모두
← Back to Squawk list
White House budget contains user fee despite opposition
User fees for aviation were once again part of the president’s new budget proposal, despite continued strong opposition from Congress and the aviation community. On March 4, the White House released its fiscal year 2015 spending plan, which included a $100-per-flight “surcharge” to pay for air traffic control services. (www.aopa.org) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Boy, lots of aviation-related comments here. Really reflects well on FA.
+ 100
Make it a 1000.
I think this is probably the first time I've ever seen those spam messages FA gets all the time actually be relevant.
+1,000,000
+1,000,000
It got removed?! But it was the best spam message ever!
The fee itself applied to all commercial flights to pay for ATC would actually be a good thing.
The problems are:
1) Aviation already has quite a high level of taxation in the US. Certainly more than enough to pay for necessary government-provided aviation-related services, like ATC, security, and regulatory function.
2) The fee, if implemented, would not likely be locked only to the funding of ATC. If so, eventually the fee (or substantial amount if funds collected through the fee) would be diverted for other non-aviation uses.
3) The fee may be extended to all flights, including small plane recreational flights. This woul be an undue and unecessary burden on general aviation, Whig is already struggling under the regualatory burden.
So while, the fee is not bad on principle, especially if used exclusively for the provision of efficiently provided ATC services. In the real world, the implementation of these user fees can be problematic.
The problems are:
1) Aviation already has quite a high level of taxation in the US. Certainly more than enough to pay for necessary government-provided aviation-related services, like ATC, security, and regulatory function.
2) The fee, if implemented, would not likely be locked only to the funding of ATC. If so, eventually the fee (or substantial amount if funds collected through the fee) would be diverted for other non-aviation uses.
3) The fee may be extended to all flights, including small plane recreational flights. This woul be an undue and unecessary burden on general aviation, Whig is already struggling under the regualatory burden.
So while, the fee is not bad on principle, especially if used exclusively for the provision of efficiently provided ATC services. In the real world, the implementation of these user fees can be problematic.
While this specific budget is only aimed at commercial aircraft and corporate GA ("recreational piston" aircraft are exempt,) I also agree it sets a dangerous precedent. AOPA assumes it would only be a matter of time before all controlled airspace users were given the fee regardless of GW or engine type or purpose.
If the law could be written to permanently exempt piston GA users I really don't see the big deal. If you are paying $5000 + per hour to fly a jet around I doubt you would notice another $100. Also, with IATA predicting the airline industry to be more profitable than EVER BEFORE this coming fiscal year, I assume they could absorb a $100 per flight fee. Really, they would just pass that down on the fares (easily less than $1 per passenger fare increase.) (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_12_2013_p0-646093.xml)
I don't want to see this go into effect any more than the next pilot (I doubt it will) but I laugh at the doomsday posts I read. Flying is expensive and the airports, government, and FBOs are gonna leverage aviation users regardless.
Like the other posts I would like to see any proceeds from user fees actually go to aviation infrastructure and not to support the indolence epidemic.