Congestion Fees

[GAHorn]

The latest brou-ha-ha is over landing fees at congested airports. The airlines are screaming foul, and AOPA is making the same-old "not to OUR airspace/facilities" whine. (There's no such thing as "our" or "their" airspace.... it's all public, with the exception of certain military reservations/areas.)

It seems to me that every taxpayer should have equal access in reasonable amounts to public highways without tolls. Same thing with airways and airspace. Each taxpayer should get a once-a-day or twice-a-day access to the airports. If some taxpayer is greedy and wants to make the place crowded with overuse during certain hours (like some airlines do at some airports).... I have no complaint if a fee is imposed on that activity. But any aircraft operator should have at least once-a-day free access.

How do you feel?

[cessna170bdriver]

You went from "tax payer" to "aircraft operator" having daily access. Many of those "operators" carry 300+ taxpayers at a time.

Miles

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George

In a simple world I agree a single tax payer should have the same access and any other tax payer. But this is not a simple world.

A lot of tax payers want to fly at the same time and so to accommodate them airlines schedule at the same time. This causes congestion and the stress we see in the system.

We then spend all the tax payers money to increase the capacity of the system to handle peak loads yet all the tax payers don't fly at peak times causing the problem.

I have no problem with a system that would charge more to tax payers who cause more expense. If you don't want to pay extra go off peak. When the load balances out perhaps we will all save tax money not increasing capacity to accommodate the peak load. If the load never levels out at least those using peak time will pay for the privilege.

[jrenwick]

We're probably going to hear a lot more about this. NPR carried a story this week about a company in Florida that's starting up, doing charter flights in Eclipse jets, where you pay just for your seat. The story is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=18034751

Judging by the pressure NWA has been putting on GA airports around the Twin Cities for the last few years, I would guess that the airlines see this sort of thing as a real revenue threat that would at first take away the passengers who are willing to pay full price for a first-class seat on short notice. I'll bet the airlines will find all sorts of creative things that Congress or the FAA could do to make sure the small jet operators "pay their fair share" for use of the airports. Some of that will surely splash over into our own sorts of GA operations, so I think we're going to have some fights on our hands over the next few years.

Just saying....

[hilltop170]

This is my soapbox opinion;
The congestion is not in the air, it's on the ground. That fact seems to elude most everybody. If there were enough runways to land all the planes trying to land at the same time there would not be any congestion. We all know there will never be enough runways to solve that problem so some other sort of congestion relief must be used.

Obviously, the airlines will not voluntarily spread out their schedules to minimize congestion, just the opposite happens. They clump arrivals and departures into small blocks of time through the day to streamline the hub and spoke system. That is what backs up everything, then throw in a little weather and the whole thing comes close to collapse. Even at DFW with its seven runways, I have counted over 30 American Airlines planes lined up waiting for take-off at the same time. Not one GA plane in the bunch.

Raising taxes is one way to diffuse the congestion and that is always the first and easiest suggestion made. But only if the increased tax goes to improving the system does it do any good. There is so much waste involved, improved efficiency would go a long way to helping solve the problem.

Then, who do you tax? I say tax the users who cause the congestion, namely airlines/airline passengers. Designing a sliding scale usage tax based on each airport's load factor would help solve the problem by encouraging airlines to diffuse their schedules. Then if passengers choose to travel at peak times, that tax is higher than the red-eyes. Hotels and resorts have been using a system like that forever, pay more at high season.

We all know GA is not the cause of the congestion but the airlines would like everybody to think it is. Most GA IFR flights these days go GPS direct to smaller airports. That interferes very little with the air traffic system. VFR traffic is routinely pushed aside when load factors increase for controllers so that is not the problem. Everyone has been told to remain clear one time or another during busy times. VERY FEW GA aircraft ever go to a hub airport for many reasons including landing fees and the congestion that is already there. Even when GA planes do go to hub airports it is a tiny fraction of the total movements.

GA already pays for itself by taxes on the fuel it uses and there is a surplus of funds from that tax. Unfortunately the funds are siphoned off to other things so there is a perceived shortage by the polititions who want to raise GA taxes. Then the airlines try to say GA doesn't pay its share.

Every GA plane in the air is a potential loss of ticket sales to the airlines. Why wouldn't they try to eliminate GA? It's dollars and cents to them, and greed. Heaping more expense on GA is not going to solve any problems. Building more runways, modernizing the ATC system, and putting the burden of congestion on the backs of those who cause it is the solution. I don't mind paying my share but no more than that.

Outgoing FAA Administrator Marion Blakely even said the airlines have caused their own problems, not GA, as she walked out the door. Why didn't she say that while she was in power?

[flyguy]

Richard you are "preaching to the choir". How the heck do we wake up the rest of the users to the fact that the real truth isn't being given out by those who want to divert attention away from those who are jamming up the major hubs during "prime time"?

Marion Blakely is a shill for the airline business and is going to try to do exactly what the airline lobby wants. The only solution that won't cost taxpayers their shirts off their backs, is to limit arrivals during peak and make the airlines toe the line or do a lottery for the prime time space.

What is amazing to me is the touting of the premise that GA fees will do the magic. If every general aviation flight that lands at one of these major airports, every call to fss and every ifr flight plan made was assessed a fee it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket of money needed. Where are the bucks needed to meet the enormous funding that will be required to overhaul the system! Where do the "seekers of funding" go? Believe this - -they want to get their grubby mitts in the "aviation trust fund".

Like Bruce sez: this post is worth less than you paid for it!

[170C]

Another problem with any proposed tax "to fix" the system is that that tax, like all taxes don't go away once the problem is solved. They become a permanent tax.

[GAHorn]

George

In a simple world I agree a single tax payer should have the same access and any other tax payer. But this is not a simple world.

A lot of tax payers want to fly at the same time and so to accommodate them airlines schedule at the same time. This causes congestion and the stress we see in the system.

We then spend all the tax payers money to increase the capacity of the system to handle peak loads yet all the tax payers don't fly at peak times causing the problem.

I have no problem with a system that would charge more to tax payers who cause more expense. If you don't want to pay extra go off peak. When the load balances out perhaps we will all save tax money not increasing capacity to accommodate the peak load. If the load never levels out at least those using peak time will pay for the privilege.

Bruce, ...that's exactly what I said. Those who want to use it more during congested periods... I have no problem for them to pay a fee for the privilege. That would probably cause them to consider other than prime-time. The approach would address the mile-long parking lot created by American Airlines in DFW and NWA at Minn/St.Paul at 5 PM "push".
I consider it patently unfair to charge a fee for the Cessna that uses that airport once-a-year at that time. The Cessna has already supported it's right to be there. The first AA or NWA in-line did too. It's the rest of the parking lot of same-user fleet that should pay the penalty for causing the log-jam. (And the single user shouldn't have to wait in line for departure either. If No. 32 American flight had to wait until the single-users had fair/equal access to departure times.... we might be surprised to find that AA might find a way to avoid 32 airplanes departing at 5 PM.)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George I now see what you were saying more clearly.

What this forum needs as babel fish button that rewords posts to the core message. Problem is we would need a button that would tell us we didn't understand the core message to begin with.

Frank you are right. These things never seem to get adjusted. We will get use to the revenue stream created and no one will want to give it up. Until of course the off peak times become the peak time revenue goes away then we just tax everyone all the time.

This is the major reason to stop user fees right now before they get started.

I would like to add to my statement in my earlier post that I would not be opposed to a peak time tax if the tax could not migrate to something bigger. And I'd like to time limit for it's enforcement so that the tax is reviewed for it's effectiveness. The revenue should also probably not go directly to any necessary expenses would become counted on but perhaps a fund for improvement over and above the bear necessity. That way the revenue could go away without having to replace it.

[lowNslow]

You went from "tax payer" to "aircraft operator" having daily access. Many of those "operators" carry 300+ taxpayers at a time.

Miles

Great point! The fact is this "fee" is just another cash grab by the cities. Large airports are a cash cow for cities and many already have time of day landing fees in addition to local fuel taxes and airport handling "fees'. None of this has reduced the problem because not many people will fly off hours other than redeyes. As pointed out the problem is the infrastructure has not kept pace.

[N2540V]

Off Topic, but similar.

At Seattle Washington, we have a field called Boeing Field International.
(Where we Boeing types test the big birds).

There has been on the books a landing fee.
King County has finally figured out how to determine who uses the field.

So, the GA landing fee is $0.75 per 1,000 lbs and they bill quarterly.
So, if I fly there to pick up a part, go to a repair shop, etc once a quarter
King County will send me a bill ($0.41 postage) to collect $1.50 plus return postage.

OMG,:oops: I almost forgot the flow fee for fuel. Fly in with full tanks.

[bradbrady]

Landing at midway (mdw) will still cost you with full tanks...... landing fee 25.00.... fuel 5 gal @ 6.00-landing fee forgiven......cost to you....5.00 and landing at midway isn't any fun anymore....anyway.

[GAHorn]

You went from "tax payer" to "aircraft operator" having daily access. Many of those "operators" carry 300+ taxpayers at a time.

Miles

Great point! The fact is this "fee" is just another cash grab by the cities. Large airports are a cash cow for cities and many already have time of day landing fees in addition to local fuel taxes and airport handling "fees'. None of this has reduced the problem because not many people will fly off hours other than redeyes. As pointed out the problem is the infrastructure has not kept pace.

I disagree. The cargo aboard my vehicle has little to do with my right of access. The 300 individuals are not contributing their individual rights to the common-carrier. It's the common-carrier who is making profitable the use of public infrastructure.... and they should not have greater access to that which has been provided by the public in general. Would you argue that busses have greater rights to the highway than private automobiles?

[jrenwick]

Would you argue that busses have greater rights to the highway than private automobiles?

Where I live, they do. Busses can drive on the shoulders of some freeways, and sometimes they have lanes that are reserved for them (and other special vehicles). Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis is closed to cars, but open to busses and emergency vehicles. I could go on....

[170C]

And then there are those HOV lanes, built with your/my tax dollars that require two or more "persons" to be legal to use. In the Dallas area, as we trudge through the multiple lanes of congested traffic, the HOV lanes go along with relatively light traffic or none at all when they close them during non peak hours. The second person can be a day old infant or a senior citizen who hasn't had a valid drivers license in 20+ years. I,m sure this is reducing the number of polluting vehicles on the road Is TX DOT smart enough to open the HOV lanes at non-peak hours to all traffic-------not a chance If they would open the "new" HOV lane to regular traffic, 24/7 it would help reduce the congestion, but NO In their infinite wisdom they are building these HOV lanes, not to help traffic congestion, but rather to "encourage" carpooling to reduce air pollution. Yea, right All those vehicles that could be moving along to their destination are stuck in bumper-to-bumper/stop-&- go (maybe) traffic all the while spewing the exhaust. Goes along with the wisdom that they have reduced the speed limit in Tarrant & Dallas counties and all counties that physically touch these two counties from 70 mph to either 65 mph or 60, depending upon the city in which you are driving. On I-20 in South Dallas county, the speed limit is 65 mph, but cross into Grand Prairie in Tarrant county and the speed limit drops to 60 miles hour. I guess those vehicles in Dallas county pollute less at 65 mph than in Tarrant county And these are "Our tax dollars at work"