Senators still demand user fees

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html


Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html


Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."




UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.

Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

On Jul 12, 8:40 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in messagenews:9bhd93ls26d94v5llhh5ghh81jhtkg1op7@4ax .com...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html

Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.

Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

My understanding is that UPS' equipage is 1090 (extended squitter)
which requires comms with the ground segment. I believe there are
still some implementations in use (East Coast) that use UAT which
supports air-to-air comms.

Regards,
Jon

Larry Dighera wrote:
Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets,"

Given that commercial passengers are now paying less, equivalently
speaking, than they ever have before, yes, yes they should continue to
subsidize corporate jets.

"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

"If we can't make sure that the dinosaurs maintain their monopolies on
the routes and airports, then we will have to look for other ways of
eliminating our fertile tax base".

Do these guys even listen to themselves when they're speaking?

S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay,

Oh yes, I must have forgotten that day in economics where eliminating
the tax on your LARGEST consumers, and placing the burgeoning debt on
the SMALLEST contingent fixes all of your budget concerns.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

If by "modernization" they mean "pay more and fly less", then ****
modernization. The system works now. Just because the big airlines find
themselves consistently outpaced by smaller and newer competitors
doesn't make the best solution taxation of a community admittedly unable
or unwilling to pay. Southwest and the other regionals continue to
happily do business while the government spends millions bailing out the
dinosaurs, and the whole absurd ruckus rolls on.

Ridiculous, it is.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Ridiculous, it is.

http://www.avgroup.com/propilot_atc.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps358.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf

http://www.reason.org/ps347_business_jets_atc.pdf

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with a
vested interest.

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with
a vested interest.

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
or bias of some sort? Why else would the first article start with citing
the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
citing any.

The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
that testimony.

The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news

It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups
with
a vested interest.

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested interest
or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?


Why else would the first article start with citing
the problem of congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's
misdirection; simple literary dishonesty.

Maybe the fact there's no fees for landing during peak timeslots has
something to do with that? Maybe if you dig a bit you find that's a mjor
tenent of his proposal?


The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right" w/o
citing any.

Could you poin that one out?


The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees, according
to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT agrees with
that testimony.


The FAA Funding Crunch--One More Time

Is there or isn't there a looming budget shortfall that could impede timely
implementation of the $20 billion NextGen system? Advocates of the status
quo-both in Congress and among the general aviation alphabet groups-say
there isn't. The FAA and others, such as your editor, maintain that there
is. The most recent round in this back and forth was a letter from the
Government Accountability Office, in response to a question from the House
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee (www.gao.gov/new.items/d07918r.pdf).
GAO's Gerald Dillingham told the members that "the current FAA funding
structure can provide sufficient funding for NextGen-with some caveats."
Dillingham relied mostly on a projection made last fall by the Congressional
Budget Office, which projected future aviation excise tax revenues through
2016.



That, unfortunately, is an incomplete and misleading picture. I wrote about
that CBO projection last fall (issue #38), after talking with the CBO
analysts who prepared it. As I'd suspected, they did a simple projection of
the aviation tax revenues, assuming that they grow slightly faster than
inflation and GDP, based on historic relations between air travel and
economic growth. What that ignores is structural changes in air
transportation, discussed in last fall's GAO report on the same subject
(GAO-06-1114T) and in FAA's justification for its funding reform proposal. A
fundamental disconnect exists between the drivers of aviation tax revenue
(the number of passengers carried and the average ticket price) and the ATC
system's annual cost (driven by workload, based on the growth in air
traffic). As the same total number of people gets carried in more, smaller
units (RJs instead of 737s, air taxis and fractionals instead of airliners,
etc.), traffic grows faster than passengers, and therefore costs grow faster
than revenue. It is this structural disconnect that threatens the ability to
afford NextGen.



The Congressional Research Service pointed this out last fall in their
background report, "Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration:
Background and Issues for Congress," Oct. 18, 2006. In the section on
Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues (p. 13), CRS points out that the "FAA
sees little prospect of a major increase in revenue from the trust fund's
existing tax and fee system," and that "The FAA position is supported by the
Department of Treasury estimates that suggest that annual revenue increases
to the trust fund in the years ahead will be modest." (U.S. Treasury, Office
of Tax Analysis, "Airport and Airway Trust Fund: FY2007 Mid-Session Review,
Current Law Baseline," Summer 2006).



Status-quo defenders also like to claim that the existing aviation excise
tax structure has provided stable and predictable funding. Guess again.
What's most relevant in looking at NextGen funding is FAA's capital budget,
called "Facilities and Equipment." I went back and got F&E figures from
FY1992 through 2006 and adjusted them for inflation. Over that time period,
the real value has bounced around from a low of $2.4 billion (1998) to a
high of $3.5 billion (1992). We're also told not to worry because Congress
can always supplement FAA's budget by adding general funding. CRS looked at
that, over the period FY1997-FY2006, finding that the general fund
contribution varied enormously, from as high as 38% (1997) to as low as 0%
(2000) and 8% (2002)-not exactly stable and predictable. The DOT Office of
Inspector General has seconded this point. In a report last fall on FAA
management questions, it said that it's "extremely difficult, if not
impossible" to predict future government appropriations and general fund
contributions.



Unfortunately, although both GAO and FAA have done a good job of explaining
the "fundamental disconnect" between revenues and costs, neither has
produced a budget projection based on that disconnect. That leaves the naïve
CBO projection as the baseline for discussion-and a handy rack for defenders
of the status quo to hang their hats on.



The forth, in part 3, commits the same act (though admittedly it is merely
citing FAA staffers with their own biases and vested interests).

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

It's the airlines funding model that he explicitly rejects.

Try again.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
interest or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?

I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn. Willful distortion, though,
makes it clear that there's something motivating the authors away from
truth.


Why else would the first article start with citing the problem of
congested airports but call that an ATC issue? That's misdirection;
simple literary dishonesty.

Maybe the fact there's no fees for landing during peak timeslots has
something to do with that? Maybe if you dig a bit you find that's a mjor
tenent of his proposal?

That's fine. And if he were to use that argument to push for something
like congestion pricing for landing slots, I'd have no problem with the
logic. That's not where that paper took the reasoning, however.


The second simply says essentially "there's evidence that we're right"
w/o citing any.

Could you poin that one out?

Point out a lack of citation?

But I should have been more precise: I was referring specifically to the
claim that the lack of funding is an obstacle to ATC upgrading. The
closest thing to a citation is the claim that Blakey and Mineta have
claimed that the FAA's funding base has been "devastated". Evidence from
testimony suggests otherwise.


The third speaks to a funding problem. Yet the GAO disagrees,
according to testimony by Gerald Dillingham. Calvin Scovel of the DOT
agrees with that testimony.

[...]

It's worth reading GAO-06-1114T itself. For example, I note on page 12
that the FAA is apparently ignoring the fact that - regardless of the
services GA receives from the ATC system - the system as it exists today
exists because of commercial aviation. Did commercial aviation not exist,
the cost of GA's consumed services would be quite a bit lower.

It's easy to distort the truth as the FAA is apparently doing, simply by
speaking of that "cost of services received". It's quite similar, in
fact, to a game being played out in my local township. To fudge some
numbers, the town is pushing some services (ie. parking and sewage) onto
separate agencies. The agencies hire additional people (that weren't
needed when the town provided these services directly), and then call
these hires "costs of running the agency" that get passed on to the users.

Perhaps there are spreadsheets that can justify the cost given that the
agencies exist, but the agencies were imposed upon the users. It was a
constituent other than the users that caused this addition cost, even
those the users are getting parking and sewage services.

Put another way, the users could (and did) get those same services at
lower cost but for the decisions made for someone else's benefit. Why
should the users shoulder the additional cost?

The report does touch upon this issue again - not merely citing FAA
claims, but actually pointing them out - on pages 14 and 15.

Another issue raised by this report is equity. An example cited is that
a 767 flight contributes more than a 737 flight. From the FAA's
perspective, I see the issue. But ATC service cost is just one possible
metric for a given flight. Another is the value provided by that flight.
Assuming that there's some value in getting a person from point A to point
B, then that 767 flight does contribute more value as well. A VAT on that
value would yield more than on a 737 flight.

On a lighter note (at least I hope the authors saw the humor here; I sure
do), page 16 speaks to the "problem" that a fuel tax might encourage fuel
efficiency.

All that said, there's something I've missed. Where in that report is the
claim that the FAA will be underfunded by the current system of fuel taxes?

What that ignores is structural
changes in air transportation, discussed in last fall's GAO report on
the same subject (its) and in FAA's justification for its funding reform
proposal. A fundamental disconnect exists between the drivers of
aviation tax revenue (the number of passengers carried and the average
ticket price) and the ATC system's annual cost (driven by workload,
based on the growth in air traffic). As the same total number of people
gets carried in more, smaller units (RJs instead of 737s, air taxis and
fractionals instead of airliners, etc.), traffic grows faster than
passengers, and therefore costs grow faster than revenue. It is this
structural disconnect that threatens the ability to afford NextGen.

This ignores numerous issues, and the cited GAO report makes nothing like
this strong a claim. For example, air taxis are likely to avoid the
terminal areas most congested. The same is true, albeit presumably to a
reduced degree, for any increase in RJ traffic. This pushes traffic from
the more congested areas to the less congested areas.

[...]

More, the fact that the airlines are apparently able to exploit this
process to try to achieve yet another tax break (despite the claimed
issue being an FAA cash shortfall) makes it clear that the process is
biased and therefore flawed (and pretty much congressional business as
usual).

It's the airlines funding model that he explicitly rejects.

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean "airlines' funding..."? And to
which "he" are you referring? The author of those four papers? Or one of
the Senators from the origins of this thread.

The latter is to what I was referring in my paragraph above. The process
in the Senate we're witnessing is corrupted (though in the fashion to
which we've become accustomed). That paragraph wasn't addressing those
four papers, but the process which threatens to impose these fees upon us
[merely because some Senator has a donation up his ... wallet].

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:33:04 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

You don't think those links are written by someone with a vested
interest or bias of some sort?

What in\terest would that be?

I've no idea. I don't care enough to learn.

Nuff' said.

Willful distortion, though,
makes it clear that there's something motivating the authors away from
truth.

Bye.

Enjoy being grounded in a few years.

[Over and out]

Matt Barrow wrote:
links
It's certainly more fun, though, to listen to all the alphabet groups with a
vested interest.

I read the articles, and here's what I could glean from them:

Modernization has three issues:

1. No one will give us the money to do it.
2. The FAA isn't the giant, faceless soul-eating bureaucratic monster we
thought it was.
3. No one wants our system.

That said, the ideas about delays and system capacity were interesting.
They seem to predict a nearly quadratic expansion of delay times if we
throw in just a few more planes.

The proposals need about 16 hours a year in time savings for the light
category jets to break even, of approx. 450 hours a year. That equates
to about 2.5 minutes of time savings per day. We could achieve this kind
of time saving by simply whipping the controllers vigorously until they
begin to issue clearances faster, or perhaps just at a faster vocal clip.

The 'best-case' solution (Dist-Wt, as I saw it) means an approximate
doubling of flight costs per year for a corporate operator. What this
proposal fails to factor, I think, is that much of the corporate traffic
is not fundamental, but incidental to business; corporations choose to
own and maintain their own jet because it's convenient and
cost-effective over the airlines. What kinds of contingencies are
planned when corporate traffic drops to practically nothing, and the
airlines are sitting fat and happy on their tax-less fuel?

This proposal would seem to advocate throwing wads of cash at a problem
that doesn't yet exist, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible
for an individual or entity to own or operate a private aircraft. Is the
solution to the problem of capacity simply to make all the pilots
carpool, or trust a subsidized government pocket-boy to take up the
slack? Is the solution simply to drive private citizens back to the
airlines by making GA impossible to support?

The "let's be like Canada et al." argument is used for another popular
hot-button topic: NHS. There's a reason why "if it works for them, it'll
work for us" doesn't ring true to many people: it's a crap way of doing
things. Even in spite of ourselves, practically no-one in the US doesn't
have some kind of access to health insurance, and we maintain one of the
world's best healthcare systems anyway, without yet another public
private oversight sub-committee on the Committee for Sub-Oversight of
Administration. Now, why did we want to use a foreign nation's system as
a template, again?

TheSmokingGnu