NATA says that fuel taxes are a fairer method than user fees to raise revenue for FAA. Responding to a questionnaire sent out by FAA on the subject, NATA’s Jim Coyne opined that a system of user fees could, “… add greater confusion and inefficiency to the air transportation system [and] cause a bureaucratic nightmare for both government and industry.”
NATA has always maintained that the fuel tax is the most equitable system for general aviation users because, basically, those who need and use the system the most tend to be the people who buy the most fuel. It’s hard to argue the logic.
On the other hand, there are those who point out that aviation user groups — certainly including but not limited to the National Air Transportation Association — always react in a knee-jerk fashion to any attempt to change the system in a way that might increase the costs of their particular users. Historically, it is also hard to argue against that point.
As in most such discussions, the underlying problem is not one of fairness in taxation, but a question of a need — real or perceived — for more money. FAA argues that the system cannot survive with the current funding mechanisms at their present levels. The acronym groups tend to respond, “Yeah, that’s what you always say.”
In this case, there are further root problems. The airlines lose money faster’n a Cray computer figures logarithms, with no end in sight. Airlines have always figured they pay more than their share of the system, and they want to change that. Such thinking is anathema to the general aviation groups, who argue that much of the system was built for and is required by the airlines, not GA, so airlines should pay for it.
In the meantime, the situation is further muddied by the fact that some are ready to take the air traffic control system out of FAA and privatize it, the argument being that the free market could provide those services better and for less money than any guvmint body.
This situation has more faces than a county sheriff running for reelection.
As Tevye said in Fiddler on the Roof, “On the one hand …” Lord knows I agree with Jim Coyne about the “confusion and inefficiency” and the “bureaucratic nightmare.” Anyone who doubts that danger should restudy what the guvmint has done with past programs that went berserk: OSHA; HIPAA (which the medical profession is still trying to figure out after almost a decade); and ADA come immediately to mind.
However, Tevye also said, “but, on the other hand …” I have become convinced that FAA really is right this time. We probably do need more money.
I am reminded once again of that great old Alabama humorist, Sharon Elebash, who said, “Some of my friends are on this side, some are on the other side, and I side with my friends.”
