Cobalt wrote:
I don’t understand why so many here think that it is not reasonable to expect that public services and infrastructure are paid for in a country that takes 40 or more (depending on where) of ALL economic away from those who generate it and gives it to somebody else.
Everybody has different ideas what the public expenditure quota should be spent for. Even at 56% (France) it’s by far not enough to make everybody happy with an all-inclusive full service package. If the question is opera house or airport, I side with the majority and go for the opera house…
At some point in history, the US federal government decided to devote significant resources to GA infrastructure. It would probably not go this way if the decision was to be made again today.
C210_Flyer wrote:
The system that was set up in the US works. Its not funded by the General tax payor but by “user fees” as in fuel sales so it should make the Europeans happy and it goes into a trust fund.
The US system is a combination of Federal funding from the general revenues and user fees of a sort to fund airport infrastructure. The user fees are paid by general aviation pilots in the form of fuel taxes. The airlines don’t pay any user fees, but they do collect it passengers as a ticket tax and pass it on to the trust fund. The operation of the FAA is appropriated by Congress from general tax revenues. From time to time. the FAA has sought to use the aviation trust fund for operational usage, such as running the FAA or paying controllers, but this has always been defeated.
The main problem I see with the change in funding the ATC operation (a portion of the FAA) by using a private corporation is that it hands total control from the government for the entire ATC system to one party, the airlines. With this, there is no redress of grievances with the system and general aviation will be locked out. Currently, the system is first come first serve. There are approximately 150,000 general aviation aircraft and 7000 airliners. If user fees are adopted, particularly if it is a by service fee, then safety will greatly diminish.Most of NextGen is already installed from an equipment standpoint. All the ADS-B ground stations are installed. PBN based navigation has been in use since 2008 and the overhaul of the VOR-Victor airway system is well underway. I doubt that most of this infrastructure would be included in an ATC privatization.
There is strong resistance to this in both the Senate which did not include it in their version of the funding bill and in the Congress at large. The Democrats are pretty much in opposition and Republicans are split, mostly against.
achimha wrote:
At some point in history, the US federal government decided to devote significant resources to GA infrastructure. It would probably not go this way if the decision was to be made again today.
I would disagree. Infrastructure is not at issue. The Federal road system is a similar model. The issue is about funding the Controllers and who controls their priorities.
achimha wrote:
I believe the US have the same system where a fuel tax contributes to the FAA’s budget?
Fuel taxes don’t contribute to the FAA operational budget.
LeSving wrote:
The problem is essentially that GA has no use for all the ATC.
That is totally wrong. GA is a heavy user of the ATC system. Recreational pilots that are only conducting VFR flights also use the ATC system on a regular basis for VFR Flight Following.
James_Chan wrote:
Well, at least I’m sure the US taxpayer isn’t ‘subsidiising’ $1000 every time a Cessna 152 lands at JFK for $25
You are right about that. The federal government is not involved in landing fees or handling fees.
There is a big misconception as to what is being suggested and how the current ATC system is funded.
Landing fees and handling fees are not Federal fees or taxes. Here is what one pilot wrote summarizing landing at KJFK:
The landing fee is $25.00 but if you operate into/out of JFK between 1500-2200 there is an additional $100 landing fee. Parking is $45, which is charged in 8 hour intervals. The facility use fee is $33.60, which can be waived with a fuel purchase of 9 gallons. Please keep in mind that there are no tiedown positions at KJFK
These get paid to the Airport Authority. In addition prior reservation is required.
No GA pilot in his right mind would fly into KJFK other than as an emergency. They would fly into KFRG, KISP, KHPN or KTEB, and they would be expensive as well.
NCYankee wrote:
Fuel taxes don’t contribute to the FAA operational budget.
Isn’t that what AOPA is promoting in US? More taxes on AVGAS?
NCYankee wrote:
The main problem I see with the change in funding the ATC operation (a portion of the FAA) by using a private corporation is that it hands total control from the government for the entire ATC system to one party, the airlines. With this, there is no redress of grievances with the system and general aviation will be locked out.
That is certainly a risk, but it doesn’t have to be that way. About half the towers in Sweden are operated by private ATC providers and we haven’t yet seen GA being locked out. (But I would certainly prefer if the all ATC was public.)
Flyamax wrote:
Isn’t that what AOPA is promoting in US? More taxes on AVGAS?
Yes and No. AOPA is open to additional taxes on AVGAS, but not for the operation of the system which does not use these taxes. AOPA is open to using the Aviation Trust Fund for " putting to use some of the balance from the Airways and Airport Trust Fund to expedite technology deployment ". Right now only two parties pay a tax, GA users pay a fuel tax and passengers pay a ticket tax that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund. Airlines pay nothing but they do collect for the government, just like the FBO collects the taxes paid by the GA pilot and forwards it to the government.
NCYankee wrote:
That is totally wrong. GA is a heavy user of the ATC system
That’s only because it’s there. We have no choice when entering controlled space. The only reason it is controlled in the first pace, is airlines. If there were only GA around, and lots of it, we would have AFIS units, and that’s it. A much simpler and lighter infrastructure. You might say that GA benefit from the existing infrastructure. In some sense that is correct, but the logic of it is wrong. It’s like saying a motorcyclist benefits from multi lane motorways. If there were only motorcycles there would be no need for all the lanes. Motorways are made for trucks and cars.
