Warbird Information Exchange

Is a fuel tax a better solution?

I have no problem paying for services rendered, AS THEY ARE RENDERED, but user fees that get smeared across the board (put into a slush fund) in my mind only serve to subsidize certain segments of the industry. Comments?

I think you should rephrase this as the Aviation Fuel Tax is currently what is providing the funding in lieu of user fees.

And yes, it is a better solution. Airlines use more fuel than GA and use the system more than GA, so they pay a larger chunk into the Trust Fund. That's equitable. The proposal pushed by the "Alphabet Soup" of Aviation Groups was an increase in the Aviation Tax across the board (something that hasn't happened in 15 years or so if I remember correctly) and to increase how much of the Airways Trust Fund is used to pay for the FAA's operating expenses and thus increase the percentage of the FAA is directly funded from the users via those fuel taxes.

One thing that you have to remember here is that user fees are designed to be biased against GA. Airlines can pass the user fee cost on to their customers by raising their ticket prices. GA can't do that because they're paying out of their own pocket and the regs don't allow most GA pilots to get more than fuel reimbursement from people who fly with them.

Additionally you have other problems -

1) It drives GA out of controlled areas (like DFW) because just contacting ATC incurs a fee, so GA, usually wanting to limit cost, will base anywhere they have to call ATC. Thus, any towered airport will lose much of it's GA based aircraft. Airports like Spinks, Grand Prairie, and Arlington, in Texas that are primarily GA airports would become ghost towns.

2) It would cause many Corporate Flight Departments to cease operations. As they fly high performance bizjets or turboprops by-and-large, they have no choice but to use the ATC system most of the time. Because of that, their cost to maintain the flight deparment skyrockets. Thus, they'll be induced to either shutdown or move to aircraft that are smaller and are efficient at under 18000 feet and use airports outside of controlled airspace.

3) Safety is a huge issue. Again, since most GA operators are cost averse, there will be more trying to take a chance and use as little ATC as possible, resulting in more marginal VFR and IFR flights where they try to "cheat" into an airport. How many more accidents would occur because of this?

User fees have devastated GA in Europe. They crippled Corporate aviation as well (drop of over 50% afterwards). Even worse, they did exactly what the US is proposing - double taxation. The Aviation Fuel Tax won't go away. You'll just end up paying both the fuel tax and the user fee.

Again, how's that fair?

User Fees only help one group - Airlines. Guess who's been pushing for user fees? Airlines. Guess who's been complaining that the Aviation Fuel Tax is unfair? Airlines.

What about those of us here that own warbirds? How many airshows are held at towered airports? How many museums are located at towered airports? Guess what - they'll be forced to pay a fee just to taxi. How many museums will simply park their collection rather than have to pay to just move? How many private warbird owners will sell or donate their aircraft to museums for the same reason? Again, user fees sound good, but when the cost is added up, it's totally unfair because those who use it most end up paying nothing.