We fly to Europe at least 8 times a year and domestically 5 or 6. The taxes put on fliers is prohibitive. We are working on cutting the number of our flights, so if the government wants to "help" out the airlines tell them to cut taxes. I'm also tired of the silly come-on prices airlines use. Put the whole price on, taxes and all and save everyone looking time.

Posted By Kaaren Scanio on April 26, 2007, 9:54 AM

I agree. These taxes should not be used to subsidize private and corporate jets. Instead of stopping the taxes they should use the money to improve our transportation infrastructure. Our passenger train service funding is minuscule when compared to other modes of transportation. Let your Senators know you want them to co-sponsor S. 294 to improve train service in this country. Contact them for free below.

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/rail_bill_clone

Posted By digihawk on April 26, 2007, 9:57 AM

I just attended an FAA presentation at the Sun 'N Fun Airshow, where FAA chief Marian Blakey was supposed to attend. She did not show up.

I learned that FAA is building a new control tower at La Guardia Airport -- to the tune of 150 MILLION DOLLARS! That is for an airline airport, but they want to charge it to all of the users -- even if they can't use it.

What is it -- gold-plated titanium?

The FAA wants to recover costs from the Little Guy, where the FAA itself imposes control towers and airspace restrictions that we MUST obey!

Most of the airways/Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is built to airline specification -- it does NOT meet any General Aviation (GA) specification or requirements!

Now the airlines and FAA have turned on their propaganda engine to vilify GA and rally public support for what is, at best, a dubious proposal, and at worst, a highly destructive program.

Posted By ORVAL Fairbairn on April 26, 2007, 2:40 PM

The hub-and-spoke system our big commercial airlines developed after deregulation doesn't work, at least not for making effective use of airports and flight paths.

The future of air transportation lies in getting cheaper planes (possibly even owner-piloted, like your car) to airports closer to all of us. But if those airports aren't in good shape, it's going to be hard to get flights away from those crowded hubs and their costly delays.

The FAA's funding of all airports is actually a long-term investment. How often can you say that about government spending?

Posted By Paul Higgins on April 26, 2007, 3:09 PM

More on FAA User Fees:

From:

http:/www.aviationacrossamerica.com/pubs/Setting_the_Record.cfm

FAA CLAIM: The FAA claims that general aviation drives 16% of the costs of air traffic services, yet only contributes 3% of the taxes.
REALITY: FAA's own documents show that GA currently contributes 8.6 percent of the taxes that flow into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.[1}

The FAA has been using the same economist-accepted cost allocation methodology since 1973. That is, until now. In the last properly-done cost allocation study in 1997, the FAA reported that General Aviation was responsible for 6.7% of the cost of air traffic control.[2]

FAA CLAIM: The FAA's fact sheet claims that the FAA accounts for the fact that the major airlines drive more of the costs of our air traffic control system.
REALITY: The reality is that the FAA's cost allocation study treats all turbine aircraft the same, whether it is a turbo-prop that seats eight passengers or a 747 that seats 400 passengers.

In addition, the fact remains that the extensive cost of our air traffic control system is driven by specifically by the airlines' hub and spoke system. When the airlines insist on shoehorning the vast majority of air traffic into only 30 hub airports, the FAA must provide increasingly complex and expensive traffic control. [3]


FAA CLAIM: Administering the new user fee system will not require a large new bureaucracy.
REALITY: The FAA may be confident that it can collect fees with a minimum of bureaucracy, but the fact is that all user fee based systems have required large, costly collection administration. This is the case with service providers around the world. Why should we expect that the largest air traffic control system in the world would be any different?

Further, the FAA's own proposal calls for $1.36 billion to be appropriated for services to collect user fees in the first 60 days!

FAA CLAIM: The FAA repeatedly claims that we need to overhaul our entire funding mechanism for collecting revenue in order to modernize our air traffic control system.
REALITY: The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, have all agreed that modernization can be paid for under the current financing system. [7]


FAA CLAIM: The FAA proposal would benefit consumers.
REALITY: The proposal is about reducing the tax burden on airlines and shifting it on to small planes - this is a clear tax break of 11% to the airlines. The U.S. Government Accountability Office warned Congress in 2004 that airlines do not in fact pass on tax savings to their passengers, so any improvement would likely be to airline profitability, not passenger ticket costs. [10] Airline management and their lobbyists have even said publicly that they are looking to improve their bottom line by supporting this proposal.[11]

Posted By ORVAL Fairbairn on April 26, 2007, 10:52 PM

gas prices are too high for people

Posted By Victoria Henderson on April 27, 2007, 2:05 PM

Too bad you don't realize that people who fly out of small airports are budget travelers, too. If all the tax money goes to large airports, those using small airports will not be able to travel at all. I would expect Budget Travel to favor ALL travel, not just travel on large airliners out of major airports.

Posted By Jean Stapleton on April 28, 2007, 2:13 AM