ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the government way? Why reduce spending when we can add a tax?
Save the contract towers
- Thread starter ackeight
- Start date
Isn't that the government way? Why reduce spending when we can add a tax?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
You can keep saying that but the fact of the matter is that the National Park System is a public use system, but still costs to access it.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
There actually is a tax on frequent flier miles - 7.5% of the value awarded.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../media/Excise_Tax_Structure_Calendar_2013.pdf
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Looking a few years into the future, gliders will pretty much all have turbine engines - that's the direction things are going in. The White House wants $100/flight, no exceptions, for turbojets. Which will pretty much kill off gliders.
But even assuming only multi-engine turbines pay this fee, there will be a huge uptick in the sales of PC-12's and King Airs (which have the same impact on the ATC system). Turbine operators will be pissed that the prop operators have an unfair advantage, and will lobby for them to be taxed too. Which means Barons and Navajos will have an unfair advantage.
Getting rid of a tax is nearly impossible, expanding it is much easier.
As far as I'm concerned, a 172 has just as much right to be at KBOS as a 737 does. I've flown a lot of 172's around KBOS, and besides, lots of times, KBED is busier anyway.
Speed Pilot
Brain Damaged
And everyone currently does pay. The airlines just don't pay enough and GA pays too much.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
My personal fear is that once a tax is created for political reasons (in this case the fat-cat-jet tax is a populist thing), it then falls on the lobbyists to get the best treatment for their customers.
Airlines will spend millions trying to shift taxes onto GA, AOPA/EAA spend millions trying to shift taxes onto the airlines. In the end, a lot of money gets spent, when things are really not bad right now.
If corporate jets are really getting such a free ride, tax them the same as airliners - 4 cents/gallon + excise tax.
And if you look at who uses the system, and who pays for it, airlines are getting a sweet deal. So far, I have yet to see you do anything but whine about "small airplanes and corporate fat cats" in this thread. Seems like every thing youbpost is in favor of increasing what airlines pay because they use the bulk of the system. I rarely use the system, but I still pay taxes for it when I fly. When was the last time you blasted off in your airliner and went VCR from a non-towered airport to another non-towered airport and talked to no one? I still paid for a system I didn't use. And the way I see it, I just put money in "reserve" for when I do.
I work for a UPS feeder, and most of my flights go to one of the affected facilities. There really isn't much going on at these airports. 2-4 regional flights per day, some practice approaches by GA, less than 20 corporate type flights, and a flight school. Typically it's one controller running all frequencies. Even though I don't fall into the CUT! CUT! CUT! political camp I think these are reasonable places to save money. I may get a 10 minute delay occasionally if someone is on the approach, but it's not necessary for us as taxpayers to be keeping these open 16+ hours a day. Our national finances are out of whack and we need to accept fewer services and higher taxes to fix it. If everything gets blocked by "not in my backyard" then nothing changes, because something is in everyone's backyard.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
I guess I'll chime in. I understand both sides of this fight. Before we focus on who is paying their fair share we need to get rid of government waste. There are towers that shouldn't be open but most should stay. I'm sure there is waste elsewhere in the FAA and dot. Once the waste is at a minimum we can decide who pays what. I bet it will be a pretty sizable decrease in taxes/fees. I know it's a pipe dream since once you are used to spending that kind of cash it's hard to take it away. I feel like we are on a runaway train and arguing how bad it will hurt when we crash instead of grabbing the brakes.
Here is an idea. Lets eliminate fuel taxes all together, and charge a use fee for every time you file a flight plan, and make it mandatory to file one whenever you use a facility that has ATC services. VFR or IFR. Charge by the max gross of the aircraft or similar. Most operators I know of would be okay with that, except for the airlines. But it's fair. Everyone would pay for exactly what they use. Or even charge by the distance flown. Because a typical GA flight only uses a few ARTCC's. Imagine the charge on a long x-country flight say from Orlando to LA.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
I hope, as a fellow corporate pilot, that you're being facetious. Please tell me you're being facetious. Please...
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Seems to make the point that the current system is reasonably "fair."
Let's look at it another way - if there were no GA AT ALL, what would the ATC system cost? Pretty much what it does now...
ackeight
Well-Known Member
I would say that is incorrect. That's a lot of towers not used by the airlines. Then all the airports not used would add up into the hundreds of millions saved by the FAA. However, that's billions not made by local communities because of GA. Ga is a good investment by the FAA. Not that they ever see that money directly but the federal/state/local governments do.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
Very little money is spent on GA-only towers.
The vast majority is center/tracon/bravo/Charlie that would be there regardless.
The delta towers are nearly a rounding error in the budget.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see the numbers. I find it hard to believe that those 200 towers are a small fraction. Albeit it is a small portion it is still felt.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Thanks to Seggy for alerting me to the latest user fees thread. I'm always happy to piss in the wheaties all of the GA pilots who think they're somehow entitled to having the airlines pay for their hundreds upon hundreds of airports that the airlines never use and never will use.
There is so much false information in this thread about taxes and how the Aviation Trust Fund is funded that it's difficult to know where to begin. But let's start here: to the guy saying that a tax on a passenger's ticket isn't a tax on the airline, you need to go back to the most basic of economics text books that you have and do a little reading. Frankly, you don't have a clue how business functions. A given market will only bear a certain price point. If that price point happens to be $400, and the government insists on taking $200 of it from the passenger, then the airline only has access to $200 in revenue from that ticket. Raising the price of the ticket results in lower yields because the market dries up. The government is going to get their revenue, so the airline can only take what's left over. Therefore, the higher the tax on each passenger's ticket, the lower the yield for the airline.
Right now, airline tickets are taxed higher than cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor. Essentially, airline tickets are taxed as a "sin." Meanwhile, the Aviation Trust Fund is forced to maintain thousands of GA airports that the airlines will never use, and GA pays virtually nothing. The airlines fund pretty much the entire aviation infrastructure in this country, even though they use only a fraction of it. I'm not on the side of the A4A very often, but in this case, they're absolutely right. GA needs to pay up.
There is so much false information in this thread about taxes and how the Aviation Trust Fund is funded that it's difficult to know where to begin. But let's start here: to the guy saying that a tax on a passenger's ticket isn't a tax on the airline, you need to go back to the most basic of economics text books that you have and do a little reading. Frankly, you don't have a clue how business functions. A given market will only bear a certain price point. If that price point happens to be $400, and the government insists on taking $200 of it from the passenger, then the airline only has access to $200 in revenue from that ticket. Raising the price of the ticket results in lower yields because the market dries up. The government is going to get their revenue, so the airline can only take what's left over. Therefore, the higher the tax on each passenger's ticket, the lower the yield for the airline.
Right now, airline tickets are taxed higher than cigarettes, gasoline, and liquor. Essentially, airline tickets are taxed as a "sin." Meanwhile, the Aviation Trust Fund is forced to maintain thousands of GA airports that the airlines will never use, and GA pays virtually nothing. The airlines fund pretty much the entire aviation infrastructure in this country, even though they use only a fraction of it. I'm not on the side of the A4A very often, but in this case, they're absolutely right. GA needs to pay up.
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
No one [edit: ok ATN was typing about it at the same time I was and beat me by a minute] has mentioned the airport and airways trust yet. This is the fund that all taxes and fees on aviation in the NAS goes to. It does not go into the general fund and does not add to or subtract from the federal deficit. It provides roughly 80% of the FAAs funding, including all of the ATC operations budget, and airways and facilities maintenance. The other 20% comes from the general fund and basically pays for FSDOs. Since that is the case, ATC should not be affected by sequestration at all.
The point of the sequestration was something that was supposed to be so unacceptable to all parties involved that something would be done to avoid it at all cost. That hasn't happened. The secondary point of the sequestration, now that it has happened, is for everyone to feel the effects. It is very easy to stand up and say the government spends too much money, but as soon as the government cuts something that affects you, now it is good government spending.
Seggy is right, this is the Republican's fault. It starts with the gerrymandering of congressional districts at the state level to the point that it is nearly impossible for the opposition party to win. Unfortunately, this creates a climate in which an incumbent has no incentive to compromise as his only chance for losing his seat comes from a primary challenger with a more extreme position. This happens far more in Republican districts than Democratic. Because of this, the House of Representatives has become so dysfunctional it can get almost nothing accomplished. The essence of our political system is reaching a middle ground, usually one that no one is happy with, but it has worked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...85e4d6-2d2f-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html
(will try to find a better source on that one later)
The point of the sequestration was something that was supposed to be so unacceptable to all parties involved that something would be done to avoid it at all cost. That hasn't happened. The secondary point of the sequestration, now that it has happened, is for everyone to feel the effects. It is very easy to stand up and say the government spends too much money, but as soon as the government cuts something that affects you, now it is good government spending.
Seggy is right, this is the Republican's fault. It starts with the gerrymandering of congressional districts at the state level to the point that it is nearly impossible for the opposition party to win. Unfortunately, this creates a climate in which an incumbent has no incentive to compromise as his only chance for losing his seat comes from a primary challenger with a more extreme position. This happens far more in Republican districts than Democratic. Because of this, the House of Representatives has become so dysfunctional it can get almost nothing accomplished. The essence of our political system is reaching a middle ground, usually one that no one is happy with, but it has worked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...85e4d6-2d2f-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html
(will try to find a better source on that one later)
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The 178 towers that may close cost on average $500k/year, or $96 million total.
The FAA spends about $16,000 million /year now.
The FAA spent $98 million on HR administration last year, to put things on perspective.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The tax on cigarettes in NYC is $6.86/pack (I have no idea what they sell for there), but that sounds like much more as a percentage than any aviation tax I have ever paid.
The airlines use a huge percentage of the aviation infrastructure and operations budget, and in the case of airports - their hubs cost billions of dollars, far more than the GA fields.
But okay - how about we fund GA airports only with GA taxes, and don't allow 121 ops. We'll do the same for the airlines - they have their hubs, and no one else uses them, and fund them on their own. Sounds "fair," but not really.