He’s on record now. What’s good for Harrison and General Aviation is good for the rest of us. Would have liked him to mention Cap & Trade, or Green Taxes being the cause for concern.

This has absolutely nothing to do with airline taxes… The airlines were behind a new FAA funding bill that supported “user fees” on all of aviation. While on the surface it sounds reasonable, as always, the devil is in the details. FAA funding is currently provided by contributions from the general fund (e.g. federal income taxes) as well as a tax on aviation fuels. A large portion of that funding goes towards providing air traffic control services to aircraft operating “in the system,” or under positive air traffic control. A “user fee” based system will move the majority of funding for the FAA from a fuel-based tax to an a la carte system that charges the user for each operation they use.

The airlines, in an attempt to blame everybody else but themselves for their problems, believe that one of the causes of airline delays is having to accommodate general aviation traffic. One look out your window on your next airline flight, assuming you paid for a window seat, should be enough to debunk that myth. I travel the airlines pretty frequently for work, and only one time in the last 3 years have I seen a general aviation airplane in line with the heavy iron.

The fact is that the airlines are by FAR the heaviest users of the air traffic control (ATC) system, because they have to be. The Federal Aviation Regulations require that any scheduled airline service be operated under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), which requires ATC. The airlines operate almost exclusively in the flight levels above 18000 feet (Class A airspace), where IFR operations are required. And the airlines operate primarily from the nation’s 500 airports with air traffic control towers. Us little guys (general aviation) operate mostly from the remaining 4,800 uncontrolled airports. But yet, general aviation will still be required to pay disproportionate fees to fly in the system.

Replacing the current funding scheme with a “user fee” based system is hardly an efficient way of providing the revenue to support the FAA. First, the current funding scheme already allocates the cost to the heaviest users; airplanes don’t run on pixie dust so the more you fly the more fuel you burn, the more fuel you burn the more you support the system. Second, the current plan makes it fairly easy for the government to collect its taxes; operator buys fuel, fuel company collects payment, fuel company submits tax portion to government. With user fees, the taxes for any one flight will be spread out among at least 4 different entities and possibly more; flight service for weather briefings, departure airport, at least one en-route controller, and arrival airport. Finally, the user fee system provides a safety disincentive. One of the more common causes of GA accidents is continued visual flight into instrument conditions. Adding user fees into the mix will increase these types of accidents by providing a disincentive to actually use the air traffic control system.

The United States already has the cheapest airline travel as well as the safest, most efficient, and most cost-effective aviation transportation system in the world. Switching to a user fee-based system like Europe won’t help the airlines one bit and will completely destroy what’s left of general aviation in this country.

If you want more info, check these links:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/la-userfees.html
http://equityprivate.typepad.com/ep/2007/05/fairing_up_gene.html