Users Fees: Who is Right? FAA or AOPA

R

Rockfly

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
127
Display Name
Display name:
Jim Rockford
Users Fees: so who is right?

Here is the FAA's case: link

You can read AOPA's case on their web site. AOPA Pilot magazine also has an on-going series.

Personally, I find AOPA's argument more compelling. I tend to believe them more than the FAA as well. The FAA senior management doesn't have much credibility at present. Only 17% of FAA employees have faith in their own management. Link
 
Some of the AOPA arguement is about the nose of the camel, which is a concern. The only part of the current proposal that will effect me is the fuel tax, and I already pay a fuel tax. Nose already under that tent. I pay both federal and state fuel tax on my auto fuel used on roads. I have an auto fuel STC for the plane, so I could start buying MOGAS for the plane, and even shop around for off-road gas and not pay road taxes. Right now I don't do that even though it would save me about $1.00/gallon - mostly because it is not convenient. Not available at my airport, or others I use. Need for clean gas cans, transfer and transport issues, etc. etc. I don't really think a few more cents fuel tax will change my flying or my choice of fuel.

On the issue of landing fees at the hubs, and corporate jets using the same FAA services as a 737 and not paying for it, I guess I have to agree with the FAA on that one. I don't fly in a corporate jet, and I do fly Alaska and NorthWest, so from a purely financial decision for me personally it would make sense that the corporate jet should pay a fair share. Not that it would matter much. My ticket may cost less by less than a dollar, and the corporation would just pass on their operating costs in the price of their products by adding a few cents a copy. But the camel's nose issue is of some concern. If they charge for landing at a hub now, what will they do later to capture the service costs for providing flight following or instument flight services for flights to and from non-hub cities? Not a problem in this proposal from what I can see, but what happens next time?
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
On the issue of landing fees at the hubs, and corporate jets using the same FAA services as a 737 and not paying for it, I guess I have to agree with the FAA on that one.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzzzt!!! They ARE paying for it. The 737 is paying ticket taxes, the bizjet is paying fuel taxes (which the 737 does NOT pay).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Bzzzzzzt!!! They ARE paying for it. The 737 is paying ticket taxes, the bizjet is paying fuel taxes (which the 737 does NOT pay).
Click to expand...
Am I understanding you to say airlines do not pay fuel taxes? Everyone does but a government entity. All fees are paid as collected by the taxing authority or other authority collecting fees. But in the case of airlines, all costs are passed through to the customer.
 
The airlines do not pay tax on fuel at the same rate as GA. They pay a lower tax rate on the fuel, and get hit with additional taxes on tickets.

I agree that a bizjet or even a 182 flying into a class B airport like IAD uses the same ATC resources as a 747. However, ATC is not the total amount of FAA resources used. There's wear and tear on the airport (much more from the 747), all sorts of airport ops that are driven by the number of passengers (more from the airlines), and even though these costs aren't directly paid by the FAA, they are offset by grants/subsidies from the FAA to the airports. So I would support a surcharge for arriving at a major airport during rush times, but that is probably best collected as a landing fee (this is already done in several places).

What I think we need is legislation that says that any airline that declares bankruptcy is forbidden membership in the ATA and may not lobby Congress until it has had three consecutive profitable years.
 
TMetzinger said:
The airlines do not pay tax on fuel at the same rate as GA. They pay a lower tax rate on the fuel, and get hit with additional taxes on tickets.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the lower tax per gallon on jet fuel than on avgas? I had no clue airlines pay less per gallon. Any sources on this?
 
http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/NCARC/testimony/nasao-te.htm discusses how airlines do not pay the federal fuel tax.

Scheduled Airlines (121) and Military do not pay FEDERAL taxes on aviation fuel (even avgas). They DO pay STATE/LOCAL taxes on fuel, which is why they avoid filling up at places like Chicago if they can help it.

So..... GA pays the FAA via a fuel tax. Airlines pay the FAA via a head tax, or waybill tax (for cargo operators). It seems like a fair deal to me, since fuel burn on airliners is not dramatically affected by pax load. The fewer people the airlines carry, the less the FAA gets.
 
BTW...just a point please....what is it with this "fair share" crap for aviation and ATC?

All other taxes I pay are not at a "fair share" rate. So do those people that pay no taxes have to stay off the road?

Why is it that ATC "services" are suddenly supposed to be based on how much you use?

I am REALLY getting to hate this Bush-it of "privatize" everything, and I am a freaking Republican!
 
TMetzinger said:
http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/NCARC/testimony/nasao-te.htm discusses how airlines do not pay the federal fuel tax.

Scheduled Airlines (121) and Military do not pay FEDERAL taxes on aviation fuel (even avgas). They DO pay STATE/LOCAL taxes on fuel, which is why they avoid filling up at places like Chicago if they can help it.

So..... GA pays the FAA via a fuel tax. Airlines pay the FAA via a head tax, or waybill tax (for cargo operators). It seems like a fair deal to me, since fuel burn on airliners is not dramatically affected by pax load. The fewer people the airlines carry, the less the FAA gets.
Click to expand...

And in the state of Washington they don't even pay our state fuel taxes. No commercial user at any level pays them. Just us.
 
Ghery said:
And in the state of Washington they don't even pay our state fuel taxes. No commercial user at any level pays them. Just us.
Click to expand...
I'm very pro-free enterprise but this stinks to high hog.

The airlines get the breaks and the legislators get the grease. :rolleyes:
 
The bottom line is that under the current system, the family of four taking a budget vacation is subsidizing the CEOs flying on a corporate jet. Reducing the current GA subsidy may result in some rationalization of behavior, but we do not believe the changes will be dramatic.
Click to expand...

So the FAA is trying to turn 'small' GA against Corp Aviation Depts. The 'ol "Divide and Conquer" apparently.

The Administration’s proposal does not include any user fees for GA to fly through Class B or any other type of airspace. Based on stakeholder feedback, we recognize that some of the legislative language may be less clear than we had intended on this point. The FAA would be amenable to suggestions on how to clarify this language to align with the intent.
Click to expand...

"... oh.. yeah.. about that.. uhhh... it just LOOKS that way. But if you pass the bill for us, we'll be sure to change that as soon as it's in place." Yeah, right!

In addition, under the current system, FAA’s discretionary spending must compete within the budget caps for all government discretionary programs. Under the proposal, user fees would be offsetting collections, not subject to the overall discretionary spending caps. They could also be adjusted from year-to-year based on needs.
Click to expand...

Sooo.. Once you get your system in place, and the people in charge realize that you can adjust fees as necessary to make up for budget cuts, you can pretty much kiss any chance of budget increases going out the window. "... We need to cut $20mill. from this budget! Why don't we cut it from the FAA's budget, they can make up for it with their fee system. Yeah! That's a good idea, Bob!"

The proposal would reduce the tax burden on airlines and the passengers who fly them. This is less a tax break for the airlines than the elimination of a subsidy to general aviation.
Click to expand...

Ahhh.. Yes. Bring out the good 'ol "subsidy" flash word and voila you've got the public in your back pocket!

Under the current system, a portion of the taxes that a middle-class family pays to go on summer vacation or to visit the relatives for the holidays is subsidizing the use of the system by corporate jets and private individuals who are wealthy enough to own their own aircraft.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. Wow! We rich airplane owners are just taking advantage of little Billy and Susie that just want to see their grandma Elsie for Christmas! We should be ashamed of ourselves! What about the bonehead airline BoD's that are giving their half-ass performing CEO's millions of dollars for cutting costs by cutting pilot salaries and pension plans? They don't mention that aspect, do they?


In Europe, a recent discussion paper by the European Commission notes that business aviation in Europe has grown twice as quickly as the rest of air traffic since 2001, and the European fleet of business aircraft is projected to grow by 50 percent over the next ten years.
Click to expand...

Can that be DIRECTLY tied to the fees structure they have implemented. Is there a chance that might have something to do that companies are getting fed up with the unreliable airlines and are deciding that the costs - high as they may be - are worth the benefit provided by operating your own private plane? What happens next? Now more people are flying corp/private planes that were flying on airlines a few years ago. Now the airlines are having even a more difficult time to make money. What happens next? Raise fees on corp/private aviation to save the poor poor airlines that are just trying to make an 'honest' buck.


Ok.. I am exiting my soap box, now. :D
 
TMetzinger said:
So I would support a surcharge for arriving at a major airport during rush times, but that is probably best collected as a landing fee (this is already done in several places).
Click to expand...
AFAIK the none of the landing fees a corporate airplane pays when arriving at a major airport, or any other airport, goes to the FAA. What is normally called a "landing fee" is either money which goes to the airport authority, city, or whatever entity operates the airport, and/or a handling charge which goes to the FBO.
 
Everskyward said:
AFAIK the none of the landing fees a corporate airplane pays when arriving at a major airport, or any other airport, goes to the FAA. What is normally called a "landing fee" is either money which goes to the airport authority, city, or whatever entity operates the airport, and/or a handling charge which goes to the FBO.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding... if I fly into ATL for a full stop to Mercury, I'll be charged $25 by the City of Atlanta and $15 by the FBO. That's pretty steep for a small airplane.
 
KennyFlys said:
It's my understanding... if I fly into ATL for a full stop to Mercury, I'll be charged $25 by the City of Atlanta and $15 by the FBO. That's pretty steep for a small airplane.
Click to expand...

The last time I flew into MDW in 2004 and parked at Signature (big mistake in itself) there were over $80 worth of parking, security, overnight, etc. fees and that was before I even got fuel!
 
Everskyward said:
AFAIK the none of the landing fees a corporate airplane pays when arriving at a major airport, or any other airport, goes to the FAA. What is normally called a "landing fee" is either money which goes to the airport authority, city, or whatever entity operates the airport, and/or a handling charge which goes to the FBO.
Click to expand...

The fees at places like EWR don't go to the FAA, but they DO discourage additional ops during peak times, thus reducing FAA workload. They also offset the local airport authority expenses. It's benefit to the FAA is admittedly a side effect.
 
TMetzinger said:
The fees at places like EWR don't go to the FAA, but they DO discourage additional ops during peak times, thus reducing FAA workload. They also offset the local airport authority expenses. It's benefit to the FAA is admittedly a side effect.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much fees at peak times discourages business aircraft users from landing at certain airports during those times. Just from casual observation it doesn't seem to discourage them at all. When there is truly a problem with airport capacity due to GA aircraft, perceived or real, the FAA resorts to the STMP or HDTA (reservations) programs.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not sure how much fees at peak times discourages business aircraft users from landing at certain airports during those times. Just from casual observation it doesn't seem to discourage them at all. When there is truly a problem with airport capacity due to GA aircraft, perceived or real, the FAA resorts to the STMP or HDTA (reservations) programs.
Click to expand...

They don't discourage the hard-core business flights, who treat it as any other cost of doing business, but they surely do discourage the folks who fly and pay for stuff themselves, even if it is on business!

I used to have to visit a metal fab shop right near teterboro, but the fees there drove me to Linden and a rental car instead, which cost less money and didn't take appreciably longer.
 
Dean V said:
Sunday April 22 was a beautiful day. Severe clear over most of the eastern half the the country. Planes departing Sun and Fun as well as the normal Sunday flyers.

How many pilots choose to use DUATS saving the tax payers $20 a call over a telephone briefing? Who many called FSS twice that day?

How many pilots departing Sun and Fun filed and opened IFR flight plans that weren't need in CAVU?

The wastefulness issue goes to the FAA Adminstrator who properly points out that the current system does not encourage stewardship in using FAA resources.

A Part 121 flight at $200 a ticket from point A to point B with 150 passengers on board. Ticket taxes collected = $2100. At 22 cents a gallon, the corporate jet on an identical flight using identical services would have to use over 9500 gallons of fuel to equal the ticket tax collected from the passengers of the airline. The real number paid in fuel tax by the corporate jet is $300-$350. The same flight for a guy in a single engine piston would likely be $30.

This issue goes to the airlines, their passengers are paying more than their fair share.

AOPA objects to user fees stating the collection costs make a user fee system too costly. This one goes to AOPA. Individual billing is costly compared fees collected via fuel taxes.

FAA/Airlines want fees for all aircraft using Class B. The truth is if it weren't for airlines, we wouldn't need Class B or C. This one goes to the AOPA.

In the end, we are likely to see taxes on 100LL tax increase of <25 cents and a Jet A increase of <50 cents with a slight reduction in ticket taxes and no direct user fees.
Click to expand...

Even IF some of this is true...so what? Why is it that AVIATION is one of the few transportation methods where I keep hearing this "fair and equitable" mantra. Other that some toll roads (which are starting to get some serious backlash), the payment for the building/usage of of our roads to not follow this model.

Also (and I know this is a better conversation to have in person, not on a message board), there is the fact that not everything is, or should, be reduced to its bare-bones profitability, free-market centered level. Hell our taxes are progressive but the spending of them is not supposed to be?

Do you REALLY not understand that doing anything significant WILL kill GA in America?

I flew a friend down to an airshow yesterday. An hour flight there (instead of three to drive), a nice place on the ramp, etc. I paid fuel taxes, and the entry fee to the airshow, and was back home before half the people on the ground were, I CONTRIBUTED to both the air system and the local economy. Something I would NOT have done without the plane. My friend looked around and asked "does anyone else in the world have such a diverse GA system"? I looked at him and said nope, and if things keep up, neither will we.

So take your propaganda and obvious airline spine and go away.
 
The government is always right, ain't they? :dunno:

Rockfly said:
Users Fees: so who is right?

Here is the FAA's case: link

You can read AOPA's case on their web site. AOPA Pilot magazine also has an on-going series.

Personally, I find AOPA's argument more compelling. I tend to believe them more than the FAA as well. The FAA senior management doesn't have much credibility at present. Only 17% of FAA employees have faith in their own management. Link
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't trust the FAA management as far as I could toss a 182. HAve you tried to use flight service lately. FAA promised that FSS would be vastly superior to what it was. Nuff said.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top