by "Steve Foley" Nov 4, 2005 at 08:07 PM


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

By Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association

Consider air traffic control (ATC). The writer, National Air
Transportation Association President James Coyne, argued that “the
basic
rationale for ATC is … to protect airline passengers.” ATC actually
exists
to provide safe guidance to all aircraft that utilize its services.
Each
user should pay its fair share.

I agree with Coyne on this point. I'll never believe ATC was created to
serve GA.


The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for FAA
operations and ATC. General aviation is a major user of FAA services,
accounting for 40 percent of flights handled by FAA centers, and 69
percent of operations handled by FAA towers. However, GA contributes
less
than $200 million per year into the fund via fuel taxes—about 2 percent
of
all user contributions. Commercial passenger and cargo airlines, and
our
customers, pay the other 98 percent.

How quickly will the 40% drop off if I have to pay for each call? Does
anyone really believe that I will pay the same fee that a landing
clearance
that a revenue-producing 747 will pay? So what happens whan I stop
calling?
The FAA still has to pay the center controllers. They still have to
maintain
the navigation aids. They'll simply have fewer people using the services,
and more unidentified targets on the radar screens.

As for the 69% of tower opertions, GA accounts for 100% of the traffic at
several local towered airports. The cities are hoping for the return of
commercial traffic, and don't want to let go of their precious towers. In
fact, the controllers frequently ask the local pilots association to
practice there to 'keep the numbers up'. The same question remains: When
they start charging for a landing clearance, what will the 69% drop to?

GA flights not using ATC still benefit from FAA Flight Service
Stations,
which exclusively serve general aviation and cost the government $532
million annually—nearly three times more than GA pays into the Trust
Fund.

I call flight services because I have to call flight services. I can get
better weather info on line, but I have to be sure my tail number is on
their tape so when an un-announced TFR shows up, I'm covered.


“[i]t is clear … that the current level of [GA] tax
payments does not cover the costs GA imposes on the FAA.”

Again, what are the incremental costs GA imposes? I can stop using those
services entirely. Delta cannot."

In that case, maybe you should argue in favor of substituting user fees
for the current AV gas levy. By not utilizing any of the services funded
from the FAA from tax $ (including runways, lighting, nav aids, etc.),
costs would decrease dramatically.

The truth is that GA is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and commercial
airline passengers. I am eagerly awaiting an objective analysis from the
AOPA that shows the amount of AV gas tax collections relative to the
operating and capital grants that GA facilities receive. I am positive
they are working on this, as it will prove their point once and for all.


(For those who haven't read "A Modest Proposal," please regard the
preceding paragraph as satire. An honest assessment would never be
sanctioned by Boyer's gang, as it would show that not only is GA heavily
subsidized, but nonrecreational GA pays the bulk of AVgas taxes.
Recreational GA enjoys a free ride.)