiting its members. You can't let the camels nose under the
tent. It's the old 'give them an inch' philosophy.

Watch the Boyer-Mineta love fest on the AOPA website. Then compare what
Mineta says to the ATA. You will see some...... "inconsistencies."

What the ????? There is no income tax on general aviation. Maybe you
mean the personal income tax, which everyone pays?

Did you full up your tank with Avgas paid for with money found in the
street?
-Robert

I"m not so worried about user fees directly. What I don't understand is
how in the world they will collect them. Do you read a credit card over
the radio before getting your approach clearance? You can't charge it
based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
the gov't.

-Robert

I like it.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Not a good analogy. Private marinas handle virtually all recreational
boat
traffic. They receive no government subsidy. Nor do they require
continous dredging. In fact, I know of two private marinas on eastern LI
that are paying for dredging and increasing dock fees.

by "Robert M. Gary" Nov 4, 2005 at 01:10 PM


What the ????? There is no income tax on general aviation. Maybe
you
mean the personal income tax, which everyone pays?

Did you full up your tank with Avgas paid for with money found in the
street?
-Robert"

What the....

Uh. No. I use 93 octane, unleaded, in my car. When I restart my
training ( I decided to go with the Cessna over the Piper) I'll use Avgas.


I haven't found any money on the street recently. If I do, I suppose I
could spend it on gasoline.

by "Robert M. Gary" Nov 4, 2005 at 01:12 PM


I"m not so worried about user fees directly. What I don't understand is
how in the world they will collect them. Do you read a credit card over
the radio before getting your approach clearance? You can't charge it
based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
the gov't.

-Robert"

A Mooney, eh? Those planes are appropriately named.

Joking aside, I think you are right about the administrative complexity.
I think they should just increase the AV gas tax somewhat.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
I"m not so worried about user fees directly. What I don't understand is
how in the world they will collect them. Do you read a credit card over
the radio before getting your approach clearance? You can't charge it
based on N number because renter pilots often go away after flying (and
paying) for the trips they intended. Will my Mooney partner and I have
to sit down and go through a statement, trying to figure out who was
flying when? Not to mention the entire giant building full of
accounting types who have to mange the system for the feds. I guess the
fuel tax is just too easy and doesn't create enough life-time jobs in
the gov't.

Here in the UK the answer is yes to just about all those questions apart
from giving your credit card details over the air before doing the approach.
I lodge mine with the airport before doing the approach. If I do the
approach they bill me if I don't they don't.

As a rule, VFR traffic is exempt charges except for nav and landing charges.
All our airports are privately owned and therefore charge for ATC and
landing.

IFR flights only charge for aircraft over 2 tonnes and then a bill is sent
to the registered owner operator who has to pay it and then get the money
back from whoever flew it. Of course the register also gives the registered
weight of the aircraft so they know what to charge.

There is talk of charging VFR flights but even the bureaucrats here cannot
come up with a simple way of charging. The current idea is a flat annual
licence fee evidenced by a sticker a bit like with a car licence.

We have no property taxes on aircraft like some of you have for just owning
the plane. We just pay $7 in taxes on each gallon. That's UK gallon.
Reduce by 20% for the baby US gallon.

Cannot be arsed to rework the numbers - we have fireworks going off here at
the moment, its like being in a war zone. Its impossible to concentrate.
Fireworks will be going all weekend.