LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic Universe-Document

LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic

September 25, 1999 Saturday METROPOLITAN EDITION

SECTION: OPINION; Pg. B6

LENGTH: 545 words

HEADLINE: More costs for airline passengers

BODY:
These days, airline tickets - like phone bills - are being
festooned with add-on charges.  Consider two of the more significant
fees, both tacked on by government.

Travelers must pay an 8 percent ticket tax to help finance new
runways and other improvements in the air travel system.  At the same
time, travelers pay a "passenger facility charge," which helps
finance      new runways and other improvements.  The two revenue
sources aren't earmarked for precisely the same things.    Facility
revenue, for example, doesn't pay for the government's (still
unsuccessful) efforts to upgrade the air-traffic control system.    Even
so, these two levies are providing money for broadly similar
purposes. Which is why all the talk in Congress about higher passenger
facility charges doesn't go down well.  Some lawmakers want to double
the charge for each airport landing to $ 6. On a round-trip basis for
a journey with connecting flights, the fee would go from a maximum of
$ 12 to $ 24 per ticket.

Airports love facility charges because the revenue requires no
local match and gives airport officials a source of money independent
from the fees paid by the carriers.  Those carriers often try to keep
out competitors by agreeing to finance improvements only if they
receive "exclusive use."

For that reason, backers of higher facility fees say the
additional revenue would, in some locations, boost competition and
perhaps lead to lower ticket prices.  More facility money, they say,
will allow airports to build more runways, taxiways and gates and
attract more carriers.

Although there's a capacity shortage at many airports, it's
strange to be talking higher facility fees when a multibillion-dollar
"balance" exists in the aviation trust fund, which is where the
ticket-tax money goes.  Ticket taxes are scheduled to drop next month
from 8 percent to 7.5 percent, but let's not lose sight of the fact
that the feds are taking money from travelers and withholding part of
the benefits.  And now we're going to be charged higher facility
charges?

Such an increase would be especially significant for Kansas City
travelers.  Given the relative lack of nonstop flights out of Kansas
City International Airport, local travelers require more connecting
flights - and pay more in facility charges.

Lawmakers trying to ease congestion in America's skies should
start asking why the Federal Aviation Administration has been unable
for nearly two decades to upgrade our antiquated air-traffic control
system.  This problem isn't one that can be laid to a shortage of
money.  Billions of dollars have been wasted on false starts and
poorly thought-out strategies.

Rather, it reflects skewed legislative priorities and the FAA's
demonstrated incapacity to handle the challenge.  New runways, gates
and taxiways won't do a thing to replace an air-traffic control
network relying in part on vacuum-tube technology.  And prayers.

LOAD-DATE: September 25, 1999