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.
You can make taxes specific, as in literally saying "a tax on non-commercially operated non-propeller driven aircraft with greater than 8 passenger seats".
The prop exemption alone would clear most gen-av, but this kind of ruleset would also be very easy for the richies to bypass/game.
Landing 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You can make taxes specific, as in literally saying "a tax on non-commercially operated non-propeller driven aircraft with greater than 8 passenger seats".
The prop exemption alone would clear most gen-av, but this kind of ruleset would also be very easy for the richies to bypass/game.
1 reply →
Newsflash: "planes are rich people's toys" has been killing general aviation already for a generation if not two.
4 replies →
Landing 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.
2 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.
Source: 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.
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.