Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

WSJ 10/5: "Tax the Airlines"

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

HalinTexas

昇る太陽の土&#
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Posts
1,536
Airlines Balk at Tax Proposal
Deficit-Reduction Plan Would Add New Departure and Security Fees for Carriers
Article
Stock Quotes
Comments (5)
MORE IN BUSINESS »
Email
Print
Save
↓ More

smaller
Larger
By SUSAN CAREY

Airlines are expressing alarm over an Obama administration proposal to help cut the federal deficit by imposing a new tax on aviation and raising another.

Carriers, airline labor unions, private pilots, corporate-jet builders and other groups are lobbying hard to make the case to Congress that their industry is being unfairly singled out.

"The airline industry is an easy target," said Richard Anderson, chief executive of Delta Air Lines Inc. "Perhaps there's a sense in Washington that wealthy people fly. But over the past 20 to 30 years, flying in the U.S. has been a very middle-class activity."

The administration says fees assessed on travelers cover less than half the costs of beefed-up security at airports. Officials also say that small private jets need to shoulder more of the burden of the air-traffic-control system.

The industry will pay $17 billion in fees and taxes this year, compared with $3.7 billion in 1993, said Mr. Anderson. An average $300 domestic ticket now includes more than $60 paid for by the passenger but distributed to 17 federal taxes and fees, leaving the airlines with just $240 of that purchase, not including fees for checked luggage, ticket changes and the like.

A committee of lawmakers, the so-called super committee, is working with President Obama's proposal to try to find ways this fall to trim the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

In its September proposal, the administration said a large commercial jet "would pay between $1,300 to $2,000 in taxes for a flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco while a corporate jet flying the same route and using the same Federal Aviation Administration air traffic services would pay about $60 in taxes."

So the administration proposed a $100 tax on each flight departure, including corporate jets and general-aviation aircraft that require federal air-traffic-control services, in a bid to more evenly spread out those costs. The fee is expected to raise $11 billion over a decade to support the Federal Aviation Administration's airport and airways trust fund. The commercial carriers say it would be hard to pass this cost along to their passengers.

The proposal includes a doubling of the federal security surcharge of $2.50 per one-way trip to $5. Annual increases would triple the fee to $7.50 by 2017.

About $10 billion of the new revenue over 10 years would go toward the Transportation Security Administration to cover security costs, and $15 billion would go to debt reduction.

Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest Airlines, estimates the departure tax would cost his company $140 million a year. "We are already struggling with huge (fuel) cost increases and challenges to our profitability," he said. Southwest earned $459 million last year on $12.1 billion of revenue.

US Airways Group Inc. estimates the departure tax could cost it $110 million a year. AMR Corp.'s American Airlines pegs its expense at $124 million.

Delta's Mr. Anderson said if his company couldn't pass on that expense, it would have to shrink. He and others in the industry think smaller communities would be the hardest hit.

"Passengers and small communities will be paying one way or the other: through higher fares or no service," said Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association. "Why is aviation always an ATM?" he asked. "We're visible, vulnerable and measurable."
 
Only if you file. Just scud run, what could go wrong?
 
It will cost a heckuva lot more in lost jobs and flights to small cities than it will generate.
 
"Delta's Mr. Anderson said if his company couldn't pass on that expense, it would have to shrink. He and others in the industry think smaller communities would be the hardest hit."

As discussed in another thread.

$25 baggage fees = passengers won't mind - boon to the industry
$5 increase in departure taxes = end of the world.
 
Camels' nose in tent $100 for turbine today, $250 for everybody sooner or later.


You didn't put enough emphasis. Let me help...


"Camels' nose in the tent..."
 
Isn't it interesting how Big Government's easy answer is to increase taxes without even attempting to cut waste and costs. I'm sure that there are no efficiencies to be gained with all the blue shirts diligently standing around the concourse. I had 3 of them the other day stand outside on the ramp and just watch our aircraft for 30 minutes while it was being turned. I sure felt secure!
 
"Delta's Mr. Anderson said if his company couldn't pass on that expense, it would have to shrink. He and others in the industry think smaller communities would be the hardest hit."

As discussed in another thread.

$25 baggage fees = passengers won't mind - boon to the industry
$5 increase in departure taxes = end of the world.

So an industry (minus SWA) trying to find a way to maintain profits through fees and the like = bad in your world

Govt taxing the profits out of an industry = good???????

Yes, SWA has a way of running their business without fees for luggage, but what you fail to realize, is that the biz customers, loyal customers with any semblance of frequent flier points doesn't pay those fees. Those fees are for the once every three years flyer who shops on expedia for the $5 cheaper fare.
After all, SWA claims to have earned business by everybody else charging fees, you should be happy!!!!
Nobody will win if the govt taxes the takeoffs, even SWA will pay a price.
 
So an industry (minus SWA) trying to find a way to maintain profits through fees and the like = bad in your world

Govt taxing the profits out of an industry = good???????

Yes, SWA has a way of running their business without fees for luggage, but what you fail to realize, is that the biz customers, loyal customers with any semblance of frequent flier points doesn't pay those fees. Those fees are for the once every three years flyer who shops on expedia for the $5 cheaper fare.
After all, SWA claims to have earned business by everybody else charging fees, you should be happy!!!!
Nobody will win if the govt taxes the takeoffs, even SWA will pay a price.

While I agree with the premise of your first point I must disagree with the bolded bit. I fly 46 times a year on the majors (AA, Delta, UAL, SWA) and I don't qualify for free bags on any except the one that doesn't charge. I have FF with all.

None of my tickets are bought on expedia, and they are almost all bought the night before. Many are first class too. (Those get free checked bags)
 
Last edited:
Is there any thread that you won't jump on and somehow twist it into an anti-SWA rage?

What rage? SWAPA pilot complains that the airlines are charging bag fees and complaining about taxes..... If someone disagrees with a SWAPA pilots complaint, that equals rage? SWA makes money without bag fees, got it. In fact they claim they make more because of bag fees, so they should be happy???? no?
 
Is there any thread that you won't jump on and somehow twist it into an anti-SWA rage?

What rage? SWAPA pilot complains that the airlines are charging bag fees and complaining about taxes..... If someone disagrees with a SWAPA pilots complaint, that equals rage? SWA makes money without bag fees, got it. In fact they claim they make more because of bag fees, so they should be happy???? no?

He isn't a SWA pilot but then you knew that. My first post above stands except that I will add that you will justify your anti-SWA rages by pointing to the most convenient post and screaming......"But I was just replying to the SWAPA pilot who said"........

Typical of the "I am a Victim Mentality"......

Several hundred of your clones are sleeping in a Park down on Wall Street.....
 
The $100.00 fee is for turbine equipment only.

You're gonna need to source that claim, as NOTHING in the actual proposal mentioned turbine equipment.

What it did exclude was "recreational piston aircraft", with no definition as to what is or is not "recreational". If the Obama Administration wanted to exclude all piston aircraft operations, they wouldn't have put a "recreational" qualifier on it.

As written, this $100 per segment tax will cost my company over $40k per year in additional taxes, between our jet and our Cirrus (which is a business aircraft that flies IFR). And I can damn sure bet we'll see exactly ZERO benefit from those additional fees.
 
As written, this $100 per segment tax will cost my company over $40k per year in additional taxes, between our jet and our Cirrus (which is a business aircraft that flies IFR). And I can damn sure bet we'll see exactly ZERO benefit from those additional fees.

... and let's not forget the price of avgas that has more than tripled over a 10 year period.
 
So how's that Hope & Change thingy working out for you? :laugh:
 
So how's that Hope & Change thingy working out for you? :laugh:

Saw a great bumper sticker at a Horse show this weekend. A hot looking gal with a new truck had a picture of Obama with the caption "Does this Ass make my truck look big?".......love it.....
 
Yes the Yacht tax in the early 80's did wonders for the US, punishing all those rich people.
 
The idiocy of this "jobs bill" is astounding. The way it's written, the $100 fee applies to flights in "controlled airspace." I'm a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that includes class "E" airspace which starts at 1,200 feet agl or 700 feet agl in most places in the US. So if you are flying your 172 in a non-recreational manner from say.... any two airports in the country, no matter how close or far, you would have to pay the fee even if you never talked to a soul. I'm not saying that is what is intended, but it is the way it is written.

Also, who collects this fee? Do we get a whole new branch of the IRS to sit in ATC centers and copy down incriminating information? These idiots (and I mean ALL of them) will not be happy until I'm collecting unemployment...
 
You're gonna need to source that claim, as NOTHING in the actual proposal mentioned turbine equipment.

What it did exclude was "recreational piston aircraft", with no definition as to what is or is not "recreational". If the Obama Administration wanted to exclude all piston aircraft operations, they wouldn't have put a "recreational" qualifier on it.

As written, this $100 per segment tax will cost my company over $40k per year in additional taxes, between our jet and our Cirrus (which is a business aircraft that flies IFR). And I can damn sure bet we'll see exactly ZERO benefit from those additional fees.

Your company is already seeing the benefits, they just are not paying for them right now. So your company will finally be required to contribute money toward the ATC system that makes their business possible in the first place.
 
Surely some savings could be found with TSA, but he article says that the airlines/passengers are only paying half of what aviation security costs are. Should the national debt/deficit pay the rest? The costs have to be covered to the extent they can't be minimized. Right now they are just going on the national credit card.

As said before, but knee-jerk dismissed by the brain dead sheep, if airlines can raise billions in profits for bag fees, they can raise a fraction of that amount to cover the security expenses that allow their existence.
 
What is the tax on Jet A for if not ATC?
 
Saw a great bumper sticker at a Horse show this weekend. A hot looking gal with a new truck had a picture of Obama with the caption "Does this Ass make my truck look big?".......love it.....

Did she laugh at your combover?
 
So your company will finally be required to contribute money toward the ATC system that makes their business possible in the first place.

Wrong. We already pay through fuel taxes. If they have a justifiable reason to raise more revenue, they should increase the fuel taxes, not wreck the finest air transportation system in the world with "user fees." I cannot fathom how people can be even vaguely aware of the constant corruption and ineptitude of governments throughout the world and still come to the conclusion that more bureaucracy is a good idea...
 
Wrong. We already pay through fuel taxes. If they have a justifiable reason to raise more revenue, they should increase the fuel taxes, not wreck the finest air transportation system in the world with "user fees." I cannot fathom how people can be even vaguely aware of the constant corruption and ineptitude of governments throughout the world and still come to the conclusion that more bureaucracy is a good idea...

According to the following Aviation Week article, fuel taxes are relatively insignificant. Who knows what the real cost of the ATC system is, but I'm guessing it's somewhere between $60 and $2000 for a one hour flight.

Are you saying that you would be ok with doubling or tripling the fuel tax?

User fees are a complicated issue. General aviation is definitely a luxury. Should all tax payers subsidize the services it receives?

I know I don't have the answer to these questions. All I know is there's a hole, and someone needs to find a way to plug it.

Should the construction worker who swings a hammer and who's only exposure to aviation is a once every two year flight to Vegas have his taxes go to the airport and atc services that serve a private jets flight?
Sep 27 , 2011 By Kerry Lynch A cross-section of the aviation industry joined together to combat President Obama’s proposed $100 air traffic control fee for most operations in controlled airspace. Twenty-seven organizations – including all of the major general aviation associations – sent a letter of opposition to House and Senate leadership, along with Super Committee members.
“Aviation plays a major role in driving U.S. growth and investment across the country and around the world,” the letter states. “Our policymakers should be focused on increasing U.S. international competitiveness, rather than viewing the industry as a national piggybank.”
On Sept. 19, the White House unveiled the ATC fee as part of its plan for economic growth and deficit reduction as the Super Committee continues its deliberations on future spending cuts and new taxes.
Details of the fee came just a week after the administration outlined legislation to increase depreciation schedules for corporate aircraft from five to seven years. President Obama began to indicate his desire to close tax “loopholes” for millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet operators earlier this spring.
The White House suggests that two-thirds of ATC costs are financed by the aviation excise tax, with most of the revenue collected from airlines.
“General aviation users currently pay a fuel tax, but this revenue does not cover their fair-share use of air traffic services,” says the Obama plan. The plan echoes long-held arguments that all flights in controlled airspace require a similar level of air traffic services, but commercial and general aviation pay “very different aviation fees” for the same services.
The proposal states that a large commercial aircraft would pay $1,300 to $2,000 in taxes on a flight between Los Angeles to San Francisco, while a corporate jet would pay about $60 in taxes. The proposal only details the taxes paid as coming from the aircraft, rather than the taxes paid by the passengers aboard. A mandatory $100 surcharge, the proposal states, would “reduce the deficit and more equitably share the cost of air traffic services across the aviation user community.”
The fee would apply to all operators flying in controlled airspace, with the exception of military aircraft, public aircraft, recreational piston aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of the controlled airspace and Canada-to-Canada flights.
The revenues collected, which are estimated at about $11 billion over 10 years, would be deposited in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The White House estimates the charges would finance about three-fourths of airport investments and ATC costs.
While specifically designed to increase costs on corporate operations, the airlines, cargo carriers and others also will be affected. The fee-opposition letter, dated Sept. 21, notes that U.S. airlines, general aviation and aviation manufacturing companies are facing intense international competition.
“If we are to maintain global leadership and competitiveness and increase jobs in this country, we need to stop this mentality and ensure that tax and infrastructure policy are focused on strengthening U.S. aviation leadership and furthering the safety and modernization of the aviation system.”
In addition to the joint letter, the plan has drawn fire from many of the individual organizations. “Hiking aviation taxes would hurt economic recovery, further burden airlines and customers and cost jobs,” the Air Transport Association says.
Just hours after the White House released its plan, nine business and general aviation associations issued a joint statement, saying: “Per-gallon fuel charges work. Per-flight taxes destroy.” The statement adds, “We believe this per-flight tax not only imposes a significant new administrative burden on general aviation operators who currently pay through an efficient per-gallon fuel charge at the pump, but it will also necessitate the creation of a costly new federal collection bureaucracy.”
That statement was issued by the Aircraft Electronics Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, the International Council of Air Shows, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, the National Air Transportation Association and the National Business Aviation Association.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom