FAA Reauthorization Bill Status

[AlbieF15]

This is ridiculous. Age-65 directly affects your career progression, but GA user fees have absolutely nothing to do with your livelihood. Not to mention that the "GA" in these user fees is only business jets, and not real general aviation. These user fees would never have any affect on you whatsoever.

User fees would affect us--the guys at the fractionals and corporate would absorb the cost and would pass it on or take it out of labor. While not directly our labor pool, we all benefit when GV drivers are well paid too.

Additionally--taxes have a way of trickling down. This year--a King Air or Citation has to pay to file IFR. Three years down the road, I could be asked to the same thing for my Navion.

Finally--one of the few areas where this country has a solid, dominating industrial base is aviation. WHY would be want to put a tax and that and potentially harm what is a very successful part of American industry. The Canadians and Brazilians and French have been successful too, but around the globe a heck of a lot of airplanes are made my Beech, Cessna, Cirus, Gulfstream etc etc. We need to encourage and support that base--not stick another tick on it to suck the life out to support the unproductive.

 

[Furloughed80]

User fees would affect us--the guys at the fractionals and corporate would absorb the cost and would pass it on or take it out of labor. While not directly our labor pool, we all benefit when GV drivers are well paid too.

I see your point, but what about airline labor? Do you think having airlines pay the bulk of these fees have had no impact at all on the pay of airline employees? I don't know if it has or has not, but if it is assumed that fractionals and corporate aviation will pass these costs to labor the same argument could be made for the airlines.

 

[BoilerUP]

Do you think having airlines pay the bulk of these fees have had no impact at all on the pay of airline employees?

Airlines don't pay most the fees, their passengers do. Besides, airlines are the primary users and beneficiaries of an air traffic system that was built to specifically cater to their hub-and-spoke system.

This is ridiculous. Age-65 directly affects your career progression, but GA user fees have absolutely nothing to do with your livelihood. Not to mention that the "GA" in these user fees is only business jets, and not real general aviation. These user fees would never have any affect on you whatsoever.

"Never have any affect on me whatsoever"? Come on now, don't be so naive or short-sighted about the sum of the aviation industry.

I'm not willing to screw somebody else just so I can get mine. Besides, the age is going to change sooner OR later, if it happening sooner prevents user fees (the same fees that have DESTROYED GA in most other countries) then so be it.

 

[Dizel8]

Do foreign airlines pay nav fees in the US, because I know the rest of the world, well most anyway, ch$arges an arm and a leg from US operators. Saw somewhere that overflying China in a GV was $3000+.

 

[PCL_128]

User fees would affect us--the guys at the fractionals and corporate would absorb the cost and would pass it on or take it out of labor. While not directly our labor pool, we all benefit when GV drivers are well paid too.

We don't benefit even the slightest bit from any corporate pilot salaries. It never enters the equation in any contract negotiations. Only other airlines are used for comparisons by both management and the unions.

 

[Cavpilot]

If this passes, many of us will be furloughed. Some airlines will die and the FAA may lose much of the income they would have received otherwise. Not to mention that the FAA inspectors may go with the certificates as they lose their operators.

Oh, and watch for concessionary contracts.

Dude, you have got to be kidding me.

 

[Furloughed80]

Airlines don't pay most the fees, their passengers do. Besides, airlines are the primary users and beneficiaries of an air traffic system that was built to specifically cater to their hub-and-spoke system.

Yes, currently the bulk of the money going into the Airport & Airway Trust Fund which partly funds the FAA comes from passengers taxes. A part of it also comes from fees and taxes levied on airlines. From what I understand, the fund was created in 1970 when airlines almost exclusively used the system and therefore paid the bulk of the fees. With the rapid growth of biz jet traffic, airlines feel they should pay for part of the system as well. I don't see how the air traffic system was built to cater to the hub and spoke system.

 

[DornierPilot]

Come on guys! Do you really believe that User Fees will never trickle down to single engine piston planes?? Pull your head out of the sand!

Here's the best analogy that I can come up with:

The Administration wants to tie all the expenses of operating the ATC system to individual flights, whether they're Heavys or corporate airplanes. (What other Federal services are financed solely from just the users of that service??) This would be just like making all Federal highways into toll roads - just the drivers that used the highways would pay for them. No contributions from the general fund. Is that a good idea? If your answer is No, then you can't argue that User Fees for ATC are fine.

The entire population of the U.S. benefits from a safe air and ground interstate transportation system. The General Fund should continue to play a large role in funding both. User Fees and Toll Roads will stunt the growth and safety of the transportation infrastructure.

For those of you that want to argue that the airlines are paying more than their fair share in taxes, let me ask you - If GA flights were grounded permanently, how many controllers would be laid off, how many towers would close, how many radar facilities would shut down. Answer - almost none!! Why? Because the entire ATC system is there for commercial operators (135/121), not GA.

If you agree, please contact your representatives and ask them to just say no to User Fees!

 

[Furloughed80]

From what I have read, the user-fee system would still include contributions from the General Fund.

 

[PCL_128]

Airlines don't pay most the fees, their passengers do.

And that fee goes into the total cost of a ticket. Airlines have a certain pricing point that they are targeting based on market research and yield management software that indicates what a passenger will pay. If they don't have the fees as part of that pricing point, then they can raise the cost of the actual fares and generate more profit. More profit = better CBAs.

 

[DornierPilot]

Furloughed,

What is the current General Fund contribution and what is the User Fee version General Fund proposed percentage? (I don't know the answer) If, in the User Fee proposal, it is lower, I'm against it. It should not be lowered from where it is now.

Are you a supporter of User Fees? If you are, do you plan on continuing to fly the piston aircraft in your profile???

If you are done flying privately in pistons, than i understand your lack of concern re: User Fees. I'm asking that you don't advocate ruining it for those of us that would like to be able to afford to fly privately now (or in the future in my case!).

Regards,

 

[DornierPilot]

PCL_128,

I think that since all tickets for the same segment would have exactly the same tax for all the carriers, there would be minimal impact on the profitability side.

Are you saying that the additional few dollars per ticket would keep such a large number of customers from buying an airline ticket, thereby reducing airline revenue significantly??

I don't buy that increasing ticket taxes across the board by a few dollars, removes significant numbers of customers to other modes of transport (or just not making the trip at all.)

Regards,

 

[Furloughed80]

I don't know what the percentage would be under a user-fee system. Under the current system the General Fund accounted for about 18%-24% recently. I can't imagine it being much lower under a user-fee system. I understand where you're coming from; but can we assume with certainty that the user-fee system will trickle down to single-engine pistons. It is not supposed to. I think a user-fee system represents a drastic change, and people generally resist change.

Anyway, I meant for this thread to be about age 65 and the fact that the Reauthorization Bill that it is attached to might get vetoed. I wanted to know how much of a delay that would put on age 65. I can understand both sides of the user-fee debate.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL_128,

I think that since all tickets for the same segment would have exactly the same tax for all the carriers, there would be minimal impact on the profitability side.

Are you saying that the additional few dollars per ticket would keep such a large number of customers from buying an airline ticket, thereby reducing airline revenue significantly??

I don't buy that increasing ticket taxes across the board by a few dollars, removes significant numbers of customers to other modes of transport (or just not making the trip at all.)

Regards,

Example:

Marketing determines that the correct pricing point for a ticket from ATL-DTW is $325, including all taxes and fees. This is the price that that they calculate will produce the most profitable yield. I don't know what the current fees and taxes are, but for sake of argument, let's keep it simple and say that they're $75 for this ticket. So, if that amount is reduced to, say $50, by new user fees that put a heavier burden on business aviation, then that's an additional $25 that can be added as pure fare price to achieve the same pricing point. This flight operates with a typical load of 100 pax. That means that this flight would now produce an additional $2500 of profit. That is why the ATA is pushing so heavily for this user-fee system. From our perspective as labor, this is additional profit that we can negotiate for in our next CBAs. Remember, this is a business that hasn't been able to pass costs on to the customers as other businesses can. Any fees and taxes mean that the airline has to reduce their profits to cover these costs.

 

[DornierPilot]

Furloughed,

I don't think the Administration will pull the pin on the Veto. I think he's bluffin' !

Re: the User Fee debate - I'm not willing to bet our current system to go the way of the Europeans. The fees have devastated their personal flying. Here's a quote from AOPA that explains alot:



Erik Lindbergh, criticized the FAA/airline-backed funding bill that would increase GA fuel taxes and add new user fees.

Recalling his transatlantic flight in 2002 commemorating his grandfather's achievement, Lindbergh said that while he was over the ocean and out of VHF radio range with air traffic control, he asked an Air Canada flight to relay a deviation request to Shannon, Ireland, air traffic control, to avoid towering cumulus clouds that were rapidly developing into thunderstorms. He was granted the amended clearance. And three months later, he received a bill for 80 Euros (about $109) for the ATC service.

"How would that affect safety? How's that going to affect the decision-making process?" Lindbergh asked. "If an approach is in doubt, are you going to do a missed [approach] if it's going to cost you 50 bucks?"

Many European countries charge a fee for every instrument approach. Prudent instrument pilots will break off an approach — "go missed" — if they don't have a clear view of the runway environment when reaching minimums or are uncomfortable with the progress of the approach.

AOPA believes that if any user fees are introduced for any segment of aviation, those fees will eventually trickle down to GA, just as they have in Europe and other countries.