On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:53:29 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Setting user fees proportional to alleged actual burden would effectively
emove most GA flights

Mr. Poole used to advocate exempting GA from user fees if ATC were
privatized. I haven't hears his position lately. Is this it?


http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...user%20fees%22
We recommend that only that small segment of general aviation
which makes extensive use of air traffic control services—jets and
turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be represented on the
stakeholder board. The large majority of piston-powered general
aviation would continue to pay the aviation fuel tax, which would
help to support the airport grants program. And we consider the
Flight Service Station program used by general aviation to be
basically a safety function, which should be paid for out of FAA’s
safety budget; in no cases should there be user fees for those
services.



So, it appears that ATC user fees are to be used to fund ATC
modernization and privatization while the existing ATC system remains
in place during construction and implementation. That would mean that
the ticket and fuel taxes would remain in place as usual, and
ADDOITIONAL user fees for existing ATC services would imposed.

Here's the blurb:

http://www.reason.org/atcreform35.shtml
Why the "No Funding Crunch" Claim is Wrong

Opponents of the shift from aviation taxes to ATC user fees
continue to claim that there is no ATC funding crunch. Last year
this was the mantra of controllers' union NATCA. Today the same
song is being sung by the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association. In
forum after forum, Phil Boyer and Andy Cebula keep repeating that
airline yields are rising, the Aviation Trust Fund will have a
growing surplus, and the status quo is just fine, thank you. What
are they leaving out?

First, on the question of airline yields, they are seizing on a
short-term trend that is very unlikely to be sustained. Since
bottoming out at an all-time low in 2005, yields have been
increasing for the past year. But they are still 16% below the
level of early 2001. More important, the overwhelming long-term
trend, over many decades, is of ever-declining yields. That trend
was already evident prior to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,
but the resulting creation of low-cost carriers reinforced it, by
making the industry far more competitive. My colleague Vaughn
Cordle, of Airline Forecasts Inc., expects yields to fall in 2007,
resuming their long-term downward trend. He points out that
airlines have gone through a massive restructuring that has
significantly reduced their costs, but those savings have not yet
been passed along due to high fuel costs. Moreover, airlines right
now are operating at historically high load factors, which are not
likely to be sustained once more capacity enters the market,
probably by next year.

But the larger point is one that I made last month, when the
JPDO's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee
released its cost estimate for implementing the next-generation
system. Their best estimate is that it will cost $25 billion over
20 years, over and above what FAA can realistically project their
current funding sources to provide. Don't forget, they have to
operate and maintain the existing legacy ATC system while
developing, testing, and implementing the new one. When AOPA and
others talk about Trust Fund surpluses, that is before the cost of
NGATS!

The most businesslike way to come up with $25 billion is to issue
revenue bonds, to be repaid by a reliable stream of user-fee
revenues over the lifetime of the new system. That is why, contra
AOPA, user fees are essential to bringing about the
next-generation system.



A compilation of Reason's air traffic control research and commentary
is available at http://www.reason.org/airtraffic/index.shtml.