Of Camels And Tents

hile I don’t like to pay more for flying than I currently do, nor do I want see the U.S. kill general aviation through predatory user fees like in Europe and elsewhere, we need to be more open-minded about user fees. And I would like to provide a differing perspective to user fees, specifically regarding the FAA’s incremental ATC costs to support the Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) AirVenture.A few years ago, the FAA paid millions of dollars for a great-looking control tower at OSH—was it really needed? Let’s agree it was a good investment of public funds to support the one week of AirVenture. Most of the year, the traffic count at OSH is very low and the old tower did just fine. And let’s consider that cost as part of ATC infrastructure costs. That is why I’m focusing on incremental costs, not total costs.

Key Takeaways:

• The article argues that general taxpayers should not subsidize the FAA's *incremental* Air Traffic Control (ATC) costs specifically generated by EAA's AirVenture.
• It advocates for a user-pays philosophy, where either the EAA, from AirVenture's significant revenues, or pilots flying into OSH, through a direct fee, cover these additional ATC expenses.
• The author suggests that a blanket opposition to user fees for such events negatively impacts the public perception of general aviation and its participants.

Key takeaways sponsored by Aviator Pro | Start Your Training ->

See a mistake? Contact us.