Here come the user fees

"Tony" wrote:

Of even greater interest is that this plan does NOT solve the problems
commercial aviation has. Allowing FAA to increase traffic density will
NOT solve the problem of weather delays propogating through the
system.

Nor will it solve the gridlock that is part of the hub and spoke
system and inadequate runway/terminal capacity.

Plus their track record on developing systems is poor. They also
wanted to totally reduce ground-based navaids prior to 9/11.

And if you think that radars are going way, guess again.

Ron Lee

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:07:46 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote in SOZAh.4920$H77.483@trndny08:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...authorization/

[...]
The proposed legislation, called the Next Generation Air Transportation
System Financing Reform Act of 2007, would replace the decades-old system of
collecting ticket taxes with a cost-based, stable and reliable funding
program that relies on a combination of user-fees, taxes and a federal
government contribution to support the development of a new,
satellite-based, air traffic control system, called NextGen.

With the removal of the airline ticket tax the traveling public gets a
free ride. Airlines burn several orders of magnitude more fuel than
GA. Airlines rely heavily on ATC facilities and personnel. But
airline travelers will not pay for their fair share of those.

The ticket tax needs to be adjusted upward to fund the NextGen scheme,
and a new airline jet fuel tax imposed. This would ensure the cost of
ATC is distributed equitably among those who benefit from it.

"This new proposal will make flying more convenient for millions of
travelers," said Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. "Anyone who has
experienced the frustration and inconvenience of a delayed flight should
take a very close look at what we're proposing."

The lack of a definite claim above should set off your prevarication
detector.

The new, more precise, air traffic control system will take full advantage
of the latest satellite-based technologies,

An ATC system predicated on satellite communications is completely at
the mercy solar phenomena. I'd want to know how the NextGen system is
designed to deal with periodic solar activity based outages, before
I'd even consider implementing it.

Imagine the chaos as the entire ATC system, now managing 200% to 300%
more air traffic, loses GPS, data and voice communications. Because
NextGen has rendered them obsolete, VORs, ILSs and ADFs won't be
available to pilots at such a time of solar based system failure.

allowing the FAA to handle more
aircraft, maintain high levels of safety, reduce flight delays, and cut
noise near airports, Administrator Blakey noted. The new system is essential
if the agency is to keep pace with growing demand for passenger and cargo
flights that will lead to between 2 and 3 times more air traffic by 2025,
she added.

The bill will eliminate the domestic passenger ticket tax

It's the damn airline passengers that necessitate the ATC system in
the first place. What possible motivation could there be to eliminate
airline passengers from paying their fair share of ATC facility and
personnel costs?

and reduce the
international arrival and departure tax by 50 percent, reducing the overall
burden to both the airlines and the traveling public.

Their burden should be increased so that it is commensurate with their
use, not reduced nor eliminated!

It will generate
revenues based on the costs that users impose on the air traffic system,
whether they are commercial, business or general aviation users.

Yes. On a per-aircraft bases, not a per user bases. That's not
equitable.

"Our proposal will make it easier for airports, airlines and controllers to
keep pace with the skyrocketing demand for air travel this nation is going
to experience over the coming decades," said Administrator Blakey. "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."

Personally, I see no way for NextGen to meet that promise. It's going
to take a lot of concrete to change the current situation. And given
the public's current contempt for airport expansion, any change is
going to take decades to implement.

The legislation also provides limited new borrowing authority that can be
used by the FAA to support the construction of new runways, airport
terminals and air traffic control facilities and equipment.

Boeing is only too happy to earn the interest on the funds it loans
FAA to purchase its new systems, and circumvent congressional
oversight of FAA expenditures in the bargain.

It also calls for the establishment of a new advisory board that will
give members of the aviation community a stronger say in how federal
funds are invested in aviation, while maintaining strong congressional
and public oversight in recognition of the importance of aviation to
the nation.

Who wrote this piece, Karl Rove!

The above should read:

The establishment of a new advisory board will give large
corporations, the manufacturers and operators of the airline
industry, a stronger say in how our federal funds are invested in
supporting their pet programs at the expense of losing
congressional and public oversight.


The legislative proposal makes several changes designed to improve the
ability of airports to meet capital needs and proposes to reform the
Passenger Facility Charge Program to enable large and medium sized airports
to raise local funds for vital construction projects. It also will
restructure the Airport Improvement Program by better targeting Federal
funds. And the bill funds research into new engine and airframe technology
that will reduce aircraft noise and engine emissions.

Boy, Boeing and the airlines just can't wait to get their hands on all
that AIP money.

Administrator Blakey said she would work closely with the Congress to
encourage swift action on the legislative proposal, noting that the
expiration on September 30, 2007 of the funding authorization for the FAA's
current programs and the existing taxes that fund the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund provide a unique opportunity to create a system that better
serves travelers.


That's it, rush it through so that the news media don't have time to
expose the sham for what it is.

Larry Dighera wrote:


The bill will eliminate the domestic passenger ticket tax


It's the damn airline passengers that necessitate the ATC system in
the first place. What possible motivation could there be to eliminate
airline passengers from paying their fair share of ATC facility and
personnel costs?


Don't worry, when GA is pretty much destroyed in a few years and
gas tax revenues go away they'll be back and revivie the ticket tax.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:50:50 GMT, ktbr wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


The bill will eliminate the domestic passenger ticket tax


It's the damn airline passengers that necessitate the ATC system in
the first place. What possible motivation could there be to eliminate
airline passengers from paying their fair share of ATC facility and
personnel costs?


Don't worry, when GA is pretty much destroyed in a few years and
gas tax revenues go away they'll be back and revivie the ticket tax.

You make it sound like the people, by and for whom the government was
created, are powerless to resist this corporate boondoggle.

Find your voice, and shriek the alarm to your federal representatives
and the news media before it's too late.

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

avweb.com/avwebflash/news/
Congress_FAA_User_Fees_Disturbing_194474-1.html

Google strikes again! Try these links instead:

http://tinyurl.com/24zzka

http://tinyurl.com/yodhpo

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

Larry Dighera wrote:


Don't worry, when GA is pretty much destroyed in a few years and
gas tax revenues go away they'll be back and revivie the ticket tax.


You make it sound like the people, by and for whom the government was
created, are powerless to resist this corporate boondoggle.


The user fee proposal is dead. There isn't one person in Congress who
supports it.

On Feb 15, 8:50 am, ktbr wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

The bill will eliminate the domestic passenger ticket tax

It's the damn airline passengers that necessitate the ATC system in
the first place. What possible motivation could there be to eliminate
airline passengers from paying their fair share of ATC facility and
personnel costs?

Don't worry, when GA is pretty much destroyed in a few years and
gas tax revenues go away they'll be back and revivie the ticket tax.

Amen... traditional supply and demand curve... if you increase the
tax by a factor of 3, the demand will go down. If the demand goes
down by a factor of 3, you haven't increased revenues at all. If it
goes down more than that, you are worse off than before, unless you
believe the FAA will save money not having to service as many GA
planes. I doubt that they will since most of the infrastructure costs
are associated with the airlines and major airports.

On the bright side, think of all the new drag strips, tract housing
and shopping malls that we will gain in place of the small airports
that go away. God knows we need more of those. Maybe a new Walmart
or two as well!

Dean

More news about the FAA's skeptical reception in Congress:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...user_fees.html

No member of Congress seems willing to state it openly but any
proposal to take budgetary authority out from under Congress and give
it to the executive branch is not going to fly (no pun intended) on
Capitol Hill.