Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Help me understand the whole FAA air traffic control tower fiasco
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm #607031
skeeterParticipantHelp me understand the whole FAA air traffic control tower fiasco.
My understanding is the Federal Gov’t (our tax dollars) pay for all air traffic controllers. So there is no user fee. All taxpayers pay. Much like the Ballard Locks.
Now to save money, the FAA is not providing air traffic controllers to smaller airports where the FAA determines there is no need for a controller. This raises a lot of complaints. But for me it raises a lot of questions:
1. If a controller is not needed for safety, does that mean we’ve been getting ripped off all these years by paying for a controller where one was not needed?
2. Separate issue, but it seems to me that air traffic controllers should be paid by user fees, not taxes on the whole public. It seems to me that private pilots are getting a really good deal at the expense of the public. Billy Bob has a Cessna that he flies for fun. He gets to use air traffic controllers at no charge. All taxpayers pay. I’ve got nothing against flying – seems like a great hobby – but it would seem much more fair for each plane take off/landing would pay for the costs of the controllers.
Other thoughts?
April 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm #787555
datamuseParticipant1. Air traffic control is increasingly automated. So it’s possible that for less busy airports/airspaces, one used to be needed and now is not.
2. Air traffic control isn’t just takeoff and landing.
April 4, 2013 at 8:58 pm #787556
LindseyParticipantFrom my understanding, the cuts to this service weren’t made because they were deemed unnecessary, but instead because cuts had to be made somewhere. It’s not that we’ve been getting ripped off this whole time, but I suppose it will be interesting to see how it works without the air traffic control service. This is the sequester playing out, right? To me, air traffic control is a public safety issue. I don’t know enough about it to know if it would be feasible to have a pay as you go service fee model. That seems like it would an extra burden on an already stressful job.
April 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm #787557
PibalParticipantThis is a subject with multiple moving parts.
In an attempt to address them one at a time…
In general, skeeter, the federal government does pay for most, but not all, air traffic controllers. There are some airport control towers that are “Non-Federal Control Towers.” These towers are paid fully by the local community (a port, city, or county). They exist because the local community wanted it, the feds were unwilling to pay for it, and so the community picked up the tab. I do not know how many total NFCTs there are but there are many. They do by the way meet the same standards as federal control towers so there are zero differences in how they operate and control traffic.
All terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities -these controllers direct traffic between the airport vicinity and high altitude airspace – and the air route traffic control center (ARTCC) facilities – these controllers direct aircraft within the high altitude airspace – are 100% federally funded.
The FAA has not determined that there is no need for the control towers being cut. These towers would never exist if the need had not been previously justified for one of several reasons: quantity of traffic, the mix of traffic, and/or the nature of the surrounding airspace and proximity to other airports. The FAA has arbitrarily stated any airport with less than 150,000 total operations (takeoffs and landings) and less than 10,000 commercial operations (I.e., airlines) would be closed unless shown that they are in the “national interest.” Since this line in the sand was not determined by a full-blown need assessment and Safety Management System review, at last count approximately 14 airports nationwide, of the 149 slated to lose their towers, have signaled their intent to sue the FAA for allegedly violating federal law and its own internal policy requirements.
I can assure you that you have not been getting ripped off. Consider a busy four-way highway intersection with no traffic control devices of any kind. Everyone must follow the right-of-way rules to ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic. At times, someone may get cut off and there may be close calls. Now add a traffic control officer to that intersection. That authority now moves the traffic rather than it remaining self-regulating, is able to adjust traffic patterns based on which inbound lanes are the busiest, and provides an additional watchful eye to ensure safety. At airports, four-way stop signs and traffic lights are not an option; thus, this is the value an air traffic control tower brings to the airport and the surrounding neighborhoods. It provides that additional layer of safety.
That being said, are there some towers that are no longer justified? More than likely. In my opinion, one answers that question with a top to bottom review of the original justification. When the “cut everyone with an ax “approach is taken, some towers will be closed that should not be. And that’s why you see the reaction from pilots and airport operators that you do. They are asking the question: Where’s the science in this decision?
User fees… An area ripe for misunderstanding if there ever was one. Many feel as you have expressed, that the typical local airport serves only recreational pilots flying for fun and that they should pick up the tab. In fact, your local airport is a vibrant business and service engine. Also operating from your local airport are businesses serving the local economy, emergency services, law enforcement, medical and organ donor transport services, airborne environmental researchers, and flight training providers (your future commercial airline pilot). Please take a look at the WSDOT Aviation website and look at the 2012 Economic Impact Study that shows the number of jobs and the economic impact each public airport in the state provides it’s local community. Lastly, every aircraft owner in the state pays a significant excise tax to Washington State. Did you know that only 10% of that tax is returned to the aviation fund? The remaining 90% goes to the state’s general fund. Thus the aviation users in the state are in one sense already making a major contribution to state funding without a direct return of their aviation taxes to the aviation budget.
Regarding datamuses’s comments:
1. Although NextGen technology will increase the level of aviation automation, there is nothing about local airport pattern traffic that is automated. With a tower, the controller assigns the speeds, altitude, and sequence of traffic; the pilot must make the adjustments to meet those assignments – either by manually manipulating the controls or by making the necessary adjustments to the autopilot via a mode control panel. (And only at major commercial airports do appropriately equipped aircraft have the ability to make an automatic landing.) Without a tower, a pilot is 100% responsible for managing his speed, altitude, and sequencing for the safe and orderly flow of traffic based simply on his or her own situational awareness and judgment. Universal remote control does not exist.
2. Air traffic control is indeed much more than takeoff and landing, yet that area is the beginning and the end game of every flight, the area where the greatest risk lies, and the flight phases with the lowest safety record. Anything we can do, justifiably of course, to improve safety of flight in this critical regime benefits everyone.
Lindsey makes several solid points. Additionally:
1. The federal contract tower (FCT) program is taking a 60% hit to its budget, while the remainder of the FAA is absorbing only a 5% reduction. Sound fair?
2.The GAO (maybe it was the Inspector General) has found that dollar for dollar the federal contract tower program is one of the most cost-effective programs in all of the FAA.
3. Congress granted the FAA more funding than it had requested. If you remove the sequestration cuts from what the FAA was initially granted by Congress, the remaining budget amount is still greater than the amount the FAA originally asked for. And the FCT program wasn’t previously slated for cuts.
So why the cuts in this manner? While it’s anyone’s guess as to the FAA’s true motivations, note two things:
1. It is the third-party companies providing contract tower services (there are 3 of them nationwide) that are absorbing these penalties while the FAA itself continues as it always has.
2. What brings the reality and pain of sequestration to the local communities faster than anything else? A loss of direct local service.
Hope that helps your understanding…
April 4, 2013 at 11:43 pm #787558
skeeterParticipantThanks Pibal. Great response.
I think we all agree that safety is a priority. I’m just questioning why taxpayers pay for air traffic control as opposed to the users.
Let’s look at, say, National Parks. They, too, are a great source of economic activity. But users are asked to pay a significant portion of the costs in the form of fees. It seems to me the most fair way to apportion a cost is to the users of the service. So every time UPS flies a package or every time an airliner takes off or every time a Cessna takes off or every time Trump’s G650 lands they are charged for air traffic control. That seems more fair to me.
I’m not saying I’m right. I might still not understand.
April 5, 2013 at 1:53 am #787559
singularnameParticipantReally interesting stuff, Pibal! Now you’ve got me surfing all evening looking this stuff up. I never put all this in words before, but having grown up on small grass-strip airports I know we always had user fees–$25 in the late 70s/early 80s in Leavenworth, Kansas. The “control” was the phone in our kitchen, typically just to turn on the lights. My dad never charged folks until that first 2 weeks in spring when the flyers got insane with touch-n-goes, light craft, loose dogs and horses, etc. Anyhow … there were a few uses by the prisons there to stage for escapee searches, once a lost kid, but then the Fort started using it (they have their own airport–no clue why they’d use ours but it coincided with a decade of Saudi princes going to the college at the Fort, at least that was the talk at the dinner table). After a year of this usage, my dad said they needed to pay the user fees, I think partially because it would hit a dozen times every week or so over a couple months of the year (as you probably know better than me, a grass strip is a ton of upkeep–I know because that was my summer job–the tan was worth more than the ten bucks a day :->) but also I think it was his bit of “revenge” for being treated like such an outsider guy when we moved to that funky little county. Two years they dragged him around county hearings, courts, leans, a bit of vandalism … all the while they kept using it, and holy heck would break out if it was a dusk/night landing and we wouldn’t turn on the lights–they’d land anyway! This was all supported by whomever he was dealing with at the Fort. He eventually decided “scr#w it” and developed a big ol’ ugly subdivision with easements. Of course he couldn’t do anything right by anyone–constantly mediating. And then the full Monty–he had a neighborhood meeting with an attorney there to GIVE IT TO THEM (12 acres) and once they found out all the money he’d been putting out to keep it running, they didn’t want it! *lol* Obviously, a few of them took it on, but it was never the same. I know of two accidents that happened within the year after he signed it over. Anyhoo … sorta related … thought you might appreciate the tale … .
April 5, 2013 at 4:30 am #787560
PibalParticipantGreat story singularname. Thanks for sharing! It’s interesting that you brought up privately owned airports (whether paved or grass) as they are a totally unique aviation subsystem. There are thousands of such airports nationwide, many of which are open to the public. At these airports, as you know first hand, the owner(s) are 100% responsible for all costs with no federal funding available.
And skeeter, we’re going to be guilty of thread creep by turning the discussion from control towers to user fees. Nonetheless, I’m game.
I might offer that the interstate highway system might offer a better comparison than the national park system. The level of economic activity within national parks is pretty limited.
Here are a few general considerations to frame the discussion:
– Congress has determined that the nation needs a national air transportation system and has contributed to maintaining that system for the benefits of all citizens.
– The air traffic control system is a public system designed to provide services for the airlines that is far in excess of that necessary for general aviation.
– The financial well being of one user of our national transportation system should not be used to establish policy affecting all users.
Here are some recent general aviation statistics:
– 166 million passengers to over 5,000 communities.
– Over 27 million flight hours each year.
– More than two-thirds of these flights are for business purposes.
– 1.2 million operations and manufacturing jobs.
– $150 billion economic impact.
Regarding the business use of aircraft:
The airplane allows business travelers to set their own travel schedule, staying on site until business interactions are complete and clients are satisfied, without concern for catching a commercial flight. Even during the current economic slowdown, the versatility of using company aircraft to meet with customers on demand is of strategic value, strengthening companies and allowing them to continue hiring when competitors in their sector are failing.
The FAA funding mechanism today:
– The existing tax system generates funding by collecting revenue from taxes incorporated into the price of aviation fuels, passenger airline tickets, and cargo waybills.
– Every flight that does not use a control tower airport or FAA services still pays at the gas pump.
– Collecting current aviation excise taxes is extremely efficient with a low cost of collection, has been in place for nearly four decades, and requires very little government oversight.
– Fuel taxes provide an equitable distribution of costs—if you fly farther, you use more fuel and pay more in taxes.
– Operators of light general aviation aircraft contribute $60 million a year and corporate jets pay $210 million annually through fuel taxes.
– The aviation system is also supported with locally imposed taxes and charges on hangar and tiedown rental, fuel, and other assessments.
Current financial status:
– The FAA is not in dire straits. The aviation trust fund has in excess of a $4 billion surplus.
-The GAO and the Department of Transportation inspector general have testified before Congress that ATC modernization can be accomplished under the existing FAA financing structure.
The harm user fees will create:
– Implementing user fees removes critical congressional oversight, directing, and management of FAA resources that are key to an efficient national air transportation system.
– Safety is compromised: a fee system discourages pilots from availing themselves of air traffic safety services.
– User fees will create an additional, unwieldy, and expensive accounting bureaucracy—snaring users in paperwork and consuming much of the revenue the system will produce.
– Business owners will incur additional costs to reconcile and pay the resulting invoices.
– With thin profit margins and high fuel prices/fuel taxes, user fees further erode companies’ prospects growth.
– Negative impact on current number of general aviation jobs (loss of flight schools, decreased pilot population, manufacturers and airport operators out of business).
So user fees or pay at the pump? Paying at the pump is far more direct, efficient, and universal regardless the level of air traffic services used. What may have looked like a free ride is not a free ride at all.
April 5, 2013 at 4:53 am #787561
cjboffoliParticipantskeeter: How far can you really extend that line of thinking? (Providing I’m understanding your logic correctly). It doesn’t seem like there is much of government that is based on pay-for-what-you-use financing. For example, I don’t collect welfare and I don’t have children but my taxes pay for welfare programs and public education. We all pay for roads through gas taxes and public bonds on transportation projects. Obviously, people who drive more end up paying more tax because they buy more gas. But conceivably I’m paying for more roads and bridges than I will probably ever use, as someone who drives less than 5,000 miles per year. Government is full of examples of everyone paying into the greater good for things that they will not directly benefit from. Paying for airport tower staff hardly seems like a boondoggle to me.
April 5, 2013 at 3:41 pm #787562
skeeterParticipantcjboffoli – we’re talking about pretty different things here. Welfare programs are a wealth redistribution scheme to help the poor. Of course the beneficiaries don’t pay. Schools are mandated by the constitution of each state.
I compare the control tower services to things like the U.S. Postal System and getting a passport. You pay a fee and the government provides a service.
But I’m re-thinking my position about control tower services. It’s not always practical to charge a user fee. GPS, for example, is paid for by tax dollars, but we can all use it free. And the Army Corps of Engineers removes debris from waterways to keep them safe and navigable. So there are lots of examples of government providing a service at a cost to the taxpayers and not trying to charge a specific fee.
Pibal – thanks so much for your interesting posts.
Maybe I’m just jealous because I want to take flying lessons and can’t afford it. <wink>
April 12, 2013 at 4:34 pm #787563
skeeterParticipantOh my! Even the president proposes user fees.
http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2013/04/obamas-new-budget-proposal-again.html
April 14, 2013 at 6:29 am #787564
KenParticipantRelevant quote:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
— John Rogers
April 15, 2013 at 2:28 am #787565
Genesee HillParticipantLet us all know, skeeter, if you ever figure this stuff out.
I am still too upset about off-leash dogs crappin’ and barkin’ in the Seattle parks I help pay for…
Not to mention on-leash dogs crappin’ and barkin’.
Do those doggie lovers pay extra taxes??? For their crappin’ barkin’ doggies????
Huh????
Bark. Bark.
So put me in the “I could care less” column.
April 15, 2013 at 4:01 pm #787566
skeeterParticipantGH- good questions. Perhaps you should start a thread about dog challenges in Seattle Parks.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.