For nearly four decades, excise taxes on general aviation fuel, airline passenger tickets, and cargo have financed the bulk of the expenses for airport improvements, modernizing the air traffic control system, researching new technologies, and the operations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control system. The taxes deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund supports nearly 87 percent of the FAA budget. The remainder of the FAA’s budget is funded through a contribution from the General Fund. This reflects the public benefit conveyed to all Americans by the world’s safest, most efficient national airspace system. (Lowenfeld) Yet with the release of the 2007 budget congress has other plans for the “world safest, and most efficient airspace system.” For over a year, the Bush administration has claimed that the existing aviation tax revenues are falling short of the FAA’s expenses, noting that ticket prices are not linked to their productivity costs. Creating a stringent budget and implementing a user-fee based system of revenue collections on general aviation was the main target of their 2007 budget proposal. Airlines also believe that a fee-based system will give them more say in how the FAA’s air traffic control system is run, and why wouldn’t they? It would permit them to bully general aviation further away from their major operating airports and airspace areas. Applying user fees into general aviation could compromise safety and put an end to general aviation as we know it.
When flying general aviation aircraft safety is always the number one concern. Before each flight the aircraft are throughly inspected and engine logs are reviewed. Pilots also can call the local Flight Service Station (FSS), there a group of highly trained meteorologists/pilots have access to all the weather information you could ever need. You can call at anytime to see what forecasts are like in your area or destination. This information ends up being a huge deciding factor in your go or no go decision. With this being a widely used free service the new budget implements a user fee on this option, charging around Thirty-five dollars per call. If this fee passes through congress safety in our airways could plummet. Aviation in itself is expensive enough, few pilots will be willing to pay for just a simple phone call. Yet without this information pilots could make poor decisions and fly into unsafe weather, leading to injury or ultimately death. Why would congress put a price on safety?
Part of your second phase of licensing is receiving your Instrument rating (IFR). With this rating you are allowed to fly in marginal weather conditions and safely land with little outside reference, you fly on instruments. When approaching your destination airport you are vectored onto that particular runways approach. These approaches are pre-calculated routes that guarantee your safety from obstacles: mountains, towers, etc. The newly proposed budget has also put a price on these approaches as well. If you wish to fly and land via an instrument approach there will now be someone on the ground to greet you and accept the 35 – 60 dollar fee you owe them. This fee in particular will have devastating affects on not only safety but also the flight schools. From personal experience, during my instrument flight training I logged 71 approaches before I became certificated, which is actually low. If I had to pay the sixty or so dollars per approach you would be looking at paying 4,260! Then continue to keep in mind you must also pay for the time with your flight instructor, aircraft rental, and fuel. Yet adding these fees is exactly what the airlines are pulling for.
If user fees are placed into action big airlines would become the prime beneficiary. With general aviation making up a mere 45% of all air traffic. (Brenlove 42) The airlines believe cutting that number would increase revenue and profits. The dilemma is there are smaller airports, controlled and uncontrolled that sit right under the larger airports airspace. In some conditions its impossible to take off with out contacting one of their many controlling agencies. Yet with new user fees you will be charged just to speak with a controller. They believe its the smaller planes shooting in and out of the nations largest airports that is tying up controllers and forcing large aircraft to wait.
This however brings you to the idea of where to start. No pilot with zero hours just jumped in the cockpit of a 747 and said “okay teach me.” All major airline pilots started at the bottom, flying little two or four seater aircraft, and flew approaches into the large airports for experience. If you begin to limit general aviation you will ultimately limit the number of future airline pilots!
The time frame of this bill is set to its final hearing sometime in early September. At this meeting the ultimate verdict will be told. Phil Boyer, president of the aircraft owners and pilots association (AOPA) has been one of the leading voices in the user fee debate. “User fees and/or radical changes in the FAA funding system would eventually kills us. Cost or control or both.” (Boyer 6) AOPA’s list of opponents is a formidable one. At the last congress meeting in attendance were the usual white house representatives, CEO’s from most major airlines, the FAA, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). All in favor of implementing user fees.
Those for user fees argue the side that smaller aircraft are clogging up the airspace and cause controllers to work harder and make the larger “revenue carrying” airliners wait. The FAA also likes the idea of having an extra stream of income that they claim they will use on modernizations. Both strong points but not entirely true, controllers busiest times are in marginal or IFR weather conditions. During these times planes and pilots are in constant communication with controllers. With such large amounts of aircraft this could be a problem, however 90% of all general aviation takes place in good weather. (Boyer 7) Leaving plenty of open airspace and free controllers for the big jets on the bad weather days. Despite this fact the FAA still finds the need for more money.
14.2 billion dollars is collected and budgeted each year by the FAA. Over 77% (11 billion) is brought in from aviation user fees and taxes already implemented. The other 3.2 billion comes from the nations general fund which all U.S citizens pay into. From here the FAA spends over 8.2 billion on FAA operations, 3.5 billion on airport improvements and 2.5 on ATC enhancements.
What exactly are “FAA Operations?” If the FAA is bringing in 14.2 billion per year, couldn’t they revise their own budget. They may be asking for more money for modernizations but how much is too much? This years FAA budget is up 15% from last year, every year more and more people are becoming pilots, thus more and more are paying these aviation taxes already in-place. All these points are the backbone of Phil Boyer’s article and the speech he intends to give in September. But you can be assured he won’t be there alone.
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) and it’s 410,000 members have quite the starting line up of support. Headlining their efforts is The Alliance for Aviation Across America. A huge coalition composed of rural, agricultural, and charitable organizations; local government; small businesses; and aviation professional. The Alliance for Aviation Across America hosts pilots who fly doctors to some of the most remote sectors of the United States, one such adventure most recently in the bush of Alaska. To help a young girl who has in need of immediate medical attention The Alliance for Aviation Across America flew out the doctor who managed to save her life. This is only one of many things The Alliance for Aviation Across America does, and it is all accomplished in general aviation aircraft.
Another player for the side against user fees is GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) “No one is more committed to the modernization of the national airspace system than aviation manufacturers, We must move past this ill-advised user fee proposal and focus the efforts of our industry and government partners to design and implement a modernized air traffic management system.” CITE! GAMA also bring us to the point that if you create user fees who will collect them? The FAA will have to create an entire new bureaucracy to collect them. The main point they make is, the system has worked for this long why change it?
The controversy has even fizzled down into experimental aircraft The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) Who went as far as preparing a briefing sheet of facts and what to say if you decide to call your state senators office to express the negative impact of this idea.
- The U.S. aviation system is the largest, safest, and most efficient in the world.
- The Airport and Airways Trust Fund that built and maintains this system today is generating record levels of revenue and is projected to continue to grow. The FAA is not running out of money.
- The system of excise taxes and the method of collection are extremely efficient; a user
fee system would be complex, bureaucratic, and expensive.
Fees Include:
a. Weather Briefings Fees
b. Flight Planning and Filing Fees
c. Landing Fees
d. Security Fees
e. Other Airport Service Fees
f. Written Test Exam Fees
g. Airman Certificate Issuance and Renewal Fees
h. Aircraft Airworthiness/Modification Approval Fees
i. Potentially any contact with the civil aviation agency
To go as far as creating a fourteen page briefing paper might seem slightly extreme, but everyone
against this idea believes its great.
This year in July is the world’s largest fly-in pilots and aviation enthusiasts from all over the
world converge on Osh Kosh, WI for a week of air shows, war-bird museums, and every vendor
in the industry. This year however will be different, with it being the last fly-in before the final
hearing. Aviators will be pledging support against user fees. Projected events include a speech by
AOPA’s President Phil Boyer, educational meetings for those wanting to know how this will
effect them, and of course the petition. With a planned half a million in attendance over the
course of a week it seems to be a good place to receive support.
In Phil Boyers latest press release he states:
“When I first took the AOPA left seat 16 years ago, general aviation was gasping for breath, slowly suffocating under a blanket of lawsuits. Special interests plaintiffs and the trial attorneys representing them were killing the goose for the golden eggs. We had to do something or GA (General Aviation) would die.”
Boyer brings up this point to show that he with the help of others have saved general
once before this could be just another mountain to cross. Since Boyer took over AOPA
the general aviation industry has been booming. “When people fly, they pay the already
implemented fees and the FAA makes their money, they don’t need more.” CITE!
However the debate over users fee is not just about money it also involves a certain
safety issue that general aviation will be pressed with.
As stated earlier safety will be compromised, you can’t put a price tag on safety.
But the problem you do have is that, if general aviation is “shunned” from the larger
airspace systems, where is all the traffic from the underlying airports going to go?
You run the risk of these small aircraft taking-off and possibly conflicting with other traffic.
Normally a “flight following” (Traffic separation provided by the air traffic controllers) is a
free service. Yet with user fees, another service that could be taken away from us. The
FAA wishes to modernize the airspace system and federal airways, yet who will this benefit? Of course the airlines, if the FAA wishes to make the skies a safer place they need to think of everyone from the banner towers to captains of the 747’s because we all share the same airspace. No one should be given the short end of the stick, it will come back to bite them in one way or another.
With all of the given support from the AOPA, EAA, GAMA and everyone else including the pilots, the FAA will have a tough battle. As of February 2006 every airline has reported profitability since the sudden decrease after the attacks of 9/11. With all of the major air carriers finally back on their feet and safety at an all time high it would seem senseless to change an already well functioning system.
Many families would lose their air transportation, because only general aviation serves local airports. The U.S has approximately 5,400 public use airports and more than 17,000 landing facilities nationwide. The air carriers only serve 500 of these airports with by far the vast majority of flights concentrated at the 28 most congested hub airports. General aviation serves all 17,000. There’s a certain benefit of being able to travel into the remote area and the busiest of places. A company called Angel Flight, a voluntary service where pilots give up their time, fuel costs, and all other aviation expenses to fly some child in need of care or medical attention. All of this happens in general aviation aircraft. Taking off from some remote strip near the child’s house and taking them to some of the best medical facilities in the nation that would normally be a hassle to drive. By implementing user fees you take away from the joy of flying and the joy of helping someone. Angel flight may no longer be able to operate as a free service if this fees are implemented. Someone could miss out on crucial medical attention.
User fees are over all a poor idea, FAA’s funding has worked for decades, there’s no need for change. With fees you will quickly lose the number of pilots which will hurt major air carriers in the years to come with no one to hire. They are simply taking away the romance of flying
