User Fees

[ben]

Howdy all,

I keep reading about the FAA and how they want to impose user fees to fund the ATC system vice keeping everything supervised by Congress (the way things work now). There is quite a bit of debate on how exactly the FAA and ATC system should be funded. From what I have learned so far, the airlines are in favor of a user fee system. Basically you'd pay $XX for a weather brief, $XX for shooting a practice instrument approach, etc. Pay as you go type thing, eventually across the board for everyone using US airspace. Maybe the cropduster guys who operate out of private strips and don't use radios can still fly for free under this new "user fee" idea.

I personally think that my tax dollars have been doing a fine job at funding the FAA and the ATC system. While I am currently too busy to really have time to fly GA these days (flight school is a *****), I have flown on my own in the past and look forward to a day in the future when I will have the opportunity to do so again. Personally, I'd rather not pay for each practice approach, weather brief, call to Center, or anything else. Congress has done a fine job at providing a safe ATC system in America and I don't see why we'd need to convert to a fee based system.

What are the opinions of you guys who fly for the airlines? As more of a general aviation guy, I'm all for keeping things like they are now. I'm interested to hear from someone who can provide some real answers as to why we need "user fees" to fund our airspace system. It seems that the airlines are all for this new idea and the weekend Cessna pilot thinks it is a ridiculous plan.

The concept has been compared to gun control. Start off with user fees for turbine aircraft on IFR flight plans... give it a few years and even guys flying with a Sport license are paying user fees. Kind of like starting with a national registry of gun owners and ending up with only legal firearms for law enforcement personnel. I don't want to get into a gun control debate, but I thought I'd use the comparison for illustrative purposes.

So, what does everyone think about this?

Here is a summary of the whole concept from the AOPA website.

 

[Fly Navy]

Some will argue that the ATC system was developed for the airlines and that anyone else should pay to use it. I think that's a crap answer. The "pay as you go system" is very European. European skies, from what I've read in some countries, is very restrictive. In Italy, you must be IFR to go through Class C airspace. You also have to pay to use the ATC system. This is what an Italian student told me in VT-9. America has fairly free skies (though with TFRs popping up everywhere, etc etc that seems less and less). I don't agree with a pay system.

 

[Carno]

I think that system would cause a lot of not-so-smart people to save some money and then find themselves in serious trouble.

 

[ben]

I think that system would cause a lot of not-so-smart people to save some money and then find themselves in serious trouble.

Yes, that is one of the major arguments against such a system. People will attempt to get by with less training and thus proficiency and safety will suffer.

 

[JIMC5499]

I thought that these systems were already funded by taxes on fuel and airline seats. Oh wait Clinton used that money to balance Social Security.

 

[Fly Navy]

I thought that these systems were already funded by taxes on fuel and airline seats. Oh wait Clinton used that money to balance Social Security.

God, please banish that system from existance. It's my fault you didn't plan for the future? Nope, sorry, that's called Communism.

 

[nittany03]

God, please banish that system from existance. It's my fault you didn't plan for the future? Nope, sorry, that's called Communism.

Amen. Never happen, though. Too many soccer moms would have to forgo their Escalades. The Great Depression was 70-odd years ago. If we need it again for that sort of thing, recreate it.

As for the gist of the thread, absolutely horrid idea. It costs enough to fly anyway that too many people view aviation as the playground of the rich.

 

[cmquaker]

For the counterargument check out this link from the Air Transport Association, the airline trade group:

http://www.airlines.org/government/issuebriefs/Airspace+Reform+Concepts.htm

The basic argument from the airlines is that they believe they are subsidizing corporate jets and private jets. This argument has widespread appeal because it would seem shocking to the public that their air fares are being used to subsidize travel for the extremely rich. Whether or not the argument is legitimate is another issue.

 

[nittany03]

For the counterargument check out this link from the Air Transport Association, the airline trade group:

http://www.airlines.org/government/issuebriefs/Airspace+Reform+Concepts.htm

The basic argument from the airlines is that they believe they are subsidizing corporate jets and private jets. This argument has widespread appeal because it would seem shocking to the public that their air fares are being used to subsidize travel for the extremely rich. Whether or not the argument is legitimate is another issue.

They bring up some good points, but where does it say that the airlines are subsidizing ATC?

 

[cmquaker]

I think most of their points are common sense and not controversial, like decommission obsolete equipment, but the controversial point that relates to user fees is "Allocate costs fairly among users". This means shift costs currently paid by airlines to corporate and private jets, because under the current system the airlines are paying more than their fair share of the costs. So they are subsidizing the other users that pay less than their fair share.

The question is though what is each user's fair share. Your share can increase with your payload or number of seats, so larger planes pay more than smaller ones, or you could say that it doesn't matter how big or small the plane is, they all use the same amount of ATC resources. GA would argue for the former, airlines for the latter.

 

[gregsivers]

I would assume that airlines probably use more ATC resources than the GA community. I'm thinking Center and some of the busier approach and tower contols in this assumption.

Kind of on this subject, when I was in Jackson, TN last January waiting for a mechanic to come and fix our 57 I took a tour of the FSS there on the field. I was surprised to learn that many FSS's around the country have been turned over to private companies, mainly Lockheed Martin. Same employees and same service, just the FAA no longer employs the workers. The guy we talked to there wasn't too happy about the switch, and I can certainly understand why.

 

[SemperGumbi]

Although a much smaller percentage of people fly GA, isn't this akin to being against federal fundong for Highways and going to an all toll system?

All of a sudden driving would be a lot less appealing for me.

Taxes almost exclusively fund things that not everyone uses. Many, many people fly in commercial airlines. I bet if we switched to a pay as you go system the overall number of flights would go down because it would have to be very expensive per approach (or what have you) to fund such a large, complex, and technology driven industry (24 hours a day, no less).

I am curious just how much it would end up costing...and if the airlines would actually end up paying much (!) more because your average tax payer is no longer helping ease the burden.

 

[larbear]

If every airline is subject to the same taxes right now, why does the airline care that private jets are paying less? Do they view the private jets as competition with an unfair advantage? Maybe the thinking is that a reduced ATC $$ burden for them will encourage more people to travel by airline due to reduced fares.

I think it would be a big mistake if GA was made even more expensive through ATC user fees. It might have safety implications as mentioned, and it would likely make it more inaccessible to people without deep pockets.

 

[Flash]

I would assume that airlines probably use more ATC resources than the GA community. I'm thinking Center and some of the busier approach and tower contols in this assumption.

Kind of on this subject, when I was in Jackson, TN last January waiting for a mechanic to come and fix our 57 I took a tour of the FSS there on the field. I was surprised to learn that many FSS's around the country have been turned over to private companies, mainly Lockheed Martin. Same employees and same service, just the FAA no longer employs the workers. The guy we talked to there wasn't too happy about the switch, and I can certainly understand why.

You ought to talk to my Father-in-Law, he is a retired Air Traffic Controller in Canada. Two years before he retired they privatized the system, and he hated it. He will go on for hours talking how screwed up things are nowadays vs when it was under government control. Pretty ironic that Europe and Canada have gone that way, with their socialist/national champion philosophies, and here we are still with a government run system. Personally, while the FAA ain't the best run organization in the world I prefer to see our ATC system under government control than private. Some things should not be profit driven.

Just to show how much he thinks of Nav Canada, he hung his retirement certificate in his bathroom, above the toilet .

 

[Flash]

God, please banish that system from existance. It's my fault you didn't plan for the future? Nope, sorry, that's called Communism.

I thought it was called the military's retirement system.....