America's Flyways Magazine

March 2007 Letter from the Editor:
User Fees – The Battle Rages
By Jim Hartley

This commentary appeared on a USA Today webpage on February 7, 2007. Following the article are selected comments from readers of the website. Read the article, read the responses and you might come to some conclusions: We need to do a better job of educating the public, not just other pilots. Just the sight of general or corporate aviation aircraft makes some people mad. Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. And, lastly, the battle over User Fees is not going to be a pretty fight…or an easy one.
Jim Hartley
publisher@americasflyways.com

USA Today Opinion
Our view on taxing air travel:
‘Lear lock’ cost — who pays?

Frequent business travelers know the many indignities of flying: long lines, shoe removal, frequent delays, bad or non-existent food. Here’s another, less familiar one: Road warriors are subsidizing high fliers in their Gulfstreams.

Those subsidies are one reason there are more than 17,000 corporate airplanes in the USA, twice the number of commercial airliners. At times and places such as South Florida on winter weekends or New York at virtually any time, they can cause what might be called “Lear Lock.” This Monday after the Super Bowl, for instance, corporate jets left South Florida at a rate of 200 to 250 per hour, causing delays for airline passengers, according to the Air Transport Association (ATA), the major carriers’ trade group.

Those jets are so numerous in part because they are paying very little in taxes to support the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Even though a corporate jet places as great a burden on the air traffic system as an airliner, it pays only a fraction of the price. Most funding for the aviation trust fund, 94% in fact, comes from a variety of airline taxes, principally a 7.5% levy on the price of each ticket. Just 6% of the funding comes from all private jets and small aircraft.

President Bush’s budget, released Monday, would replace per-passenger taxes based on the price of the ticket with per-airplane taxes based on the level of air traffic services rendered. This needed change would:

End an egregious subsidy to corporations and wealthy individuals.
Result in lower ticket prices or, more likely, let the FAA undertake a much-needed and expensive upgrade to its system.
Encourage airlines to substitute larger jets for smaller regional aircraft that have barely enough legroom for a child or bin space for an iPod.

The proposal would have some impact on amateur pilots, particularly if they fly around major cities. It would have a bigger impact on corporate jets that more frequently fly in these crowded corridors.

Comparing two flights from Atlanta to Fort Lauderdale highlights the unfairness of the current situation. One is a 757 commercial airliner that is 75% full. The other is a Hawker 400, a corporate jet seating eight passengers. According to the ATA, the passengers of the commercial flight will collectively pay the FAA about $1,760, directly in ticket taxes and indirectly in fuel taxes. The passengers of the Hawker will pay just $56, mostly from fuel taxes.

If a corporate jet imposes an equal burden on air traffic control, why doesn’t it pay as much of the cost? The only real answer is politics. Corporate jet-setters and amateur pilots constitute some of the most powerful and feared lobbies in Washington. Demands on the air traffic system are growing: The number of corporate jets is expected to increase by 5,000 in the next few years. If they can come into the most crowded airspace in the country at little cost, they will cause bigger headaches. As if the regular airline traveler doesn’t have enough already.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/post_11.html

Responses posted to the website:

Thank goodness the “Decider” finally did something right. This is a change long overdue. Now can we address the reason why when you go to get your license renewed at the local FAA fsdo it’s totally free, no fees are involved, but when you go to do the same thing at your local Department of Motor Vehicles it’s not????!! It costs money and manpower to do these things and there should be a charge incurred to do this. Get with the program, FAA…I think you could use the money.
Posted by: Sam

Take a look at Van Nuys Airport. It is one of the busiest in the nation, and entirely VFR. The idea that GA could operate entirely without the present system is laughable. Let’s shut down the ATCT, turn off the ILS and VOR, turn off the approach lights, and see how loud the GA and business jet community scream. All of these are operated/maintained by the FAA and subsidized by airline passengers. Why should I subsidize your expensive hobby? Or why should I subsidize your business? Simple questions. Explain please.
Posted by: Fred

When the “entire airways system” was conceived and built 50 + years ago, corporate jets didn’t exist. The ability to fly from point to point outside of the airways didn’t exist either. Almost all airliners flying today would also “get along fine” without the airways system as it stands today. In fact, because the system is there, these aircraft are ALSO forced to use it. Corporate (meaning jet. not piston) operators have been subsidized by the Airlines and their passengers from the beginning. It wasn’t a problem for many years, but now corporate jets are clogging taxiways and taking up airspace. It’s simple. If you use the services of Air Traffic Control, you pay for it. No doubt AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) will howl about this to any and every congressman who will listen. The funny thing is, they really don’t have a dog in this fight. The majority of their members are small piston-powered airplane owners who will not be affected by this rule change. Will somebody please offer one valid reason for why the business aircraft operators should continue to be subsidized by the rest of us?
Posted by: Paul B

As a frequent flyer — in the tiny little seats — I can tell you with confidence the taxi queue is frustrating. If a tax will force corporate jets from the runway, I am for it! The growing sales figures for corporate jets proves this is a problem that should have been addressed years ago. Bottom line, it is ridiculous to treat a corporate jet with the same launch hierarchy as a passenger jet with 200 people on it unless they are overpaying for the privilege. Of course — as a side observation — you’ll notice GB introduces the topic when he knows there’s no chance it will be passed — instead of forcing it through when his own party ran things.
Posted by: jack

As an AOPA member and private pilot, I am sorry that our association has taken such a backward-looking position on this subject. In case you are unaware, the airlines’ association has actually agreed to EXEMPT all piston powered planes from their user fee idea. Why should AOPA be protecting the interests of NetJets and other high-end GA planes? The truth is we shouldn’t! Modernizing the FAA needs to happen sooner or later. As the voice of the “small GA community,” AOPA can choose to be part of that modernization by being active participants in the FAA of the future’s design, or can continue to bellyache about how mean the airlines are. The facts are really simple: if you are consuming ATC services, you should probably pay something (beyond our meager fuel tax) for those services. Why should airlines pay for everyone else’s use of the ATC system?
Posted by: Ben