The original tax was 10% on airline tickets. Then PFC's arrived which must be approved by the local airport authority, charged by the airlines then paid to the local airports. The legacy carriers after several years of seeing WN use more of the system and pay less said, 'wait a minute' our passengers are paying more for the same trip because we are paying more for usage of the air transportation system and that is not fair. So in fair play let’s make the fair fare for all. WN said, if you get this new system passed, we will fly more long hauls and will attack your routes. Before that day, WN mostly flew short haul, high frequency routes using the system more, placing more demands on a burdened air traffic system.
Well, the legacy carriers got the law changed to reduce the tax from 10% to 7.5%.
Then Sept 11th happened. Now you have to figure out a fair way to handle the cost of security. The common sense is the 'fee for usage.' Hence the $2.50 per passenger again collected by the airlines and paid to the government.
Maybe, what we should do is change the rule to $5.00 per time you pass though security, (that would hurt the people in MCI due to the poor design of the airport with no amenities after you enter the gate--HAHA); payable directly to security each time you chose to pass through security. The airlines would be out of collecting the tax for the government and the passenger would then see transparent fares. When you board a flight the airport would have to have a collector there where you as the passenger would then have to pay the PFC directly to the airport authority. Then you install a 'use' tax by facility that the airline must pay for the departure and arrival by time slot that will fund the FAA. Thereby, UA and AA would pay the majority of the cost of the air traffic system at ORD, while WN would pay the majority of the cost of the air traffic system at MDW. What could be fairer? You use, you pay.
The next complaint would be I will have to carry extra cash to pay all these fees. Well, when you travel outside of the US in some countries you must pay departure tax directly to the country prior to departure. Stop by the local ATM, pay the usage fee and get the cash. When you travel on a toll road you pay by number of axels, not by the freight you are carrying. Likewise, when you use the air transportation system, you should pay the cost associated with that trip. Arguing that WN’s security bill should be less than UA’s because they have less passengers is fair. But arguing that WN’s usage bill at MDW should be less because it is a smaller airport is garbage. After liftoff they fly into the same airspace used by all carriers. Therefore, the usage tax would be a better way to tax because WN chose not to fly to DFW, but instead put more airplanes in the sky to move passengers from MCI to DAL. (I know they no longer have to do the Texas Two Step) Two stops. Likewise, UA has put two planes in the sky to fly passengers form MCI to LAX so likewise they should have to pay for that usage.
Truth be told a Use Tax is much more effective and fair than any other tax. The Use Tax changed the way WN thought of flights, and likewise, a Use Tax may salvage what is left of the aviation industry. Travel by air is not funded by income tax, it is funded by sales tax, and it is and should be funded by a true form of USE TAX. YOU USE YOU PAY!
Well, the legacy carriers got the law changed to reduce the tax from 10% to 7.5%.
Then Sept 11th happened. Now you have to figure out a fair way to handle the cost of security. The common sense is the 'fee for usage.' Hence the $2.50 per passenger again collected by the airlines and paid to the government.
Maybe, what we should do is change the rule to $5.00 per time you pass though security, (that would hurt the people in MCI due to the poor design of the airport with no amenities after you enter the gate--HAHA); payable directly to security each time you chose to pass through security. The airlines would be out of collecting the tax for the government and the passenger would then see transparent fares. When you board a flight the airport would have to have a collector there where you as the passenger would then have to pay the PFC directly to the airport authority. Then you install a 'use' tax by facility that the airline must pay for the departure and arrival by time slot that will fund the FAA. Thereby, UA and AA would pay the majority of the cost of the air traffic system at ORD, while WN would pay the majority of the cost of the air traffic system at MDW. What could be fairer? You use, you pay.
The next complaint would be I will have to carry extra cash to pay all these fees. Well, when you travel outside of the US in some countries you must pay departure tax directly to the country prior to departure. Stop by the local ATM, pay the usage fee and get the cash. When you travel on a toll road you pay by number of axels, not by the freight you are carrying. Likewise, when you use the air transportation system, you should pay the cost associated with that trip. Arguing that WN’s security bill should be less than UA’s because they have less passengers is fair. But arguing that WN’s usage bill at MDW should be less because it is a smaller airport is garbage. After liftoff they fly into the same airspace used by all carriers. Therefore, the usage tax would be a better way to tax because WN chose not to fly to DFW, but instead put more airplanes in the sky to move passengers from MCI to DAL. (I know they no longer have to do the Texas Two Step) Two stops. Likewise, UA has put two planes in the sky to fly passengers form MCI to LAX so likewise they should have to pay for that usage.
Truth be told a Use Tax is much more effective and fair than any other tax. The Use Tax changed the way WN thought of flights, and likewise, a Use Tax may salvage what is left of the aviation industry. Travel by air is not funded by income tax, it is funded by sales tax, and it is and should be funded by a true form of USE TAX. YOU USE YOU PAY!
. And just for reference, (and I hate to say this out loud), but do to stock, UAL's 737 Capts will on average make around $100K more this year than an equiv SWA guy. Granted it is a temprary blip, but I'm betting SWA's payrates are as well
