When you fly, you probably don't think about all the goings-on in Washington over balancing the federal budget. After all, one of the benefits of flying is to "get above it all," away from the troubles of the world. Unfortunately, as I use the air traffic system, I think about the circus in Washington, D.C., knowing that some powerful players inside the Beltway could try to balance the budget on our backs by imposing FAA user fees.
As the lobbying affiliate of the largest pilot organization in the country, AOPA Legislative Action, which successfully kept user fees at bay last year, faces new challenges this time around. Our first task is restoring the FAA's traditional source of funds: the excise taxes that fuel the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, including the airline ticket tax, an air freight tax, and the tax that general aviation pilots pay on fuel. Those taxes expired on January 1, (you may recall that the taxes went uncollected for 8 months last year, and the reinstatement late in 1996 was only temporary). The trust fund could run out of money this month if we don't bring back the taxes.
Of course, nobody enjoys paying taxes. But these taxes are the same reliable funding source upon which the FAA has depended for years. Congress should put them back in place now. If the trust fund is depleted, federal airport grants will be postponed or canceled, and ATC modernization programs could halt temporarily.
On February 5, I testified in Congress in support of reinstating the taxes. In the short term, Congress will probably reinstate the taxes to the end of the government's fiscal year, which is September 30. What we as pilots should be most wary of is the long-term debate over funding the FAA.
The nation's seven largest airlines are aggressively lobbying on Capitol Hill, pushing for big changes in the way the FAA is funded. Airline passengers pay a 10-percent tax on the price of their tickets; and since these "Big Seven" airlines have high fares, their passengers tend to pay more in taxes than passengers on low-fare airlines. So, the Big Seven want to switch from a tax based on the price of a ticket to a tax based on seats per aircraft, the number of seats filled by passengers, and miles flown. That complex formula conveniently lowers the taxes on passengers of the Big Seven — which together control 78 percent of the airline market — while raising them for their low-fare competitors.
What the Big Seven's plan doesn't do, though, is equip the FAA to manage its money better. The reforms that Congress passed last year, which AOPA Legislative Action first proposed as part of its Five-Point FAA Reform Plan, are already giving the agency the tools it needs to escape the burden of federal bureaucratic rules on personnel and acquisition, and to exercise the flexibility to manage its money more wisely.
More important, the Big Seven plan doesn't provide any new money for the FAA. In fact, it would actually reduce revenue slightly. But that's not surprising. In public testimony to the Senate, representatives of the Big Seven made it clear that their ultimate goal is a privatized ATC system run by — you guessed it — the airlines. And if the Big Seven succeed in this goal, they will try to spread more of their costs to us.
"Balance the budget" is what staffers in Congress and the White House hear in their sleep these days. And as the October 1 start of the new fiscal year approaches, the desire to raise money or cut spending will drive everything. That's why all of us in your association are keeping our eyes on proposals like user fees that could put a dent in the budget deficit — at our expense.
FAA user fees would go straight to the agency, not through the congressional budget process. That's different from our push for taking the trust fund "off-budget," which would make it easier for Congress to fully spend the taxes we pay on aviation, their intended purpose. But user fees would move the FAA's $8 billion in annual spending out of the budget process entirely, essentially giving the FAA a blank check.
The Clinton administration, which first proposed user fees, hasn't given up on them. The administration has forged an unholy alliance with the big airlines to squeeze every penny possible from the rest of the aviation industry. Clinton's plan starts with $300 million in new user fees (new taxes) before moving to a 100-percent user fee-funded system beginning in October of next year.
With user fees, your "contribution" as a general aviation pilot to balancing the budget would increase every time you fly. You could pay every time you request a weather briefing or file a flight plan. You could pay every time you renew your medical, add a rating, or register an aircraft. As you can imagine, most pilots would pay much more in user fees than they do now in fuel taxes.
AOPA certainly doesn't oppose the efforts of Congress and the White House to balance the federal budget. A balanced budget will benefit our entire industry in the long term. But we know that Congress can do it without drastic schemes like user fees or a privatized ATC system. Reasonable alternatives such as AOPA's Linked Financing Plan exist to meet the FAA's funding needs.
As the effort to balance the budget comes down to the wire and meetings on Capitol Hill stretch into the night, AOPA Legislative Action will be there, working on your behalf, to ensure that general aviation pilots aren't victimized — by the airlines or anyone else — in any back-room deals. AOPA will continue to depend on your support and participation in our grass-roots efforts to defeat user fees. For the moment, however, every chance you get, please tell your federal representatives to restore our aviation excise taxes.
