The airlines know they have a captive audience and have long used it to sell stuff or let others offer to sell the neat stuff you see in those ‘order this gadget now’ catalogues. Now, though, the carriers are using this power to press their political case about FAA funding and the future of air-traffic control, provoking some interesting guerrilla warfare responses from their opponents, the general aviation and private pilot crowd.
American Airlines is using its free seat-back magazine to make the argument for changing the whole approach to charging airline passengers and private aviation taxes. 
Top executives of Continental, US Airways, and Northwest, have made pleas in their monthly passenger publications, while United simply let the airlines’ chief lobbyist, Air Transport Association chief executive Jim May, have the space. Now American, the world’s largest airline and the only US carrier with an in-flight book that comes out twice a month, is in the fray.
The latest issue of American Way, the carrier’s 350,000-circulation magazine, has the airline’s chief executive Gerard Arpey, making the pitch. Arpey’s editorial, a regular fixture in the magazine, usually talks about things such as how airlines are trying to help the environment and other industry issues, but this piece is a little more pointed.
Because of the way the system now operates, Arpey argues, private aviation does not pay its way while commercial airlines pay more than their far share. “What that means as crazy as it sounds, is that the airlines and our customers (that’s you!) are paying a subsidy – to the tune of $1.5 billion a year – to the companies and individuals who can afford their own aircraft”. Arpey goes on to urge passengers to write to their legislators in Washington. UAL’s chief executive, Glenn Tilton, made a similar plea in an email blast sent to United’s frequent flyers.
Now general aviation is fighting back, with the National Business Aviation Association, the Washington trade group for the ‘heavy metal’ operators of the Fortune 500 list of big corporations as well as smaller businesses that fly their own planes, screaming bloody murder. 
The trade group’s president and chief executive, Ed Bolen, denounce these “efforts to deceive frequent flyers into supporting the airlines’ plan to shift billions of costs onto general aviation and introduce new user fees for system funding.” The main group for private pilots, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, is urging its 412,000 members to print out a counterpoint editorial and insert that in seat backs, preferably right next to the in-flight book’s editorial, Some others in the general aviation community, a group that is noted for its pointed rough-and-rugged approach, have pointed out that the in-flight magazines are in the seatbacks “right next to the in-flight nausea bags, which is where they belong”.
on July 19, 2007 5:12 PM | Reply
The level of the ATA is defined by the association's use of the image of Edna (although she does look a little like ATA's president in drag). Substance does not work so try vituperation.
Any economist will tell you that the ATA cost analysis is supercilious. The size of the system is 100% dictated by the needs/demands of scheduled airlines to push back 50-100 flights at their hubs at the 3-5 peaks that they offer a day. The staffing, radars, computers, communication systems, nav components, etc. are all designed to meet ATA's market needs.
Jim May's logic is a bout as strong as Edna's beehive when subjected to the strong wind of reason.
on July 19, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply
I agree wholeheartedly with Ex FAA regarding the ATA's position. Yes, I am a Commercially rated pilot and own 2 general aviation aircraft. In no way am I rich as the airlines like to insist. And rest assured I have never received preference in takeoff position as their cartoon implies. That is simply a blatant lie.
What I'm really curious about is why certain senators, (Lott and Rockefeller) believe the airlines deserve to pay ZERO tax on their fuel. I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.
Again, contrary to what ATA wants you to believe, I'm all for improving the FAA navigation/control systems, and I'm all for paying for it using fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are a really simple to administer way to pay as you go. Rates can easily be adjusted as needed to cover the costs of the system. Even the Government Accounting Office (GAO) studies show fuel taxes are easy to administer and provide all the needed revenue. Why is that such a problem?
Oh yes, the airlines, who got taxpayer bailouts after 9/11, get to cancel their employee pension programs, get taxpayer bailouts from their bankruptcies due to inept management, simply want another tax reduction to ZERO.
Please make yourself knowledgeable about the facts, not just the ATA's lobbyist hype.
on July 19, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply
I have to agree with the two previous posters. i am one of the "lucky" ones who got the shaft by Delta when my retirement income was cut about 50% and turned over to the PBGC so that the taxpayers could pay the money instead of the company. I also lost my paid medical insurance. Other airlines have done it also and now have the nerve to want more tax breaks. Then I read the other day about the big stock bonuses they paid to a bunch of their top officers. Makes me want to go out and contribute money to buy them another airplane like I did years ago....right!! I fly my own airplane for personal and recreational use and the airlines now want me to pay big bucks when I fly, even though I don't use ATC. The air traffic control system is set up for the airlines and probably 95% of its use is by the airlines. Every country that has charged user fees has just about killed General Aviation, which is the life blood of most of this country's small communities. I hope the people of Mississippi rebel against Trent Lott and I hope they remove his name from the General Aviation airport at Pascagoula. Then he and Rockefellow have the nerve to THREATEN citizens of this country that they supposedly are supposed to be working for. I think they may have their hands in the airline's money pocket.