More On User Fees
A few months ago during a hearing, Senator Trent Lott told the aviation community that they were all going to pay more. Well, he backed off from that only a little, introducing a Senate bill that would impose a $25 fee on an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)flight conducted by any turbine aircraft. I’m sure this was to avoid the political maelstrom that would have followed the imposition of the same fee on piston powered aircraft; but, the piston community need not be breathing easier because they were spared in the initial version of the bill. Is a common governmental tactic to impose an onerous fee or regulation on a less vocal group, let it ride for a few while, and then impose it on a wider audience by citing “equality” and “paying your share”. If user fees on a "per flight" basis of any sort survive, the general aviation community is assured of facing and paying them at some time in the future.
I am opposed to a “per flight” or “per operation” user fee of any sort, other than a reasonable gas tax we already pay. I oppose it not only because of the high costs it will impose on any flight operation, but I oppose it because of the possible negative impact on aviation safety such a cost will generate. This will push people into not using what is the best aviation safety system in the world because it will cost too much. Is that what we really want? Why is it that the negative safety impact of these proposals is not being discussed, and the only things we’re hearing about are “equity in costs”. If we’re going there, why are we not also discussing equity in airspace allocation? The reason Class B airspace exists is because the airlines need it to. Airspace allocation is prioritized for the airlines first, the military second, and general aviation when its pilots raise a stink.
AOPA recently stated general aviation yearly accrues more passengers than all the commercial airlines combined. It’s no wonder then that the airlines would like to see general aviation go away. Think of all the income they’d get if all those pilots and their families had to fly with them!
I haven’t seen a study yet that scientifically examined the impact the user fees would have on general aviation and whether it would cause such a decline that the overall financial end state might be worse than if no fees had been imposed. It’s no wonder. There are few pilots at all on any of the aviation subcommittees that are proposing this onerous legislation and none in FAA upper management. There is a fair smattering of airlines pilots or managers, though. Any guess why the FAA is so bent on letting the airlines have their way? Or the Senate for that matter? Lott’s proposal is exactly what the ATA asked for.
I’m saying I’m against any fee hike at all. But I want the costs to be reasonable AND I want the money to be USED TO IMPROVE AIRPORTS OR THE ATC SYSTEM. I DO NOT WANT the money to be used for everyday FAA expenses, which I believe needs to come entirely out of the general fund. So here’s some things I believe I could live with and I’d love to hear from other pilots about whether they think what I’m saying is reasonable:
1) Increase the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon.
2) Re-institute aircraft licensing fees at a level of $25-$50/year for single engine piston powered aircraft, helicopters, gliders, and balloons: $50-$100/year for piston powered twins; $100-$200/year for turbine powered aircraft.
3) IFR pilots pay a flat rate fee of $50-$100/year to fly IFR operations. (Your name could be easily checked as “paid” by comparing it to a computer database somewhere other than the ATC facility. An IFR clearance would not be denied if you weren’t paid up. You’d simply be billed and pursued by the Feds just like any other debtor.)
Whether the fees above would bring in enough revenue is something I can’t really address; but if the current system is enough to pay for the system now and some modernization, then it’s hard for me to believe that they wouldn’t be enough to pay for the rest. These fees also have the advantage of being collected and validated within the current system. No one has discussed about what kind of bureaucracy it will take to monitor, charge, and enforce the “per flight” user fees the airlines and the Bush administration have proposed; but it’s hard for me to believe that it can be handled without the invention of a new bureaucratic arm or organization. Certainly, your everyday ATC controller is probably not going to have the time or the stomach for it.
Look, gang, one of the ways the US Government has consistently ruined the experience of our natural resources (and I’m counting the airspace as one of those) is through the imposition of user fees. The National Parks are suffering from the same fate. It’s no wonder. The Feds can’t balance their own budgets so they’re looking to us for ways to bail them out. I’m not for any kind of user fee at all because of that; but if you can’t avoid it totally, then the best you can do is keep them reasonable and minimized. User fees are becoming the de facto way of governments far and wide to avoid being responsible for providing the infrastructure our daily lives need.
How many days of the insane money we're spending on the war in Iraq would it take to end this whole discussion?
I am opposed to a “per flight” or “per operation” user fee of any sort, other than a reasonable gas tax we already pay. I oppose it not only because of the high costs it will impose on any flight operation, but I oppose it because of the possible negative impact on aviation safety such a cost will generate. This will push people into not using what is the best aviation safety system in the world because it will cost too much. Is that what we really want? Why is it that the negative safety impact of these proposals is not being discussed, and the only things we’re hearing about are “equity in costs”. If we’re going there, why are we not also discussing equity in airspace allocation? The reason Class B airspace exists is because the airlines need it to. Airspace allocation is prioritized for the airlines first, the military second, and general aviation when its pilots raise a stink.
AOPA recently stated general aviation yearly accrues more passengers than all the commercial airlines combined. It’s no wonder then that the airlines would like to see general aviation go away. Think of all the income they’d get if all those pilots and their families had to fly with them!
I haven’t seen a study yet that scientifically examined the impact the user fees would have on general aviation and whether it would cause such a decline that the overall financial end state might be worse than if no fees had been imposed. It’s no wonder. There are few pilots at all on any of the aviation subcommittees that are proposing this onerous legislation and none in FAA upper management. There is a fair smattering of airlines pilots or managers, though. Any guess why the FAA is so bent on letting the airlines have their way? Or the Senate for that matter? Lott’s proposal is exactly what the ATA asked for.
I’m saying I’m against any fee hike at all. But I want the costs to be reasonable AND I want the money to be USED TO IMPROVE AIRPORTS OR THE ATC SYSTEM. I DO NOT WANT the money to be used for everyday FAA expenses, which I believe needs to come entirely out of the general fund. So here’s some things I believe I could live with and I’d love to hear from other pilots about whether they think what I’m saying is reasonable:
1) Increase the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon.
2) Re-institute aircraft licensing fees at a level of $25-$50/year for single engine piston powered aircraft, helicopters, gliders, and balloons: $50-$100/year for piston powered twins; $100-$200/year for turbine powered aircraft.
3) IFR pilots pay a flat rate fee of $50-$100/year to fly IFR operations. (Your name could be easily checked as “paid” by comparing it to a computer database somewhere other than the ATC facility. An IFR clearance would not be denied if you weren’t paid up. You’d simply be billed and pursued by the Feds just like any other debtor.)
Whether the fees above would bring in enough revenue is something I can’t really address; but if the current system is enough to pay for the system now and some modernization, then it’s hard for me to believe that they wouldn’t be enough to pay for the rest. These fees also have the advantage of being collected and validated within the current system. No one has discussed about what kind of bureaucracy it will take to monitor, charge, and enforce the “per flight” user fees the airlines and the Bush administration have proposed; but it’s hard for me to believe that it can be handled without the invention of a new bureaucratic arm or organization. Certainly, your everyday ATC controller is probably not going to have the time or the stomach for it.
Look, gang, one of the ways the US Government has consistently ruined the experience of our natural resources (and I’m counting the airspace as one of those) is through the imposition of user fees. The National Parks are suffering from the same fate. It’s no wonder. The Feds can’t balance their own budgets so they’re looking to us for ways to bail them out. I’m not for any kind of user fee at all because of that; but if you can’t avoid it totally, then the best you can do is keep them reasonable and minimized. User fees are becoming the de facto way of governments far and wide to avoid being responsible for providing the infrastructure our daily lives need.
How many days of the insane money we're spending on the war in Iraq would it take to end this whole discussion?
posted by Andy Foster at 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home