"Editorial: User fees on aviation"

Friday, May 18, 2007

User fees on aviation
Air traffic upgrades essential, but funds are tight
The Denver (CO) Rocky Mountain News


The United States' air-traffic control system needs an overhaul, and soon.
Upgrading the ATC network, which continues to rely on radar rather than GPS
or other more-precise technologies, will require at least $5 billion more
over the next decade than the current regime of passenger charges, fuel
taxes and other fees can raise. 

The funding shortfall will become particularly acute in the next few years,
as the volume of "flight operations" (takeoffs and landings) at U.S.
airports is expected to surge from 45,000 today to 61,000 by 2016. With
several major hub airports already operating near capacity, new technologies
that can use airspace safely and more efficiently are a must. 

Congress will almost certainly change the financing system this year, since
the current funding mechanisms expire Sept. 30. But how Washington collects
the money matters, and user fees should be included. Commercial airlines,
cargo transporters and private, general aviation flyers should pay for the
upgrades, with fees linked to the amount of stress users place on ATC
facilities. 

One way to do that is with congestion pricing; it should cost more to fly in
and out during peak hours, so that traffic can be more evenly spaced
throughout the day. 

The Federal Aviation Administration drafted model legislation based on this
principle (as well as the idea that aircraft size and weight be related to
the size of fees). But in the Senate, lawmakers have their own ideas, driven
more by aviation interests than consumers, and the results have been
disappointing so far. 

S. 1300, which passed a committee vote on Wednesday, would be at best a
slight improvement over the status quo. It would impose a flat user fee of
$25 for every flight other than those involving small, piston-engine
airplanes. Congestion pricing is not in the bill; nor are charges based on a
plane's weight. 

Even getting a flat user fee included in the Senate bill was tough. An
amendment to strip it from the bill failed on a vote of 11-12. The general
aviation lobby opposes any user fees, because even a modest nod in that
direction would shift more costs in its direction. 

But general aviation should pay more; the FAA says it provides only 3
percent of the financing for the air-traffic control system, yet it accounts
for roughly 17 percent of its use. 

The bill also includes one unacceptable provision: It would give the
air-traffic controllers' union the right to demand arbitration if it can't
work out a labor agreement with the FAA. 

This could eventually put passengers at risk. The union could use its
leverage in labor talks to make it tougher for the FAA to introduce new
technologies, especially if they require workers to handle tasks that aren't
covered in their contracts. 

Even if S. 1300 passes the Senate, the House is expected to craft its own
FAA bill over the next couple of weeks. 

It's crucial for the House to get its version right. It should incorporate a
more balanced user fee system, and ensure that the controllers' union can't
hold modernization of the air-traffic control system hostage.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


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