FAA On User Fees: "The piston thing is not going to happen." Divide And Conquer?

It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:


FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY

With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/r...007-05-01.html)
reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195121


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :



Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.

Larry Dighera wrote:

It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:

I think they're more afraid of the VLJ's taking away their lucrative
first class, business class, and full-fare coach passengers.

Paul

On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:05:24 -0400, "Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail
address)" wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:

I think they're more afraid of the VLJ's taking away their lucrative
first class, business class, and full-fare coach passengers.

Paul

Wouldn't it be nice if the airlines and airline manufacturers worked
to overcome the objections to airline travel (long security lines,
degrading inspections, hub-and-spoke limitations, leg room, delays,
etc.) instead of attempting to restrict more attractive modes of air
travel? Such a sincere approach to marketing runs against the grain
of marketeers I suppose.

So the FAA wants to remove Congressional oversight as a condition of
implementing NextGen ATC privatization. Given the current poor
performance of LocMart's AFSS privatization, hopefully Congress will
see the light.

CONGRESS TOLD FAA LACKS ROAD MAP FOR NEXTGEN

The FAA says that the current national airspace system won't be
able to handle the expected tripling of air traffic by 2025, and
there's generally no disagreement among stakeholders about the
need for ATC modernization. But it is how we get there that is the
big problem. In opening statements before a hearing Wednesday
morning on ATC modernization, House Subcommittee on Aviation
Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., brought up the FAA's poor track
record of previous ATC modernization projects and promptly added
that "vigorous congressional oversight" will be needed for
NextGen. DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel testified

(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?fi...-508_FINAL.pdf)
that NextGen is a "high-risk effort" that will "involve
billion-dollar investments by both the government and airspace
users." During questioning, he submitted that the FAA and Joint
Planning Development Office (JPDO) need to have a detailed R&D
plan developed before Congress can properly appropriate funding
for ATC modernization.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195171

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:12:04 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :



It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:


FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY

With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/r...007-05-01.html)
reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195121


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :



Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.

Eight years until grid lock:


FAA FACT SHEET PROMOTES AVIATION USER FEES

The FAA is painting a dismal picture of its own performance in an
unvarnished attempt to gather support for its controversial
proposed aviation user-fee funding system. In a fact sheet
(http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=8807)
released last week, the agency ties the funding package directly
to modernization of airspace management, which has been nicknamed
NextGen. "The Administration's NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent
to Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
stream to fund the transition to NextGen," the fact sheet reads.
"The current tax system expires Sept. 30, so Congress must act
now." Without airspace modernization, the fact sheet warns, the
system "will reach gridlock by 2015."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195188
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


So it would appear that NextGen ATC privatization is necessary for the
airlines:


http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=8807
Fact Sheet
For Immediate Release
May 10, 2007


A System Under Stress: Aviation Congestion
The Problem:
Snapshot of Aviation Delays
The air transportation system is stretched thin. Currently, the
system handles 750 million passengers each year. We expect this
number to reach one billion by 2015 and forecasts indicate
increases in demand ranging from a factor of two to three by 2025.
The current system is already straining and will reach gridlock by
2015 if we fail to act. Passengers will experience ever-increasing
levels of congestion unless the air transportation system is
fundamentally transformed.

The percentage of on-time arrivals at the nation’s busiest
airports has steadily declined each year since 2002, when 82
percent of flights arrived on-time at the 35 busiest airports. In
2006 the on-time arrival rate at those airports fell to 75
percent.

Delays in 2006 were the worst in history. Passengers at the three
most delayed airports in the nation — Newark, JFK and LaGuardia —
experienced on-time arrivals roughly 65 percent of the time and
delays averaged one hour. That is unacceptable.

The National Vision: Reduce Delays, Eliminate Congestion
The FAA works to reduce delays and eliminate congestion every day,
starting literally from the ground up. The President’s goal is
simple and direct: get people and goods where they need to go as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

We are building new runways, installing new technology, and
putting new procedures in place to facilitate capacity and
efficiency enhancements.

To combat aviation congestion, the Department’s strategy calls for
major technology upgrades and capacity improvement projects at
major airports, all while managing congestion at key hot spots,
such as New York’s LaGuardia Airport.

We're Making Progress. Here’s How:
On the Ground: Enhanced Airport Capacity
Since 2001, we have built 10 miles of new runways at 10 of our
busiest airports.1 Together these accommodate over 1.6 million
more operations per year and decrease average delay per operation
at these airports by approximately 5 minutes.

By 2010, new projects will be completed at Boston, Philadelphia,
Los Angeles, Seattle-Tacoma, O’Hare, Dulles and Charlotte.

In the Air: The Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen)

As air travel demand continues to rise, and it will, simply adding
pavement to the existing airports will not be enough.

The current air traffic system was built on 1960’s technology and
has reached the limits of its ability to handle more traffic. It
cannot be expanded. NextGen is a revolutionary approach that will
enable us to handle up to three times today’s traffic levels.

NextGen is a long-term transformation of our nation’s air
transportation system. It will use technologies such as
satellite-based navigation, surveillance, and networking. We are
setting the stage to develop an air transportation system that
will be safe, able to meet growing demand, and responsive to
evolving business models.

Aviation’s ability to continue to play its traditionally dynamic
role in our economy will be substantially diminished unless new
NextGen technology and procedures are put in to place now.

NextGen is not only necessary to accommodate increased levels of
commercial travel, but also to meet the growth in new types of air
travel that are taking the skies. We are expecting a surge in
traffic from a new generation aircraft called Very Light Jets
(VLJs). These high-performance jets are inexpensive and will be
able to land just about anywhere. Commercial Space is another new
market well under way that the must be accommodated in our air
transportation system.

The Administration’s NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent to
Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
stream to fund the transition to NextGen.

The current tax system expires September 30, however, so Congress
must act now.
---------------

1 Detroit, Cleveland, Denver, Miami, Houston, Orlando
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, St. Louis and
Atlanta.

###






On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:15:18 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

So the FAA wants to remove Congressional oversight as a condition of
implementing NextGen ATC privatization. Given the current poor
performance of LocMart's AFSS privatization, hopefully Congress will
see the light.

CONGRESS TOLD FAA LACKS ROAD MAP FOR NEXTGEN

The FAA says that the current national airspace system won't be
able to handle the expected tripling of air traffic by 2025, and
there's generally no disagreement among stakeholders about the
need for ATC modernization. But it is how we get there that is the
big problem. In opening statements before a hearing Wednesday
morning on ATC modernization, House Subcommittee on Aviation
Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., brought up the FAA's poor track
record of previous ATC modernization projects and promptly added
that "vigorous congressional oversight" will be needed for
NextGen. DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel testified

(http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?fi...-508_FINAL.pdf)
that NextGen is a "high-risk effort" that will "involve
billion-dollar investments by both the government and airspace
users." During questioning, he submitted that the FAA and Joint
Planning Development Office (JPDO) need to have a detailed R&D
plan developed before Congress can properly appropriate funding
for ATC modernization.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195171

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:12:04 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :



It looks like the airlines are getting panicky over the threat of
smaller air carriers' ability to provide good service to smaller
airports:


FAA REAUTHORIZATION: NEW BILL IN PLAY

With the FAA's proposal to restructure the way it's financed facing a
broad array of opposition, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Trent
Lott, R-Miss., have come up with their own solution, The Hill
(http://thehill.com/business--lobby/r...007-05-01.html)
reported on Tuesday. Their bill is expected to be introduced in the
Senate later this week. It exempts piston-driven aircraft from user
fees and new taxes, but would shift a considerable share of costs off
the airlines and onto smaller turbine aircraft. The Alliance for
Aviation Across America (http://aviationacrossamerica.org/), a
recently formed alliance of groups opposed to user fees, has already
expressed "grave concerns" about the new bill.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195121


On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :



Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Eight years until grid lock:


FAA FACT SHEET PROMOTES AVIATION USER FEES

The FAA is painting a dismal picture of its own performance in an
unvarnished attempt to gather support for its controversial
proposed aviation user-fee funding system. In a fact sheet
(http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=8807)
released last week, the agency ties the funding package directly
to modernization of airspace management, which has been nicknamed
NextGen. "The Administration's NextGen Financing Reform Act, sent
to Congress in February, will provide a stable, cost-based revenue
stream to fund the transition to NextGen," the fact sheet reads.
"The current tax system expires Sept. 30, so Congress must act
now." Without airspace modernization, the fact sheet warns, the
system "will reach gridlock by 2015."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195188
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their "fact sheet" doesn't mention the $150 million they are spending on
a new control tower at La Guardia! What are they making it from?
Gold=plated unobtanium?

They also don't mention that FAA Administrator Marian Blakey doesn't
even know about widespread use of GPS in aviation!

Nor do they mention that several vendors already offer systems that
perform the same functions as NEXRAD -- at a fraction of the cost and no
cost to FAA!

Larry Dighera wrote:

Eight years until grid lock:


Perfect. I'm six years from being eligible to bail.

Given this FAA justification for implementing NextGen ATC
privatization:

NextGen is not only necessary to accommodate increased levels of
commercial travel, but also to meet the growth in new types of air
travel that are taking the skies. We are expecting a surge in
traffic from a new generation aircraft called Very Light Jets
(VLJs). These high-performance jets are inexpensive and will be
able to land just about anywhere. Commercial Space is another new
market well under way that the must be accommodated in our air
transportation system.

I fail to see how VLJs specifically are an issue. Isn't it a
projected increase in the number of aircraft concurrently in the NAS
that is the perceived problem? Hell, if the thousands of BD-5s that
that charlatan-Jim had sold had actually been built, the NAS would
have reached grid lock conditions back in the '70s.

VLJs are just airplanes. What is the FAA afraid of, a massive
increase in Part 135 ops?

More news:


SENATORS INTRODUCE ANTI-USER-FEE AMENDMENT

An amendment striking user fees from the Senate's FAA
reauthorization bill (S. 1300, introduced May 3) has yesterday
been introduced by Senators Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and John Sununu,
R-N.H. Currently, the funding bill seeks to establish a $25
per-flight user fee for turbine operations, according to NBAA.
Language in the proposed amendment would remove the call for a
per-flight user fee as part of the funding bill, and received
praise from NBAA President Ed Bolen. "The amendment introduced
today by Senators Nelson and Sununu is great news for
businesses and towns across the country," Bolen said, "The general
aviation community is deeply grateful." Bolen's organization in
particular finds the proposal of equally applied fees regressive,
citing that an international flight with 300 people aboard would
be charged equally when compared to a single turboprop flight with
four aboard serving a small rural community.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195197



On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:45:17 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :


Don't be fooled by the Divide And Conquer strategy of the pro ATC
privatization crowed. How long do you think piston aircraft will
remain exempt? Is there going to be a non-negotiable guarantee, that
once ATC is privatized, piston aircraft will REMAIN exempt from user
fees? I have heard no mention of such a guarantee.

It is definitely what is not mentioned by the FAA that is most
troubling. Funding this privatized NextGen ATC user fee system will
require both the NextGen and current ATC systems to be funded
simultaneously for years (decades?) until the existing ATC system is
deactivated. That's bad enough, but the privatization proponents are
demanding that the current Congressional oversight of FAA spending be
removed, so they'll have a blank check to fill their bank accounts!

Don't be fooled. Privatized ATC is a big corporate aircraft
manufacturer and airline boondoggle, make no mistake.

Currently airliners are lined-up nightly for over a thousand miles
nose-to-tail (within separation standards) all the way from Oklahoma
on their way to KLAX. How many more airliners can the NAS truly
accommodate? It is setting this limit, that should be the focus of
this discussion.



Read all about the FAA's double-speak:

FAA MYTHBUSTING -- SHOULD GA WORRY ABOUT USER FEES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009)
Would the FAA's proposed new funding structure force general aviation
to pay more than its fair share of the FAA's costs? According to the
FAA, that's a "myth." At an "Ask The FAA" session at the Sun 'n Fun
Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., on Friday, the FAA answered questions about
user fees and distributed a "fact sheet" that explains the effects of
its proposed financing changes on general aviation. The "facts,"
according to the FAA, are that GA currently drives about 16 percent of
the expense of the air traffic system, but pays only 3 percent of the
cost. The proposed changes would raise that percentage to 11 percent,
with only 1 percent coming from piston-aircraft users. It's also a
myth, says the FAA, that the airlines drive the cost of the
infrastructure, while GA is only a marginal user. The FAA says it has
taken those factors into account in its cost analyses. Will the
proposed tax increases "ruin" GA in the U.S.? No, says the FAA. The
increased cost would work out to about $500 per year for most piston
fliers, according to the fact sheet.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195009

USER FEE COMPROMISE IN THE WORKS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007)
Capitol Hill pundits are predicting the compromise on general aviation
user fees that will be sent to Congress will spare the piston crowd
any increases, but sock business aviation with charges for their use
of the airspace. (Hear what Cessna chairman, CEO and president Jack
Pelton has to say about aviation user fees
(/other/JackPelton_UserFees_2007-04-20.mp3). [3.3MB mp3]) A story in
The Hill earlier this week quoted unnamed sources as presenting this
scenario. "The piston thing is not going to happen," the source told
The Hill. "I do think there's significant traction on the whole issue
of corporate aircraft." The story also quotes an internal Air
Transport Association memo as conceding that the statistics it has
widely used to support the airlines' position on user fees are
somewhat skewed. The ATA, the strongest proponent of user fees, has
publicly claimed that U.S. airlines pay 95 percent of non-general-fund
contributions to the FAA's trust fund through ticket taxes, but The
Hill says the internal memo admits that the airline portion is more
like 74 percent, with cargo companies and foreign airlines picking up
the difference. Meanwhile, there's a furor north of the border as Nav
Canada has singled out very light jets for inclusion in its second
tier (more than 6,600 pounds mtow) of charges.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195007

I'd like to see a user fee system for car travel. See how that flies.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.