USPA News

USA TODAY PICKS UP ON NWA ARTICLE

In its 4/14/04 editorial, USA Today further spreads the untruth of the recent NWA in-flight magazine editorial. Click Continue for the article and the responses of EAA and AOPA.

April 14th Editorial

Why should overtaxed fliers subsidize private planes?

Every passenger who flies on a commercial airline pays hefty taxes: On a $100 ticket, nearly 20% goes for levies to direct flights, improve airports and fund the extra security mandated after Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, as air travel climbs back from a post-9/11 downturn, the federal government needs more resources to modernize an outdated air traffic control system. Only a limited number of realistic sources exist for that money — the airline industry, passengers or the well-heeled owners of corporate and other private planes.

Yet those who operate private aircraft shoulder a far smaller burden for the use of airspace and runways than commercial airlines and passengers. And their powerful lobbies are determined to keep it that way. So determined, in fact, that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard Anderson suggested in a column in the March edition of Northwest's onboard magazine that commercial fliers "are subsidizing" private aircraft owners.

The column drew protests from private fliers, who say they pay their fair share through federal excise taxes on airplane fuel. But government studies show that the approximately $190 million a year in fuel taxes paid by "general aviation," as non-commercial flights are known, don't come close to covering the services these planes use.

That leaves at least some of the costs to be picked up by financially stressed commercial carriers and their heavily taxed passengers. It also deprives the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of money it would have to upgrade air traffic control if general aviation paid its full costs.

What's needed is a more equitable system. And twice in the 1990s, the White House or Congress called for a new structure of fees to even out disparities. But both proposals were beaten back by the private-plane lobby.

About 500,000 pilots are licensed to fly the nation's more than 200,000 private aircraft. The fleet includes 7,800 corporate jets that ferry Fortune 500 executives and other business people. A majority of the planes use government services that provide weather forecasts, keep planes safely separated and guide them to landings.

A 1997 study commissioned by the FAA estimated the cost of such government services at $800 million in 1995. However, fuel taxes paid by private and corporate planes covered only about 25% of those costs, according to the study, the latest conducted on the issue. By contrast, commercial airlines picked up more than 100% of the cost of the services they use through passenger taxes. Private planes also pay no federal fees for post-9/11 security or airport improvements.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association disputes the FAA's finding that private planes pay only a small share of their costs. The group also claims that commercial jets make heavier demands on air traffic control.

While that's true at many large airports, it is not the case at scores of airports used exclusively by general aviation. Indeed, the Van Nuys, Calif., and Phoenix Deer Valley airports, which cater only to private planes, are among the nation's 20 busiest airfields.

An air control system stressed by rising traffic, aging equipment and federal deficits can't afford to subsidize fliers who don't pay for all of the services they use. Forcing commercial airlines and passengers to pay the difference is an unfair burden to bear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAA COUNTERS USA TODAY USER-FEE EDITORIAL

April 15, 2004 - The Experimental Aircraft Association today (April 15) strongly criticized a USA Today editorial that urged a shift of airport tax burdens, from airlines and their passengers who primarily use the facilities, to general-aviation pilots who are minimum users of those facilities and services.

In particular, EAA criticized USA Today for describing all general-aviation operators as “well-heeled” and alluding to the “private-plane lobby” that is preventing user-fee operations to be established. Part of EAA’s mission of protecting the right to fly includes ensuring that recreational aviation participants are not burdened with unfair expenses for facilities and services they rarely, if ever, use.

“It is apparent that USA Today is pandering to its large readership that travels through the nation’s major airport terminals,” said Earl Lawrence, EAA’s Vice President of Government and Industry Relations. “General aviation operations are not causing municipalities to build expensive new terminals, longer runways and parking garages. Airline operations are. And those tremendously expensive facilities are being paid for by those who demand those facilities and services - the airlines and their passengers.”

Phil Boyer, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, presented the counterpoint in USA Today on behalf of the general-aviation community. Along with fair distribution of expenses, he noted that the current system has created the world’s safest air traffic system.

“We concur with Phil Boyer’s counterpoint editorial,” Lawrence said. “We would add that EAA members, who mostly pursue recreational aviation activities in day VFR conditions, use primarily noncommercial airports and even fewer services during their flying. That means if the USA Today proposal were to become reality, these pilots would be paying a higher, disproportionate share of the expense for something they rarely use.”

Lawrence continued that general aviation already pays for the facilities it uses, such as local runway maintenance and GA facilities, through local fees and government taxes on items such as aviation fuel. Airlines are exempted from paying taxes on most airports in the U.S., because many individual states exempt airlines from paying these taxes, hoping to draw their business. That means that general-aviation operators already bear the brunt of the expenses to maintain and improve these facilities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AOPA defends GA against USA Today call for user fees
Apr. 15 — AOPA on Thursday defended general aviation against a USA Today editorial that claims airline passengers "subsidize" general aviation. In an opposing view piece published alongside the paper's editorial, AOPA President Phil Boyer explained to USA Today readers that the current system is a single structure, designed for the airlines.

"Our elected representatives in Congress wisely created a national air transportation system," Boyer wrote. And just as trucks — which place a greater strain on the national highway system — pay higher taxes and fees than family cars, the airlines must carry a greater portion of the financial burden for the nation's air traffic control system.

The USA Today editorial was prompted by and uses much of the same rhetoric as an editorial that Northwest Airlines CEO Richard Anderson wrote for his airline's in-flight magazine.

Virtually all of the problems with the air traffic control system cited in the USA Today editorial are problems of the airlines' own making. The delays that the FAA and the airlines are already forecasting for this summer are largely due to the hub-and-spoke system that the major airlines rely on. The hub-and-spoke system creates unrealistic arrival and departure schedules at the major hub airports. Summertime storms only compound the problem.

The USA Today editorial claims incorrectly that most GA flights use air traffic control separation services. In fact, the vast majority of GA flights are conducted under visual flight rules, requiring only minimal contact with controllers and placing almost no direct burden on the system.

"The air traffic control system is designed to serve the airlines," wrote Boyer in USA Today. "Most small planes use few, if any, of these services.

"The airlines pay a modest federal fuel tax of four cents a gallon. Conversely, general aviation flights fund their use of the system through a fuel tax five times what the airlines pay."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mad? Want to tell USA Today how you feel? Click on the link below and file your comment with them.

http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=12