Group Slams Per-IFR-Flight Fee, Increased Fuel Tax
No surprise here. On Thursday, the National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA) announced its opposition to the Senate's take on
FAA Funding Reauthorization... a piece of legislation that includes
increased aviation user fees for corporate pilots.
"For decades, Congress has responsibly managed a system of
aviation excise taxes to ensure that the US has the largest, safest
and most efficient air transportation system in the world," NBAA
President and CEO Ed Bolen said. "It is regrettable that at a
critical point in our transformation to the Next Generation Air
Traffic System, the bill is proposing a sharp pivot away from a
proven funding structure toward the foreign-style user fees that
have been so harmful to small aircraft operators outside the
US."
The proposal, introduced
Thursday but leaked earlier this week,
would impose a per-flight fee on all IFR flights, including a wide
variety of general aviation aircraft used mostly by small and
mid-size businesses in small towns and rural areas that often have
little or no airline service.
"NBAA Members strongly support efforts to
transform the nation's aviation system to meet future needs," Bolen
(shown at right) continued. "But there are several reasons why we
oppose the user fees included in the Senate proposal."
For example, NBAA maintains the proposed user fees would treat
all airplanes the same regardless of size -- meaning that a jumbo
jetliner carrying 300 people will be treated the same as a small
turboprop flying with three people aboard. This approach assumes
that all aircraft impose equal cost upon the aviation system, when
an enormous amount of data shows that the FAA's costs are mainly
driven by the airlines' expensive, congested "hub-and-spoke"
airport network.
The group also states user fees would require replacement of the
ultra-efficient fuel-tax system with a huge new, expensive
bureaucracy of billing agents, collection agents, auditors, dispute
arbitrators and others, creating a hidden administrative
burden.
Furthermore, NBAA says user fees are subject to manipulation and
can be raised when industry can afford it least. In 2002, when air
traffic was depressed as a result of the recession and terrorist
attacks, Canada raised its user fees to cover its declining
revenues.
NBAA also states user fees would be the first step toward
privatization of the aviation system... stripping the role of
Congress in preserving all aviation interests, including those of
general aviation.
Bolen noted that, in
addition to establishing new user fees, recent news reports have
indicated that portions of the bill still under development could
eliminate the airlines' fuel tax obligation by more than doubling
fuel taxes for general aviation, from $.21 per gallon to $.49 per
gallon.
"User fees should not be mistaken for a modernization plan, and
the airlines shouldn't be given a financial windfall at the expense
of general aviation," Bolen said. "NBAA calls upon senators to
abandon any funding approach based on user fees in favor of one
that will transform the aviation system so that it best serves all
Americans in the years to come."