On 15 Feb 2007 09:35:45 -0800, "quietguy" wrote
in .com:

There are encouraging signs that legislators in both parties are very
cool to the FAA's proposal:

avweb.com/avwebflash/news/User_Fees_Generate_Less_Income_194473-1.html



So it would appear:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFLASH Volume 13, Number 7b -- February 15, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...h/806-full.htm

USER FEES WOULD GENERATE LESS INCOME
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194473)
The FAA's proposed reauthorization legislation, the Next Generation
Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 (), revealed
Wednesday, claims a new financing structure is necessary for the FAA
to build an efficient and safe air transportation system for the
future. Airlines and air travelers would pay less, but operators of
business and general aviation aircraft would pay more. "Our proposal
will make it easier for airports, airlines and controllers to keep
pace with the skyrocketing demand for air travel," said FAA
Administrator Marion Blakey, in a news release (). "With over a
billion passengers expected in the air by 2015, we have to act now or
risk gridlock in our skies and on our taxiways." Yet the plan shows
that under the proposed change to user fees, total revenue for the
agency would actually decline. The FAA's data shows that the new
proposal would yield $600 million less in FY2008 than the current tax
structure and over $900 million less from FY2009 to FY2012, according
to Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Aviation.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194473

CONGRESSMEN FINDS FAA USER-FEE PLAN "DISTURBING"
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194474)
The FAA's long-anticipated new funding plan, revealed Wednesday
morning, calls for a changeover to user fees, as expected -- but the
agency ran into immediate and widespread opposition at a hearing ()
later in the afternoon before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., called the
proposal "dead on arrival." Many on the panel questioned whether the
plan would promote safer skies. Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., maintained
that it would, ironically, because it would "rid the skies of general
aviation aircraft." Along with others on the panel, he questioned the
need for drastic hikes in the fuel tax -- from 19 or 21 cents per
gallon to 70 cents -- and called the plan "terribly disturbing."
Questions were raised about why the change to user fees would
apparently result in even less money to support the airspace system,
which already is strained and in need of technological upgrades.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194474

AOPA, NBAA RESPOND TO FAA PLAN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194475)
AOPA () President Phil Boyer said he was "very encouraged" by the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's reactions to the
FAA's proposed reauthorization blueprint. The hearing featured "a lot
of blunt, outspoken dialogue," he said, and he expects all 535 members
of Congress will closely scrutinize the FAA plan, and consider its
effect on their constituents. The general public may have only a vague
idea of what GA is, Boyer said, but "the members of Congress get it --
they understand GA." And AOPA plans to talk to all of them, one by
one. Ed Bolen, president of the National Business Aviation Association
(http://www.nbaa.org/), said it's too early, though, to tell the
"overall reaction" of Congress to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey's
proposal.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194475