By By Neil Rasmussen, Margaret Coppe, Jim Hutchinson and Ron Green
Wicked Local Concord
Concord — Recently, Massport announced an increase of hangar space at Hanscom Field for private luxury aircraft of over 130,000 square feet, equivalent to two football fields.
A justification Massport cites for this expansion is their desire to house the newest luxury jet, the Gulfstream 650. This jet holds 6,600 gallons of fuel, and a single round trip to China consumes enough fuel to power a Toyota Prius for approximately 1 million miles. That same round trip generates approximately 400 tons of CO2 equivalent, which equals more emissions than a typical family in India generates in an entire lifetime.
Interestingly, a surprisingly high percentage of so-called “corporate” aircraft flights are for personal, not corporate, use. According to a Wall Street Journal review, “dozens of jets operated by publicly traded corporations made 30 percent or more of their trips to and from resort destinations, sometimes more than 50 percent” (“Corporate Jet Set: Leisure vs. Business,” June 13, 2011). The review raises fundamental questions about just how much private jets — and private jet airports such as Massport’s Hanscom Field — contribute to the economy vs. executive perks.
Shuttling wealthy executives to resort destinations does create jobs. It creates jobs in France, where the Dassault Falcon is made (a premier luxury jet and the latest acquisition of one of the local companies that uses Hanscom). It creates jobs and wealth in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the imported fuel required for these aircraft comes from (fuel is the greatest expense of operating luxury aircraft). It also creates some local jobs for people who pump the fuel and maintain the aircraft — but are these jobs sufficient in and of themselves for re-energizing our economy?
More importantly, is private luxury aviation the kind of activity the taxpayers should subsidize? Yes, subsidize. Incredibly, while you must pay sales tax on your car, the sale of a luxury aircraft, its repairs, and zebra wood interior are tax-free in Massachusetts (MA General Laws, Chap.64H, Section 6, uu, vv). Businesses at Hanscom are exempt from property tax. Planes land at no charge. While our roads and bridges crumble, Hanscom Field has freshly paved runways thanks to federal stimulus funds — an outrage cited by Senator Tom Colburn in his report to Congress as one of the most egregious wastes of those funds.
Private luxury flyers avoid most of the taxes and fees that you pay as part of a typical airline ticket. According to the FAA, private jets use about 16 percent of the air traffic control system’s resources, but pay only 3 percent of its costs. These are just a few of what Senator Alan Simpson calls “loopholes plastered into the tax code by the sharpest lobbyists representing the wealthiest interests in America.”
Many people are not aware that Hanscom Field is separate from Hanscom Air Force Base. Military aviation is now less than 1 percent of air traffic at Hanscom, and it is critical not to confuse the important role of Hanscom Air Force Base with the luxury travel at Massport’s Hanscom Field.
Flying in private luxury aircraft is one of the most environmentally destructive activities a citizen can engage in. Is it appropriate for taxpayers to continue to subsidize these tax-free luxuries at Hanscom Field, particularly as their impacts harm Minute Man National Historical Park, our surrounding communities — indeed, our planet? Our state currently gives away $24 billion per year in tax loopholes (called “tax expenditures”) — $2 billion more than the $22 billion it collects in revenues. As the governor proposes to eliminate the sales tax loophole for candy, we strongly encourage him to close the loopholes for multi-million dollar private luxury aircraft as well.
Neil Rasmussen is a Concord resident and president of Save Our Heritage. Margaret Coppe is a Lexington resident and president of ShhAir. Jim Hutchinson is a Lincoln resident. Ron Green is a Bedford resident.
No comments:
Post a Comment