Jet-A users get screwed

On Apr 27, 11:08 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
What is your basis for saying this? Do you have data that shows that
aviation today is contributing more to the Feds than we are getting
back in services? I haven't seen much data on that, but what I saw
some years back showed just the opposite to be true.

This is the 600 pound gorilla in the room at every anti-airport,
anti-aviation meeting, and, as pilots and aviation supporters, we must
be prepared to counter these assumptions. We also must counter some
very ingrained beliefs amongst the electorate.

Sadly, I know what I'm talking about. (I wish I didn't.) As the
founder of my airport support group, Friends of Iowa City Airport, and
also my AOPA airport support network volunteer, I'm involved with this
debate every day. Here are a few thoughts...

- We must counter the assumption that *of course* taxes must go up,
because that's what they always do. Citizens are so used to this
preposterous state of affairs that they don't even question it anymore.

Taxes DON'T have to go up, nor should they. We, the people, should not
be condemned to the concept that we must eternally pay a larger
percentage of our income to government. We must reassert our control
of this process.

- We must counter the attitude that "Oh, they can afford to pay it."
This is the classic "divide and conquer" theory of tax implementation
that our government has used successfully against its citizens since
1913 or so, when the first income tax was enacted. By pitting one group
against another, they are able to obscure the reasons for raising the
tax in the first place. It's a classic, time-honored ploy that over time
has resulted in each of us paying over half of what we earn to our
overseers.

This a different and broader discussion than just GA.

- Airways and airports are a public trust, not a private enterprise,
same as highways and roads. My airport costs $112K per year in direct
city taxpayer support, and (according to a 2000 Iowa State University
study) brings $5.5 million annually into the local economy. Sounds
like a pretty damned good investment to me. Multiply that times
thousands of airports, and you've spot-lighted the underlying reasons
for supporting general aviation.

It only costs $112K annually because the capital costs are largely
subsidized by the federal government. If the TRUE cost of the airport
were being paid by the local government, it would cost a LOT more than
what you have quoted. Do you know what one decent sized runway costs?
Do you know what the amortization of that is per year assuming even a 30
year runway life?

I'm a big fan or airports, but I'm also an engineer that believes in
data driven arguments, not emotions. Saying that the airport costs
$112K per year is so grossly misleading that isn't even funny.



- Over the last 70 years the federal government (through first the CAA,
now the FAA) has incrementally expanded its control over the the system,
some would say unnecessarily. There is little question that the FAA (as
with most of our federal government) is bloated, top-heavy, slow moving,
and inefficient. Instead of enacting another huge increase in Jet-A
taxation to support this enormous entity, demand efficiency.

These are just a few things to talk about at your next cocktail party.
I don't have time right now to expand these arguments (I've got to head
off to work here shortly), but there are many other tactics to use when
confronted with anti-airport, anti-GA rhetoric. Many are philosophical,
many are factual, and many involve contrasting wasteful government
spending habits against what is actually spent on aviation.

The public is generally ignorant about what GA does for their
communities. If we want to continue to have airports to land at, it's
our duty to spread the good word.

Absolutely, the benefits should be communicated widely and often.
however, we shouldn't try to hide the real cost of the airport either as
that simply makes us look like financial amateurs.

Matt

I wouldn't want to hide the true cost of anything, but I would like a
level playing field.

None of the streets in my city pay for themselves--they all get paid
for by property taxes and other taxes, even if the property owner
walks and rides a bike.

No street generates its own revenue. But they all enable revenue to
be generated by the people and business that use them. Try having a
community with no streets.

Then, why does an airport have to "pay for itself"? It is a
transportation center, a business center, and it enables other
businesses to flourish. Those businesses and people pay the taxes
that support the community in general, as well as the airport.

The federal government supports lots of crap (The latest agriculture
bill has millions for thoroughbred horse racing. Go figger.) As long
as they tax me to support that, it's only fair to tax others to
support airports.