Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees	 
(12-MAR-04, GAO-04-406R).					 
                                                                 
For 2001 through the third quarter of 2003, the U.S. airline	 
industry reported operating losses of $20.7 billion. A number of 
factors--including the economic slowdown, a shift in business	 
travel buying behavior, and the aftermath of the September 11,	 
2001, terrorist attacks--contributed to these losses by reducing 
passenger and cargo volumes and depressing fares. To improve	 
their financial position, many airlines cut costs by various	 
means, notably by reducing labor expenditures and by decreasing  
capacity through cutting flight frequencies, using smaller	 
aircraft, or eliminating service to some communities. Carriers	 
have also reduced some airfares to encourage travel. Despite	 
these efforts, several airlines filed for bankruptcy protection. 
It remains to be seen when the industry will emerge from this	 
downturn. In response to the industry's financial condition,	 
Congress has provided several forms of financial relief. In	 
September 2001, Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and
System Stabilization Act, which authorized payments of up to $4.5
billion in pretax cash assistance to reimburse air carriers for  
losses incurred as a direct result of the 4-day government	 
shut-down of air traffic and incremental losses stemming from the
terrorist attacks and also authorized up to $10 billion in loan  
guarantees to help airlines gain emergency access to capital. In 
January 2002, Congress appropriated $100 million for new or	 
modified cockpit doors on commercial aircraft to improve security
of the flight deck. In the fiscal year 2003 supplemental	 
appropriations act, Congress appropriated $2.4 billion in	 
security cost relief for airlines. To provide information to	 
Congress for its continuing deliberations about whether and, if  
so, how to provide additional help to the airline industry, we	 
reviewed the payments of major commercial aviation taxes and fees
over the last 5 years. The federal government levies or approves 
various taxes and fees on the commercial aviation industry. These
taxes and fees generally are levied as a percentage of the base  
ticket price or are assessed at a flat rate per occurrence (e.g.,
per departure or passenger enplanement). The revenues from these 
taxes and fees support various aspects of the civil aviation	 
system--including operation of the air traffic control system,	 
modernization of airport facilities, and support of aviation	 
security related activities. As requested, we focused on the	 
following research questions: (1) What are the major commercial  
aviation taxes and fees, how much is collected annually, and how 
are the proceeds used? (2) How did changes in aviation tax and	 
fee collections compare with changes in the industry's operating 
revenues and expenses from 1998 through 2002? (3) How has the	 
total amount of aviation taxes and fees paid varied among	 
carriers? (4) In the two instances since 1996 when an aviation	 
tax or fee was not collected, how did airfares change?		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-406R					        
    ACCNO:   A09510						        
  TITLE:     Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and
Fees								 
     DATE:   03/12/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Airline industry					 
	     Commercial aviation				 
	     Federal taxes					 
	     Fees						 
	     Financial management				 
	     Government collections				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-406R

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

March 12, 2004

The Honorable John McCain
Chairman
The Honorable Ernest Hollings
Ranking Member
Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Trent Lott
Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

Subject: Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees

For 2001 through the third quarter of 2003, the U.S. airline industry
reported operating losses of $20.7 billion. A number of factors-including
the economic slowdown, a shift in business travel buying behavior, and the
aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks-contributed to
these losses by reducing passenger and cargo volumes and depressing fares.
To improve their financial position, many airlines cut costs by various
means, notably by reducing labor expenditures and by decreasing capacity
through cutting flight frequencies, using smaller aircraft, or eliminating
service to some communities. Carriers have also reduced some airfares to
encourage travel. Despite these efforts, several airlines filed for
bankruptcy protection. It remains to be seen when the industry will emerge
from this downturn.

In response to the industry's financial condition, Congress has provided
several forms of financial relief. In September 2001, Congress passed the
Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,1 which authorized
payments of up to $4.5 billion in pretax cash assistance to reimburse air
carriers for losses incurred as a direct result of the 4-day government
shut-down of air traffic and incremental losses stemming

1P.L. 107-42.

                      GAO-04-406R Aviation Taxes and Fees

from the terrorist attacks and also authorized up to $10 billion in loan
guarantees to help airlines gain emergency access to capital.2 In January
2002, Congress appropriated $100 million for new or modified cockpit doors
on commercial aircraft to improve security of the flight deck.3 In the
fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations act, Congress appropriated
$2.4 billion in security cost relief for airlines.4

To provide information to Congress for its continuing deliberations about
whether and, if so, how to provide additional help to the airline
industry, you asked us to review the payments of major commercial aviation
taxes and fees over the last 5 years. The federal government levies or
approves various taxes and fees on the commercial aviation industry. These
taxes and fees generally are levied as a percentage of the base ticket
price or are assessed at a flat rate per occurrence (e.g., per departure
or passenger enplanement). The revenues from these taxes and fees support
various aspects of the civil aviation system-including operation of the
air traffic control system, modernization of airport facilities, and
support of aviation security related activities. As requested, we focused
on the following research questions: (1) What are the major commercial
aviation taxes and fees, how much is collected annually, and how are the
proceeds used? (2) How did changes in aviation tax and fee collections
compare with changes in the industry's operating revenues and expenses
from 1998 through 2002? (3) How has the total amount of aviation taxes and
fees paid varied among carriers? (4) In the two instances since 1996 when
an aviation tax or fee was not collected, how did airfares change?

2As of December 1, 2003, the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, the
entity created under P.L. 10742 to administer the loan guarantee program,
had approved at least $1.2 billion in loan guarantees for seven airlines,
including America West, ATA Airlines, and US Airways.

3Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act,
2002, P.L. 107-117. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) distributed
$97 million of this amount to U.S. airlines (about $13,000 per door).

4The Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, P.L.
108-11 (the act). Under the act, TSA was appropriated about $2.3 billion
to be remitted to U.S. flag carriers in the proportional share each
carrier had paid or collected as of April 16, 2003, in passenger security
and air carrier security fees-a pretax reimbursement of security costs and
foregone revenues. The act also suspended collections of both security
fees (the September 11 passenger fee for security and the aviation
security infrastructure fee) for tickets sold during the last 4 months of
fiscal year 2003; extended the War Risk Insurance Program-which provides
insurance coverage for aircraft operations that are deemed essential to
the foreign policy interests of the United States when commercial
insurance is unavailable on reasonable terms-until the end of fiscal year
2004; granted a 26-week extension of unemployment benefits for laid-off
airline workers; and included $100 million to compensate air carriers for
costs associated with reinforcing flight deck doors and locks. On May 16,
2003, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) distributed $2.3
billion to 66 U.S. air carriers. To receive a share of the funds, nine
carriers were required to sign agreements limiting their top two
executives' compensation. These nine included the following seven airlines
we included in this study: American, ATA Airlines, Continental, Delta,
Northwest, United, and US Airways. We did not include the other two
carriers-Planet Airways and World Airways-in this study because they do
not provide scheduled passenger service. The $100 million for reinforcing
flight deck doors was distributed to 58 carriers on September 24, 2003.

To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed aviation tax and fee
collection data for 1998 through 2002 from several federal agencies
responsible for collecting and tracking the data, along with payment data
from 12 airlines; analyzed Department of Transportation (DOT) data on the
industry's operating revenues, expenses, and fares; reviewed the results
of studies examining variations in the amount of taxes and fees paid by
carriers and passengers; and analyzed fare changes in several markets
after taxes lapsed or fees were suspended. This report addresses only
certain of the taxes and fees paid by commercial passenger airlines and
their customers. It excludes, for example, all corporate taxes and some
fees that are paid to airports (e.g., landing fees). In addition, this
report does not address non-U.S. commercial aviation taxes and fees. All
dollar figures related to the analysis of taxes and fees are expressed in
constant 2002 dollars. For more information on our scope and methodology
and the steps we took to ensure data reliability, see pages 10 to 11. We
conducted our review from February 2003 through February 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Summary

On October 31, 2003, we briefed your Committee staff on the preliminary
results of this work. This report summarizes the information presented in
that briefing. Enclosure I contains the finalized slides from that
briefing. Enclosure II contains 2002 tax and fee payment data for 10 of
the air carriers in this study.5

In summary:

o  	In 2002, the collections from 13 major commercial aviation taxes and
fees- including the ticket tax and passenger fee for security-totaled
about $12.6 billion. These collections finance aviation infrastructure,
including air traffic control, and services provided to the industry, such
as security inspections. Collections did not cover all government aviation
expenditures in 2002. For example, the taxes covered about 92 percent of
the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 2002 budget; the general fund
covered the remainder.

o  	For 1998 through 2002, tax and fee collections rose in absolute terms
and as a percentage of industry revenues and expenses. Collections of
taxes and fees rose more than 15 percent during this period. Particularly
after 2000, when industry revenues and expenses fell significantly, taxes
and fees increased as a percentage of revenues and expenses. Similarly,
because base airfares declined from 1998 through 2002, taxes and fees in
2002 accounted for a larger share of carriers' average annual airfares.

5Two carriers, JetBlue and Northwest, did not permit us to release their
data.

o  	The total amount of taxes and fees paid by carriers in 2002 varied,
largely based on passenger volume and the type of service provided.
Additionally, according to a recent study by a team of researchers from
the Global Airline Industry Program of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) and from Daniel Webster College,6 the share of taxes and
fees included in the final ticket price in the second quarter of 2002
varied by carrier type (e.g., low cost), trip length, and ticket price.
This study (henceforth the "MIT study") found that taxes and fees paid
directly by air travelers added 15.5 percent, on average, to the cost of
tickets sold during that quarter.

o  	During the 1996 ticket tax lapse and 2003 security fee holiday,
carriers generally raised "base" airfares (i.e., airfares net of taxes and
fees) compared with what they were in periods before the absence of the
tax or fee. The effect of this to consumers was to maintain or increase
gross fares. These fare increases were more moderate in markets where a
low-cost carrier (e.g., Southwest) was operating and among leisure
travelers.

Taxes and Fees Offset Some Federal Costs to Provide Aviation
Infrastructure and Services

The 13 major commercial aviation taxes and fees fall into three main
groups- transportation taxes, user fees, and passenger facility charges
(PFC)-each of which is used to finance aviation infrastructure (e.g.,
airports, air traffic control) or services provided to the industry (e.g.,
security inspections, customs inspections). (See table 1.) Some of these
taxes and fees apply only to the international portions of trips. (See
slides 6 to 7.)

6"The Impact of Infrastructure-Related Taxes and Fees on Domestic Airline
Fares in the United States," Amedeo Odoni, MIT; Shiro Yamanaka, MIT; and
Joakim Karlsson, Daniel Webster College, Working Paper, December 2003
(under review for publication in the Journal of Air Transport Management).
This study estimated the effective tax rate on airfares. The study defined
the effective tax rate as the percentage by which the base fare charged
for a trip increased as a result of total taxes and fees paid directly by
air travelers.

Table 1: Major Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees and 2002 Collections

                                                                      FY 2002 
                                                               Collections ($ 
    Type              Specific charges                 Purpose      billions) 
                                       Finance the Airport and                
                                       Airway Trust Fund, a    
                                       which funds the Airport 
            o  Passenger ticket  o     Improvement Program     
Taxes Passenger segment  o  Waybill (AIP) and significant             $8.6
           (cargo)  o  International   portions of FAA         
          departure/arrival  o  Fuel   operations, including   
         (commercial aviation jet)  o  air traffic control and 
                Rural airports         other items             
            o  Animal and Plant Health                                        
            Inspection Service (APHIS)                         
              passenger inspection  o                          
         APHIS aircraft inspection  o  Finance inspections and 
Feesb        Customs inspection  o  other services provided           $2.1
                       Immigration and to the industry         
          Naturalization Service (INS)                         
          inspection  o  Passenger fee                         
                for security c  o  Air                         
             carrier fee for securityc                         
PFCsd  o  Local tax assessed with         Fund FAA-approved           $1.9 
               federal approval        airportrelated projects 

Source: GAO.

Note: Charges shown underscored apply only to the international portions
of trips. In this review, all taxes and fees except PFCs are reported on a
fiscal-year basis. The passenger segment and international
departures/arrivals taxes are indexed to inflation and increased slightly
in January 2004.

aFor more information about the status of the trust fund, see U.S. General
Accounting Office, Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Financial Outlook Is
Positive, but the Trust Fund's Balance Would Be Affected If Taxes Were
Suspended, GAO-03-979 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003).

bThe Customs Service and parts of APHIS and INS are now incorporated into
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We did not analyze payments of
the overflight fees since primarily operators of non-U.S. aircraft pay
this fee, which partially funds the Essential Air Service program.

cIn P.L. 108-11, Congress suspended collection of these fees from June 1,
2003, through September 30, 2003; the fees were reinstated on October 1,
2003.

dPFCs are not federal fees; however, we included them in this analysis
because similar analyses (e.g., those done by the Air Transport
Association and MIT) have included them, and PFCs are a significant source
of funds for aviation infrastructure. As of February 1, 2004, 312
locations were collecting PFCs.

In fiscal year 2002, collections of these taxes and fees totaled nearly
$12.6 billion ($1.3 billion of which comprised security fee payments from
U.S. and foreign carriers); however, these funds did not equal all
government expenditures for aviation-related infrastructure and services.
For example, security fee collections equaled about 22 percent of the
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) $5.8 billion budget
authority, most of which was directed to aviation security. Trust fund
collections (ticket tax, fuel tax, etc.) covered 91.6 percent of FAA's
$13.5 billion budget authority.7 Security fees collected were required to
be credited against

7FAA's budget authority also included $28 million from overflight fees,
which comprised less than 1 percent of the agency's total budget for 2002.

appropriations and returned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury as
offsetting collections. (See slides 8 to 9.)

Tax and Fee Collections Rose Although the Airline Industry Experienced
Revenue and Expense Declines after 2000

From 1998 through 2002, collections of 13 commercial aviation taxes and
fees increased, although the airline industry's revenues and expenses
decreased after 2000; as a result, taxes and fees rose as a percentage of
the industry's revenues and expenses. Tax and fee collections increased
from about $10.9 billion in 1998 to about $12.6 billion in 2002 (15.6
percent). However, as the aviation industry responded to a unique
combination of challenges-terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, an economic
recession, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the outbreak of severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Asia-revenues declined and, to a lesser
extent, expenses decreased. Total revenues dropped 20.8 percent between
2000 and 2002 as passenger traffic and fares decreased. As revenues
plummeted, carriers attempted drastic expense reductions. Industry
expenses decreased nearly 10 percent between 2000 and 2002. Because of
these decreases in revenues and expenses, taxes and fees rose from 8.9 to
11.8 percent of the industry's revenues and from 9.7 to 10.9 percent of
the industry's expenses between 1998 and 2002. Taxes and fees also
increased as a percentage of the carriers' average domestic fares during
this period for 10 of the airlines we studied, primarily because carriers
reduced their fares. (See slides 10 to 16.)

The Air Transport Association (ATA), the industry trade group that
represents 26 cargo and passenger carriers, argues that taxes and fees
have risen significantly over time. ATA's analysis suggests that taxes and
fees increased 76 percent between 1992 and 2002. ATA estimated that the
tax and fee share of a $200 single-connection, domestic round-trip
ticket-where the maximum possible PFC was levied-would have increased from
$29 in 1992 (15 percent) to $51 in 2002 (25.6 percent). ATA officials
characterized the level of federal aviation taxes and fees as a
significant encumbrance on the financial performance of the industry, in
large part because the industry at present lacks the pricing power to pass
on such taxes and fees to

8

consumers. Our analysis of this issue as well as current levels of
taxation follows. (See slide 17.)

8In response to the financial distress that the airline industry
experienced in the early 1990s, Congress created the National Commission
to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry (the Commission) to
investigate and study the financial condition of the airline industry, the
adequacy of competition in the airline industry, and legal impediments to
a financially strong and competitive airline industry (P.L. 102-581, as
amended, P.L. 103-13). Among other things, Congress directed the
Commission specifically to investigate and study whether changes were
needed in the legal and administrative policies that govern the taxes and
user fees imposed on U.S. airlines. The Commission's August 1993 report
included several recommendations to lessen the tax burden on the industry,
including rolling back the ticket tax and cargo waybill tax increases
authorized by Congress in 1990.

Tax and Fee Payments Vary by Passenger Volume, Service, and Fares

The total amount of taxes and fees paid by carriers varies, largely based
on passenger volume and the type of service provided. For example, our
analysis of 2002 payments by 10 airlines showed that airlines enplaning
more passengers generally remitted more taxes and fees to the government.
Variations in carriers' tax and fee payments are also attributable to
other service factors, such as how many segments are flown, whether
international service is provided, or how much cargo is transported. (See
slides 19 and 32 to 41.)

The amount of taxes and fees also varies according to carrier type (e.g.,
low cost), the total amount of airfares, and trip length. A study by the
Global Airline Industry Program at MIT found that, as a percentage of
ticket prices, taxes and fees were higher for passengers who purchased
tickets on low-cost carriers (e.g., Southwest) or who purchased
lower-priced tickets in general. According to the study, the average tax
share for tickets purchased on low-cost carriers was 17.1 percent (based
on a total average fare of $198.17-i.e., tax- and fee-inclusive), compared
with 14.6 percent (based on a total average fare of $335.67) for tickets
purchased on six major carriers. By fare group, the average tax share for
fares up to $200 was 22.3 percent, while the average tax share for fares
from $200.01 to $400 was 16.4 percent. Thereafter, according to the study,
the tax share decreased as fares increased. (See slides 20 to 22.)

Further, in contrast to ATA's widely disseminated estimate that the tax
share of a final $200 fare is 25.6 percent (or $51),9 the MIT study
estimated that the actual average tax share for tickets purchased during
the second quarter of 2002 was 15.5 percent, or $44.88 of the average
domestic fare of $289.96. (See slide 23.) To gain some perspective on how
the effective tax rate may have changed over time, the study estimated
that the overall effective tax rate in the second quarter of 1993 (when
the only taxes and fees applied to airline tickets were the federal ticket
tax and any applicable passenger facility charges) was 10.9 percent,
significantly less than the overall estimated 15.5 percent in effect in
the second quarter of 2002. This significant increase in the effective tax
rate was due primarily to a sharp decline in the price of the average
round-trip domestic base fare, which dropped from $389.57 (adjusted to
2002 prices) in 1993 to $289.96 in 2002. The average amount charged for
taxes and fees in 1993 was $42.44 (adjusted to 2002 prices) versus $44.88
in 2002, a real increase of 5.7 percent.

9The ATA's estimate begins with the total ticket price (including taxes
and fees) of $200 for a singleconnection, domestic round trip; to derive
the base fare, it then deducts a $4.50 PFC per segment, $2.50 passenger
fee for security per segment, the 7.5 percent passenger ticket tax, and
the $3.00 domestic passenger segment tax. This estimate has been
highlighted by ATA in various publications, such as "Airlines in Crisis:
The Perfect Economic Storm." ATA depicts other tax/fee scenarios on its
Web site at www.airlines.org.

When the Ticket Tax and Security Fee Were Not Collected, Carriers Raised
Certain Fares

In the two instances since 1996 in which Congress allowed the ticket tax
to lapse and suspended the security fees, carriers generally raised "base"
airfares (i.e., airfares net of taxes and fees), compared with what they
were in periods before the absence of the tax or fee. To passengers, the
final gross ticket price was generally the same or higher compared with
prior periods. These fare increases were more moderate in markets
containing a low-cost carrier than in markets where one was not present.
Although we do not know the precise reasons for these fare increases, it
may be that carriers were, in part, attempting to "capture" at least some
of the revenue associated with the absent tax or fee that would normally
have been remitted to the government. Carriers alter their fares in
response to many factors, and more rigorous analysis would be needed to
isolate the effect of each factor. Therefore, we cannot exclude other
exogenous factors from accounting for these changes in base fares. That
is, it is possible that the fare changes that occurred in these two
instances may have been the result of factors other than the absence of a
tax or fee and the presence or absence of low-cost carriers, such as
changing economic and competitive conditions in those markets.10

o  	Our summary analysis of airfare changes in four markets11 when the
10-percent passenger ticket tax was allowed to lapse for about 8 months in
1996 indicated that carriers generally increased their average base fares,
compared with fares in effect in prior periods. To consumers, the average
gross fares would appear to have stayed the same or increased.12 For
example, in the New York-Chicago and Billings-Minneapolis/St. Paul
markets, where no low-cost carriers were operating, carriers raised their
average base fares by as much as 52 percent over the average fares they
had charged in the same period during the previous year. By comparison, in
two markets with service from low-cost carriers, the average base fare
increases were less than in the markets without a low-cost carrier. For
example, in the Las Vegas-Los Angeles market, in which a lowcost carrier
competed against two network airlines, all carriers raised their average
base fares at some point during the tax lapse, but no one raised them

10Although it may appear that carriers succeeded in "capturing" these
revenues when the taxes or fees were not in effect, the extent to which
carriers may or may not have done so is uncertain, because the carriers'
various possible pricing options are not known. In addition, analyses of
fare changes based on year-over-year analysis of quarterly data are less
conclusive, because of the large number of factors that can influence fare
levels over longer periods of time. For additional information on airline
pricing, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Competition:
Restricting Airline Ticketing Rules Unlikely to Help Consumers, GAO-01-831
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001).

11We actually studied 13 markets, but for illustration purposes, we
included results from only 4 markets-representing a low-cost, business,
leisure, and dominated market-in the briefing. The results from the
remaining nine markets were generally consistent with these four.

12For purposes of this analysis, "base fares" represent the value of the
airfare net of the ticket tax. For example, if the total value of a ticket
were $400, the base fare would be $363.64 ($400 minus the 10percent ticket
tax, or $36.36). (The current ticket tax rate is 7.5 percent.)

over 15 percent. Similarly, the presence of a low-cost carrier in the Los
Angeles-San Francisco market appeared to moderate the extent of the
increases in average base fares. After the tax was reinstated, most
carriers increased these average base fares in these four markets
(compared with the average base fares in effect during the fourth quarter
of 1995), but not to the same extent as when the tax initially lapsed.13
(See slides 25 to 29.) In addition, when the tax had lapsed, carriers
generally raised average fares more (in both absolute and relative terms)
on "business" passengers than they did

14

on "leisure" passengers.

o  	When Congress gave the industry a temporary holiday from security fees
by suspending collection of the fees from June 1 through September 30,
2003, carriers also increased their base fares, which would be consistent
with them capturing the tax.15 In an analysis of week-over-week changes in
fares offered by seven carriers in each of their 20 largest passenger
markets, Harrell Associates-an industry consulting firm that specializes
in airfare benchmarking-found that, when carriers were no longer required
to add the security fee on top of their fares, carriers raised base
"business fares" they offered by the amount of the security surcharge in
over 80 percent of those markets.16 After the security fee was reimposed
beginning in October 2003, carriers generally did not restore those base
fares to their prior lower levels. For example, if an airline charged a
base "business fare" of $447 for a one-way flight between point A and
point C over point B the week before the holiday, raised that fare to $452
for the same ticket once the holiday began, and left the fare at $452 when
the holiday was over, it would appear to have captured the $5 security
surcharge. Harrell Associates' data indicate that carriers were able to
effectively capture the security fee on business fares, but not to the
same degree on leisure fares, in most markets. We interpret this as an
indication that, because of greater competition for leisure passengers,
airlines were forced to relinquish potential revenue on some routes. (See
slide 30.)

13In addition to not controlling for exogenous factors that could have
affected fare changes during this period, our use of quarterly data in
determining what fare changes occurred also make it difficult to isolate
the effect of the tax on the fare changes observed.

14Airline ticket data do not indicate whether passengers are traveling for
business or leisure purposes. To simplify our analysis, we assumed that
travelers purchasing cheaper tickets were leisure travelers and those who
purchased more expensive tickets-often fares available at the last
minute-were business travelers.

15In a final rule on the security fee holiday, TSA interpreted the act
(P.L. 108-11) to prohibit it from collecting the aviation security
infrastructure fee (the "air carrier fee for security") from airlines and
from requiring passengers to pay the September 11 Security Fee (the
"passenger fee for security") if they purchased air transportation during
the suspension period.

16Carriers included in the analysis are America West, American,
Continental, Delta, Northwest, United, and US Airways. Domestic "business
fares" are coach fares offered by carriers with three conditions: an
advance purchase requirement of less than 3 days, fully refundable, and no
minimum stay requirement. "Leisure fares" are restricted and include a
longer advance purchase requirement, a required Saturday-night stay, and a
financial penalty for changes or cancellations.

Concluding Observations

The commercial aviation taxes and fees we reviewed were all enacted to
support the infrastructure and operation of the nation's aviation system.
With the cyclical nature of the industry, these taxes have in recent years
risen higher than in prior years as a percentage of airline revenues and
expenses. This has certainly been the case since September 11, 2001, when
the terrorist attacks and the ongoing economic downturn jeopardized the
viability of the industry. Additional security fees and requirements were
imposed on the industry, although they were offset by the government's
assumption of many aviation security responsibilities as well as the
security fee holiday and other governmental assistance. Furthermore, even
though total collections of these taxes and fees have risen since 1998,
the collections do not always cover the government's costs of providing
aviation-related services. Indications are that the 2003 security fee
"holiday" was financially positive for carriers, because they appear to
have been able to retain revenues-on some fares- that would have
ordinarily been remitted to the government. However, the overall effect of
the holiday was limited by the amount of revenues carriers were able to
retain-since carriers, for competitive reasons, may not have been able to
capture the potential revenue from the fee on some routes.

Scope and Methodology

To identify major commercial aviation taxes and fees, how the proceeds are
used, and the amount of annual collections, we reviewed Congressional
Research Service and ATA studies of aviation taxes and fees as well as
DOT, Office of Management and Budget, and agency data on collections. We
also examined laws and regulations implementing the taxes and fees. To
determine how changes in tax and fee collections compare with changes in
industry revenues and expenses, we analyzed data from ATA and various
federal agencies that collect these fees, in addition to DOT data on
industry revenues and expenses. To determine how tax and fee payments vary
among carriers, we analyzed tax and fee payment data from eight major and
four low-cost carriers (AirTran, Alaska, America West, American, ATA
Airlines, Continental, Delta, JetBlue, Northwest, Southwest, United, and
US Airways) from 1998 to 2002.17 We also reviewed the results of a recent
study from MIT's Global Airline Industry Program. To determine how
airfares changed when a tax or fee was not collected, we analyzed changes
in average quarterly base airfares charged by individual carriers in 13
markets for the quarters before, during, and after the 1996 lapse of the
passenger ticket tax, including the four markets illustrated in the
briefing--Billings-Minneapolis/St. Paul, Las Vegas-Los Angeles, New
York-Chicago, and Los Angeles-San Francisco. We judgmentally selected
these markets to illustrate differences in competition in business and
leisure markets, with and without the competitive presence of low-cost
airlines and to include a small community and a

                       17JetBlue began operating in 2000.

dominated market.18 The results from these markets cannot be generalized
to the industry as a whole. We also reviewed trade literature to determine
whether there had been any analyses of airfare changes relating to the
2003 security fee holiday. As a result of this review, we obtained and
reviewed data from Harrell Associates related to their analysis of
week-over-week airfare changes at the onset and conclusion of the 2003
security fee holiday. Because of data reporting delays, this was the only
available analysis of fare changes related to the security fee holiday.

We performed various tests of reliability to each set of data analyzed.
For data obtained from airlines or their trade association, since these
data are proprietary, we were unable to independently verify them because
we have no authority to require access to the underlying data. However, we
applied logical tests to the data and found no obvious errors of
completeness or accuracy. For data obtained from federal agencies
(including data on airfares reported by individual carriers to DOT), we
discussed their quality assurance policies and procedures with relevant
officials. Along with our use of corroborating evidence, we believe that
the data we used were sufficiently reliable.

Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) for their review and comment. DOT and DHS provided some
technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated where appropriate.
We also provided selected portions of a draft of this report to the
Internal Revenue Service, airlines, and other groups cited to verify the
presentation of factual material. We incorporated their technical
clarifications as appropriate.

                                      ----

18We defined "dominated market" as a city-pair market in which a single
airline provides more than 50 percent of the available seating capacity.

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan
no further
distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At
that time, we
will provide copies to relevant congressional committees and other
interested parties
and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you
have any
questions about this report, please contact me or Steve Martin at
202-512-2834. Other
key contributors to this assignment were Janet Frisch, Stan Stenersen,
Rich Swayze,
and Pamela Vines.

JayEtta Z. Hecker
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Enclosures

Enclosure I Briefing Slides

       Tax or fee               2004 Rate                      Use            
                            7.5% of domestic ticket  Airport and Airway Trust 
      Passenger ticket                        price                      Fund 
                          $3.10 per domestic flight  Airport and Airway Trust 
    Passenger segmenta                      segment                      Fund 
                         6.25% of the price charged  Airport and Airway Trust 
               Waybill    for transporting cargo by                      Fund 
                                                air 
      Fuel (commercial                               Airport and Airway Trust 
                  jet)                $0.043/gallon                      Fund 
                        7.5% on domestic tickets to  Airport and Airway Trust 
        Rural airports     qualified rural airports                      Fund 
                            exempt from segment tax 
     Passenger fee for $2.50 per enplanement and                          TSA 
             securityb maximum $5 per one-way trip  
Air carrier fee for Based on carriers' costs for                       TSA 
             securityb             security in 2000 
                               Maximum of $4.50 per                           
    Passenger facility   enplaned passenger and $18 Airport-related projects; 
          charge (PFC)               per round trip federal approval required

           Tax or fee                   2004 Rate                 Use         
                 International             $13.70 for each Airport and Airway 
    departures/arrivals taxesa international departure and         Trust Fund 
                                                   arrival 
            INS inspection fee             $7 per arriving                INS 
                                   international passenger 
                                      $5 per international                    
                                  passenger (not collected 
Customs inspection fee      from passengers originating    Customs Service
                                in Mexico, Canada, or U.S. 
                                              territories) 
                                        $3.10 per arriving                    
       Animal and Plant Health     international passenger         APHIS/U.S. 
    Inspection Service (APHIS)         (not collected from      Department of 
      passenger inspection fee   passengers originating in Agriculture (USDA)
                                                   Canada) 
                                    $65.25 per aircraft on                    
                               international arrivals (not 
     APHIS commercial aircraft     collected from aircraft         APHIS/USDA
                inspection fee    operating solely between 
                                     the United States and 
                                                   Canada) 

Enclosure II Taxes and Fees Paid by 10 Airlines, 1998-2002

(544066) Page 53 GAO-04-406R Aviation Taxes and Fees

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of

GAO's Mission 	Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

                  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***