Editor’s Notebook

Go Ahead, Ruin Aviation

There are ominous rumblings from the airline sector about aviation user fees. Airline executives seem to think that if the government slapped fees onto general aviation operators, then the airlines' costs would drop and the whole system would be more equitable. Airlines, which are strapped for cash and unable to raise fares, think that they could benefit if the U.S. air traffic control system, funded by fuel taxes and by the government, were replaced with a user-fee funded system.

This is just another example of the short-term thinking that is hurting the airline business. Most airline executives failed to anticipate higher fuel prices and are now paying the price. They failed to create a strategy to deal with a recession combined with rapidly growing capacity. They completely neglected the competitive threat offered by low-cost airlines. And because of those failures of leadership, those leaders now want to recoup some costs by shifting them to the rest of the aviation industry.

This is a terrible idea, and not just because it might cost me more to fly a small airplane.

The U.S. is a powerhouse in aviation because our system allows people the freedom to innovate. The innovators, beginning more than 100 years ago, launched a huge and prosperous industry, and it all started with an airplane whose first flight was shorter than the length of one of today's jumbo jets.

The innovation that took place then and is still occurring is a combination of basic human desire to try something new and relatively unfettered access to the sky. In the U.S., I can still fly from East Coast to West Coast without talking once on the radio or asking for anyone's permission. And I can do this without paying additional fees beyond those that are levied through the taxes I pay on fuel.

This kind of freedom is why the U.S. has such a robust and still-growing aviation industry. This is also why no other country has near the size of the aviation industry as the U.S. Most other countries have tried to build their aviation industries backwards, from the top down. As these countries become more industrialized, they start with the airlines then maybe someone in authority permits the--gasp!--unique concept of personal flying to take hold.

America's aviation industry is strong not only because of the country's luck in resources and talent but because it was built from the bottom up, from small light aircraft to large airliners. America's aviation infrastructure is strong, with thousands of airports and aircraft, hundreds of thousands of pilots, a capable cadre of thousands of maintenance technicians, and popular public support (airshows are one of the largest spectator sports in the U.S.).

In every country where light aviation is restricted, that country's aviation industry is hobbled. User fees in European countries keep aviation growth to a barely detectable blip on economic charts. Airspace restrictions in Asian countries have prevented the growth of an aviation industry that could really help move people around countries with no useful long-distance highway system. Not to mention the ability to hire locally trained native pilots without having to resort to employing expensive expatriates.

Airlines that want the rest of aviation to pay user fees to access the U.S. airspace system are shooting themselves in the foot. If these airline executives want to destroy the aviation industry, then they should promote user-funding for airspace access. User fees would have a huge negative effect. "A piecemeal system of fees and charges," said Phil Boyer, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, testifying before Congress, "gives pilots a direct financial incentive to avoid using the safety features and programs provided within the National Airspace System." The other effect would be that people would simply stop buying aircraft, stop buying fuel and maintenance services, stop learning to fly, and they would give up aviation.

And this would be good for the airlines? Airline executives must realize that the majority of their new pilots come from the civilian ranks, not from the military. About two-thirds of newly hired airline pilots have civilian backgrounds, according to AIR, Inc., an Atlanta, Georgia career information provider.

The airline people must wonder what happens to all the mechanics that they are laying off. Do they expect them all to find new careers? Would they be surprised to know that many find new jobs in other segments of aviation?

Aviation is a critical component of the U.S. economy. If airlines want to force user fees on non-airline flying, then they'll quickly learn that it will cost far more to find qualified personnel under an airline-oriented aviation system than the excellent system we have now. The end result? Airline costs will go up. And there will be fewer aviation jobs.

I know times are tough for airlines. But if they can't compete, then they are doing something wrong and they need to fix it and not try to shift the blame and the costs onto general aviation.