"Opinion: Our air traffic control system is broken"

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Opinion
Our air traffic control system is broken
By James C. May
The St. Louis (MO) Post Dispatch


"Flight Delays Highest in 13 years."

"Demand for Air Travel Only Rising."

"Gridlock in the Skies."

Such headlines dominate our newspapers, and they're true. Our air traffic
control system is at its breaking point. With its outdated, inefficient
technology, it simply is incapable of handling the rising number of air
travelers: 15,000 more flights a day by 2016. Add bad weather to the mix,
and passengers wind up grounded for hours, sometimes days. 

Without modernization of our air traffic control system, gridlock will
paralyze aviation. It is especially critical for the St. Louis region, which
depends on a healthy aviation industry. 

The current debate in Washington is how to get the job done: maintain the
status quo in which there is no connection between costs imposed on the
system and taxes paid by users; or move forward with a fair, predictable
funding mechanism to ensure we can fund modernization.

What commercial airline passengers may not know is that they're already
paying more than their fair share of taxes. In fact, every time passengers
step on a plane, they're subsidizing the big wigs who fly on corporate or
luxury aircraft.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, airlines and their
customers pay more than 92 percent of the taxes that fund the system while
only using 66 percent of its services. Corporate jets, on the other hand,
pay only 8 percent of air traffic control costs but use 17 percent of the
system's services.

More than 18,000 business aircraft are operating today, and experts predict
that 10,000 to 12,000 more will be flying 10 years from now. In fact, the
FAA forecasts that the number of general aviation and air taxi jets will
grow twice as fast as commercial aircraft over the next 14 years.

It's time that all users of the system pay for what they use - no more, no
less.

Congress may decide this year whether the present fee arrangement is fair.
One proposal would require corporate jets to pay slightly more for the
services they use and let airline passengers pay slightly less. 

Although the Air Transport Association of America supports this proposal, we
recommend a mileage and departure-based funding formula that ensures that
airlines pay for the costs that they impose on the system. We are sensitive
to rural aviation needs, and our proposal reflects this by exempting the
first 250 miles of any flight when taxes are calculated. 

The St. Louis area's representatives in Congress - Missouri Sens.
Christopher "Kit" Bond and Claire McCaskill and U.S. Reps. William Lacy
Clay, Todd Akin and Russ Carnahan; and Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack
Obama and U.S. Reps. Jerry Costello and John Shimkus - are expected to
consider this issue later in the year. To make a sound decision, they need
to hear from their constituents - the everyday passengers who are tired of
subsidizing corporate jets in the sky.

We all agree that the system needs to change. Now let's tell Congress that
all who use it need to pay their fair share. 

James C. May is president of the Air Transport Association of America, a
Washington-based trade and lobbying association representing the major
airline companies.

Website: www.airlines.org

 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


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