[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Index]

         

"Groups revive debate over passenger fees for airport upgrades"


 
Friday, February 24, 2017

Groups revive debate over passenger fees for airport upgrades 
By Melanie Zanona
The Hill


Conservatives and libertarians are calling on Congress to lift the cap on the 
amount of money that airports can charge passengers to help pay for facility 
improvements.

Airport groups have long pressed Washington to nearly double or fully remove 
the $4.50 limit on the fee that is added to every plane ticket, known as the 
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). 

The renewed push comes as President Trump has promised to repair the nation's 
crumbling roads, bridges and airports with a massive infrastructure package 
later this year. Lawmakers will also soon be putting together a bill to 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), whose legal authority 
expires in September.

But funding offsets for infrastructure upgrades have long remained elusive. The 
PFC increase has been billed as one pro-market solution that avoids adding to 
the deficit or increasing the burden on tax-payers, while also making airports 
more self-sufficient.

"These are fair and efficient ways to go about financing infrastructure," Marc 
Scribner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said during 
a Capitol Hill panel discussion on Wednesday. "Unfortunately, you do have a 
number of commercial interests that oppose these various fees and support the 
taxpayer subsidized status quo."

Despite the seemingly conservative appeal, however, Congress opted not to 
address the PFC cap in last year's long-term proposal to reauthorize the FAA. 

The proposal to increase the fees paid by passengers for airport projects has 
faced strong pushback from the airline industry, which argues that passengers 
are already charged enough fees by the government when they purchase tickets 
and have labeled the PFC increase an "airport tax."

Scribner pointed out that the PFC is a user fee, which can only be used for a 
very narrow set of airport projects.

"User fees can only be imposed on service beneficiaries," he said. "The primary 
beneficiaries of airports are the passengers who use them."

Airport groups have argued that the passenger fee is long overdue for an 
increase, since it has not been raised in over 15 years. Meanwhile, airports 
are facing over $100 million in unmet infrastructure needs, while the number of 
airline passengers is expected to grow, adding a further strain on the system. 

"The question is, what is the most fair and equitable way to have an unmet need 
met?" said Chris Barron, director of communications for Van Scoyoc Associates. 
"We all agree that the person which takes advantage of it ought to be the 
person who pays for it."

It's unclear whether lawmakers will tackle the issue in an FAA bill this year 
and whether there will be new momentum under the Trump administration.

But House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) has vowed to re-up a 
proposal to separate air traffic control from the FAA, which Scribner called a 
"step in the same direction" as lifting the PFC cap.

While the panel's ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has vehemently opposed 
the spin-off plan, he has signaled strong support for increasing or removing 
the federal limit on the PFC.

"There really is an opportunity for some political odd couples to work together 
here," Barron said. "The fact we have a way to do it that doesn't end up 
costing an extra penny to federal tax-payers, I feel like this ought to be one 
of those times where we can work together."
 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

Current CAA news channel:


Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at stepheni@cwnet.com