Aviation Trust Fund
You never get a bill for it, and there's no entry for it on your books or your tax form, but that doesn't mean access to the National Airspace System is free. And just how (perhaps more important, who's) to pay for the increasingly expensive system was the subject of invitation-only meetings between FAA officials and aviation industry representatives last Monday and Tuesday. Nothing was resolved, but FAA spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb aviation is changing and the FAA must adapt its method of doing business to meet forecast increases in traffic -- while revenues decrease. "To suggest that the status quo remain in place is appallingly naive," Martin said in an exclusive interview with AVweb. "It just doesn't add up." The FAA maintains that a number of divergent factors have precipitated the current funding situation. The FAA gets funding from two basic sources, the General Fund (where your check went on April 15) and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is supported by fuel, passenger and cargo taxes. The way most in aviation have generally understood the two revenue streams is that John Q. Public pays for the day-to-day operations of the agency while the direct consumers (notice we didn't say users) of the system pay for infrastructure improvements through the taxes paid into the trust fund. However, there are some interpretations that suggest the distinction isn't black and white and in recent years the agency has dipped increasingly into the trust fund for wages, paper clips and toilet paper, diverting those funds from runways, navaids and airport projects.
And it now appears the initial softening-up period on the potential for user fees is over. The term was, until recently, banished from the FAA lexicon, but the volatile verbiage is now clearly on the table. "Some groups have some very strong views when terms like 'user fees' are used," Martin acknowledged. At the same time, he insists they are not a foregone conclusion. "I don't think there's any predetermined direction to go in this," he added. But he did say the intention is to dissolve the Trust Fund at the end of the current budget-allocation period in 2007, and that the new system that replaces it will need more revenue. "There is no revenue [now] for the FAA that matches up with what it costs," he said. And, as he predicted, the U-word provoked a voluble response. AOPA President Phil Boyer has been repeating his "No, no, no" mantra on user fees since long before the FAA started using the term and he continues to assert that it's the number-one issue among his group's 400,000-plus members. "The United States leads the world in general aviation," Boyer said. "Would that continue under a user-fee system?"
While some of the attendees, Boyer included, came away with the impression that user fees are the favored option, the National Business Aviation Association's position is that the current system of fuel taxes is perhaps the most fair. "There's no simpler and more accurate way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the system than to measure the amount of fuel burned," President Ed Bolen said. He also noted that the introduction of user fees would require establishment of another bureaucracy to administer, bill and collect the money. He claimed it cost some user-fee-based agencies in Europe up to $125 to process each transaction. And while opinions varied on revenue creation, there was virtual unanimity on the need for the FAA to get control of spending. EAA representative Doug Macnair said the FAA must get its house in order. "With user fees, we are talking about giving another blank check to a system of procurement that has proven itself to be inept," he said. Besides, Macnair said, we don't even know what the future National Airspace System (NAS) will (or should) look like so the funding discussions are premature. Macnair said GA associations "are unanimously opposed to the implementation of user fees, especially in the absence of cost controls, accountability and a clear road map for the future of the NAS."
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) weighed in with a 52-page analysis (pdf file) of not only the FAA's funding situation but a comparison with the way other countries fund and manage their aviation systems. NATCA's broad conclusion is that aviation affects virtually all facets of modern life and should therefore be a shared burden. The report, authored by NATCA Executive Vice President Ruth Marlin, acknowledges that direct consumers of aviation activities (i.e., passengers and cargo customers) should pay a significant portion of the FAA's costs but "they should not be required to fund the entire cost as there is a portion of the costs that is clearly in the public interest and therefore appropriately funded by the general treasury." The FAA's Martin said it's a simplistic argument considering the other pressures facing the government. "It's interesting to note that they were the only ones who suggested there isn't a funding problem," Martin said. He said those in aviation sometimes lose sight of the fact that it's really a small slice of a much bigger pie. "[The government] always has equally compelling and competing national interests [outside aviation] to consider," he said. "The trend in the general fund contribution is clear and an increased contribution is unlikely to be a long-term solution."