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.