Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives called for an increase to the cap on Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) in a document released Wednesday. The increased PFC cap would be part of a $30 billion investment in aviation. The document doesn’t specify the amount of the proposed increase, but advocates for the charges to be indexed to inflation going forward.
In its “Moving Forward Framework” plan to address funding needs for aviation, roads, rail, transit and other infrastructure, House Democrats called for an overall transportation and environment investment of $760 billion over five years. The proposed aviation investment is far lower than that proposed for highway and transit programs ($434B), “transformative” transit investments ($105B) and rail ($55B).
The plan, titled “Moving America and the Environment Forward: Funding Our Roads, Transit, Rail, Aviation, Broadband, Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure,” is “an opportunity to get our existing infrastructure working again and fund new transformative projects that will create an estimated 10 million jobs, while reducing carbon pollution, dramatically improving safety, and spurring economic activity.”
Specific to aviation, the framework calls for the PFC cap increase, a move that it says “would allow for increased investment in airports that are at or over capacity with travelers in terminals and increasingly congested with airplanes on runways and taxiways. This revenue would also fund critical landside development projects that are ineligible for AIP funding, help airports prepare for anticipated passenger growth and demand, and ready airport infrastructure for the future impacts of climate change and natural disasters.”
The framework also calls for the creation of a new Airport and Airway Investment program. The new program would focus on investing in modernization projects that enhance airport and airspace capacity, reduce an airport’s carbon footprint or achieve an otherwise significant national or regional objective. The program would also provide additional investment to accelerate completion of the FAA’s airspace modernization program (NextGen) to ensure the safety, efficiency, and reliability of air travel as air traffic increases over the next several years, and thereby reduce aircraft fuel burn, pollution, and noise. The program would be funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
House Democrats said that decades of underinvestment in airport infrastructure have resulted in a ballooning need, now pegged at nearly $130 billion over the next five years, or about $26 billion per year. Federal funding through the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program amounts to about $3.35 billion annually and the current PFC raises about $3.5 billion annually.
“Boosting airport infrastructure funding, investing in 21st-century air traffic control system improvements, and building infrastructure to support the growing fleet of unmanned aircraft would position our aviation system to regain its world-class status while reducing carbon pollution and increasing system capacity,” the document said.
Kevin Burke, president and CEO of Airports Council International – North America, welcomed the support from House Democrats.
“A long-overdue adjustment to the PFC will provide the lift America’s airports need to take off into the future,” Burke said in a statement. “Unlike a $40 bag fee that just pads an airline’s bottom line, a modernized PFC will help our terminally challenged airports make transformative investments in new infrastructure that will improve the passenger experience for millions of travelers. I am particularly thankful for the leadership of Chairman DeFazio, the father of the PFC, for making this one of his top legislative priorities.”
Airlines have long advocated against an increase to the PFC. Trade group Airlines for America issued a statement opposing the House Democrats’ proposal. “We support smart investment in infrastructure to addresses our nation’s real needs,” Nicholas Calio, president and CEO, said in a statement. “Airports simply don’t need more money from taxpayers, and travelers don’t want to pay more taxes. Time and time again, airport directors are unable to name a single improvement project that can’t be completed due to a lack of funding. The truth is that the Passenger Facility Charge is a tax on hardworking families which airports simply do not need. With billions of dollars already pouring into our nation’s airports, fleecing travelers with unnecessary taxes is a bad idea that won’t fly.”
