Here’s something from today’s AVweb email:
Link
Quote:
User-Fee Battle: Deja Vu All Over Again?
March 14, 2007
To many, this year's battle in Congress over the FAA's pending reauthorization legislation -- which pitches the agency and airlines against general aviation pilots/operators and airframe manufacturers -- is eerily reminiscent of a similar fight waged in the early 1980s. At the time, the playing field was a bit different, with the August 1981 firing of PATCO controllers supposedly driving then-Administrator J. Lynn Helms' vision of a modernized, automated FAA air traffic control system requiring fewer controllers to handle the onslaught of airline deregulation and, of course, all those pesky business jets. But much of the same rhetoric and rationale was being deployed. For example, the FAA had a plan -- the National Airspace System Plan, or NASP -- emphasizing a new "host" computer system for the en route environment, using increased automation throughout the ATC system as a way to minimize the need for human controllers (and their labor issues), plus enhanced communications to ATC and with other airborne aircraft through Mode S transponders and the Traffic Alert Collision Avoidance System (TCAS).
Another new technology promising greater efficiency was the Microwave Landing System, although the FAA was opposing the then-partially deployed Global Positioning System (GPS) since it lacked sufficient accuracy for instrument approaches, according to a report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment. But then, as now, the major battle was over how the new system would be funded, who would pay more and who would pay less. Other differences between the 1982 situation and today's: For example, no taxes or user fees were being levied on airspace users; the 1970 legislation imposing them had expired in 1980 and had not been renewed. But the some of the same buzzword issues -- cost allocation and cost recovery, for instance -- were being bandied about.
What's At Stake: Lessons Learned From Past User-Fee Fights
During congressional consideration of the 1982 FAA authorization bill, the user-fee issue got the lion's share of attention, with some proposals even calling for a tax on the new avionics general aviation aircraft would be required to carry for access to the nation's most-congested airspace. A complicated user-fee system was envisioned, with conventional and Mode S transponders used to identify aircraft and their system impact, followed by direct billing -- similar to a telephone bill -- a month later. Another "idea" was an annual tax on aircraft by weight, number of engines or installed avionics equipment. Eventually, the 1982 debate resulted in Congress passing legislation designed to modernize the ATC system and, employing the basic activity-based excise tax system in place today, cover its costs. All of which worked quite well according to most observers. Until the fall of 1984, that is, when federal-budget politics overshadowed the FAA's commitment to users and funding for the NASP and airports was drastically reduced. Of course, with one or two exceptions, primarily resulting from congressional inaction, the taxes/fees levied on aviation system users were not reduced. Most years since then, there's been an annual battle between general aviation, airlines and their passengers -- one fought in the halls of the FAA and Congress -- to fully fund the system improvements already authorized. Rarely has Congress approved full funding; even rarer has been an FAA budget proposing to spend at the levels previously agreed.
The FAA often was its own worst enemy, however, falling far behind on the research and procurement schedules it originally said it could meet, with the Microwave Landing System serving as industry's poster-child evidence. Even so, Congress was definitely in charge and, eventually, hammered out compromises ensuring equal access to all airspace and at least adequate funding. And, according to many observers on the general aviation side of the house, that's where this year's user-fee battle takes on such importance, irrespective of the much higher costs involved or the airlines' bid to place themselves in charge of running the ATC system. Instead, observers say it's the proposal's almost-below-the-radar removal of Congress from the annual -- some say day-to-day -- oversight of the agency and the ATC system that poses the greatest opportunity for mischief. There's no question the FAA and the airlines are seeking greater autonomy and dedicated funding; they've been at this for more than 25 years. The real question confronting industry this year is the extent to which Congress should give up its oversight and turn over to a board of directors composed largely of airline representatives responsibility for long-term management of the ATC system. Based on the ways in which the agency has lived up to its commitments since the early 1980s, the answer should be "not so much." That's what's at stake for general and business aviation in 2007.
_________________
Commemorative Air ForceExperimental Aircraft AssociationWarbirds of AmericaWhat are you waiting for? Join us! Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
.
Probably the most UNCONSERVATIVE conservative in recent history. I voted for the jackass twice, but not to have his adminstration raising taxes like this! 
