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.
Careless 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.
Instead 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.
I 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.
Or cut down on flights. You could easily ban private flights until there is enough capacity.
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.
Careless 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.
10 replies →
Instead 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.
1 reply →
I fear this would only exacerbate the problem of carriers selling more tickets than there are seats.
I 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.
1000 times this. Fly as much as one can safely, not more.
Exactly. The article enumerates all the ways to improve hiring, except for compensation.
With so many billionaires, the country certainly can afford paying more to people whose tasks are crucial for others' lives.
The reason there are so many people worth $1b instead of a poor $100m is because of the tax cuts diverting money from crucial jobs.
Waiting for the first trillionaire, that's when all billionaires will unanimously say "we have enough, let's start paying people more".
1 reply →