Baffle Heats Up Over future funding of FAA:
On September 30, 2007, current legislation for FM programs will expire. The battle lines are drawn over how aviation taxes should be levied in the future. On one side are the airlines who feel that a significant share of the tax burden should be shifted to general aviation to “pay their fair share for usage of the system.” On the other side is general aviation contending that the method of tax collection that has been in place for over 30 years – a tax on airline passenger travel and a tax on aviation fuel – has served us well in the past, represents a fair share of taxes for all segments of the aviation industry and therefore should be continued in the future.
The first reauthorization proposal, offered by FAA Administrator Marion Blakely, would eliminate the airline passenger ticket tax and in its place substitute a cost-based user fee system for FAA services such as air traffic control. It would also increase the tax on general aviation fuel from the current rate of 19.3 cents per gallon up to 70 cents per gallon. Funding for the Airport Improvement Program would be reduced from a current level of $3.6B in airport grants nationwide to $2.75B.
Most in the general aviation community feel that this proposal would negatively affect aviation safety and detrimentally impact the future of general aviation. The FM proposal, which was strongly supported by the airlines, was not warmly received by Congress and is viewed as having little chance to become law. SB 1300 developed by Senate Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John D. Rockfeller IV of West Virginia and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi has much more in common with FM’s current authorization bill, retaining most of its features and providing growth in the airport grant program. The one sticking point for the general aviation community is the levy of a $25 surcharge for turbine powered aircraft operating within controlled airspace.
Many within the general aviation industry see this as step one on the path toward a total “user based” system of taxes that would someday become a hardship on general aviation. A typical example often cited is a general aviation flight in Europe: a pilot unable to land at his primary destination due to weather, diverts to an alternate airport, and then receives a bill of over $1,000 for changing his flight plan. Obviously, stories like this alarm those of us in general aviation.
FAA reauthorization still has a long way to go. We all hope that fairness and equity prevail. However, it is somewhat sad to see one segment of the aviation ·ndustry pitted against another. We are all interdependent. Most of the pilots flying today for the airlines began their careers in general aviation. Aviation and air transportation are vital for the future of our country. This type of battle can’t really be good for anyone.
