If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen:
Trouble ahead over small plane fees By Randall Turk THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.) NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C. skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft. Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief. To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay. To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other improvements at major airports. Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business aviation. Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds. "Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and everything else on the table." The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers. Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine, piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000 companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes. The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily levied on business aircraft. "It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said. "Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system." The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7 percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA maintains. The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue. A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of the [airport] expense is." NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as "costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer." Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the NBAA says. Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger airports, and about 9 percent are military flights. Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]." Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers indirectly." Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control system is a priority. "The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust Fund." Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
I have already written a letter to my senators and representative
regarding this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new govenrment bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user fees. This bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it would have to be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to collect taxes. It is already in place. ross AJ wrote: From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen: Trouble ahead over small plane fees By Randall Turk THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.) NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C. skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft. Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief. To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay. To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other improvements at major airports. Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business aviation. Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds. "Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and everything else on the table." The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers. Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine, piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000 companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes. The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily levied on business aircraft. "It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said. "Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system." The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7 percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA maintains. The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue. A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of the [airport] expense is." NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as "costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer." Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the NBAA says. Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger airports, and about 9 percent are military flights. Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]." Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers indirectly." Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control system is a priority. "The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust Fund." Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport (ACK) has more
operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an operation based fee, I hope Nantucket gets the same level of funding as Boston does. "Ross Richardson" wrote in message ... I have already written a letter to my senators and representative regarding this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new govenrment bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user fees. This bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it would have to be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to collect taxes. It is already in place. ross AJ wrote: From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen: Trouble ahead over small plane fees By Randall Turk THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.) NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C. skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft. Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief. To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay. To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes refuel. Federal taxes on aviation go into the Federal Aviation Administration Trust Fund that subsidizes air traffic control and other improvements at major airports. Private aviation's case for maintaining the status quo was voiced recently, when an executive from the National Business Aviation Association visited Norman. NBAA Operations Director Jay Evans spoke to University of Oklahoma aviation students about careers in business aviation. Earlier, Evans said the user tax proposal for general aviation "comes up in Congress every year," but appears more ominous this year, in light of FAA warnings of an impending shortage of operating funds. "Our concern is that the FAA hasn't put the kibosh on it," he said. "The Administration and the FAA are looking at this and everything else on the table." The NBAA defines business aircraft as planes used for conducting business. An exception is air cargo planes such as those operated by UPS and FedEx, which are classified as commercial air carriers. Business aircraft, considered a segment of the general aviation industry, can be anything from corporate jets to single-engine, piston-powered planes. In 2003, the NBAA says, more than 10,000 companies operated nearly 16,000 aircraft for business purposes. The official NBAA view is that user fees could not be fair nor easily levied on business aircraft. "It would mean taking a large part of the financial burden of air traffic operations and putting it on general aviation," Evans said. "Right now, we pay our share through the fuel tax. If a business aircraft's engine turns, that's paying for use of the system." The general aviation industry already contributes about 20 percent of taxes going into the FAA Trust Fund, more than compensating for its limited use of the country's 558 commercial airports. NBAA statistics indicate 70 percent of all commercial flight take-off and landing operations occur at 30 hub airports throughout the country. Only 3 to 7 percent of such operations involve general aviation craft, the NBAA maintains. The Air Transport Association's position: Any aircraft in the air traffic control system should pay the user fees. The airline association holds that a blip on the radar screen is a blip, no matter what size the craft. The NBAA says that is not the issue. A 747 airliner, for instance, "requires a tremendous amount of work to get off the ground," Evans said. "It has much more of a weight-bearing effect on airports. That's where the biggest part of the [airport] expense is." NBAA President Ed Bolen is scheduled to testify before Congress in early May to present business aviation's case against user fees. In official statements, Bolen has viewed user fees for general aviation as "costly, requiring a large bureaucracy to administer." Such fees on small aircraft are also unfair, since most utilize the approximately 5,000 public use airports throughout the country instead of the major airports that require the most capital expenditure, the NBAA says. Flight statistics indicate air carriers account for more than half the instrument flight rules operations (or take-offs and landings during poor flight conditions) at major airports. Commuter planes and air taxis constitute 21 percent of the instrument flights at the larger airports, and about 9 percent are military flights. Burdening general aviation with usage fees could affect safety and even what consumers pay for goods and services, Evans said. "If there's concern about user fees, some general aviation aircraft may avoid flying through air traffic control areas [outside radar control]." Another concern is that user fees would translate into business/general aviation aircraft flying less. "To squelch general aviation would affect a growth industry," Evans said. "It would affect consumers indirectly." Evans said the FAA has not delineated what costs are involved with a shift in user fees. But Evans said the NBAA and the other aviation associations agree that modernizing the country's air traffic control system is a priority. "The government has not budgeted as much as we would like for improvements to air traffic control," Evans said. But assessing user fees on general aviation is not the answer, he said: "A new bureaucracy that requires would severely impact the Aviation Trust Fund." Randall Turk writes for The Norman (Okla.) Transcript. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
"AJ" wrote:
Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief. To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay. To compensate for that, an unprecedented user fee would be slapped on general aviation. Such fees would be in lieu of a 21.9-cent per gallon federal excise tax on jet fuel and the 19.4-cent federal tax on aviation gas presently paid at the pump when general aviation planes refuel. Does anyone have information on what this "user fee" is going to be based on? A fixed price on per-aircraft-year (e.g. $10,000/year per aircraft, whether it's a Boeing 747 or Cessna 172, irrespective of time in the air), per-aircraft-mile, per-aircraft-seat-year, per-aircraft-seat-mile-year, or what? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
"Steve Foley" wrote in message ... I've heard that on a busy summer weekend, Nantucket Airport (ACK) has more operations than Logan (BOS). If we go to an operation based fee, I hope Nantucket gets the same level of funding as Boston does. This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient" (actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of operations, but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is very little activity left. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
"Tom Conner" wrote in message nk.net... This might very well be true. However, you need to find out how many operations are "local" (pattern practice), and how many are "transient" (actually go someplace). Many GA airports have high numbers of operations, but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is very little activity left. Why would you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
Many GA airports have high numbers of operations,
but once you subtract the student pilot pattern practice flights there is very little activity left. Does it matter? Fly the pattern for an hour at Teterboro and you get ten landing fees. It's more expensive than the plane. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
"Ross Richardson" wrote in message ... I have already written a letter to my senators and representative regarding this matter. Among other things, I stated that a whole new govenrment bureaucracy would have to be set up to collect these user fees. This bureaurcacy would take away from the taxes collected since it would have to be funded. The tax on avgas and jet fuel is as easy to collect taxes. It is already in place. Trouble is politicians love bureaucracy. If it costs $2.00 to collect $1.00 that's just fine by them. Just means they can create a bureaucracy to determine how to create another bureaucracy to raise the $1.00 the first bureaucracy came up short. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
"AJ" wrote in news:1144704355.085254.309920
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com: From the Cushing (OK) Daily Citizen: Trouble ahead over small plane fees By Randall Turk THE NORMAN TRANSCRIPT (NORMAN, Okla.) NORMAN, Okla. - A political dogfight is looming over Washington, D.C. skies this summer as a financially troubled airline industry attempts to shift some of its financial burden to smaller aircraft. Essentially, the National Air Transportation Association representing the airlines is seeking about $2 billion a year in federal tax relief. To accomplish that, NATA wants general aviation - all aircraft except commercial airliners and military - to take up the slack. That would reduce the 7.5 percent "user fees" airline passengers pay. I only needed to get this far to go "HUH?!?!" The airlines don't know how to run their business. So instead of changing their business model, or passing the costs on to their customers, they want the gov't to stick it to a third party? As Penn & Teller would say....BULL****! Think about it. Say I have a business selling crayons. I can't make my company solvent. So what do I do? Beg the government to tax those who use pencils and give me the money! What the airlines propose is just as ludicrous. Snipola of rest Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble ahead over small plane fees
In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote: No, but I suspect they will model it on the European way: - airports will have their FAA funding cut, and will charge landing fees to make up the shortfall - enroute charges from ATC - charges per approach - increased fuel tax - increased fees for interacting with the FAA: for example, pilots will have to pay a higher fee ($100s) for pilot certificates instead of the two or three bucks it is now. Aircraft owners will have to file paperwork for the annual inspection with the FAA - and will be charged a fee of $200 for doing so. Which will work just about as well as the luxury tax on yachts attempted here awhile ago. Of course, this is speculation, but I get the feeling the FAA will just look east to see how European countries treat GA. Is GA a big source of funds for European countries? How big a source relative to the airlines? Thanks -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story | Michael182/G | Instrument Flight Rules | 48 | July 14th 05 03:52 PM |
Small plane crash lands on freeway in LA area | Skywise | Piloting | 17 | June 24th 05 04:37 AM |
My first lesson | Marco Rispoli | Aerobatics | 3 | May 17th 05 08:23 AM |
My first aerobatic lesson | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 6 | April 13th 05 02:21 PM |
Plane down - NASCAR team plane crashes... | Chuck | Piloting | 10 | October 28th 04 12:38 AM |