NBAA Calls Upon Congress to Reject Ruinous User Fees, Tax Hikes in Big Airlines' FAA Funding Plan
Proposal Would Be Harmful to Small Businesses, Rural Communities Nationwide
WASHINGTON, DC, March 8, 2007 - The user fee plan advocated by the major airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would be
disastrous for the national aviation system, and for small and mid-size businesses in rural areas across the country, Ed Bolen, president and CEO of
the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), told a congressional subcommittee today.
In testimony before the Senate Aviation Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Bolen argued that although the FAA and
its airline backers are calling the reauthorization bill a modernization plan, "the facts, and history, tell a different story. This is not a
modernization bill."
He said the FAA bill is at odds with modernization because it contains provisions that would overthrow a funding structure that has proven to be
stable, reliable and growing for more than 25 years in exchange for a radical user fee regime that would jeopardize the largest, safest and most
efficient air transportation system in the world. Bolen pointed out that the bill includes: A $600 million cut in FAA funding;
Authorization to permit the FAA to go into debt up to $5 billion starting in 2013; Diversion of funds for air traffic control transformation to
create a bureaucracy to assess and collect user fees. Whether the bureaucracy is built inside the government, or outside through contractors, money
must be used to create and maintain the bureaucracy, which Bolen called "a virtual IRS Branch for the FAA.""Revenues going into the Airport and
Airways Trust Fund are at record levels, and no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office has said that the FAA will continue to have
sufficient funds to fully support the transition to the Next Generation Air Traffic System," he said.
Bolen reminded the subcommittee that, in 1997, the airlines advocated that user fees were needed to overhaul aviation system funding. A decade ago,
airlines also wanted to shift some $600 million in costs, and reduce the role of Congress in aviation system oversight.
"To everyone who was around the last time the nation's big airlines pushed that scheme, there is a strong sense of déjà vu," Bolen said. "This time
around, the airlines have picked a new target for their tax shift - general aviation - and they have increased the amount to $2 billion. The
objective of reducing congressional control of the FAA remains unchanged."
Bolen maintained that the battle over aviation user fees is a battle over whether Congress will retain control of the air traffic system or whether
that control will shift to unelected bureaucrats or even industry. Additionally, allowing the airlines' plan to prevail would impose devastating
costs on the small and mid-size businesses that rely upon "general aviation" in small and rural towns nationwide.
"Expanding the capacity of our nation's air transportation system to accommodate demand can and must be a national priority, designed to serve all
system users," Bolen testified. "No one should mistake aviation user fees with a modernization plan."
Bolen urged the subcommittee to immediately reject aviation user fees in any form and work within the established congressional process to expand
system capacity to enhance mobility for all Americans.