Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
English 2010
8:00 AM- 9:40 AM
order to combat the national debt. While I agree this is a worthy goal, I find
the federal governments attempt to further tax GA a poor choice, and proof
that the government is continuing to attempt to dismantle GA. Earlier this
year, congress ordered the FAA to close a number of air traffic control towers
as part of sequestration. Daniel McCoy of the Wichita Business Journal gives
the best report, Combined with the recent move to cut federal funding from
149 air traffic control towers, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls
the push to again pass user fees as a serious assault on general aviation
(McCoy).
You may ask why GA is being targeted by the federal government. The
answer is there are relatively few pilots in general aviation, and the general
public is mostly unaware of the challenges that GA faces. This allows the
government to more easily pass legislation that would be unfavorable for
pilots. There simply are not enough people who are aware or educated on
these issues to put up major organized resistance. Only by the efforts of
organizations like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the National
Business Aviation Association, and the Experimental Aviation Association
have these legislations been defeated. Now they face the threat of user fees
for the fourth time during this administration.
The next question that begs to be answered is, what is the reasoning
behind introducing these fees, other than the need to pay down the national
debt? In a letter written in response to a petition to take user fees off the
table, an Obama administration aide wrote the following:
pump than semi and transportation companies, and had to carry that cost on
your own.
Another argument used by the administration for the implementation
of fees, is that general aviation is causing a drain on already overburdened
Air Traffic Control systems. It is claimed that the addition of user fees would
help to alleviate these pressures by helping to pay for new, and more
efficient traffic control, thereby making the skies safer and reducing
congestion. This is a large point of discussion in a writing published by the
Reason Foundation (Poole). However, in statistics released by the FAA
themselves, it is shown that general aviation only accounts for a minimal
amount of traffic and costs.
The most recent FAA cost-allocation study, conducted in 1997,
showed that GA operations were responsible for about 6% of ATC costs.
Of course, about 6% of the revenues going into the Airport and Airways
Trust Fund are from the GA community, so there is every reason to
believe that the current GA excise taxes cover, or come close to
covering the costs GA operations impose on the air traffic system
(Bollen).
Overall the major cost of Air Traffic Control comes from the massive
operations of the commercial operators. In no way should general aviation
receive the blame for putting too much strain on the system when they
account for less than ten percent of the air traffic in the nation. Additionally,
the FAA budget and revenue has increased over the last several years, while
the cost of their operations has decreased with advances in technology. The
need for human controllers has decreased as automated systems have
become more advanced (Bollen). Next-Gen Air Traffic Control systems are
even now being implemented across the nation that are significantly
decreasing the congestion and cost that the airlines are primarily responsible
for.
The Obama administration also claims that the implementation of user
fees would produce 7.3 Billion in revenue over the course of ten years
(McCoy). That number may sound initially impressive, but broken up, thats
only about 730 Million per year, a number seemingly insignificant when
compared to the nations $17 trillion debt. This new revenue does not even
come close to paying down even one percent of the national debt. There is
no viable reason for aviation user fees to exist in our current aviation system.
The final question is, if passed, what effect would user fees have on
general aviation? Would they really be that bad? The answer simply, is yes,
they would be devastating. We need only to look across the ocean to our
European neighbors for an example. In the post war era, Europe was
strapped for cash and implemented user fees in the nineteen seventies.
Forty years later, general aviation in Europe is practically non-existent. Flying
is only available for the very wealthy, or commercial pilots who do their
flying for the airlines. There are only dozens of small airports in Europe
versus the thousands of small and private airports that dot the American
Bibliography
Bollen, Ed, President NBAA. "Why User Fees are wrong for General
Aviation." Aviation
News. (2006) NBAA. Web. 05 July 2015
McCoy, Daniel, Obamas new budget proposal again includes general
aviation user fees
Wichita Business Journal. (2013) Web. 06 July 2015
Poole, Robert W. Business Jets and User Fees: Taking a Closer Look, The
Reason Foundation
(2006) Web. 14 July 2015
AOPA Communication Staff AOPA Warns User Fee Proposal Could Cripple GA
AOPA (2013)
Web. 12 July 2015
IRS Fuel Tax Law IRS Website (2013)
Web. 06 July 2015
Hyde, Dana, Why We Need General Aviation User Fees We the People
(2013)
Web. 06 July 2015
FAA, Federal Aviation Regulations, Aeronautical Information Manual (2015)
Print