5 ms·
Don't ban. Tax. Never ban. Tax low capacity flights more. That both reduces the number of flights and raises money which can be put toward paying ATCs more and
by eterm 2y ago
Don't ban. Tax. Never ban.
Tax low capacity flights more. That both reduces the number of flights and raises money which can be put toward paying ATCs more and increasing the headcount.
You then have a lever available to dial up and down to further reduce flights / raise money.
Banning is expensive and increases legislative and judicial burden.
Taxing is a much more efficient way to stop people doing things.
You have to be careful not to only lock the poorest in society out while the rich enjoy carrying on regardless, but in the case of low capacity private jets, I don't think that's a significant problem.
If the tax doesn't put off people enough, just raise it more until either it does start to dampen demand or you're raising so much money through it you no longer care and have a new revenue stream to spend on fixing whatever problems they're causing.
- ranger_danger 2y agoI say private flights from the rich should be subsidizing ATC costs... whether that's as a tax or whatever. You could even base it as a percentage of the net worth of the individuals on the flight.
- adrr 2y agoInstead we allow private jet owners to fully write off the cost of a jet purchase(new or used) in the first year on their taxes. Can't even do that with a normal sized car.
- cj 2y agoSource: https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/tax-issues/depreciation/bonus-depreciation/ https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/tax-issues... "Bonus depreciation" exists for cars too, but is capped around $20k. From quick reading, seems like the bonus depreciation for planes was a tax break to incentivize people to, well, buy more planes.
- ryandrake 2y agoCareless and hamfisted taxing/banning of "private jets" can have the unintended effect of also killing light piston general aviation, flight instruction, and the whole pipeline of training the next generation of airline pilots. Flight training is almost always low capacity (one-on-one) so uncarefuly-crafted legislation could catch it in the blast radius. Piloting is already one of the more expensive careers to train for.
- _jss 2y agoLanding fees already have this built into the structure, along with waived fees for fuel purchases, etc. It probably is reasonable to look at occupancy percentage along with engine type, and adjust landing fees based on that. Two out of 18 souls on board with a turbine? High landing fees, divert some to an ATC fund.
- rlpb 2y ago> Two out of 18 souls on board with a turbine? Very common. How do you think pilots train to fly such aircraft? Would you prefer pilots not to be trained, or for this type of aircraft to cease service?
- _jss 2y agoI would expect them to do the bulk of their training flights out of airports with minimal congestion and lower landing fees. They don’t have to be trained in class B airspace to get their type rating.
- psunavy03 2y agoNewsflash: "planes are rich people's toys" has been killing general aviation already for a generation if not two.
- ang_cire 2y agoThe rising costs have made that much more true, though. My step-dad had a gorgeous 1940s Luscombe that he paid ~35k for in the 90s. He lived in an airpark where he paid 280k for a nice 3br house with a hangar. Good luck trying to replicate that now.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agoHaving 85k of purely discretionary income (adjusting for inflation) is still pretty "rich people toy". That's about 105% median household income.
- novemp 2y agoI fear this would only exacerbate the problem of carriers selling more tickets than there are seats.