Phil Boyer has served as president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association since 1991.
From a newly rated pilot to a seasoned airline captain, when flying on instruments, most of us hate to be given holding patterns.
Being issued holding instructions means there will be a delay in reaching your intended destination. Now, a very important issue for all of general aviation, you personally as a pilot, and your association is in a holding pattern: the possibility of GA user fees based on a change in the way the FAA is funded.
When entering a holding pattern, air traffic control generally gives the pilot an "expect further clearance" (EFC) time, in order to plan the conclusion of the flight. FAA Administrator Marion Blakey called me a few weeks ago advising me of the hold. She indicated that the long-awaited FAA proposal for funding to be acted on by Congress would not be completed, as planned, this year. Those of us in aviation who possibly stand to win and lose from the rumored bill — the airlines and GA, respectively — have been expecting details since early this year. This "holding pattern" means we will have to wait to know what lies ahead, to learn how onerous the bill might be, and to understand just how specifically it affects our pocketbooks short term or long term. The EFC for this hold is probably close to the end of the year, precipitated by the FAA being required by then to send a budget to the president for fiscal year 2007. Keep in mind that the fees and taxes that fund our current air traffic control system expire on September 30, 2007. Therefore, we know the destination, we know the arrival time, but we just don't know the details. The "hold" keeps us from planning the next steps, since it's hard to consider a route to take when we don't have a clearance. All this has the entire aviation community inventing scenarios rather than dealing in facts. But it's no secret that the airlines have called for a "fair and predictable funding mechanism based on use of the system."
Just a few short weeks ago, both the head of the Air Transport Association (ATA) and I faced off on this subject before the members of the Florida Airports Council. It was the first time the equivalent of AOPA for the airlines and I had been back-to-back speakers. Jim May, ATA president, started off the speech by conceding victory to AOPA in the user-fee battle. His words were, "We will not seek user fees for general aviation...piston...aircraft." Hard to believe while we are both in this holding pattern that he would determine the final destination — for us, no less — but it does raise the issue of letting the airlines have their way, and keep an efficiently collected fuel tax for most of us. But, more important, it begs the question as to whether we begin to redefine GA, or stay with the historic description: "all aviation except scheduled air carriers and the military." When we do get our final clearance and understand the proposal that Congress will consider next year, it could contain user fees for some segment of aviation, and not for others. My guess is that those of us who own and fly piston-powered airplanes burning avgas will be "taken care of." But are we willing to allow user fees in any segment of aviation, even the airlines? I call it the "camel's nose under the tent" theory, which has proven to be true around the world after user fees are introduced to a specific aviation segment. First, it's the airlines; next, corporate jets in the flight levels; next, all IFR traffic above a certain weight; next, all IFR traffic at any altitude or weight; and finally VFR user fees. User fees will come "trickling down" from the upper airspace users to those who fly low and slow. The airlines and some in government are hoping we dissolve the traditional GA definition, allowing them a better chance at convincing Congress that changing the FAA funding is in the public's best interest — the hope being that AOPA and its members will take a short-term, rather than long-term, view.
Such cannot be the case, as a member from our AOPA affiliate in Austria demonstrates by citing user costs: a third class medical, $260; to fly an ILS, $31; the airport landing fee after the approach, $70; a mandatory shuttle ride to the FBO, $5; an arrival security screening, $12; and on and on. "In my situation, it's actually cheaper to fly with the whole family [four tickets] by airline to the States, rent an aircraft for about 30 hours...and have a nice two-week vacation (including costs for hotels and rental car) than flying the same amount of hours in Europe."
The cost estimate is $7,500 in Europe (plus fees) versus a vacation in the United States and 30 hours' rental for $7,200.
This is the reason why two-thirds of all GA activity in the world takes place here — it either has never been able to grow or has been killed in countries that implemented user fees as a means to finance air traffic control. Yet, a recent survey indicates GA contributes $150 billion to our nation's economy.
Congress will debate this issue next year. Right now many political functions in your community are being held to promote individual federal candidates, incumbents or challengers. In the context of these events, speak to them about maintaining their control of the safest and most efficient air traffic system in the world, and about your opposition to user fees for any aviation group. Determine their position, and feel free to report it back to me, since we'll be keeping a log on where each stands. The present holding pattern doesn't have to be a waste of time, and when we are finally issued our clearance to land, hopefully it will be to maintain the funding system for aviation in place today — which isn't broken!
Related Articles
