I woke up this morning to my clock radio blaring the news. In my half-groggy state, I thought I heard that the Feds were considering doubling the 9/11 security fee from $2.50/segment to $5.00 per segment, and that the announcement could come "as early as today." I have not been able to confirm this from any other news source. I was pretty out of it this morning, but I don't think I would imagine something like this. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Paying $20 in extra fees on top of taxes and PFCs is outrageous. Short haul flyers will be paying something like 40% of their fare in non-fare graft.

Page A6 of the May 7th Washington Post. Here's a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002May6.html

Also, in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...curity-fee.htm

Send a letter to Congress NOW voicing your displeasure:

http://www.yourcongress.com/quick*****.asp

Sorry, didn't realize that the word would blank out - it's a not so nice word for complaint or a female dog.

And they are wondering why people don't enjoy flying anymore??

[This message has been edited by ldsant (edited 05-07-2002).]

I agree. What have they been using the taxes and PFCs for during all these years?

i'm thinking they used 'em to:

A. make the budget look balanced

b. build food courts

other than that, i'm stumped as well.

When this tax creep was done to car rentals and hotels, I thought it was cheating. Left unchecked, see how it's now invading airfares?

OK, so how many of you have now contacted/emailed/phoned your congresspeople re: this proposed act? At least DO SOMETHING instead of just posting here. It may make a difference.

I think we need to emphasize that it's unfair to load the entire cost on passengers. Consider: if the terrorists targeted pre-schools, would Congress demand that parents pay extra taxes to cover security? If they targeted hospitals would we tax the patients? I think not.

The fact is that, regardless of the target, the additional security (leaving aside questions of its effectiveness) is a burden of national defense, and should be paid for out of that budget.

My personal opinion is that pre-September security is more than adequate to the post-September threat. The crucial difference is that we know better than to sit still for a hijacking. I'd rather see the feds cut all the extra funding and the taxes and the lines, but I suppose that's politically impossible.

Amen!!! This additional "random security" is a WASTE!

http://www.house.gov/writerep/ (Contact your Representative)

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm (Contact your Senators)



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Looks like Dick Armey will kill the idea of doubling the tax. Below is from yesterday's CCH tax news:


A supplemental appropriations bill under consideration by House Republicans would double an airplane ticket tax to fund aviation security costs, according to John Scofield, a Republican staffer with the House Appropriations Committee.

The unnumbered, untitled bill is scheduled for a mark-up by the House Appropriations Committee on May 9. It would spend $27.8 billion in additional funding for a number of programs, including $15.8 billion for national defense and $5.8 billion for homeland security.

At press time, the bill would also double the Passenger Security Fee on airline tickets from $2.50 to $5 per enplanement, not to exceed $10 per one- way trip. The increase would generate $150 million in fiscal year (FY) 2002 and $1.8 billion in FY 2003 to help fund aviation security, according to a House Appropriations Committee press statement.

The Fee was created last year to offset the expenses of the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA). At current levels it will raise $1.25 billion in FY 2002 while the TSA will cost $7.1 billion.

House Republican leaders oppose the tax increase. "I don't want it in there," said House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey, R-Texas. The GOP leadership is negotiating with members of the House Appropriations Committee over the provision, he said. Earlier this week a House Republican staffer told CCH that the tax hike would not remain in the bill due to House leadership opposition.

ATA Response
Air Transport Association president and CEO Carol Hallett noted that the proposal "could not have come at a more critical time for airlines and their passengers. The airline industry remains in dire financial condition and at serious risk of a major financial failure that could have a devastating impact on the broader economy." She added that neither the airlines nor passengers can afford it, and urged its rejection.

The ATA noted the "disproportionate" share of taxes paid by airline passengers by comparing selected federal consumption taxes as a percentage of purchase price. For example, consumption taxes are 11% for a bottle of rum, 18% for a pack of cigarettes, but 44% for a $100 airline ticket.