Commercial airline: “Hey – what’s the hold-up?”

Commercial airline: “Cool your jets young buck – you may have been made yesterday, but they still have to use 1950s technology to control traffic up in the tower. “

The Department of Transportation Inspector General, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office have all testified to Congress that Under the Current Excise Tax System, Forecasted Revenues into the Aviation Trust Fund could cover the FAA’s Anticipated Cost of $22 Billion in Modernization Spending for 2007 – 2025. [1] The airlines’ insistence on changing the funding mechanism is nothing more than a flawed justification for a huge airline tax break.

Commercial airline: “There is twice as many as them as us nowadays.”

The Department of Transportation Has Clearly Stated that Other Factors are to Blame for Airline Delays – including the Airlines’ Hub and Spoke System: In fact, the top reasons for airline delays, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), are extreme weather, security, aviation system congestion (including closed runways), late-arriving aircraft and airline-related problems. The Department of Transportation publishes these statistics monthly. [4]

Not Only is General Aviation Not to Blame for Delays, but the Department of Transportation is Launching an Investigation into “Deceptive Scheduling Practices” by the Airlines: According to the Dallas Morning News, “the Transportation Department says it’s launching an investigation into deceptive scheduling practices by some airlines, taking aim at carriers that operate chronically delayed flights without telling customers of the repeated problems…. The Transportation Department says it’s already in proceedings with eight airlines to assess whether they disclosed on-time performance statistics É The latest investigation would look at the larger question of whether airlines are presenting unrealistic schedules to passengers.” [5]

• Andrew Steinberg, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs, stated, “We have a regulation that prohibits unrealistic scheduling as a deceptive practice. Now we are looking at stepping up enforcement efforts thereÉWe want to understand … how it is possible that a flight could be late 70 or 80 percent of the time and that information not disclosed in an adequate way to the customer,” in his recent testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. [6]

The Department of Transportation Has Stated that “It Should Pursue Enforcement Action Against Carriers that Consistently Advertise Flight Schedules That They Cannot Meet, Regardless of the Causes of Delay:” In November 2006, the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General released “Follow-Up Review: Performance of U.S. Airlines in Implementing Selected Provisions of the Airline Customer Service Commitment.” The Inspector General recommended that “We believe OAEP [Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings] should revisit the legislative and policy precedents that address unrealistic scheduling. If OAEP does believe, as it has stated, that unrealistic scheduling is “clearly” an example of unfair and deceptive practices, then it should pursue enforcement action against carriers that consistently advertise flight schedules that they cannot meet, regardless of the causes of the delay.” [7]

Commercial airline (to Jet): “Yo – mister hot stuff – you pay your fair share to strut around here?”

Commercial airline: “Well unfortunately partner, the way it works is we pay, and they play.”

Narrator: “Log-on: tell Congress you want shorter, faster flights with no passenger subsidies for corporate jets. “

FY 2005 IRS-Certified Airport and Airway Trust Fund Tax Revenue [8]
Fractional Ownership Programs – 0.8%
Non-Scheduled Part 135 Passenger – 2.2%
Non-Scheduled Part 135 Freight – 0.3%
General Aviation-Turbine – 1.4%
General Aviation – Piston – 0.2%
General Aviation – Rotor – 0.0%
Commercial (Non-ETMS) – 2.0%
General Aviation (Non-ETMS) – 1.7%

The Fact is that the Extensive Cost of our Air Traffic Control System is Driven by the Airlines’ Hub and Spoke System, and that the Airlines Are Now Trying to Unfairly Shift their Tax Burden onto other Aircraft in the System: The Government Accountability Office warned Congress in 2004 that airlines do not in fact pass on tax savings to their passengers, so any improvement following a tax cut would likely be to airline profitability, not passenger ticket costs. [9] Airline management and their lobbyists have even said publicly that they are looking to improve their bottom line through a user tax proposal. [10]

The New Tax System Supported by the Airlines Would Provide Them a Financial Windfall. The Department of Transportation Inspector General recently testified to Congress that under the big airlines’ FAA plan, the airlines would decrease their tax burden from $11.8 billion to $10.1 billion in FY2009. [11] Industry sources calculate that under the Senate’s proposal, airlines are likely to save $500 million annually due to a complete elimination of their fuel tax requirement. [12]