The International Cessna^® 170 Association

gahorn wrote: It seems to me that EVERY taxpayer should have equal access in reasonable amounts to public highways without tolls. Same thing with airways and airspace. EACH taxpayer should get a once-a-day or twice-a-day access to the airports.

C'mon george, make up your mind. Airlines don't decide when they want to fly, passengers do. Airlines also pass along all these fees to passengers. Not saying you have any less "right" then anyone else (although really, like driving a car, it is a privilege not a "right") Yes, the airlines are making a profit from public infrastructure which they pay dearly for according to there usage (max landing weight) and number of passengers.

If the issue here is landing fees, airport operators charge landing fees to help pay for the cost of operating airports. Fees are based on criteria such as landing weights that make the fee commensurate with aircraft size. That seems fair and proportionate. The DOT will not allow a public airport that receives US tax dollars from excluding any user except under circumstances such as safety, noise abatement rules, etc. So a GA Cessna has an equal right to land at SFO as a United 747. The Cessna might have to wait his turn and pay a couple of $100 fee to the city and county of San Francisco (or Signature Aviation who in turn pays the city), but it can land there. (sometimes the United 747 has to wait its turn too because of the 1-2-3 rule: 1 cloud, 2 airplanes, 3 hour delay). You don't want to know the landing fee a UAL 747 pays. Airlines are prohibited by anti trust laws from coordinating their schedules and this is a major source of congestion at hub airports like O'hare and Atlanta where multiple large carriers compete for customers and time of departure/arrival is huge. If Delta were to be a "nice guy" and spread their departures out from peak traffic times, the competition would get the customers. The FAA tried "slots" for years but gave up and allowed the "free marketplace" to regulate. The big challenges facing the industry are lack of runways and evolution of airspace to allow greater utilization for all users. All of this will cost $ and the question is: who will pay for it?

lowNslow wrote:

gahorn wrote: It seems to me that EVERY taxpayer should have equal access in reasonable amounts to public highways without tolls. Same thing with airways and airspace. EACH taxpayer should get a once-a-day or twice-a-day access to the airports.

C'mon george, make up your mind. Airlines don't decide when they want to fly, passengers do. Airlines also pass along all these fees to passengers. Not saying you have any less "right" then anyone else (although really, like driving a car, it is a privilege not a "right") Yes, the airlines are making a profit from public infrastructure which they pay dearly for according to there usage (max landing weight) and number of passengers.

C'mon Karl, make up your mind. Airlines don't pay "dearly".... passengers do!

Trouble is.... they want YOU and ME to pay for their "privilege" even if we AREN'T their passenger!
Of course the airlines pass it on to passengers. The problem is they want to pass it on to passengers AND General Aviation AND taxpayers (who are already paying for the airports.)

All I'm saying is, that if a public use airport is for public use, then no one should have greater access than anyone else.... unless they are willing to pay for it. General Aviation already pays it's way. Look at the size of the Trust Fund!

George, as I said above "airlines also pass along these fees to passengers"
The ATA (this is the lobbing group for airlines) testified before congress that they were not interested in passing fees to piston aircraft, that was the FAAs idea. There main target is the biz jets who are to some extent getting a free ride. They should be paying the same rates as any airliner on gross weight and passenger count. The NBAA (the lobbing group for biz jets) is trying to fire up the whole GA group to defend biz jets claiming the airlines are after small piston aircraft when they are not.

You and I know the 'trust fund" is about a real as the Social Security trust fun, it's all been spent.

Business jets already pay their fair share.... they pay fuel taxes just like any other GA aircraft ... or if they are time-share/fractional-ownership/Part 135,... they pay either use or excise taxes.

There has been no "free ride" for general aviation aircraft.

I sent the following letter to Phil Boyer, president of AOPA, and his response is below:

From: George Horn
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:41 AM
To: Boyer, Phil
Subject: Congestion Fees



Hello, Phil!
It seems so simple to me. What am I missing?

Taxpayers all pay for infrastructure, and should have equal access. Those who want more-than-a-fair-share (the airlines with congested shedules) might wish to buy excess capacity.

In other words, what's so wrong with everyone having a once-daily-without-fees access to any public airport as a basic right .... with standardized fees/tolls for those who make repeated commercial gain of public facilities?

George Horn

===========

His response:

From: Boyer, Phil
Sent: Mon 1/21/08 10:42 AM
To: George Horn

I only wish the ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS all thought so logical … you are right …



--Phil

=============

I am at a loss to understand what George and Phil Boyer (AOPA) are complaining about. The U.S. Govt does not charge anything for an aircraft to land at any public airport in the United States except possibly Dulles (if I am wrong someone please set me straight). They do not deny access to any civil aircraft at any public airport. The owners of these airports charge landing fees. These fees help pay for the cost of operating those airports. Are you suggesting that this should be stopped? If so, you will have to approach local airport owners and request that they change their rules. You may want to also suggest who should pay for the cost of operating those airports. User fees are an entirely different legislative matter that has not been enacted yet (at least to my knowlege). I have never heard that congress or the president has proposed landing fees or restriction to airport access. The proposed fees I have heard of regard ATC services, fuel, and Class B airspace handling which would increase the cost of using about 20 or 30 large hub airports. All these hubs have reliever airports available to folks like us at minimal expense. I think it would be helpfull to our great national debate if people who like to complain about government would have at least a clue as to how and on what level government operates.

The question isn't whether an airport owner has the right to recover costs. The question is whether airports are part of a national transportaion infrastructure which ordinary citizens should have fair access....whether an airport owner/operator should be allowed to discriminate against smaller operators by instituting onerous fees beyond that necessary to recover costs....in order to limit access. The discussion was instigated after some airport owners proposed to charge additional fees purely in order to limit access of all users, when the capacity problems are caused by only a few users. The new/additonal fees were not proposed in to cover operating costs of the airports.

Airport capacity is not just a simple function of local operating costs. It's also a function of ATC capacity. Additionally, federal dollars provide many airport improvements for the benefit of the public at large. A local airport authority, having accepted such financing, should not establish user fees which discriminate against occasional users whose taxes help maintain the national airport infrastructure. Local airport ownership does not absolve an airport owner of responsibility to the national air-transportation system which is supported by all citizens with their federal tax dollars. Local fees should not be instituted solely to discriminate against smaller operators to limit their having fair access. (I am not proposing that Houston Intercontinental airport charge airlines and not charge me a fair landing fee if I decide to land there. What I don't want is for them to use fees to limit access by small operators due to large operator's deliberate scheduling congestion. Charge additional fees to the ones who create the problem... not the ones who only want fair, occasional access.)

I'm surprised anyone might not see the logic of this national interest and federal involvement in the debate.

Take a look at this document about halfway through at "Discussion of Proposals" General Discussion [ You need Adobe]. I don't know if I can make any good remark because I don't fly into large airports.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/c ... 648039995c

John

A crucial statement in that U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of Proposed Amendment to Policy Statement -link,... which should help anyone understand why the federal gov't is involved... (and "on what level government operates") in this matter is: "These amendments are intended to provide greater flexibility to operators of congested airports to use landing fees to provide incentives to air carriers to use the airport at less congested times or to use alternate airports to meet regional air service needs."

At first glance, the statement appears to open the door to increased user/landing fees for those who create congestion.... in reality it does not guide the policymakers to require that distinction. It actually might allow the airport authority to impose onerous landing fees on all planes (indeed only small planes), which will have the effect to keep small planes out of that airport during rush-hour because Northwest brings MSP to a halt at 5 PM due to their scheduling. The "incentives to air carriers" might be construed to mean increased fees to all users at that time....not just air carriers. (In such case, the only effect will be a reduction in smaller operators... not Northwest (NWA). I'll be willing to bet that NWA's mangagment will be more influential wth MSP city fathers than small GA operators might.)

gahorn wrote:....I'll be willing to bet that NWA's mangagment will be more influential wth MSP city fathers than small GA operators might.)

That's been our nightmare for the last few years. MSP is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airport Commission. (http://www.mspairport.com/mac/governing/default.aspx) Commissioners are appointed mostly by the governor, and when Tim Pawlenty took office, the new commission seemed to take a sudden lurch toward NWA's point of view.

At about the same time, NWA started a campaign to stop any MSP revenues flowing toward the six reliever airports that the Commission also owns and manages. NWA succeeded in that, with the result that costs at the relievers have gone up quite a bit in the last few years, new kinds of charges are being levied, and the relievers are now on a self-supporting financial basis. (The philosophy used to be that the relievers provided a service to MSP by taking traffic away from it, so it was reasonable for MSP to help support them.) NWA also weighed in, opposing runway improvements at some of the relievers.

This is only my hunch (I have no evidence for it) but I believe NWA began to see GA as a strategic threat to their revenues when VLJs started appearing on the horizon. Granted, NWA has been in financial trouble lately, but the amount of money they saved with their aggressive stance against the relievers seemed trivial to me. I thought the action must be more in the way of business strategy rather than short-term finances.