Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JetBlue Splits With ATA Over FAA User Fees  
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Interesting opposition to otherwise widely supported industry plan.

Quote:
JetBlue Splits With ATA Over Methods To Calculate User Fees
09/04/2007

JetBlue has declared its opposition to the Air Transport Association's FAA funding proposal and mounted its own campaign on Capitol Hill last week urging law makers to reject ATA's suggestions.

Carrier CEO Dave Barger sent letters to heads of pertinent committees in the House and Senate outlining JetBlue's arguments and declaring ATA's proposal "thinly veiled."

The airline takes exception to two aspects of ATA's proposal - the domestic distance tax and exemptions for the first 250 miles of a domestic flight.

JetBlue argues that ATA is opting to measure distance flown using a "great circle" calculation, rather than actual flight distances. A JetBlue spokeswoman noted that the rationale for using pure origin-and-destination mileage is for simplicity and ease of administration, but she noted that while, "it is 'easy,' it's also wrong.

JetBlue also takes issue with ATA characterizing the 250-mile exemption as a way to reduce the burden on smaller communities. The carrier argues ATA's plan exempts more than 25% of all domestic flights, including all the shuttle flights from New York City to Boston and Washington. Those flights alone, JetBlue said, produce more than 100 flights per day in each direction. While JetBlue supports a genuine small-community ATC fee exemption, "this disingenuous plan mocks the importance of small community air service," Barger said.

Full story (subscription required)
http://www.aviationweek.com/publicat...ver+Methods+To+Calculate+User+Fees


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWestIndian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

JetBlue raises some valid points, I must say.


God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3927 times:

If the US would get a high-speed rail network going, there would be no need for a 250-mile exemption, and would make an additional 250-mile tax an attractive idea.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

I can somewhat see their point on the 250mile exemption as clearly some of the nations busiest flying and densest ATC environments are included.

However on the overall distance based fee, I'd side with the ATA proposal to use simply great circle mileage between cities. Otherwise airlines and the FAA would be taxed with keeping track of actual flown distances on each flight which could really become and accounting nightmare. For instance would airlines get penalised and have to pay higher fees for routing around weather, or getting an ATC re-route? In theory no two flights would have the same distance between city-pairs as each one might take a slight different route based on many operational factors.

I'd also compare this to how foreign nations charge overflight fee's. In most cases (with a few notable exceptions like Japan) fee's are simply based on the great circle distance between entry and exit points of that nations airspace. Simple and fair when applied across the board.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
However on the overall distance based fee, I'd side with the ATA proposal to use simply great circle mileage between cities. Otherwise airlines and the FAA would be taxed with keeping track of actual flown distances on each flight which could really become and accounting nightmare. For instance would airlines get penalised and have to pay higher fees for routing around weather, or getting an ATC re-route? In theory no two flights would have the same distance between city-pairs as each one might take a slight different route based on many operational factors.

It would be pretty easy to calculate the distance for filed routes (aircraft that can go direct and off airways get charged less). I agree that actual distance flown would be prohibitive, and that there should be no charge for routing around weather, but simply charging on filed distance would be simple enough.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
For instance would airlines get penalised and have to pay higher fees for routing around weather, or getting an ATC re-route? In theory no two flights would have the same distance between city-pairs as each one might take a slight different route based on many operational factors.

Why say "penalized"? If they create extra work for ATC by flying around weather or anything else they choose, let them pay the extra fees for creating extra work in the "pay to play" world they want to create.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 5):
If they create extra work for ATC by flying around weather or anything else they choose, let them pay the extra fees for creating extra work in the "pay to play" world they want to create.

When you have to pay to route around weather, you create an incentive not to route around weather. That's a serious safety issue - you want to minimize the incentives to take serious risks.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
but simply charging on filed distance would be simple enough.

True, however again the incentive for airlines to file the shortest possible route for the sake of saving money, while asking crew to request the "real routing" once airborne is quite possible.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
When you have to pay to route around weather, you create an incentive not to route around weather. That's a serious safety issue - you want to minimize the incentives to take serious risks.

 checkmark  indeed. Same logic FAA uses to exempt maintenance related delays from airline On-Time statistics. Dont want to create the incentive or pressure to cut corners in order to receive a better performance ranking.


Anyhow I cant quite understand how and airline would oppose this as a great circle calculation provides the least cost as its the shortest possible distance. Any other measure of filed or actual route flown would be greater distance and eventual cost. With some carriers running 1000's of flights daily even seemingly small dollar amounts can add up quickly for one fat bill at the end.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
you create an incentive

Therein lies one BIG problem with ATC privatization and/or running safety related systems for financial reasons. The money becomes the prime consideration in decisions related to safety rather than the safety being the prime consideration.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
That's a serious safety issue

DING! Safety of flight should never ever take a second priority to anything. Keep the government running the largest and safest ATC system in the world. Do not run it for profit. Fire the flunkies in the FAA who are failing by every measure to run it competently and efficiently.
The US Congress needs to get off their asses and put the money where it needs to be, put competent people in charge of the money and the modernization, then hold said persons accountable for the failure or success of the system. A political appointee will never get that done.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 7):
True, however again the incentive for airlines to file the shortest possible route for the sake of saving money, while asking crew to request the "real routing" once airborne is quite possible.

When the request for the "real routing" is made, clear them as requested, then charge a "change of plan" fee.
ATA wants those who use to pay right? Those who use extra should pay extra. To quote some of The ATA's propaganda, "fair is fair".

You gotta love an association of failed businesses (ATA) trying to tell someone else how to run an ATC system. LMAO.




Edited for spelling

[Edited 2007-09-04 02:59:07]


I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3599 times:

There are plenty of private AND safe ATC systems in this world. UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc..

In reality I believe a private system could very well be safer then a national system. Private companies have the ability to spend funds directly on newer technologies and improving system efficiencies unlike governments whom often funnel various revenue streams into central bank coffers or take year to consider the simplest decision.

Most countries to my knowledge that have gone the private route have seen significant improvements in services offered. Matter of fact a couple years ago I saw an ICAO study which looked at countries that had privatized their ATC systems and all had experienced leaps in modernization, capacity and efficiency gains.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
There are plenty of private AND safe ATC systems in this world. UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc..

None of those systems are as large or complex as the US system. Canada is held up as an example on a regular basis. The US system puts more traffic through the State of California by 9:30 am than NAVCANADA moves in a 24 hour period. (Sorry I don't recall the source)

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
Private companies have the ability to spend funds directly on newer technologies and improving system efficiencies unlike governments whom often funnel various revenue streams into central bank coffers or take year to consider the simplest decision.

Congress can fix the money stream and coffer issues. As for taking years to consider the simplest decision, as I said, install competent management and hold them accountable. When you have a political appointee in charge, delaying or not making decisions is an art form. It's how they avoid accountability. Marion Blakey has done it very well. She is about to leave and drop the bucket of crap she's created in someone else's lap.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 11):
None of those systems are as large or complex as the US system.

If a single private system is going to be too hard to run, privatize the system along the current ATC boundaries. We can have 22 smaller individual contracts awarded then.

The world looks to the United States as a symbol of free and private enterprise. With all the talent and money here I'm sure we can figure out a manner to efficiently and safely privatize things.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 11):
When you have a political appointee in charge, delaying or not making decisions is an art form. It's how they avoid accountability.

You know that will never change. Its simply part of the government just like the post office, IRS etc...



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
If a single private system is going to be too hard to run, privatize the system along the current ATC boundaries. We can have 22 smaller individual contracts awarded then.

That might well be the worst thing that could happen. The US is one unified country, it should have one unified air traffic control system.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5506 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

There are things which are best done privately, and they should be. ATC is not such a thing.

The ATA is disingenuous in the extreme on this issue, attempting to persuade those who know no better (members of the public who know nothing about the aviation infrastructure) that the problems in the ATC system and in scheduling are somehow related to the handling of non-airline traffic.

And it just ain't true.

The ATC system is designed around the needs of the airlines as it is. A fuel-tax based system makes the most sense.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Quoting SCCutler (Reply 14):
A fuel-tax based system makes the most sense.

There lies the problem.

Under a fuel based system the airlines would again be footing the burden of the ATC system while Corporate flyer in his G-V skates by still.

From an ATC perspective there is really no difference in handling a G-V or a 747. What the ATA is trying to point out the cost of handling aircraft in the national airspace system needs to be commensurate with services provided. In other-words the guys that today gets full use of the system for free basically need to start contributing to what they are using.

Another argument made I've read in Europe is that airliner in reality deserves even a further break as they manages to transport hundreds of people using the same service that a smaller aircraft only carrying maybe a handful of folks is. The smaller flyer ties up the system that can be used more efficiently by larger craft.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 15):
From an ATC perspective there is really no difference in handling a G-V or a 747

That B747 and other Heavies require more separation and create other problems than the GLF5.



"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

OK make it a 737 then. Happy ?

Point being airlines would continue footing the bill for the national ATC system regardless of services provided to others.
The G-V manages to operate with pennies on the dollar while receiving same services.

[Edited 2007-09-04 05:41:55]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
There are plenty of private AND safe ATC systems in this world

Why are you so eager to privatize the U.S. ATC system. What benefits do you think would happen? Can you see any drawbacks?

[Edited 2007-09-04 05:45:48]


"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 18):
Why are you so eager to privatize the U.S. ATC system.

I'm not parse eager for a privatized system, however strongly believe the national system needs a huge overhaul including the manner the system generates revenues and spends money. I'm also a very strong proponent of technology believing its helps man work smarter instead of harder.

If privatization is the means to change things and move our basic 1950s system forward (which might be the case due government bureaucracy) then I'm all for it. I've travelled and lived around the globe and can from personal experience have seen transformation of other nations ATC systems and vouch for their benefits.

p.s. - by the way, I dont know if people realise but a good many airport towers are run by private entities and not the FAA. I think the success of such a system proves Uncle Sam does not need his hands in everything.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 19):
p.s. - by the way, I dont know if people realise but a good many airport towers are run by private entities and not the FAA. I think the success of such a system proves Uncle Sam does not need his hands in everything.

Between the time I was a controller for the Navy and the FAA, I worked at two contract towers for two different companies (Midwest ATC and RVA), and I can tell you safety takes a back seat to profit.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 19):
I've travelled and lived around the globe and can from personal experience have seen transformation of other nations ATC systems and vouch for their benefits.

Like SPREE34 stated, how can you compare the NAS with Canada, Great Britian or Germany?

[Edited 2007-09-04 06:18:50]


"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 20):
Like SPREE34 stated, how can you compare the NAS with Canada, Great Britian or Germany?

Why are we afraid to compare? We can certainly scale a system appropriately. Whether this means doing it in sections over time, splitting the NAS system into various smaller contracts etc..

These other countries have proven a switch can be successfully and safely made to a privatized system allaying public fears and overcoming concerns of unions.

We are not some 3rd world banana republic. Putting out best talent and money forward I'm sure we can develop a world class system we would all be proud of.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
The world looks to the United States as a symbol of free and private enterprise. With all the talent and money here I'm sure we can figure out a manner to efficiently and safely privatize things.

Ahh... Have you had a look at what has happened to the now privatized Flight Service Station system? Lockheed Martin has so fouled things up, and then asked for more money to help them fix what they claimed they could operate. The tax payer has been ripped off.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
If a single private system is going to be too hard to run, privatize the system along the current ATC boundaries. We can have 22 smaller individual contracts awarded then.

Nightmare. It's bad enough now with them operating like 20 little FAAs. 20 different vendors doing a bang up job like LM is over at FSS. No thanks. BTW, the FAA has started the process of reducing the amount of Enroute Centers. Houston will be the first to go.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 15):
From an ATC perspective there is really no difference in handling a G-V or a 747.

I have seen many statements like this on A.net this week. You, like the others, have made a statement with little or no knowledge of how ATC really works.
The G-V or other Bizjet has much less impact on the system. The Bizjets aren't having to be slowed and turned to achieve spacing to an over scheduled runway. The bizjet generally takes off, climbs out, cruises (above the airlines), descends and lands. If that Bizjet is going out of a major Terminal Area like DFW,ATL, or other major Metro area, it will end up restricted (some would say penalized) under the AIRLINE traffic coming out of the primary airport until sufficient separation for a climb exist. Inbound the Bizjet will be forced down earlier (penalized) than the AIRLINES so the controllers have room for turning and slowing the AIRLINES who are scheduled into the primary airport at a volume exceeding the runway acceptance rate.

So who is screwing who here? Who is creating more work in the system? From WHOS perspective?

How can you (Airline Management / Consulting) say the words "From an ATC perspective...." ??
What ARTCCs have you certified in? What TRACONS?

I am happy to answer any questions you may have about ATC.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3274 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 21):
Why are we afraid to compare? We can certainly scale a system appropriately. Whether this means doing it in sections over time, splitting the NAS system into various smaller contracts etc..

But how would the users benefit? Also, the only way a privatized system can make money is to cut back on training and staffing it's controllers. I have seen it first hand; both in the U.S. (Contract Towers) and Canada (Nav Canada).

[Edited 2007-09-04 06:30:56]


"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3242 times:

Quoting P3Orion (Reply 23):
But how would the users benefit?

Again look at other countries. They have used funding to plow money into newer technologies and tools aiding with both capacity and safety. Australia for instance is building an ADS-B system providing coverage in areas that lacked radar coverage ever before. The UK is redesigning its upper and Oceanic airspace to provide added capacity for users while consolidating older smaller ATC centers under new single roof with better coordination.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 22):

See my PM. However I'm far from some green person when it come to US ATC issues.


Ultimately guys, we'll have to agree to disagree however I cannot phantom why we are not willing to explore ways to make NAS better even if take a radical move like privatizing it. Its easy to say no, its harder to come up with the actual solution and its fixes.

Have a pleasant evening all.  wave 



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 Mir : The US already has a world-class ATC system. It moves far more traffic than any other airspace system in the world, and does so just as safely, if no
26 SPREE34 : Yep, and you can read about the lack of staffing and failure to meet the FAA contract by going to the Inspector Generals website. They are being oper
27 Sllevin : Here's something to think about when you say "a plane is a plane." VNY (Van Nuys, California) is, by total number of movements, is the businest GA-on
28 SCCutler : Myth. First off, a G-V burns a heckuva lot of fuel. Secondly, I am aware of no private jet operators who have received hundreds of millions of dollar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Talk To Your Senator About User Fees posted Wed May 30 2007 04:36:44 by Cancidas
JetBlue's Pullback Stokes Fears Over Fares posted Fri Mar 9 2007 11:19:04 by Flaps
In Search Of Profits, JetBlue Hit With Delays posted Fri Apr 7 2006 21:59:35 by AirTran737
Is JetBlue Happy With Boston? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:21:46 by ChrisNH
Jetblue Merger With... posted Thu Mar 2 2006 23:48:03 by Werdywerd
COA1657 With Problems Over The Caribbean posted Mon Dec 26 2005 22:02:18 by RobK
JetBlue Landed With PTVs On posted Thu Sep 22 2005 15:01:32 by SafetyDude
Bet With Coworker Over Flight He Took posted Fri May 6 2005 17:13:47 by Drerx7
New JetBlue Routes With RJ's? posted Tue Mar 29 2005 14:40:58 by GSPSPOT
FWA To Sue ATA Over Loss Of ATA Service posted Sat Jan 29 2005 19:34:34 by KarlB737