Passenger Traffic is Steadily Increasing --

• In 1998, there were approximately 640 million domestic passenger enplanements. The FAA projects that in less than a decade, that number will grow to over 1 billion enplanements annually, which would require the equivalent of 10 new airports the size of Dallas/Ft. Worth, Atlanta Hartsfield, or Chicago O'Hare.
• On average, capital development projects take five to seven years to complete. Airports must begin working now to increase capacity to meet existing and impending needs.

Existing Resources are not Enough --

• Independent assessments have found that airports have $10 billion in total annual capital needs. This amount does not even take into account future growth.
• Airports now receive between $6 and $7 billion from all funding sources. There is a shortfall of $3 to $4 billion that will continue to grow unless airports can raise additional funds.

Federal Funding is Neither Dependable Nor Adequate --

• Airports are captive to the annual appropriations process' uncertainty and short-term authorizations. In 1999, Congress slashed the appropriations level in half by passing only a six-month reauthorization.
• In past years, the appropriated level for AIP has fallen far short of the authorized level.
• The vagueness of the federal budget process, often driven by non-aviation factors, makes it difficult for airports to plan and execute needed construction.
• Even if AIP were fully funded every year at the authorized level, airport needs would still not be met, particularly those of large hub airports, which enplane nearly 70% of all passengers.

PFCs are a Local Funding Option --

• While clearly unable to meet the growing needs of airports, the federal government is depriving local governments of the ability to meet their own needs.
• PFC revenue is remitted to the airport assessing the fee and is used at that airport to enhance safety, security, capacity, noise mitigation, and competition.
• The PFC is not a federal tax, but a local user fee. Unlike a federal tax, only users of the facility pay the PFC. PFCs are not collected by the federal government, not spent by the federal government, and are never deposited into the federal Treasury.
• Voting to eliminate the $3 federal restriction on the PFC does not raise the amount collected at any airport; it merely gives local governments the authority to decide what is best for their community.
• PFCs are the only type of local government revenue that is capped by the federal government.

The PFC is a Highly Effective Tool for Increasing Competition --

• The PFC is the best airport-funding tool for promoting airline competition, improving service, reducing airfares, and enabling local governments to do what the federal government cannot.
• PFCs enable airports to build facilities such as gates, which are not AIP funded, for new entrants, even when incumbent carriers want to keep new competitors out.
• The National Civil Aeronautics Review Commission (NCARC) found that the current practice of capping the FAA budget and diverting funds from capital improvements to operating expenses will only make matters worse as more and more of the FAA's funds are required just to maintain aging equipment and facilities. Between 1989 and 1997, such diversions reduced funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) from 25% of the FAA budget to just over 15%.
• NCARC also found that the increasing frequency of large jet accidents is unacceptable; without a significant reduction in the accident rate as passenger traffic increases, the number of accidents and fatalities will go up. Solutions will require additional federal resources. According to NCARC, "the importance of adequate resources to meet the needs of aviation safety cannot be overstated." The report continues, "the federal government must maintain a sufficient funding level for aviation safety."
• In a recent study, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that 26% of airport runways are currently at or below the critical pavement condition index level and require rehabilitation. GAO estimates that 50% of runways will require rehabilitation within the next 10 years, including 75% of runways at large and medium hubs. A minimum of $1.38 billion must be spent during the next 10 years to rehabilitate these runways, under the best case assumption that the expenditures occur at the optimal time for rehabilitation. If expenditures were made only as funds become available, the total cost would rise to $1.62 billion since many runways would deteriorate beyond the least-cost repair option. Because GAO surveyed only 1,154 of the 3,331 airports on the national system, the report concluded, "it is likely that the need for rehabilitation funds for all the airports in the system are considerably higher than the amount we could identify."