GA's "fair share"

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html

Here's what your new buddy Norm Pinetta recently said in a different forum:
“[i]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax payments does not cover
the costs GA imposes on the FAA.” Like I said before, this guy really
knows his audience!

For those who will conclude I am making this up, here is the article,
containing the above quote.

GA Fees Don't Come Close to Covering Costs
General aviation contributes about 2 percent of all user contributions


The following column appears today in the May 28 edition of Aviation
Daily, in its "Departures: Opinions on Current Issues in Aviation"
featu

By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

MAY 28 – Questions raised recently about whether the general aviation
community pays its fair share to use the national aviation system
certainly have sparked a debate. That was clearly evident in a recent
Aviation Daily Departures opinion piece (May 19) titled “GA must face down
airline tax, user-fee threats.”

It was compelling reading, but if only for this simple fact: The fees
general aviation operators pay today don’t even come close to covering the
costs of the federal aviation services they receive.

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.

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.

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.


We agree that GA pays higher per gallon fuel taxes, but those taxes are
GA’s only contribution to the Trust Fund. Commercial airlines and their
customers pay multiple taxes into the Trust Fund totaling $9.6 billion
annually. And their tax and fee burden is as high as 26 percent on a
typical $200 domestic round-trip ticket.

Airlines aren’t the only ones saying that GA underpays. FAA’s own studies
conclude that only 7 percent of GA air traffic control costs are recovered
from fees and taxes, while 95 percent of commercial airline costs are
recovered. And a newer Reason Foundation study shows commercial airline
cost recovery exceeds 130 percent. And the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission, chaired by U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman
Mineta, noted: “[i]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

"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.

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.)

"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.

by "Steve Foley" Nov 4, 2005 at 08:45 PM


"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."

I think you are right on the money here. Seriously. The AOPA knows they
cannot budge on this. Thus their weird, disingenous arguments. They are
forced into taking absurd positions.

I do enjoy the AOPA kabuki show though. They should have a dora dora play
a musical accompaniment.

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

Skylune wrote:

Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

You must have missed the last proposal, which is a bond issue.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


GA is also the only user that pays income tax.

Mike
MU-2

by "Mike Rapoport" Nov 4, 2005 at 07:10 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Current contribution is shown below. Increased AVGAS tax rates or user
fees are a given!

http://www.house.gov/transportation/...04-05memo.html


GA is also the only user that pays income tax."

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