I was recently poking around the FAA website when I came across the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Fact Sheet for fiscal year 2016. It was like re-reading a section of the FARs after too many years.
The trust fund was created in 1970 to fund aviation programs with aviation-related excise taxes on passengers, cargo, and fuel. Do you know what percentage of FAA’s annual funding is provided by the trust fund?
- 71.53% in 2013
- 80.10% in 2014
- 92.77% in 2015
- 87.79% in 2016
The remainder of the FAA budget comes from the government’s general fund.
But when I slowed down enough to really look at the charts and graphs in the fact sheet, I was stunned.
Revenue from “Transportation of persons,” “Use of International Air Facilities,” and “Transportation of Property” together totaled $13.782 billion or 95.66% of all excise tax revenue.
When I added the revenue from “Aviation Fuel Commercial,” the excise that revenue derived from commercial operations totals $14.188 bill or 98.48%.
That means 1.52% or $217 million of fiscal year 2016 excise tax revenue came from non-commercial general aviation.
Don’t misunderstand my tone. General aviation plays a vital role in the aviation economy.
And for many VFR only pilots, we produce very little impact on the system. We also pay our own way. We don’t have customers we can pass the fuel tax bill on to.
The leaders of the commercial segment of aviation would do well to remember who is really paying the excise tax bill.
This second chart shows that aviation fuel (commercial and non-commercial lumped together) hardly moves. Meanwhile, revenue (both domestic and international) from airline passengers continues to be clearly visible and since 2010 enjoys a positive rate.
Now I know what a fly on the back of an elephant feels like.
Here’s another “minor” detail . . . liability.
If there is an accident and it is blamed (after a thorough investigation) on ATC, you can’t sue the government since it has sovereign immunity.
PrivateATC, Inc. won’t have sovereign immunity, it can be sued for anything that can conclusively be pinned on them and there will be a LOT of effort trying to prove the accident was the fault of PrivateATC, Inc. Under joint and several liability, PrivateATC Inc. could be on the hook for the total amount of damages even if they only had a partial “contribution” to the accident – they have the deepest pockets and are the best target for lawsuits.
They could of course buy insurance, a couple of billion dollars in coverage ought to do it, and add it to their operating costs . . . which we would pay for, every year (what else could you expect?)
Alternatively, PrivateATC, Inc. might be able to work out some kind of sovereign immunity deal with Uncle Sam, at which point every other company on the planet will demand the same kind of deal, equal treatment under the law, ya know?
We’ve got a good, safe ATC system, and from time to time, albeit rarely, there are still goofs, screw-ups and accidents. All PrivateATC Inc. needs is one disaster on the scale of Tenerife – which could happen – it HAS happened – and a trillion dollars in coverage won’t help them. Every personal injury lawyer in the universe is going to fight for a piece of that action. If the investigation shows PrivateATC, Inc. even remotely responsible for the disaster, they’re out of business and we are all grounded until Uncle Sam reconstitutes the system all over again just to get us back to the place we are right now.
This needs to be thought through VERY carefully, beware, there be dragons here.
Interesting, seeing this, because my wife and I thought of another problem. In the USofA, the ATC went out on strike when they were under PATCO (as I recall the union’s name). All who decided to stay out on strike were fired.
PrivateATC is not protected from strike actions as the Fed Gov’t is. And we have seen strikes in ATC in Europe.
There’s yet another reason for NOT have a privatized ATC.
I’ve pondered this for a number of years. Does anyone really know how much it cost to operate the National Air System? There have been seemingly endless proposals over the last decade or two about privatizing Air Traffic Control, yet how can we analyze these proposals when we have no idea on total expenditures. Sure – we have some data from the FAA, but every state collects and spends tax dollars to support the system. Every airport public-use sponsor collects and spends tax dollars to support their local airport (part of the system). Even private airports contribute excise taxes etc… where do the dollars go? Are they returned to support the NAS? Nobody knows….
The FAA didn’t kill LORAN, the Coast Guard did – they were the operators.
And the devil is in the details . . . oh boy is it ever. Sure GA’s representative will have an “equal” voice with the airline representative, but there are going to be what, seven of them and one of us? Some animals are more equal than others.
Yes, the government is often incompetent, bungling, obtuse, inefficient, hidebound, and everything else it has been blamed for (the FAA to a lesser extent, their people have to KNOW SOMETHING, not just get elected while knowing nothing), however, as citizens, we can make enough noise to attract the attentions of our congressmen and senators and sometimes, sometimes, things can be changed.
Once ATC is a private monopoly, and it WILL be monopoly, we will have exactly two choices – do it their way, which for GA means we’ll be sucking on the hind t*t forever, or, if we are that unhappy about it, just take the bus.
You have to realize that companies are in business to make money for themselves, when there is competition, consumers have a ghost of a chance at being treated slightly better by one than another (good example, cable TV providers), but once it is a monopoly, it is going to be their way or no way. “Customer service” seems to be a completely outdated concept, a monopoly is GUARANTEED a profit whether their customers are happy, unhappy, or marching on corporate headquarters with torches and pitchforks.
Money talks, and the airlines have the money. GA is too small and too divided amongst ourselves to make much difference.
For a perfect example, look at Santa Monica. It is being strangled mostly for the benefit of real estate developers, those little airplanes are in the way, and the owners don’t have enough political pull to do much about it. What do you think the chances are of pulling something like this would be at say, La Guardia? It is prime real estate, right, we need to build apartments and malls, right? Get rid of those noisy airplanes, where’s the problem? You won’t believe how fast that idea would get shut down, and not by us, by the airlines.
If you think privatizing ATC is a good idea, well, what about privatizing the Interstate Highway system? How about privatizing the military? Maybe Eisenhower was right when he warned us about the military-industrial complex?
Of course, once ATC is privatized, when (not if) we discover it isn’t working, how do we de-privatize it? The government can’t take it back unless they nationalize it, just like they do in your choice of banana republics everywhere. Is the government going to give it away (and that’s what it looks like) and then BUY it back – using our tax dollars?
I’m not anti-business, in fact I am in business myself, that’s why I can afford to play with airplanes. If I screw up and go out of business, it is MY problem and mine alone. However, if PrivateATC Inc. screws up, it is a problem for ALL of us. There aren’t adequate guarantees of fiscal responsibility or performance. Is one midair an acceptable level of performance? How about two? Any guarantee the business will invest in new technology or will it be “good enough” the way it is? What will make them look at new solutions? Do we have any guarantee the business won’t simply be looted, like Sears?
Paraphrasing Churchill, the FAA is the worst form of regulation for aviation – except for all the others.
Best Regards,
Miami Mike, who is NOT convinced AT ALL that this is a good idea.
Friends,
Much anti-corporatization commentary is based on conjecture and merely repeats the emotion-laden talking points of corporatization opponents.
Anyone can see that FAA’s efforts at ATC modernization have been stumbling and wasteful for decades. Remember the MLS fiasco? We’re now looking for a ground-based backup for GPS, something that thinking people outside of FAA said 25 years ago we’d need; FAA killed LORAN shortly thereafter.
NavCanada’s ATC modernization, on the other hand, has been well-thought, well-planned, efficiently executed.
Moving from an FAA-style central planning bureaucracy in which GA begs for favors to a NavCanada-style corporate structure in which GA is guaranteed a voice should be a no-brainer based on any reasonable reading of the evidence. We fear corporatization for one reason only: we have placed our trust in fear mongers. If we discount the appeals to emotion and take a look at the data, I think we’ll see that the devil of corporatization is not in the concept itself, but in the details of implementation. Our work should focus not on holding back this good idea, but on seeing to it that the good idea is not subverted in congress.
Thanks for your input, Larry S. I appreciate your first-person perspective on Santa Monica. I would just add this: If a local effort to close a GA airport is based on one person’s ego (as was apparently the case with Meigs) or some small group of folks who have hands, or friends with hands, on the levers of power, then we in the field and our representative organizations should fight hard against them. I might be missing something, but I’m not seeing that sort of thing in Santa Monica. There, it seems like pretty much the whole local community wants to close the airport and a small group of aviators, many from out-of-town, is fighting to keep it open. In my view, the confrontation there has gone on too long and become counterproductive.
Might it be better to work with folks in Santa Monica and with FAA on some alternative? Does the city, county, state, or federal government have some public land in the vicinity that could be developed into a new Santa Monica-area jetport as the current airport is phased out? Would the community be willing to work on a land swap and a coordinated plan to build up a new jetport elsewhere in the area before a coordinated phase out of ops at the current airport? That’s just one thought, and probably a naive one, although a much smaller town, Tappahannock VA, did something like that just a decade ago, and Branson MO found itself with a new airport two decades ago based entirely on private sector investment. If the land the current airport is on is as valuable for other uses as the heated nature of that battle suggests, then there might be resources available to support a negotiated solution of some sort, one that preserves options for GA while also satisfying the local community.
Bottom line: GA should never lie down and take a beating; we’ve nobody’s punching bag, but neither can we survive in the face of broad local community opposition. We need to face the reality that communities change. What were once welcomed uses may wear out their welcome over time. When that happens to an airport, the airport has to move or face closure; it cannot continue when its viewed as a bad neighbor, and lawsuits won’t change that.
I lived in the area — specifically in Pasadena CA. Good luck with finding replacement land that has adequate highway access at a price to buy and build that can replace this designated reliever airport, and an emergency services operations point in the case of a natural disaster.
You can always find someone to complain about an airport, and SMO has alot of vocal people who are heard. There are people who complain about 3G3’s jet traffic — all three of the biz jets and the life-flight helicopters. Biz jets that happen to be so quiet that if you are on the airport property when they are down wind, you might not even hear them. BTDT.
But you do a real survey of the area, and people outside of the city limits of Santa Monica are not happy with that airport going away — People who are not pilots — because they understand what that airport is used for when there is a major earthquake. People who lived through earthquake problems understand. People who lived through fire problems, and mud slide problems understand.
Wait until the next “1994 Northridge earthquake” takes place. It is only a matter of time. Anyone who has lived in the LA Basin for any length of time has experienced earthquakes and tremors.
According to FAA reauthorization bill, H.R. 2997, the 21st Century AIRR Act, that removes ATC from FAA, the airlines control the board of directors. The catalyst behind the effort to “privatize” ATC is Airline for America (A4A) who have spent $8.59 million in congressional lobbying during 2017. A 16% increase over 2016. They have advertised to the flying public (passengers) they, “…will no long be delayed…” The bill does not address delays. Airlines themselves cause 50% of their delays. Weather is the cause of 30% and 20% is airport capacity and acceptance rate.
The A4As mantra is they went less delays and a more modern system. If A4A and its members really wanted a better system and not interested in “control” they would be lobbying Congress to provide long term funding in lieu of annual congressional donnybrook for a “reauthorization” bill.
Even if you fly a J-3 around the patch on sunny afternoons based on NAV Canada, you are going to get an annual bill if your craft is registered. You will also pay more for fuel. Guaranteed. If you use the system, you will likely get another bill. Two billings I know of for ATC IFR in Canada came to about $45.bucks per hour.
From personal experience, having bought fuel in Canada in the corporate world, the tax line on the credit card stub will get your attention – company bill or not. In the U.S. FET is capped at $.25 Gal for Jet A and $.20 Gal for 100LL. Of course, there is FBO fee and sales in some states. In Canada it is $1.00 Gal average, from $.65 to $1.84 per gallon, without FBO fees and local sales.
According to Wikipedia and the A4A website, roughly 200 airlines in the U.S. have filed chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy in the past four decades. Three of the survivors are part of the nine A4A members. Now this group says they can take over the largest, most complex, most efficient, safest system on the planet, operate the system better and not charge General Aviation or penalize small communities, business aviation or the recreational flyer. Really? There is a word for that. It is call hogwash.
Privatization will be an absolute disaster for general aviation. The big players – the AIRLINES – are going to run it for their own benefit, the way they see fit, and if we are in their way, or if they even think we are in their way, we will be treated like the guy on the United flight who they beat up and dragged bleeding off the airplane.
The ONLY thing they care about is their own profitability, and they will do whatever they deem necessary to protect it. If GA is perceived to be in their way, GA is going to get steamrollered, period, with no appeal possible.
Further, once it is a private company, it can be merged or sold (“ATC services now brought to you by your favorite cable TV company! Call customer service now!” or “You have a friend at ATC/Wells Fargo, where we will never double/triple/quadruple bill you and report you to Equifax – to be hacked – if you don’t pay promptly, and maybe even put a lien on your airplane!”).
Additionally, as a private company, it could be sold to an overseas owner (“ATC, now brought to you by the fine people who brought you Dieselgate, in cooperation with RT [Russia Today] media ventures!”) or it could even go bankrupt and go out of business!
“Sorry, no air traffic control services are available until we are done with Chapter 7, and once we are, you are on your own again. Have a nice day.”
Fanciful? Take a look at the major, well known companies that have gone out of business over the years. There are a LOT of them, is there any reason to expect that this one, private ATC, Inc. is immune to the laws of economics? It will actually be a monopoly, and you know how caring, responsive and responsible monopolies tend to be . . . “We’re the phone company, we don’t have to care.”
Keep ATC in the government. For all its creaks and groans, p*ssing and moaning, it is there when we need it and it will be. Private ATC, no guarantees and no promises, especially not to GA – we won’t matter to them in the least, and we will be treated accordingly.
I hd a heated argument with NavCanada where I was billed for Calgary to Edmonton “service”. Trouble was – it wasn’t my aircraft. Obviously, someone saw my aircraft at Springbank (Calgary) and reported my N number for their flight to Calgary.
Their collection efforts were aggressive and extensive. I didn’t appreciate it, and I declined to pay.
IMHO, the time to really discuss privatization is not yet. We still have a lot of human flown aircraft with individual owners. At some point in the relatively near future the hand writing in the clouds says we’ll have a whole lot of mostly corporate owned fully autonomous aircraft using the system, much of it fueled by batteries. When that looming date arrives the fuel tax will be indeed irrelevant and some other business model for paying the GA share of the system will become necessary. Whether it’s an annual fee based upon some formula like Canada’s, or something else is TBD. In any case, as long as we have fixed wing aircraft we need airports. Military and other public entity traffic will likely continue to be an important and perhaps increasing presence in the NAS. FWIW, it appears to me that public use aircraft are very heavy users of ATC so it is reasonable that the General Fund should pay a non-trivial proportion of the system costs. Also, IMHO, for a variety of reasons, including security and convenience, efficiency as well as other factors, I expect business traffic including both cargo ops and passenger movement will grow. The fuel tax has served us well for decades. It is not, however, likely to be the ‘best’ means to share the burden in the future.
In other words, the 121/125/135 operations provide $406Million to the fund via fuel taxes. All the other taxes are paid by their passengers or customers (freight), etc.
Then enters GA with NON-Gas and Gas fuels and we pay more per gallon than the Passenger/Freight operations.
So, in reality, we are paying our fair share of the usage of ATC as it is.
Yet the airlines want to get in charge of ATC so they can change the pricing structure where they will, probably try to claim all those other taxes as ones they have to pay. And while that is true, it is quite deceitful because they have to charge those taxes in the prices of their tickets and then pay those “trust” taxes to the Gov’t.
No one, of course has a direct quote or chunk of evidence that proves the commercials are want or are trying to takeover ATC.
Privatizing ATC is a moral imperative since the national debt is crippling (and we know who doubled it.) GA does not produce anything other than pleasure for the pilots and those they take aloft. Certainly it’s about time GA get off the taxpayers backs and pay the last mile of their own bills.
Light aircraft GA generates support jobs – if a pilot flies for pleasure the mechanics, fuelers, parts suppliers. The whole chain is supported by the demand that pleasure flyer generates, and they all pay taxes.
That pleasure flyer is, typically, a VFR pilot who uses little to none of the ATC services that you are concerned about. The real users of the ATC system are the airlines, and they fund their use through ticket taxes) of which 80% goes to the Airways Trust Fund and 20% to the general fund (thanks to Bill Clinton imposing and seizing 20%). GA funds its share through fuel taxes, but GA VFR pilots are often denied service due to ATC being busy with jet traffic (airline traffic they mean).
ATC is there for the airlines now ….. the system is set up for the airlines, not GA or corporate. It is adequately funded, it works reasonably well, and there’s no gain to change it. However, the bickering in Congress over FAA funding is always a worry, made stranger by the fact that Congress is spending our tax money. They could set up a long term funding model, but they don’t!
gbigs: “No one, of course has a direct quote or chunk of evidence that proves the commercials are want or are trying to takeover ATC.”
You mean besides everyone, including the airlines, Arlines 4 America, the President, and every article discussing this topic, stating the airlines to be part of the board running this new private entity?
As a GA Pilot I pay into the system every time I pay for fuel, complete an oil change, fix a light bulb, get an annual, pay a tie-down or hangar fee, donate flight time to a charity, etc. No GA pilot has ever asked for anything in return from the “taxpayers” besides traffic avoidance and, less frequently, basic IFR services from ATC.
A moral imperative. Hardly.
WOW, Nice eye opening article, It doesn’t surprise me a bit. Thanks !
Ben, thanks for your continuing support of GA and for supplying this this information.
Not mentioned in the article is who gets the use of the system? Many people whose money goes toward supporting the system are unaware that military, all government (air ambulance, police etc) are exempt from the fuel and usage taxes. In other words, the commercial and general aviation users are funding 87.79% of the system and using only about 2/3rds to 3/4 (as has been past reported). In other words, there is justification to lower user fees, not raise them.
The public carries government on its backs daily, and this is one topic that shows this. It would have been helpful if the author had discussed the user’s percentage use (including government usage).
Understand, too, that a big chunk of FAA usage by General Aviation is flight following, a service which is routinely denied due to workload. GA is predominantly VFR while commerial aviation (Part 121) is always IFR, and priority is given to IFR, so that exacerbates the cost/usage argument versus actual users.
Rollin,
In the NavCanada model and, as I understand it, in proposals to move ATC out of FAA into a semi-public corporation, GA interests would be represented on the Board and voting on the Board would not be weighted by proportion of taxes paid before corporatization nor by proportion of fees paid after. Look, I own a Cherokee that I fly as often as I can. I’m a wage earner, like most Americans, not the lifetime beneficiary of passive investments or inheritances. I earn my living, pay as I go, and wonder how retirement will change my life. Yet I think corporatization of U.S. ATC is LONG overdue. FAA, along with TSA, are walking, talking (if barely breathing) daily demonstrations of the ineptitude and wastefulness of central planning by the federal government. Yet FAA was once (not for the past 30 years, but once) the center of the international aviation safety universe. FAA got that way because of the creativity and hard work of great individual employees. Over the past 30 years, individual initiative at FAA has been smothered by cronyism, Congressional politics, woefully inept management, and all the other ills that plague big-spending big government. Meanwhile, in Canada during the past 20 years NavCanada has taken our northern neighbor’s ATC from good to great to world-leading by modernizing and rationalizing facilities and procedures, and rightsizing employment. GA aviators in Canada pay one bill PER YEAR for ATC, and the charge per year has come DOWN at least twice in the past few years, now standing at something like $68 PER YEAR. To be honest, I cannot fathom why AOPA (which says it represents me and people like me), HAI (helicopter operators hardly ever use ATC except the relative handful of corporate operations on the coasts), and others are fighting corporatization. I get – and Ben Sclair’s column make clear – why NBAA is fighting it tooth and nail. But AOPA and HAI? What’s that about? Why does AOPA waste time fighting to maintain the Santa Monica airport against passionate local hostility when there are plenty of nearby airfields suitable for small planes; I get why NBAA tilts at that windmill, but why AOPA? Airbus, Bell, Amazon, Google, and a handful of smaller but talented and nimble players are all working on passenger- and cargo-carrying drones, autonomous flying vehicles that, when deployed, will very likely bleed off a significant portion of what life owner-flown GA still has left; don’t AOPA and HAI have bigger fish to fry than fighting to preserve the aviation fuel tax rather than go to a system where registered owners are charged $0.00 per year for ATC services (the current proposal for GA) or some amount under $100, as in Canada? These organizations argue that corporatization opens the door to fees that can go higher over time; NavCanada proves they go lower. And experience with FAA proves that something has to change, otherwise all those drones pressing for access to the NAS will be integrated, not by a company led by aviators of all sorts who have skin in the game, but by bureaucrats, politicians, and cronies of bureaucrats and politicians who view federal employment the way hogs view a trough. I’ll take corporatization any day.
Here’s the link to charges
http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/Customer%20Guide%20to%20Charges_EN_POSTED_v2.pdf
A Cherokee would attract an annual charge of $66. I’ve flown extensively in the Canadian environment and I passionately disagree with your premise. They have radar support only along the border, and IFR is supported by position reporting and 20 minute spacing. The overall service is less than in the USA, and exists primarily for airline support (based on clearances and enroute changes (to make way for jet traffic).
Howver, the basis is double taxation. All fuel and aviation charges were collected and paid into Consolidated Revenue, and pieced out from there (based on the British system). Since ATC was a line item expense, yet offset by fuel taxes and fees, the Canadian government chose to privatize it, and it “sold” the sstem for $one Billion to the new corporation, and loaned the money to the new corporation to buy it, charging interest, the customers have to pay fees to offset the service, the interest, and the principal repayment. The fees and fuel taxes were not removed so it added up to double taxation.
Your premise is that $66 a year is a small fee, but you still pay the taxes and fees, now plus the Cap and Trade tax. Canada has also brought in airport fees/landing fees, call them what you choose.
I also have extensive experience in the Australian environment where privatization occurred and where the charges (airport fees, fuel fees, annual license fees, ATC fees and more), are excessive. In Australia, a prior aviation minister glowed when he announced that by not spending money improving the aviation infrastructure that he had saved the country money due to lower demand for aviation services meant that the government could spend less every year on infrastructure. Demand had lowered due to being priced out!
The Canadian and Australian GA industry has been largely priced out. Sitting at Calgary (YYC) I’ve watched bizjet after bizjet pull in, and they are generally government. So government thrives while the taxpayer retreats.
Pilots in the USA don’t want the airlines controlling ATC, but what pilots really want is to minimize the creeping rising cost of aviation, including ATC. The Canadian model might be attractive to you, but perhaps you assume that our fuel tax will be rescinded? Not likely.
Having been a pilot for just shy of 50 years and an airplane owner for most of that time, I don’t disagree – in principal – with your sentiments on privatization, Pilot Guy. I DO want to negatively comment on your views about Santa Monica, however.
I lived and flew in the high desert NW of LA for 27 years until 2000 based at Edwards AFB, Lancaster and Mojave at different times. More than half of my time as a pilot. I am here to tell ya that there AREN’T “plenty of other airfields suitable for small planes” in the LA area. Depending upon where you’re trying to go, it’s a problem given the sheer bulk of people that live there and the congestion on the freeway system that supports same.
California has over 40million people with LA County housing 10million. That’s a lot of people … more than 13% of the Nation and 3% for the County. In like manner, CA has the highest number of certificated pilots – 64,500 (10.3% of all pilots) — and airplanes – 32,769 (10.8% of all airplanes). So if you’re trying to use an airplane to get someplace in the LA metro area … fuhgetaboutit. It’s tough to impossible. As far back as 1979, I flew into Van Nuys to take an FAA written test at the FSDO and had to beg for a place to park a C150 for a few hours. Beyond that, Santa Monica is where Douglas Aircraft was … the Company that designed and built the venerable DC-3/C-47. It has historical standing. The FAA gave Santa Monica AATF / AIP funds which contained strict caveats as to what was required of that City to get that money. Then some politician(s) come along – likely in bed with developers? – who think those rules don’t apply to them. To that I say … BULL! I don’t see it as much different than that State taking Federal dollars for all sorts of reasons and then telling our Government that Federal laws don’t apply there. Also … BULL!
I SEE — As I’m sure AOPA does — SMO as the place where a line had to be drawn in the sand against killing GA airports and violating AIP fund requirements. I grew up in Chicago and seeing what Mayor Daley did to Meigs Field broke my heart. In both cases, the FAA caved to local demands but should have been financially accountable FAR beyond where they were held to account – via fines. Chicago had one of the finest adjacent to the downtown (loop) airports in the Nation … and now it has a park. Great job, Mayor Daley.
You can bet that other municipalities will now be following behind attempting to close their airports OR violate AIP fund tenets. A private US ATC system won’t be worth anything if there aren’t enough airports to make GA viable. Santa Monica was a reliever airport for LAX, et al. Now, it’s just usable for small piston airplanes … before it closes.
Be careful what you ask for … you might just get it !!
Pilotguy, the industry resists corporatization because there is no plan to eliminate the fuel tax that presently funds the FAA and ATC, yet there is a plan to impose ATC support fees on aircraft above a certain weight. Once the fee system comes in it won’t be long before it is extended to light aircraft.
Look at the Australian system – fees for landing, fuel taxes, security badge fees (two required – expensive), approach, departure, en route fees. It’s crazy there, and we fear a similar evolvement here.
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Canada charges a flat fee which has been mildly lowered by shifting costs onto corporate jet traffic, but Canada imposed all these fees but never removed their fuel tax, and we expect the same here.
Guess who’s gonna dominate the new privatized ATC system.
Easy. The controllers. Alleging the commercials will run ATC after it’s privatized is a conspiracy theory not based on any hard evidence or fact.