Citing user fee changes as one of its greatest concerns, the Regional Air Cargo Carrier’s Association (RACCA) added its voice to the many users who object to the recently proposed reauthorization legislation.  Related Story
“We are engaging in a debate over an ATC modernization program lacking definition, timetables or price tags,” RACCA told Representative James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in a recent letter. “It seems the cart -- securing funding -- is being placed well ahead of the horse -- defining the program to be funded. In the meantime, users are being asked to support this undefined system through massive tax increases. Is it any wonder RACCA members and those of other organizations oppose this plan?” Given this, RACCA joined other groups in objecting to the proposal to remove direct Congressional oversight on taxing and spending for modernization. “In our view, these priorities are reversed,” it said. “We urge Congress to require many more details on schedules, capabilities and benefits before considering more legislation requiring users to sign the kinds of blank checks for ATC modernization contemplated in the FAA proposal."
RACCA President Stan Bernstein said RACCA’s 50 members, who fly over 1,000 aircraft, would face tax increases that would threaten service to small communities that, in the last decade, have seen the wholesale abandonment of passenger service because of regulatory and market changes. Related Story  It also echoed user groups saying the new revenue structure would provide less funding for modernizing air traffic control facilities and equipment, not more.
It especially objected to the cost-of-living adjustment that would kick in at the beginning of Fiscal 2010, saying, “these provisions seem to be nothing more than a built-in cost escalator, beneficial to the FAA and its contractors but extremely detrimental to smaller commercial operators like those among RACCA's membership, who operate in an extremely competitive environment – one in which such cost escalations often are not acceptable to customers and which can quickly render operators’ services unprofitable.”
RACCA echoed other user groups, saying the current system is not only well understood and supported, it does not require the creation of a huge new bureaucracy which would unnecessarily increase costs to users. It also noted that the current system will not require a new bureaucracy to manage taxes, as envisioned in the proposed reauthorization.
“Aircraft operators using aviation-grade kerosene ‘in commercial aviation’ likely pay $0.218 per gallon when purchasing fuel and, to realize the lower tax rate, must seek a refund,” said RACCA in its letter. “This exposes a fundamental inequity in present law. Operators of aircraft engaged in commercial aviation but using a fuel other than aviation-grade kerosene (e.g., aviation gasoline) are taxed at a much higher rate -- more than 486 percent higher – than if the aircraft used aviation-grade kerosene. By not allowing similar tax treatment of aviation gasoline used in commercial aviation, operators of such aircraft essentially pay a ‘double tax’ when compared to those using aviation-grade kerosene. This double-tax should be eliminated via the 2007 legislation and commercial operators using a fuel other than aviation-grade kerosene should be taxed at a rate equivalent to commercial-use aviation-grade kerosene.”
It expressed frustration with the Airport Improvement Program spending cuts proposed by the legislation, noting the vast majority of delays are at major airports. “For FY 2008, the FAA proposal includes only $2.75 billion, compared with the $3.5 billion Congress appropriated for FY 2007,” said RACCA. “Additionally, existing allocation provisions would result in smaller airports being cut out of the FY 2008 AIP and entitlements would be eliminated. This is precisely the opposite of what is needed at these facilities. Various incarnations of NGATS have been rising and collapsing for decades. The current juxtaposition of Mode S and ADS-B are examples of the uncertainty with its final configuration and timetable. Regardless, one of NGATS's stated objectives is to develop ‘a system that uses modern technology and state-of-the-art procedures to handle increases in the volume of air traffic.’ The fundamental reason for these delays is too many scheduled operations competing for too few runways, all at the same time. Rather than reducing airport funding, it should be increased, with a major emphasis placed on building new airports and runways to serve these delay-prone hubs. Modernizing ATC does nothing to mitigate delays and congestion unless and until an airborne aircraft has a place to land.”
RACCA also objected to the fact that, although FAA and others continue to emphasize modernizing ATC facilities and equipment, they have yet to produce a substantive, detailed plan for procurements. The Joint Program Development Office (JPDO) -- the multi-agency organization created to oversee NGATS development -- has not yet executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between its constituent agencies defining their roles and responsibilities. Further, JPDO lacks any long-range planning documents stating what elements of the NGATS will be produced, in what order, their cost and when they will be made operational.” Bernstein cited the recent hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics at which JPDO's top management appeared, but lacked answers to what many consider fundamental questions about NGATS, despite the fact that an MOU on NGATS implementation is something the JPDO was supposed to have produced shortly after its creation a year ago.