Coyne Calls Plan 'Remarkably Lopsided And Myopic'

In a release, the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) has voiced its response to the FAA's just-released reauthorization proposal which would incorporate a host of new operational and certification user fees and establish an Air Transportation System Advisory Board.

"We are disappointed with the lack of vision and stakeholder equity in the FAA’s proposal," said NATA President James K. Coyne. "Given the amount of time the administration has had to develop the proposal, it is remarkably lopsided and myopic."

NATA says its disturbed by the following provisions of the FAA's proposal:

• A spike in the current fuel tax of 21.8 cents per gallon to a whopping 70.0 cents per gallon
• A reduction in the Airport Improvement Program funding by more than 20 percent over current fiscal year levels
• Implementation of new user fees for a wide array of certification services affecting general aviation businesses
• Generation of nearly $600 million fewer dollars than the existing financing structure in FY 2008 according to the President’s budget

Perhaps most disturbing for NATA is the proposed Air Transportation System Advisory (ATSA) Board which would be dominated by the airlines without a single representative from on-demand charter carriers or fractional ownership providers -- two groups NATA believes provide a sizeable contribution to the aviation trust fund.

"This board, as proposed, is totally dominated by airline representation," said NATA's vice president of government and industry affairs Eric R. Byer. "There is no excuse for ignoring the charter and fractional communities. The FAA proposes to include at least three airline operatives on the ATSA Board, but totally ignores the airlines' direct competitors – charters and fractional – revealing the agency’s bias towards the airlines."

NATA says the assessment of a user fee on operations conducted at America's 30 most congested airports are "largely discriminatory against general aviation operations, including charter and fractional ownership, in hopes of preventing these operations at the nation's busier commercial airports," said Byer. "By law, the FAA's mission is to ensure air safety. Has the FAA conducted any analysis of potential negative safety consequences that could result from the proposed fee-for-service system? Pilots may avoid utilizing certain radar-controlled facilities due to the associated fees and choose to use potentially less safe alternatives because of lower or nonexistent fees."

NATA also wonders about the inclusion of an apparent blunder by the FAA in structuring which taxes and fees charter and fractional operators would pay under the new system. NATA says in its proposal, the FAA has assumed -- incorrectly -- charter and fractional operators purchase their fuel as the airlines do, essentially tax-free. It says fuel for these operations is almost universally purchased at the higher general aviation rate, after which operators apply for a refund.

"Although it would appear by the FAA's statements that they intend to subject charter and fractional operations to the same user fees as the airlines, the proposed legislative language doesn't accomplish their goal. In fact, our analysis shows that the legislation as written would tax charter and fractional operations the same as all other general aviation flights. How does the FAA expect us to trust them when it comes to their accounting and cost allocation system when they clearly do not understand how the current system works and cannot seem to even properly draft legislation to impose their new user fee regime?" Byer asked.

"I think Congressman Vernon Ehlers said it best at yesterday’s House Aviation Subcommittee hearing that this proposal is 'dead on arrival,'" stated Byer. "Congressman Sam Graves also raised a very valid point that in the negotiation process two sides start at extreme ends of an issue and work towards the middle to come to resolution. This proposal does not even get interested parties sitting down at a table."

"This proposal is deeply disturbing as it is the initial step in what is supposed to be a thoughtful discussion as to how we as a nation can better improve our air transportation system, including air traffic control, and how we end up paying for these changes," Byer concluded. "We urge all aviation service businesses and Members of Congress to review the FAA's proposal very cautiously, recognizing the numerous flaws contained within it so when Congress works on their own proposals they do not contain the same mistakes the FAA has offered."

FMI: www.nata.aero