I agree with you on the impact at the runways, Baha. However, the segment fee is not for airports. It's for Air Traffic Control. It's a strange tax. It applies to commercial aviation but not if the flight is to a rural airport. This is defined by the IRS (a great source of aviation information!) as one that has less than 100,000 annual enplanments and is more than 75 miles from another airport that doesn't have less than 100,100 enplanements OR is receiving Essential Air Service Aid. The problem with the segment tax and other flat-rate taxes such as the Passenger Facility Charge is that they affect short-distance and low fares the most. If there is a charge of $3 on a $100 ticket, that's 3%. The same charge on a $200 ticket is only 1.5% and so on. My contention is that a short-distance flight uses less ATC than a long distance flight. BTW: You will never win an argument with me using the "we have lower taxes than other countries." As they say in the south, that dog don't hunt. It's the same thing as saying we should jump off the bridge because everyone else is. David > David, > > Actually the 747 has more impact on the entire aviation infrastructer than a > C421. > 747 is heavy beast, requires stong runways (= more $$$). It holds more pax, > requiring bigger airports lounges, more parking space (again = more $$$). > > The money in the aviation fund was released in late 1990s by the > administration and most of the airport improvement projects, and FAA grants > are funded thanks to that. > > I wish though, all the money was headed to FAA's budget automaticaly, > instead of a special legislation to unlock it. > > US still has one of the lowest taxation rates on air travel. Try Canada for > the aviation taxes. I also know that Istanbul Int. Airport collects $15 per > person for "airport fees". This is on top of EuroControl fees that airlines > pay.. > > BAHA > Fan of FAA grants keeping airports alive. > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:06 AM > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: > > > Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] SF Gate: Feds threaten airlines over discount fares' > hidden fees > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:58:09 +0000 > Message-Id: <102320031458.5952.a85@xxxxxxxxxxx> > X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Oct 14 2003) > X-Authenticated-Sender: ZGFtaXJvc3NAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= > > THe problem is that the taxes are not going to runways and keeping airports > up to date. There is a huge surplus in the aviation trust fund. However, > this fund is being used to show that the federal debt is not that high. > > The segment fee is the worse of the taxes. Can you tell me that it takes $3 > per person for ATC? It doesn't cost any more to control a 747 with 350 > people in it than it does a Cessna 402 with 9 people yet the fee is the > same. > > What other industry, besides tobacco, has such a high rate of taxation? > > David R > > In a message dated 10/22/2003 2:53:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > > > << I have yet to see an airline ad that doesn't include, albeit in small > > print, the governmental extortions placed on the fares. >> > > > > Um, I thought we were not supposed to get political here? Well, I guess > we > > will have to find another way to build runways and keep airports up to > date > > than charging the people who use them