Comments on: User Fees – The Safety Angle

By: M White

M White — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:12:43 +0000

In 1987after delivering an aircraft to Austria, I hitched a ride to Germany with 3 guys in a Cessna 421. I was sitting behind the pilots and noticed that we were at 3000 ft. squawking 1200 in IMC. I asked the guy beside me (also a pilot) why? He simply said to avoid “Airway Fees !” SOP in Europe, is that what you want here?

By: Gregg Lyle

Gregg Lyle — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:08:41 +0000

I’m a very new pilot (less than two months) and still staggering from the cost of getting my license. Not a big fan of possibly getting hit with more fees that will effectively ground me altogether. That having been said, though, I also hold to the idea that if I’m the beneficiary of a service, I should be responsible for paying my fair share, and I shouldn’t depend on handouts from others to keep me flying (or anything else, for that matter.) Unless I’m missing something, one of the problems here seems to be that the proposed fees don’t treat all the beneficiaries the same. For instance, a large jet carrying 300 passengers, will pay the same fee that a smaller plane carrying only the pilot will pay, even though all passengers benefit equally from the added safety provided by ATC. A freight carrying plane, carrying huge numbers of packages, would pay the same price as well, even though everyone on the sending and receiving end of the packages benefit from having their packages delivered safely. I keep coming back to the idea that the only cost effective and even handed approach is to adjust the fuel tax. As has already been stated, the system is already in place, so we wouldn’t need yet another beauracracy. Additionally, entities would end up paying more or less their fare share based on how much fuel is required to push their airplanes around.

By: Jim Rose

Jim Rose — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:40:18 +0000

Everyone above has just reinforced what a Nobel Prize winning economist has said, what you subsidize you get more of, what you tax you get less of. Taxing fuel results in less flying in general, but is fair to everyone and applies to the whole of a flight’s economics. User fees for participating in the safety of the air traffic control system, and participation clearly increases the safety to pilots, passengers and those on the ground, will result in less participation in that system. The comments above are unanimous that this is true. The fight against user fees should concentrate on the safety impact and not the short sighted economics of trying to raise revenue. The pilots in the congressional GA caucus likely understand this (thank you!) but the administration wonks obviously don’t and need to be reminded, regularly.

By: G Dyer

G Dyer — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:22:51 +0000

User fees will definitely put a damper on GA.

The politicians in the US are proposing to tax us twice; Once when we buy avgas, then another time with their proposed user fees. In addition, our income taxes also end up being used to fund the NAS. But when has double taxation ever gotten in the way of spendthrift politicians?

I would think twice before using ATC if it cost $100 on top of all the other taxes I pay.

By: R. Sorrells

R. Sorrells — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:31:00 +0000

As an airsafety investigator for my company, I am positive that user fees will result in an increase in midair collisons. Bruce is correct when he notes that pilots will opt to go VFR instead of IFR to save the $$. If anyone has ever seen the Human Factors program at USC showing the 8 seconds till impact, they would quickly realize 1) how difficult it is to see something, even as large as a military KC-135 and 2) how quickly it fills the cockpit window. Very scarey indeed.

So for a bit of additional tax revenue (and added bureaucracy) we will have people die. Is this what the FAA has for a goal? I thought the goal was Zero Accidents.

By: L. Masters

L. Masters — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:15:19 +0000

Those of you who think they will cause the airlines problems by flying through their routes VFR (legally) are not thinking long term. The obvious response of the FAA will be to extend Class B, C or D airspace to fully encompass those areas. This has been the standard response of the FAA over the years to virtually all conflicts between “flibs” and the airlines. Thus another consequence of user fees will be to vastly expand airspace requiring a clearance from ATC. You can bet they are already salivating over that. And, of course, the more controlled airspace, the more user fees demanded. Nice little cycle.

By: John Ritchie

John Ritchie — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:05:07 +0000

This is the problem with goverment taxacrats; they assume the activity that they tax will remain static. It doesn’t, and that leads to expansion of the tax until the activity is effectively killed or leaves the country.

By: David Kurman

David Kurman — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:18:16 +0000

@Bruce Snyder…that’s an excellent point you make in your last sentence. I fly light airplanes with the occasional turbine thanks to good friends and there is PLENTY to do without having to start calculating cost of services and having that get in the way of safely flying the airplane. The big government power grab that has been going on in BOTH the last administration (TSA) and obviously this administration is going to cost us big time in the long run for little and more likely zero benefit. It’s everything but the right thing when it comes to Washington D.C. nowadays.

From a day to day flying perspecitive it’s very expensive for me to fly my Warrior around, but I do what I can to satisfy the itch. If faced with fees at every turn for contacting the tower or for flight following…I can tell you that I personally would immediately fly less and over time (as we know the fees will increase) I would be forced to give it up.

By: Bruce Snyder

Bruce Snyder — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:56:26 +0000

I completely agree with Bruce’s article. Faster, heavier aircraft trying to occupy the same space as lighter slower aircraft is not the only safety issue with user fees. Today, if I need ATC assistance for any reason, I know that I have already paid for it with my fuel taxes so I don’t worry about added cost. If user fees are implemented, then every pilot of every aircraft will start to weigh the cost of asking for help against the risk of avoiding the system. Whether I’m flying my C182 or paying someone to fly me on a commercial flight, I don’t want the pilot of any flight thinking cost versus risk when the pilot needs to be fully focused on dealing with a less than ideal situation and bringing it to a safe conclusion.

By: Brian Klutenkamper

Brian Klutenkamper — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:02:40 +0000

I fly a T210 for business travel purposes and always file IFR. We are looking to move up to a TBM that would be affected. I think it is also safe to say that once the fee is in place for turbine aircraft, it would only be a matter of time until it applies to all IFR flight. I think it makes sense for me, other aircraft and ATC that I fly IFR. It adds safety for all involved and I take the small inconveniences of being directed with vectors and assigned altitudes that I really don’t want flying in and out of the STL area and other busy hubs I traverse. I can avoid these little hassles going VFR weather permitting. Another concern is for pilots flying into headwinds stronger than expected and making a decision for a fuel stop. When flying IFR this will add another $100 to the cost. Many pilots may let that extra $100 fee affect their decision and take the chance of running out of fuel.

It is obvious that fuel tax is the way to go. The tax has not changed in many years and needs to be increased. Using the existing system will not create another bureaucracy to collect the fees either.