Landing fees would hurt environment, communities
Proposed landing fee increases would be a step backward for the environment and make vital air transportation less accessible to the flying public. Sen. Julian Cyr’s Senate Bill, S.2305, and its promises to impose a $1,000 fee to land an aircraft in Massachusetts would hurt aviation’s bold efforts to reduce its carbon impact and cause immediate harm to isolated communities that depend on aviation. Climate change is an emergency, but arguing aviation causes 2% of greenhouse emissions does a fantastic job of both ignoring the other 98% of toxic emissions and greenhouse gaslighting voters about the aviation industry’s supersonic flight toward carbon-neutral.
We can tell the truth about the climate crisis without destroying millions of aviation jobs thanks to new engine technologies like Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Companies like Neste and Shell are generating millions of dollars of investment to produce aircraft fuel that ensures a direct flight to carbon neutral.
Landing fees would cancel the flight of investment needed to clean aviation fuels. Much of the demand for sustainable aviation fuels is generated by business aviation users like NetJets, Vista Jet and Signature, who have all signed pledges for sustainable aviation. With the increased landing fees, the cost of flying to Massachusetts would place these eco-friendly businesses on the no-fly list.
The increase would also stunt the adoption of Urban Air Mobility.
Urban air mobility carries the big stick of affordability and sustainability while speaking softly. All-electric, zeroemission aircraft will silently fly passengers on short-haul routes at a fraction of the cost of flight today, making them more accessible and moving us further away from dependence on cars.
The $1,000 fee would make it impossible for anyone besides the wealthiest to land in Massachusetts.
The idea that the 1% are the only individuals who fly is a stereotype that would ground the majority of pilots who are regular people who give back to their community.
During the pandemic, aviators took flight for the sake of front-line health care workers when more than 1.7 million N95 masks were delivered via the New England Patriots’ chartered aircraft.
Other general aviation manufacturers in Massachusetts like Autodyne converted their 3D printers to produce face shields to protect front-line workers.
General aviation in Massachusetts has long been used in environmental missions. Since 2014, organizations like Pilots N Paws have flown dozens of sea turtles from rescue facilities in Massachusetts to Florida.
Sen. Cyr’s bill will stunt the adoption of urban air mobility in Massachusetts by making it impossible for the common person to be able to afford aviation. When regular people can’t afford to fly, the future of aviation infrastructure is at risk, meaning there will be no place to test and develop the urban air mobility platforms that promise to connect the big cities and rural communities without emissions.
Legislation that hurts aviation should be reconsidered when it would hurt the 5,166 people employed by aviation jobs across the commonwealth in its $630 million industry.
Aviation in Massachusetts matters in connecting the commonwealth with the rest of the East Coast.
Local pilots have started a change.org petition that within hours, generated thousands of signatures from ordinary people across the region who would be hurt by the landing fee.
Pilots who volunteer, and businesses that provide air ambulances, can’t afford to use aviation to connect their communities when public infrastructure carries an additional $1,000 fee.
Sen. Cyr is right to be bold, but if aviation is to change our climate for the better we must find a different way. The commonwealth cannot afford to isolate the front-line workers who depend on aviation while simultaneously disincentivizing sustainable aviation investments.
Investments in sustainable aviation to make environmentally friendly technology more accessible to the flying public is the best flight plan moving forward.