Stark reminder

[NewMoon]

Crossing FL E to W yesterday at 10k on an IFR FP. I notice a plane in opposite direction 10 miles out, 200 above. Panel starts barking. He passes 1 mile off my right wing, 200 above. 

No call out from ATC. I wait a few mins and query controller.  He says umm, "yeh sorry we are a bit behind the curve today, again I am really sorry"

Reminder is even on an IFR FP your life depends on the PIC to keep you safe. Can't rely on ATC, they are over worked, under staffed and not providing the same level of service some if us are used to paying for. 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, NewMoon said:

Can't rely on ATC, they are over worked, under staffed and not providing the same level of service some of us are used to paying for. 

Good safety reminder, but we aren’t paying for it - Isn’t that the major complaint by the major airlines/pros regarding GA? They would like to see us pay ATC User Fees like their push in 2006, 2011, and I think they were floating it again last year.  They see us as a bunch of freeloaders.  

I doubt that we will dodge the bullet next FAA appropriation in about 4 years. Who knows, maybe then we will get the level of service that we are paying for. 

Edited July 22 by 1980Mooney

[Ragsf15e]

29 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Good safety reminder, but we aren’t paying for it - Isn’t that the major complaint by the major airlines/pros regarding GA? They would like to see us pay ATC User Fees like their push in 2006, 2011, and I think they were floating it again last year.  They see us as a bunch of freeloaders.  

I doubt that we will dodge the bullet next FAA appropriation in about 4 years. Who knows, maybe then we will get the level of service that we are paying for. 

We all pay for it through taxes.  Even the pax on the airlines.  At least that’s how I see it.  Is there some special ATC fee that just airlines pay?

[NewMoon]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

We all pay for it through taxes.  Even the pax on the airlines.  At least that’s how I see it.  Is there some special ATC fee that just airlines pay?

Agreed, we pay for it through taxes, surcharges on fuel etc. 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

We all pay for it through taxes.  Even the pax on the airlines.  At least that’s how I see it.  Is there some special ATC fee that just airlines pay?

Table showing the 2023 Airport and Airway Trust Fund Excise Taxes Structure

Table with 2 columns and 9 rows.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) last year paid about 55% of FAA Budget - Should grow to pay for 69% this year

	2023 Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes structure Table showing the 2023 Airport and Airway Trust Fund Excise Taxes Structure Table with 2 columns and 9 rows. AATC Revenue Tax Source                                                                                          Rate Domestic passenger ticket tax 7.5% Domestic flight segment tax (excluding flights to or from rural airports) $4.80 per passenger per segment; indexed to the Consumer Price Index Tax on flights between the continental United States and Alaska or Hawaii (or between Alaska and Hawaii) $10.60 per passenger; indexed to the Consumer Price Index International arrival and departure tax $21.10 per passenger; indexed to the Consumer Price Index Tax on mileage awards (frequent flyer awards tax) 7.5% of value of miles Domestic commercial fuel tax 4.3 cents per gallon Domestic general aviation gasoline tax 19.3 cents per gallon Domestic general aviation jet fuel tax 21.8 cents per gallon. Effective after March 31, 2012, a 14.1 cents per gallon surcharge for fuel used in fractional ownership flights Tax on domestic cargo or mail 6.25% on the price paid for transportation of domestic cargo or mail
	In 2020 Avgas sales nationwide were about 413,000 gallons per day and steadily dropping for the past 40 years. (in 1983 daily sales averaged 1,047,000 gallons per day - about 2 1/2 times more).  So we in GA pay about $29 Million towards the 2024 $24 Billion FAA budget. (yes a few are burning Jet-A so it is a bit more).  Air Traffic Operations alone (no NextGen R&D/development, no Safety, no facilities, etc) were $9 Billion in 2023. Last year the taxes above (AATF) generated about $13 Billion in revenue for the FAA or about 55% of their budget (remainder from US General Fund).  70% or about $9 Billion was from taxes on passengers on the Commercial flights.  Commercial operators use about 31 Million gallons of Jet-A per day or over 11 Billion gallons per year.  They pay about $490 Million in taxes on that fuel. In 2024 they project that the Airlines and their pax will fund 69% of the entire $27 Billion FAA Budget (ATC Air Traffic Organization will jump to $10 Billion) General Aviation will pay about 0.3% of the ATC Budget (and only 0.1% of the FAA Budget in total)

Edited July 22 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

49 minutes ago, NewMoon said:

Agreed, we pay for it through taxes, surcharges on fuel etc. 

But we in GA (flying gas burners) don't materially pay much in total annually in the way of surcharges on fuel.  It may seem like a lot to us but it amounts to almost nothing towards the FAA budget.  Only 0.3% of the ATC Budget.  However on any given day we occupy a lot more than 0.3% of the airspace - VFR or IFR.  

And unlike Commercial Operators, we don't pay any other aircraft related taxes or fees to the FAA.  Any other taxes or fees we pay on our aircraft or flights go to City, County and State.

That is why the Trump Administration and Congress (encouraged by the Commercial Operators) in 2017 proposed to privatize the ATC.  The Commercial Operators figured that they could reduce their costs significantly (as much as 60% on some flights) if every aircraft were made to pay.  The logic being that the cost to control a 737 on an IFR flight plan is not materially more then the cost to control your Mooney on an IFR flight plan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/05/watch-trump-expected-to-unveil-a-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/16/trump-privatize-air-traffic-control/99216578/

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/FAA_FY_2025_Budget_Request_508-v5.pdf

 

Edited July 22 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

We all pay for it through taxes.  Even the pax on the airlines.  At least that’s how I see it.  Is there some special ATC fee that just airlines pay?

To summarize my other posts:

• Passengers ultimately pay for about 55% (and are projected to pay about 69% in the future) of the entire FAA Budget.  It is either directly in the form of ticket taxes or in Airline fares driven by the fuel surcharges.  General Aviation piston pays about 0.1% of the FAA Budget. We (GA Piston) pay for basically nothing.

[Ragsf15e]

13 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

To summarize my other posts:

• Passengers ultimately pay for about 55% (and are projected to pay about 69% in the future) of the entire FAA Budget.  It is either directly in the form of ticket taxes or in Airline fares driven by the fuel surcharges.  General Aviation piston pays about 0.1% of the FAA Budget. We (GA Piston) pay for basically nothing.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s also true that we use vastly less of the ATC services (GA). My airplane pays through using gas and I personally pay every time i buy an airline ticket.  Probably your right, it doesn’t add up, but I don’t feel like we’re stealing or anything.

[Will.iam]

11 hours ago, NewMoon said:

Crossing FL E to W yesterday at 10k on an IFR FP. I notice a plane in opposite direction 10 miles out, 200 above. Panel starts barking. He passes 1 mile off my right wing, 200 above. 

No call out from ATC. I wait a few mins and query controller.  He says umm, "yeh sorry we are a bit behind the curve today, again I am really sorry"

Reminder is even on an IFR FP your life depends on the PIC to keep you safe. Can't rely on ATC, they are over worked, under staffed and not providing the same level of service some if us are used to paying for. 

Oooh don’t get me started on this sore subject!!! The FAA needs to change the ATC controller’s requirement to call out traffic at 1000ft to call out traffic that is LESS THAN 1000ft! Then they wouldn’t be so over worked with the 1000ft call. Who cares they are a 1000ft away that is normal. No one ever had a mid air with 1000ft separation.  In all my flying career i have never had atc call out traffic less than a 1000ft. It is almost like they are admitting they did not keep the separation on tape. Like when ATC says say speed. They just need your reply on tape. If the FAA changed that one sentence to less than then controllers would not be wasting time and air bandwidth calling out traffic (if time allows) that no body cares about and that would free up time for them to start calling out traffic that is abnormal and less than a 1000 ft. 

[NewMoon]

23 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Oooh don’t get me started on this sore subject!!! The FAA needs to change the ATC controller’s requirement to call out traffic at 1000ft to call out traffic that is LESS THAN 1000ft! Then they wouldn’t be so over worked with the 1000ft call. Who cares they are a 1000ft away that is normal. No one ever had a mid air with 1000ft separation.  In all my flying career i have never had atc call out traffic less than a 1000ft. It is almost like they are admitting they did not keep the separation on tape. Like when ATC says say speed. They just need your reply on tape. If the FAA changed that one sentence to less than then controllers would not be wasting time and air bandwidth calling out traffic (if time allows) that no body cares about and that would free up time for them to start calling out traffic that is abnormal and less than a 1000 ft. 

Agreed, with the new technology it's time to tighten up the call outs. My point only was we as PIC need to tighten up our game in monitoring our traffic technology and our scan of the sky.  It seems as though it will only continue to get worse.

[GeeBee]

Sounds like an easy job for AI.

[dkkim73]

4 hours ago, NewMoon said:

Agreed, with the new technology it's time to tighten up the call outs. My point only was we as PIC need to tighten up our game in monitoring our traffic technology and our scan of the sky.  It seems as though it will only continue to get worse.

This is a good reminder. 

I got a traffic call the other day (not a busy region) on VFR flight following, King Air passed over a few hundred feet up, 90 degrees. Took a while to see him, was grateful for the point-out and said so. 

I think TIS-B gives some false sense of security, as great as it is.

[ttflyer]

13 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

To summarize my other posts:

• Passengers ultimately pay for about 55% (and are projected to pay about 69% in the future) of the entire FAA Budget.  It is either directly in the form of ticket taxes or in Airline fares driven by the fuel surcharges.  General Aviation piston pays about 0.1% of the FAA Budget. We (GA Piston) pay for basically nothing.

Yeah, but that's not the whole story, is it?  We all pay for lots of things through our taxes that we don't use.  I have no children yet pay for local schools.  I pay for highways I don't drive on. But I like living amongst educated people and Amazon brings me my stuff on those roads so...

GA users benefit from a system that was designed for the airlines so they pay for the majority of it.  Local communities benefit from having local airports so local communities pay for them.  The whole country benefits from a robust aviation industry so the Federal Government subsides it.  Airline passengers benefit from GA users using the "system" because it's safer for us to be on radar talking to ATC then flying around NORDO.  The OP here was really making an argument for a "free" system for GA, not against it.  That other aircraft had no excuse, even VFR, to not be talking to ATC and receiving flight following.  If he had to pay for that service, he would have been even LESS likely to use it (rather then just being lazy which was probably the case).  Had been talking to ATC, he would have been pointed out but since he was just a target, ATC was too busy to bother.

And oh yeah:  What's the biggest problem facing the airline industry right now? Labor.  They need pilots and mechanics.  Where do these people come from? GA. Killing GA through user fees would be about the most short sighted thing they could do. Which is probably why you haven't heard too much about it from the airlines lately...

[dkkim73]

@ttflyer makes many important points. 

There are arguably may indirect benefits of GA and many intangibles (read: someone can't make a quick buck off of it). A pool of engineering- and flight-minded people is a non-trivial asset. I could write an essay on the value of people with tangible skills, mechanical sense, handiness, etc. People have noted that the toughness, character, and practicality of rural agrarian America feed our military readiness. I think a similar thing applies to engineering and operations. Making GA more of an elite thing than it is already become by ad-hoc fees will further stifle the community. 

Also, I frankly like being able to fly without worrying about landing permissions and fees at every little airport, and ATC fees I hear international folks complain about. It's kind of like being able to get in your car and drive where you want. Yes, it's subsidized in some ways (though, net of burning jet fuel on the USAF's dime, I've definitely paid a lot more tax than I've ever received back in peacetime economic services). Recall that airport subsidies are in large part to maintain infrastructure, not make a buck.  But it's also one of the privileges of living in this country that a lot of people have worked for. If you want to talk about getting "freeloaders" to pay... well now that would take a bit of time now wouldn't it? 

There are a lot of people who want to impose mileage fees on cars, congestion fees, tax certain cars, and otherwise somehow extract every transactional dime they can for their firm/state/government entity. A lot of these people have a business to promote (eTaxation!) or a power angle. And I doubt they're going to give us a break from subsidizing other externalities in return. 

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

@ttflyer makes many important points. 

There are arguably may indirect benefits of GA and many intangibles (read: someone can't make a quick buck off of it). A pool of engineering- and flight-minded people is a non-trivial asset. I could write an essay on the value of people with tangible skills, mechanical sense, handiness, etc. People have noted that the toughness, character, and practicality of rural agrarian America feed our military readiness. I think a similar thing applies to engineering and operations. Making GA more of an elite thing than it is already become by ad-hoc fees will further stifle the community. 

Also, I frankly like being able to fly without worrying about landing permissions and fees at every little airport, and ATC fees I hear international folks complain about. It's kind of like being able to get in your car and drive where you want. Yes, it's subsidized in some ways (though, net of burning jet fuel on the USAF's dime, I've definitely paid a lot more tax than I've ever received back in peacetime economic services). Recall that airport subsidies are in large part to maintain infrastructure, not make a buck.  But it's also one of the privileges of living in this country that a lot of people have worked for. If you want to talk about getting "freeloaders" to pay... well now that would take a bit of time now wouldn't it? 

There are a lot of people who want to impose mileage fees on cars, congestion fees, tax certain cars, and otherwise somehow extract every transactional dime they can for their firm/state/government entity. A lot of these people have a business to promote (eTaxation!) or a power angle. And I doubt they're going to give us a break from subsidizing other externalities in return. 

I think the “externalities” are important.  One of the few govt taxes/subsidies that CAN actually improve efficiency in society instead of just reducing efficiency (although some govt funding is still required) is a subsidy to increase the use of something with a positive externality (say training pilots, establishing aerospace industry, inspiring engineers, connecting communities, etc). It’s called a Pigovian subsidy.  Only thing to be careful about here is that Pigovian taxes also improve overall efficiency by reducing negative externalities (say lead pollution, noise, CO2, etc).  The important thing is figuring out if the activity (us in GA) are a positive or a negative.  That will depend on who you ask.

[PT20J]

 

[Pinecone]

The other side is, start charging GA for ATC services and you will find less GA participating.  Possibly leading to more issues with airlines since ATC will not be talking to the GA 

[N201MKTurbo]

I don’t think the airlines have much of a beef with us little avgas burners. We don’t use their airports that much. I think their beef is with the biz jet crowd. They operate right along with them in every respect. 
 

Lumping all GA together doesn’t do us any favors.

[1980Mooney]

On 7/22/2024 at 10:02 AM, GeeBee said:

Sounds like an easy job for AI.

True.  That might be the future solution.  For the same reason that we will not need 2 pilots in the cockpit either in the future.  That will solve both hiring problems....

[1980Mooney]

23 hours ago, ttflyer said:

Yeah, but that's not the whole story, is it?  We all pay for lots of things through our taxes that we don't use.  I have no children yet pay for local schools.  I pay for highways I don't drive on. But I like living amongst educated people and Amazon brings me my stuff on those roads so...

GA users benefit from a system that was designed for the airlines so they pay for the majority of it.  Local communities benefit from having local airports so local communities pay for them.  The whole country benefits from a robust aviation industry so the Federal Government subsides it.  Airline passengers benefit from GA users using the "system" because it's safer for us to be on radar talking to ATC then flying around NORDO.  The OP here was really making an argument for a "free" system for GA, not against it.  

And oh yeah:  What's the biggest problem facing the airline industry right now? Labor.  They need pilots and mechanics.  Where do these people come from? GA. Killing GA through user fees would be about the most short sighted thing they could do. Which is probably why you haven't heard too much about it from the airlines lately...

 

21 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I think the “externalities” are important.  ..... The important thing is figuring out if the activity (us in GA) are a positive or a negative.  That will depend on who you ask.

 

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The other side is, start charging GA for ATC services and you will find less GA participating.  Possibly leading to more issues with airlines since ATC will not be talking to the GA 

 

40 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I don’t think the airlines have much of a beef with us little avgas burners. We don’t use their airports that much. I think their beef is with the biz jet crowd. They operate right along with them in every respect.   Lumping all GA together doesn’t do us any favors.

Everyone here (as well as on every other Brand X or GA forum) is "preaching to the choir".  Of course we think ATC should be free for GA, for GA to have freedom of flight and that the benefits outweigh the costs.  But we are less than 0.1% of the voting and tax paying population.

And we tend to dismiss history.  And the drivers of past history are only getting stronger/worse.  We are running huge deficits with no near term relief in sight.  

Funding is going to be a much bigger issue next appropriation round in about 4 years. If (I should say "when") we get into the next Federal Budget crisis it may come up even sooner.  The voting public is not particularly interested in higher taxes to support subsidizing aviation at any level - national or small town budgets with a money losing GA airport. 

• The forces for change are all still there.  Even Bloomberg op-ed last year is suggesting ATC privatization would be good now. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-10/it-s-time-to-privatize-air-traffic-control
• GA is at the bottom of the food chain...

How soon we selectively forget 2017:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-unveils-plan-to-privatize-us-air-traffic-control-system

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/republicans-propose-bill-to-privatize-u-s-air-traffic-control-idUSL1N1JI25M/

Per Fox "Trump wants to turn the air traffic control system into a modernized non-profit organization that operates on fees paid by airlines and others that use U.S. airspace, instead of taxes."

A Delta report said:

• "US supporters of privatization have argued for a shift to user fees as the primary source of revenue for ATC, claiming it will eliminate federal fuel and ticket taxes."
  • All the major carriers were supporters of the 2017  H.R. 2997 to privatize

AOPA pointed out:

• "Privatization is simply a move by the airlines to control the system...GA and rural communities will be left with the crumbs as the board will be dominated by commercial interests."

NBAA pointed out:

• "Truth

  The 21st Century AIRR Act (H.R. 2997) goes well beyond just removing ATC operations from FAA and turning them over to a private not-for-profit corporation. In addition, services such as flight information, weather briefings, aeronautical information, airport advisory services, and responsibility for navigational aids would be removed from FAA. Congressional oversight of air transportation taxes, allocation of resources, and most importantly access decisions would be given to a not-for-profit corporation. This corporation would be able to tell all general aviation stakeholders where and when they could fly."

 

[MikeOH]

@1980Mooney

So, that was an amusing diatribe on the depressing future of GA....was there a point to your post?  You seem to be criticizing others' viewpoints and saying we have no clout (0.1% of the vote), yet offer no solutions.  I don't think giving up is a good option.

What I will say is that I'm tired of hearing how I 'expect' something for nothing; whether it's FAA services while flying, decent roads while driving, or police and fire service of reasonable response and competence.  See, over half of EVERY additional dollar my wife and I earn is taken by TAXES (SIT/FIT/SS/MC).  With what is left we pay MORE taxes when we purchase almost ANYTHING (near 10% here in Kalifornia), and then we pay yet MORE taxes just for the privilege of owning the thing (property taxes on real estate, tax on our possessions like cars and aircraft)...shall I go on? So, I pretty vehemently resent the implication that, "I expect something for free"!  GMAFB!  What I EXPECT is for the government for which I'm paying dearly to actually PROVIDE services...not merely to pay their salaries with the expectation that we must pay even more for them to actually do anything!

I think I'm longing for the days when you just complained about gear-ups raising your insurance premiums!

[FlyingDude]

@MikeOH seconded.

 

[FlyingDude]

Wouldn't this bill mean that ALL airline tickets will get more pricey? Taxes for sure won't come down. 

[MikeOH]

37 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

Wouldn't this bill mean that ALL airline tickets will get more pricey? Taxes for sure won't come down. 

EXACTLY! Any cost increases will flow down to customers.

And, does ANYONE believe the airlines are going to pass the savings on to their customers if GA is forced to pay “their fair share?”

[EricJ]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

EXACTLY! Any cost increases will flow down to customers.

And, does ANYONE believe the airlines are going to pass the savings on to their customers if GA is forced to pay “their fair share?”

The obvious way to make the airlines more profitable is to make GA pay more than their fair share.