trump/ATC Privitization/User Fees

[mshunter]

The devil is in the details, though. Where are the user fees collected from, and what are the proceeds spent on? Are these for airport improvement, or for ATC directly? What will the military and government users pay into this system, as they are also substantial users of it.

The majority of the aircraft in the US are GA, which is (fortunately for us) something that is unique in the world. Personally, I can mostly avoid using ATC services, at the expense of more fuel and less safety in my case. That isn't a good solution. Improvements need to start with ideas that will benefit everyone.

The majority of aircraft may be GA, but the majority of those are parked, the majority of the time. The majority of the use of the system, comes from 121 operations. All three major airlines, together, account for over 14,000 departures, A DAY. Let that sink in a minute.

Now, does GA sound like the problem here, or is someone just poking the hive again. The article didn't even mention user fees, correct?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The majority of aircraft may be GA, but the majority of those are parked, the majority of the time. The majority of the use of the system, comes from 121 operations. All three major airlines, together, account for over 14,000 departures, A DAY. Let that sink in a minute.

Airlines are by far the greatest users of the ATC system, and should pay for most of it. They are by no means the only users. And ultimately, the airspace belongs to all of us, it is a public resource.

 

[NovemberEcho]

It'll all be good til this new corporation decides to do a cost-benefit analysis and decides those towers at GA airports aren't worth the expense.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

It'll all be good til this new corporation decides to do a cost-benefit analysis and decides those towers at GA airports aren't worth the expense.

The world wouldn't exactly end without them. I think if you look at why they are there, in many cases, it was because an airline or the military needed a weather observer at one point for whatever reason though.

 

[MikeD]

The world wouldn't exactly end without them. I think if you look at why they are there, in many cases, it was because an airline or the military needed a weather observer at one point for whatever reason though.

Makes me wonder why places like RYN have a tower. A federal tower that is, not just a contract/non-federal one. Only gets a little GA traffic, a little military RW traffic, and that's it. Besides having an ILS many use for practice, and a nice restaurant, there's little that goes on their operations-wise, to justify the cost of an FAA tower, I'd think.

 

[Seggy]

So pretty much everyone on this site* (the 99.1%) doesn't pay "their fair share" of taxes to fund our government yet you guys think it's OK to ream the little guy (GA)? I find that very hypocritical.

The biz jet operators certainly don't pay their fair share.

The gal/guy flying around in a 172 between two uncontrolled fields VFR does.

 

[Seggy]

My, my, so angry.

Sometimes, you have to take the good with the bad.

So you voted for trump?

And if user fees are implemented, airlines will still share the brunt of the cost, since they operate immensely more than private operations do, especially in the flight levels.

Airlines are practically the only ones paying now.

You fail at life, hard. You always look for an opportunity to poke the beehive. You fail at adulthood too. And maturity. You just don't get it.

Maybe you should look in the mirror before attacking others.

 

[Seggy]

The devil is in the details, though.

Of course.

Where are the user fees collected from, and what are the proceeds spent on? Are these for airport improvement, or for ATC directly? What will the military and government users pay into this system, as they are also substantial users of it.

We are working on an ATC system developed in the 1950s/1960s and is third world. The user fees should be used to fund NextGen. The amount saved by that type of system long term will pay for the user fees ten fold. However, the initial investment needs to be made and the airlines shouldn't have to pay the brunt of that cost.

The majority of the aircraft in the US are GA, which is (fortunately for us) something that is unique in the world. Personally, I can mostly avoid using ATC services, at the expense of more fuel and less safety in my case. That isn't a good solution. Improvements need to start with ideas that will benefit everyone.

Would, spit balling here, $20.00 more a flight really be that much of a burden on a single engine piston GA Operator? Seriously, would it be? Doubtful.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The biz jet operators certainly don't pay their fair share.

The gal/guy flying around in a 172 between two uncontrolled fields VFR does.

The biz jet owners are certainly getting a huge break in accelerated depreciation. Perhaps that is a better thing to go after? Walking over dollars to pick up nickels, and all.

At the same time, those rules make a lot of sense for the 172s used for training.

I think it would server all of us well to look at the big picture before making up our minds, the US is by far the best place in the world for aviation. If we are going to make changes, we may as well make ones that don't hurt that.

 

[Seggy]

The biz jet owners are certainly getting a huge break in accelerated depreciation. Perhaps that is a better thing to go after? Walking over dollars to pick up nickels, and all.

Tough to make that argument when I am waiting in IAD, three in line for takeoff, with 179 folks behind me waiting to go on a transcon behind a biz jet who didn't switch over to tower and is holding up the line behind him when everyone else is ready to go.

They sent out an ops vehicle to wave to the guy to check his radio.

Anyway, why not go after both loop holes?

I think it would server all of us well to look at the big picture before making up our minds, the US is by far the best place in the world for aviation. If we are going to make changes, we may as well make ones that don't hurt that.

We have a ATC system in place from the 1950s and 1960s, that is hardly the best in the world. We need to upgrade it to a NextGen system. That is the big picture or we will fall further behind.

 

[trafficinsight]

Of course.



We are working on an ATC system developed in the 1950s/1960s and is third world. The user fees should be used to fund NextGen. The amount saved by that type of system long term will pay for the user fees ten fold. However, the initial investment needs to be made and the airlines shouldn't have to pay the brunt of that cost.

Yes they should, as it primarily benefits them.

Would, spit balling here, $20.00 more a flight really be that much of a burden on a single engine piston GA Operator? Seriously, would it be? Doubtful.

Yes it would, as the majority of GA users aren't for hire.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Seggy]

Yes they should, as it primarily benefits them.

So they have two loop holes they take advantage of that needs to be closed.

Yes it would, as the majority of GA users aren't for hire.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Doesn't matter. They are using the system

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Would, spit balling here, $20.00 more a flight really be that much of a burden on a single engine piston GA Operator? Seriously, would it be? Doubtful.

Spitballing, on a normal to good day, I do 40 flights in a PA-25 in controlled airspace. That would be $800 in user fees @ $20 ea. I will normally pump about 40 to 60 gallons of 100LL, something like $150-200 at the pump, give or take . Yeah, it would make a huge difference at my operation. I would guess those flights are about $1,200 in revenue total. And we are incredibly minimal users of ATC services.

 

[Seggy]

Spitballing, on a normal to good day, I do 40 flights in a PA-25 in controlled airspace. That would be $800 in user fees @ $20 ea. I will normally pump about 40 to 60 gallons of 100LL, something like $150-200 at the pump, give or take . Yeah, it would make a huge difference at my operation. I would guess those flights are about $1,200 in revenue total. And we are incredibly minimal users of ATC services.

So how do we pay for the upgrade of a 1950s/1960s system that you do use?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

So they have two loop holes they take advantage of that needs to be closed.

Airlines also depreciate aircraft that they purchase. And take depreciation on. (over 5 years instead of 7). Close that loophole too?

I do agree with you that 135 turbojet operations should probably be paying more. I don't know the right answer, and I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[Seggy]

I do agree with you that 135 turbojet operations should probably be paying more.

Truth be told, that is my main argument and point.

I know you tow gliders and the services you use are minimal compared to a biz jet operator.

I don't know the right answer, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Maybe a per hour fee for single engine piston aircraft then...

 

[drunkenbeagle]

So how do we pay for the upgrade of a 1950s/1960s system that you do use?

NextGen is unfair for a lot of reasons. It gets rid of expensive VOR and ILS systems that the FAA has paid for, and makes 121 and 135 operators pay for ADS-B and RNAV and GPS equipment. It makes GA operators pay for ADS-B equipment that many will barely use. And right now, it puts the burden on all of the operators, while the Congress drags their feet on funding the FAA to deploy their end of the system.

Honestly, the leadership needs to come from somewhere. But right now, it is a game of trying to get the other guy to pay for it, which has had predictable results.

 

[trafficinsight]

Maybe a per hour fee for single engine piston aircraft then...

You mean like a fuel tax?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[NovemberEcho]

NexGen could be perfectly funded if the government would stop using the FAA budget as a hostage every year. The problem the FAA has had has been interruption in funding due to shutdowns and sequestration and not being able to plan for the future budget because Congress keeps using the budget as a political ploy. They could easily pass something that guarantees a minimum amount of funding for the FAA regardless of the status of the government or budget.

 

[ShyFlyer]

Let's not forget that with a user fee system, the new fees are not only paying for ATC services, navigation, and airport infrastructure, but also the infrastructure that must be created and maintained to collect the fees. Even if it's all automated, there is still a cost involved in collecting the fees.

Sure, it'll start off simple at first, but then will (d)evolve into a very complex fee structure. An IFR flight, for example, might start out as being charged a small fee for flight plan filing. Then, over time, that same flight could see a fee for departing, a fee for arriving, a surcharge if the flight was in IMC, a surcharge if the flight used an IAP, etc.

You mean like a fuel tax?

That's far too simple. It will never work.

They could easily pass something that guarantees a minimum amount of funding for the FAA regardless of the status of the government or budget.

It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would be a great step forward.