[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Index]
"Commentary: Congress Should Embrace Airport Financing Reforms"
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Congress Should Embrace Airport Financing Reforms
By Marc Scribner
The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a markup on
its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. The Senate
Commerce Committee is considering their dueling legislation on Thursday.
While much of the debate over FAA reauthorization has centered on the House's
21st Century AIRR Act's proposal to separate the FAA's Air Traffic Organization
into an independent, self-supporting, nonprofit co-op (which CEI strongly
supports), lawmakers may be squandering an opportunity to greatly improve
airport financing in a pro-investment, taxpayer-friendly direction.
Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) recently introduced
legislation to uncap the passenger facility charge (PFC). The PFC is a local
airport user charge regulated by the FAA with a statutory cap currently set at
$4.50 per passenger enplanement. That cap has been unchanged since 2000 and
inflation has since eroded the PFC's buying power by approximately half.
Free market transportation analysts have long supported the PFC over
alternatives-namely federal grants to airports by way of the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). These include we at CEI, Reason Foundation, and
Heritage Foundation. The Tax Foundation has reached similar conclusions on the
PFC. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by Reps. DeFazio and Massie, would
also require that the large hubs increasing their PFCs beyond $4.50 would be
required to give up 100 percent of their AIP grants.
The PFC serves as a pro-competitive mechanism, which is also why the airline
industry is united in opposition to easing federal restrictions on local
airport user fees. The PFC only exists because the airline industry lobbied to
outlaw local airport user fees in the 1970s. In the 1980s, the Reagan
administration, concerned that airports were overly reliant on federal
largesse, developed the PFC as both a revenue and pro-competitive mechanism, as
a 1990 Cato Institute publication notes.
The reason is that airports are often constrained in bankrolling their own
airport improvements. So, they then turn to large incumbent airlines. In
exchange for financing these needed improvements, the airlines then demand
long-term exclusive use gate leases, which they use to keep low-cost
competitors from accessing the airport. Gate access limitations are estimated
to raise U.S. airfares by more than $4.4 billion per year (2005 dollars), a
significantly larger amount than that of the total annual revenue generated by
PFCs across the country.
Unfortunately, some conservatives still oppose reducing the federal
government's stranglehold on airport financing. This opposition, led by Grover
Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), frequently misstates basic facts on
the PFC and airport financing generally. They were wrong in 2015, wrong in
2016, and remain in the wrong today. In ATR's latest letter to the Senate
Commerce Committee opposing any change to the PFC, they make a number of errors:
*ATR equates a change in the cap to a change in the fee. This is incorrect.
Airports would still need to apply to the FAA for whatever fee beyond $4.50
they wished to impose and would still be subject to project eligibility
requirements. Uncapping or increasing the PFC cap would simply allow airports
to make their case for a greater fee.
*ATR falsely claims airports are flush with cash by arguing their reserve funds
should be raided to fund normal, predictable business investments. These
reserves are used by airports not only as rainy day funds in case of emergency,
but are often required by bond rating agencies to maintain high credit ratings.
*ATR also argues that the federal government should spend down the estimated
$5.7 billion uncommitted balance of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund of Fiscal
Year 2016. Ironically, ATR is in essence arguing for increasing AIP grant
spending-federal welfare for airports-while putting the trust fund back into
the same predicament it has been in recent years when Congress bailed it out
with general revenue funds. So, while ATR is opposing a non-tax local airport
user fee, it is pushing for increased federal spending and general revenue
trust fund bailouts by taxpayers. This is a common misguided progressive
political position, not a fiscally conservative one.
During the House FAA reauthorization markup today, no PFC reform amendment was
introduced. Worse, an amendment from Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) that would raise
AIP funding levels was accepted. This is exactly the opposite approach the
House should be pursuing if it wishes to bring the nation's aviation system
into the 21st century.
Last week, CEI led a coalition of free market organizations urging the Senate
Commerce Committee to amend its base bill and uncap the PFC. Our coalition
letter is here. We hope the Senate is more concerned about the sorry state of
airport financing than the House has shown itself to be.
Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums
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 email@example.com