WSJ 10/5: "Tax the Airlines"

[pilotyip]

Yes the Yacht tax in the early 80's did wonders for the US, punishing all those rich people.

 

[ttflyer]

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...

 

[JumpersAway]

Airlines are taxed the highest of any entity, second only to the tobacco industry. At least that's what I heard somewhere- wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Smarta$$]

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.

 

[Smarta$$]

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.

 

[glasspilot]

What is the tax on Jet A for if not ATC?

 

[jonjuan]

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?

 

[Sacha]

I'm sorry. I didnt mean to insult the dumbazz you voted for..

Umm...yes I did.....

 

[ttflyer]

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...

 

[CesnaCaptn]

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.

 

[BoilerUP]

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.

Actually, my company pays $0.219/gal in federal excise tax, compared to airlines $0.044/gal. Of course, airline PASSENGERS pay ticket taxes...not airlines themselves.

Look at the ATC system in this country...it is designed around traffic, and airline users are by a wide margin drivers of traffic. The primary user will see the primary benefit of advanced ATC and should have no problem paying the primary share.

Besides, airlines don't pay any special taxes for the ATC system - their passengers do, in the form of passed-through ticket taxes.

 

[glasspilot]

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

GA is a luxury? A pilot just posted that? So that implies that Airline are not a luxury. So tell me Einstein, how are we supposed to get our "Essential Airline" pilots if all the "Luxury" planes in your profile are taxed right out of the sky?

Flying a plane is a Luxury just like driving a car is. It's a mode of transportation and there are crap cars and planes and luxury cars and planes. There are airlines and busses and sports cars and personal jets.

And I can't believe I have to explain this to a pilot! There is no reason a brand new Cessna 172 should cost one penny more than a brand new Ford Tarus. NOT ONE! Look at them. There's more material in the FORD. The plane costs more ( by a factor of 7 ) because of lawyers. And the fact the planes are so expensive makes those that can now afford to do it wealthy, so now the masses see those who fly as "rich" and want to go after them for budget shortfalls and you are right there moving that agenda with your "flying is a luxury BS"!!

Again, I can't believe I'm explaining this to a pilot!!!

 

[ttflyer]

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

As opposed to user fees? You betcha. The user fee idea makes a bad idea feel good about itself. Giant bureaucracy for minimal revenue - Stupid does not even get close to describing it...

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

Complicated - yes. Have you heard of the "Aviation Trust Fund"? There is a giant SURPLUS of funds in the trust fund, but our stupid government won't spend the money on aviation because it would go against the deficit. In other words, if they spend the money they already raised from our fuel taxes on aviation, they couldn't spend as much on welfare or some other pet project. That means rather then using our tax money for buying votes, they would be using it as it was intended to be used - for AVIATION - but they won't do 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?

Should he pay for the interstate highway system on the other side of the country from where he lives? He does. Does he benefit from that highway system? Probably. Does he benefit from our air transportation system? Probably. Does it matter? No. There are 300 million people in the US. We can't tax them individually based on their personal "benefit" from each service. We all benefit from all these services. If you want see a place that doesn't, take a look at Africa. Is that the model you are going for?

 

[CesnaCaptn]

GA is a luxury? A pilot just posted that? So that implies that Airline are not a luxury. So tell me Einstein, how are we supposed to get our "Essential Airline" pilots if all the "Luxury" planes in your profile are taxed right out of the sky?

Fine, GA has become a luxury. You even write it yourself.

How would we get our "Essential Airline" pilots? Maybe we would get them the same way other countries do--from collegiate or ab initio programs that are sponsored directly by the airlines. Taxes aren't the only reason flight training has become prohibitively expensive. The way I understand it, piston planes won't have to pay this fee. I don't think AOPA would let it happen. If the $100 per flight affects piston planes, then that segment of aviation is DOA.

$100 a flight would not have grounded the owner of the Citation X I flew. That guys was just pissing away his money.

Flying a plane is a Luxury just like driving a car is. It's a mode of transportation and there are crap cars and planes and luxury cars and planes. There are airlines and busses and sports cars and personal jets.

And I can't believe I have to explain this to a pilot! There is no reason a brand new Cessna 172 should cost one penny more than a brand new Ford Tarus. NOT ONE! Look at them. There's more material in the FORD. The plane costs more ( by a factor of 7 ) because of lawyers. And the fact the planes are so expensive makes those that can now afford to do it wealthy, so now the masses see those who fly as "rich" and want to go after them for budget shortfalls and you are right there moving that agenda with your "flying is a luxury BS"!!

Again, I can't believe I'm explaining this to a pilot!!!

You think Cessnas cost more than Fords because of lawyers? I don't even know where to start, but I can guarantee you that's not the only reason. Your trying to say that a Cessna and a Ford use the same amount of material, so they should cost the same? Using that logic, Ferraris should cost half as much as SUVs.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Should he pay for the interstate highway system on the other side of the country from where he lives? He does. Does he benefit from that highway system? Probably. Does he benefit from our air transportation system? Probably. Does it matter? No. There are 300 million people in the US. We can't tax them individually based on their personal "benefit" from each service. We all benefit from all these services. If you want see a place that doesn't, take a look at Africa. Is that the model you are going for?

Since we have a progressive tax system, there's no way we could have people only pay for the services they use.

I'm not going for the Africa model, but the Tea Party is. No taxes and no governments? That sounds a lot like Africa to me.

 

[ttflyer]

$100 a flight would not have grounded the owner of the Citation X I flew. That guys was just pissing away his money.

You're stuck on the amount. I agree $100 is not going to affect the typical Citation X owner. The problem is how the fee is collected. User fees are a bad idea. Period. They require a whole new layer of bureaucracy. And if you think that new bureaucracy is going to be good for your airline career, you're kidding yourself. There is already a mechanism in place to collect fuel taxes. If they need to raise taxes, they need to raise fuel taxes, not kill the industry with user fees.

 

[pilotyip]

Since we have a progressive tax system, there's no way we could have people only pay for the services they use.

I'm not going for the Africa model, but the Tea Party is. No taxes and no governments? That sounds a lot like Africa to me.

You know that is not the Tea Party platform. We need taxes for infrastructure, defense, FAA, and other gov’t agencies. What we don’t need to new taxes to support a broken system of wealth transfer. We don’t need an anti-business, anti-success atmosphere in DC. When you remove the ability to fail, you remove the incentive to succeed.

 

[ttflyer]

The way I understand it, piston planes won't have to pay this fee. I don't think AOPA would let it happen. If the $100 per flight affects piston planes, then that segment of aviation is DOA.

They "Jobs Bill" is so vague it could mean anything. I personlly don't want to bet that the government will not screw up and destroy our industry even if they do it accidently. None of them know the first thing about the aviation industry.

And AOPA?? Really?? We're talking about presidential re-election politics here. Any pawn that needs to be sacrificed in that game will be and AOPA won't be able to do a thing about it...

 

[Smarta$$]

What is the tax on Jet A for if not ATC?

Clearly doesn't cover all the costs. I guess you want the income tax payers to cover the difference, or put it on the national Visa?

 

[Penguin46]

Flight info = brain dead sheep forum

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.

Brain dead sheep - how descriptively accurate. A good name for this forum or maybe a rock band.