|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
EAA’s Case Against User FeesEAA is continuing to work with other general aviation organizations to oppose the FAA’s proposal for funding the nation’s air traffic control system. The funding plan, which reflects the advocacy of the powerful big-airlines lobby, would implement user fees and sharply increase fuel taxes to replace the current, time-tested system of excise taxes on aviation fuel and airline passengers. EAA and the other general aviation groups view this as nothing but a ploy by the airlines to offload more of their costs onto general aviation while grabbing more control of the nation’s airspace. Meanwhile, their proposals would require the establishment of a new and potentially costly bureaucracy. In the past 10 years, the airline industry received a $5 billion government bailout, a $10 billion loan guarantee program, and a shift of some pension obligations to the U.S. taxpayer. Now, as many airlines are experiencing a recovery, they want to jettison even more costs by imposing user fees on general aviation. The airlines, represented by the Air Transport Association (ATA), falsely claim they pay more than 90 percent of all aviation taxes but make up only two-thirds of the operational activity in the system. Yet in the 35 airline hubs that receive the vast majority of FAA funds and resources, general-aviation operations account for only 6% of the total. For example, when general aviation was prohibited from operating at Washington D.C.’s Reagan National Airport in the wake of 9/11, overall ATC costs there were not affected. However, the cost of the user fee proposals to participants in general aviation, including the many EAA members who enjoy personal flight as a pastime, would be sizable. The FAA’s proposal includes new fees to pay for the costs of numerous certification and registration activities, such as: registering an aircraft ($130), replacing an aircraft registration ($45), issuing an original dealer’s aircraft certificate ($130), issuing an additional aircraft certificate ($105), issuing/renewing a special registration number ($80/$50), recording a security interest ($130), recording a security interest in aircraft parts ($130), issuing or replacing an airman certificate ($50/$25), issuing an airman medical certificate ($42), and providing legal title opinions pertaining to aircraft transactions ($100). And, of course, there’s the potentially devastating 3.5-fold fuel tax increase, from 19.4¢ to 70¢ per gallon, and a series of other user fees for access to the nation’s busiest airports. The FAA maintains that its plan is essential for funding the creation of the next generation air traffic control system. Adding insult to injury, the concepts and proposals for accomplishing this modernization entail greater restrictions and costs for general-aviation operations. Meanwhile, projected revenue from a user fee system in 2008 would be approximately $600 million less than the funds that would be raised by maintaining the current excise tax structure. The shortfall would persist, amounting to approximately $900 million less funding from 2009 to 2012. Another reason why general aviation opposes user fees can be found north of the border, in Canada: Ten years ago, when the ATC system was established as a government corporation (NavCanada), light general aviation was exempted from ATC and airport user fees. Now, despite an appeal to the Canadian Transportation Agency, general aviation light aircraft operators will pay charges for the use of seven important airports (including several reliever facilities) for the first time. According to the Canadian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the airline community is viewing this as just the beginning of general aviation paying user fees in Canada. Even more extreme examples of user fees harming or practically killing general aviation in numerous other countries add to the condemning evidence. Common sense indicates that any initial user fee scheme will eventually trickle down and be imposed on all flight-related operations. The FAA’s proposal would also transfer control of agency funding and oversight away from Congress and dramatically reduce public control of how the FAA exercises its discretionary spending. “EAA remains categorically opposed to user fees,” said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. “Such a system will not enhance safety and it will not improve services. It will add barriers for thousands of recreational aviators while being a costly burden to the federal government.” How, then, do the big airlines and the FAA attempt to justify such an imbalanced, unfair, and flawed proposal? Their rhetoric asserts that “fat cats” in private jets should pay more for using the nation’s ATC and other services. But it conveniently overlooks the oppressive effects their proposals ultimately would have on average aviation enthusiasts like the members of a thousand EAA chapters across the nation. Those chapters are made up of people who already make sacrifices to afford their enjoyment of personal flight. They should not have to underwrite big businesses’ use of, and attempts to commandeer, the nation’s airspace. |
||||||||||
Congressional Contacts for NE Alabama |
||||||||||||
| Sample Letter | Senator
Jeff Sessions |
|||||||||||
Senator
Richard C. Shelby |
||||||||||||
Congressman
Richard Aderholt |
||||||||||||
Congressman
Mike Rogers |
||||||||||||
Congressman
Bud Cramer |
||||||||||||
| site map |
