Senator Bill Nelson's recent comment that "User fees are dead" was surely well received by the 400 constituents who heard him speak recently in Ft. Lauderdale. Coming from such a credible source--the Senator sits on the aviation subcommittee of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Technology Committee--this undoubtedly cheered the crowd as well it should.
Phil Boyer's more cautionary words that "in politics it isn't over until the final vote" bespeaks a more important truth: user fees are possibly dormant but not dead. There's been a long history of government urging user fees for general aviation, and perhaps Senator Nelson meant that user fees are dead for now. If history has any predictive value, then...
...sometime in the future, user fees will once again rear their ugly head.
User fees were proposed in the 1990's and perhaps even earlier. AOPA has fought them for more than ten years, and Phil Boyer's long term perspective on them is likely to make him wary of any statement that they're dead. There are a number of strong proponents for user fees, and while they may lose this fight, when they pick up their marbles to go home, it will be temporary.
It's not surprising that, on their face, user fees seem attractive from a superficial economic analysis. It sounds good to say that the costs of a system should be allocated on a pro-rata basis to the users of the service. Any junior economist or budget analyst would agree that, over time, this should result in a proper balance of resources—in this case ATC services—being made available to all parties based upon their willingness and ability to pay. So far, so good.
However, this level of analysis ignores second order effects that would lead to the destruction of general aviation. The first battle would be the allocation of costs on a pro-rata basis. Obvious what each party to a negotiation sees as their “fair share” is as close to zero as possible, and the party with the stronger negotiating position will succeed in forcing more of the costs on the weaker party. Translation: airlines would force general aviation to pay a disproportional share of the costs of running an ATC system.
The most obvious second order effects are that general aviation pilots, seeking to reduce their cost of flying, will use ATC less. Some IFR flights will become VFR flights and some instrument approaches will become dangerous skud running affairs conducted under the clouds with narrow or no margins of safety. Ask the Europeans or Australians that have user fees. What I describe is an everyday occurrence for them.
The third order effect is one that’s inevitable: declining use of ATC services as general aviation pilots seek to reduce their cost of flying and declining revenues collected from user fees. Usually when government finds that fees aren’t covering costs, they simply raise the fee—which would lead to a vicious cycle of rising costs for pilots and a further decline in the number of hours they fly.
If indeed user fees are dead for now, that’s great news. However the FAA authorization bills run in 5-year cycles, and the drumbeat for user fees will be building again long before the next bill is written five years from now. Pilots must remain vigilant and watch for all new attempts to re-craft user fees in new ways designed to make them more appealing and more likely to get passed by Congress.
Finally, don’t forget that the final vote hasn’t been cast for the current FAA authorization bill. There’s still plenty of time for someone to slip in an unfavorable amendment at the eleventh hour. User fees aren’t dead; at best, they’re just dormant.
Comments