Your training could cost much more
Unfortunately, dealing with potentially devastating threats to our flying is nothing new to me. When I first became president of AOPA 16 years ago, general aviation was gasping for breath, slowly suffocating under a blanket of liability lawsuits. Special interests--plaintiffs and the trial attorneys representing them--were killing the goose for its golden eggs. Your association had to do something, or GA would die.
What happened? First, we helped to unite the industry on the lawsuit issue, and we worked with our friends in Congress for product liability reform. The General Aviation Revitalization Act granted manufacturers some protection from frivolous lawsuits, and the results were dramatic. Cessna--which stopped making piston-engine aircraft in 1986 because of the legal situation--resumed production; Piper Aircraft was reinvigorated; and new companies like Cirrus and Columbia were born.
Once again, special interests are attacking general aviation for their own ends. This time, those special interests are the airlines, the White House, and the FAA itself. They say that they have no desire to hurt GA. Individual trial attorneys probably had no desire to hurt general aviation, either, but the collective effect of all of those lawsuits nearly killed our segment of the industry.
These special interests claim there isn't enough money to modernize the FAA and to fund its operations. They have put forth these arguments before--but this time the cry is louder. The airlines also believe "they" should pay less and general aviation should pay more--some $2 billion more! I introduced this subject to you in this space last month ("President's Perspective: The Buzz About User Fees," February AOPA Flight Training) and am writing about it again because implementation of user fees or radical changes to the existing FAA funding system would eventually kill general aviation as we know it--as it has done in many other countries.
What kind of user fees are we talking about, and how much will they cost a student pilot? We don't have those answers yet, because the specifics of this proposal have not been announced. We can look outside our borders for some indication of what user fees might mean, however. Today a private pilot knowledge test costs $1,000 in the Netherlands. For a pilot in the United Kingdom to obtain a weather briefing, the bill is $30. Landing fees, approach and departure charges, and bills for filing a flight plan are common.
Additional charges could come in other forms. You already contribute to the FAA's expenses through a tax of 19.4 cents per gallon on the avgas you burn. Imagine what will happen to fuel prices--and aircraft rental costs--if that tax were to triple...or more. Cost increases like these easily could put learning to fly out of reach of many. And the airlines seem to have forgotten the fact that GA now provides the majority of their new pilots.
Another aspect of FAA reauthorization is control. The airlines want majority control of the air traffic system. How long would it take until they created separate "commercial" and "noncommercial" airspace, or banned GA from hub airports and the terminal airspace around them? We've seen firsthand what operational restrictions have done to flight training at GA airports near Washington, D.C., where an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) has impaired operations; at most of the airports where training is still offered inside the ADIZ, volumes are a fraction of what they used to be.
When the next economic downturn hits, would the airlines impose fees on themselves to keep the infrastructure operating, or will they go after other users? Today the airlines don't pay anything toward the cost of operating the FAA; their "share" comes from a 7.5-percent tax on each ticket, and another on each segment of an airline trip, that are paid by the passengers--not the airlines.
For its part, the FAA says that it just want to make the "revenue streams" match the costs--whatever they may be. Congress has always made sure that the agency has had more than enough money for modernization and other needs. However, the agency's past history of cost overruns and failed projects makes me very uncomfortable with a system that wants to start collecting funds now for future projects of unknown scope, purpose, or costs.
AOPA will rise to this challenge, as we did with product liability reform. In the meantime, we'll continue to keep you--and all of AOPA's 410,000 members--informed, in case we need your help. If the call comes, please respond.
