User Fee’s: Paying Their Fair Share?
By Ed Downs
I doubt that many readers of this editorial are completely ignorant of the war being waged against business and general aviation. Yes, we are talking about the “per flight” user fees that have been recommended by our pals in Washington, DC. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB, essentially the White House’s accounting folks), have recommended that all turbine flights be charged a $100 per flight service fee for “ATC Services.” Small, piston engine aircraft and aircraft operating in uncontrolled airspace are specifically excluded. There are other odious details, but this writer will assume that our readers are already aware of this well publicized OMB recommendation and that you have already responded to the request by multiple aviation alphabet groups to participate in a petition appearing on the White House website, “We the People.”
Regrettably, your participation in the petition process is irrelevant, as Dana Hyde, OMB’s Associate Director for General Government Programs, has already blown them off with the following words: “In a challenging budget environment, the Obama Administration believes it’s essential that those who benefit from our world-class aviation system help pay for its ongoing operation.” Hyde continued, “And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share.”
Once this writer cooled down to something just below the red line, I recognized that two basic truths must be faced. First, these fees do not require congressional action or the FAA process of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. They can be invoked through executive action, not answerable to elected representatives. Second, there is a large part of our population that thinks such fees are a good idea, allowing the “99 percent” to a symbolic shot against the “1 percent.”
Pilots and aircraft owners are going to find themselves in election year political discussions wherein they will be compelled to talk about the concept of per flight fees with folks who are strongly in favor of the idea. As we all know, aircraft owners are often viewed as “rich guys with expensive toys.” Simply expressing anger over what is obviously a political ploy in an ever increasing tradition of class warfare is not going to hack it. Let’s take a look at popular beliefs often held by supporters of “per flight” user fees and address each one by the numbers. Hopefully, this will give readers some information needed to address user fees in a calm, reasonable and logical manner.
Misconception 1. General Aviation pilots must use ATC services to fly safely.
To the average non-pilot, we airmen (that includes women pilots) must cling tightly to an expensive FAA system to stay alive and keep from running into each other. The average “Fee Fan” sees aircraft owners as people who receive special services from the government that are not available to the general public. As rich airplane owners, we should obviously pay special fees to use these special services. Your need to be able to quickly explain how the National Airspace System (NAS) works, and why those portions of it that we, and business aircraft, do use are worthy of support through the many taxes we now pay, and general taxes that everyone pays.
The basic premise that the National Airspace System, and therefore, all flights, are dependent upon local FAA controllers (control towers), Radar Approach Control Facilitates (RACF) and Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) to function is simply wrong. Nearly 90 percent of all public use airports are non-towered airports, residing in Class G uncontrolled airspace. That percentage of non-towered airports increases substantially when private use airports are included in the mix, with towers installed at less than 3 percent of the nation’s airports.
The premise that there should be a fee for use of controlled, Class E, airspace is based on the belief by many that the word “controlled” means that aircraft flying is such airspace are firmly under the control of life saving services offered by the FAA. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The term, “controlled airspace’ simply means that the FAA (read that ATC) has the jurisdiction to control aircraft, if the pilot requests operation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A VFR pilot flying in “controlled” airspace is not using ATC services unless they request them, as with radar flight following. Even then, one must remember that VFR flight following is given by ATC only if workload permits.
The fact is, given new GPS navigation technology, privatized navigation and briefing services plus advanced technology display systems (that includes tablets and smart phones), pilots now regularly fly from coast to coast and never talk to the FAA, with the possible exception of checking on TFR’s. The bottom line is that general aviation aircraft can and do regularly fly long distances with minimal or no impact on the ATC structure, while an airline passenger uses every resource ATC has to offer every time they fly.
Misconception 2. Corporate turbine aircraft use special ATC services that cost taxpayers money above and beyond the general taxes paid by all Americans to subsidize the airlines.
Aren’t jets always flying IFR, regardless of the weather? Aren’t the special, life-saving services of the FAA/ATC system always required to conduct IFR flight? Here comes the fun part to explain to fee lovers! Complex radar structures and services are NOT required to fly IFR.
The entire IFR, positive separation system is designed to operate with altitude and time separation, keeping airplanes from running into each other, needing no radar assistance. The complex and expensive ATC system we now have in place is designed to compress traffic into less airspace and increase arrival rates at key airports for airlines. In short, the modern ATC system is a direct subsidy to the airlines, with the airlines, and passengers paying a variety of taxes for it, even though those taxes end up in the general fund.
To be sure, they don’t pay all the cost. Air transportation, like the interstate highways, are considered so important to our economy that all tax payers chip in a few bucks each year through general federal income taxes.
The fact is, corporate jets use a surprisingly small percentage (estimated at less than 10 percent) of this infrastructure and do not impinge upon airline operations. Frequently, corporate and business aircraft specifically avoid the major hubs due to airline congestion and use much less expensive local airports. Oh yes, business aircraft do pay taxes. They pay many service- and use-related taxes in addition to supporting an entire business aircraft infrastructure (employing many thousands of people) that receives no form of federal or state subsidies.
Misconception 3. The present ATC system needs “big government” to grow and develop, and the FAA’s operating budget must be covered with user fees.
First, anyone referring to user fees and the “FAA budget” in the same breath is either profoundly uninformed or simply dishonest. The FAA does not have a congressionally approved budget or long-range budget plans. The FAA is granted support income from general taxes on almost a month to month basis, often treated as a political football in the budget cut game. Inserting user fees discussions of any kind (like highway tolls or fees to enter a national park) as a means of supporting a budget that does not exist is simply giving the executive branch the right to levy taxes with no congressional and/or judicial checks and balances.
It is also interesting to keep in mind that the National Airspace System we have today is the result of private enterprise investment, not government. The entire airway structure, including navigation aid development, was implemented and managed by private companies from the beginning of flight to 1938. WWII stepped in to introduce VHF and radar technology which had been steadfastly held onto by “big government” up to present times. Even the FAA is now trying to dump this out-of-date system in favor of GPS based “Next Gen,” but cannot get budget approval!
Misconception 4. Per-flight user fees are commonly applied by most other countries around the world, which pays for their ATC services.
Absolutely true, high fees are charged, but those fees only cover a small fraction of their total operating cost, even though they frequently apply to all flights of any kind. It is known that countries leaden with high aviation fees seldom (if ever) have a vibrant aviation community. America’s free access policy has resulted in this country being the world leader in development of virtually everything associated with public aviation.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs (actually millions, over the years) have been created and our National Airspace System is second to none, even if it is technologically obsolete. User fees around the world have not led to advanced aviation development or increased employment in any country in the world. Are these the results “Fee Fans” are looking for?
Misconception 5. “Those who benefit from our world-class aviation system should help pay for its ongoing operation.”
This writer agrees, and we do. Airline passengers pay taxes, airlines and corporations pay taxes at multiple levels, and all national airspace users pay fuel related taxes. General taxes contribute to the national airway system because of the good it does for overall national commerce. Corporate aviation not only pays its fare share, but supports an entire industry, supporting thousands of jobs. “Fee Fans” are simply being misled when told that corporate jets get a “free” ride.
Misconception 6. “And we want to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share.”
The “fair share” argument makes for good political rhetoric, but contains a hidden danger. “Fee Fans” need to be careful when promoting the concept of “those using a system should be taxed higher than those who do not use a system.” Does that mean that parents with kids should pay higher school related taxes than those folks who do not have kids in public schools? Is a person using our national highway system to drive to work considered a “Fee Free” user, while a soccer mom needs to pay a “User Fee” because her family is involved in an activity not shared by all?
User fees are actually a “tax by decree” that can quickly get out of hand. Are we going to see the creation of a “Fairness Agency” that makes decisions as to what is fair and unfair? Will this agency have collection and enforcement authority? Are “Fee Fans” really ready to have a government agency making such arbitrary decisions?
Finally, given the truth and logic behind the preceding comments and those of many of the petition participants, why would any elected representative pursue what is obviously a damaging path of action? This is where philosophy comes in. There are many well intended Americans, and leaders of other nations, who truly believe that the problems of the world are caused by the exceptional achievements of America. It is believed that America’s leadership in social structure, economic power and technological achievements makes many people who have not participated in this leadership role (both domestic and foreign) angry, resentful and vengeful. By “toning down” the exceptional qualities that America has earned, we will have a happier world.
To be sure, there is no greater example of America’s industrial exceptionalism than our contributions to aviation and science. Is the vilification of corporate aviation just one more step towards removing America from the very short list of “exceptional nations” in an effort to “level the playing field” in the name of both domestic and international popularity? Those opposing aviation-related user fees must remember that they may be dealing with an agenda that has nothing to do with aviation. Be prepared!
The preceding editorial commentary presents the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of In Flight USA.
