Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx >

Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx

Old 04-22-2015, 03:08 PM
  #1  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx

Tennessee Weighs Big Tax Break For FedEx

By CHAS SISK • 11 HOURS AGO




A plan put together by Gov. Bill Haslam would cap fuel taxes for FedEx.
IAN ABBOTT VIA FLICKR


Tennessee lawmakers may soon give FedEx a major break on the taxes it pays on aviation fuel.

A proposal making its way through the state legislature would slash the company's fuel tax bill by tens of millions of dollars each year.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris says the deal is needed to keep FedEx from moving its refueling operations from Memphis to another state.

"It's just a fact of jet aircraft. It's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel."

The plan, Senate Bill 982, was put together by Gov. Bill Haslam's administration and approved yesterday by the state Senate. The proposal is still working its way through the House of Representatives.

The tax on aviation fuel is supposed to go into a fund for airport maintenance. Analysts say it's unclear where money for upkeep will come from if FedEx's tax break is approved.






Yepp, it's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel. I do it all the time.

How can my state legislators be so gullible?






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 04-22-2015, 03:15 PM
  #2  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

aviation fuel
Richard Locker
12:16 PM, Apr 8, 2015
5:59 PM, Apr 8, 2015
local news | local | business | fedex | state


Copyright 2014 Memphis Commercial Appeal. All rights reserved.



October 10, 2012 - FedEx workers unload planes at the Memphis International hub. (Jim Weber/The Commercial Appeal)

JIM WEBER


NASHVILLE — FedEx Corp. and Gov. Bill Haslam’s administration are asking lawmakers to cap the company’s aviation-fuel tax liability to the state at $10.5 million a year — about one third of the $32 million it paid last year.

Memphis-based FedEx pays on average between 66 and 75 percent of the total $41 million to $48 million a year that the state’s aviation-fuel tax generates, because of its huge fuel purchases in Memphis, according to legislative testimony.

The tax is 4.5 percent per gallon and is in lieu of other fuel taxes. The revenue flows into a fund created in 1988 that helps pay for airport improvements across the state. The revenue fluctuates from year to year with the price of fuel.

A bill suddenly moving through the legislature would cap the annual tax liability for any single payor at $21.375 million during the tax year starting July 1, and reduce the cap incrementally to $10.5 million over four years, where it would remain. The state currently has no cap on the tax, and although it would apply to any large purchaser of aviation fuel, no other taxpayer is close to that cap, according to testimony in a committee that indicated Southwest Airlines pays about $6 million per year.

But large and small airports that use revenue from the tax to pay for airport improvements are questioning the tax cap — mostly because there’s no plan to replace the lost revenue and partly because it surfaced late last week in the form of an amendment to an innocuous “caption” bill.

The legislature uses caption bills as placeholders for later-filed amendments often only marginally related to the original bill’s stated purpose. In this case, the original House Bill 1147 only required additional information in reports on how aviation-tax revenue is spent and had no reference to a tax break.

The plan won approval in the House Transportation Committee Tuesday and in the Senate Transportation Committee Wednesday. Officials of the state departments of transportation, revenue, and economic and community development advocated for its passage with vague suggestions that FedEx could shift more of its flights from Memphis to its hubs in Indianapolis and Greensboro, North Carolina, to avoid the Tennessee tax, costing Tennessee jobs and revenue.

Indiana has no such tax and North Carolina caps its tax at $2.5 million per taxpayer. The officials are promoting the tax cut for “economic competitiveness” with other states.

“Currently we have one payor in our state paying 66 percent of the state’s entire aviation fuel tax, or in fiscal year 2014, $32 million of the entire $48 million,” Rep. Mark White, R-Memphis, the bill’s House sponsor, told the committee. “FedEx states that it is unsustainable for their company to justify keeping on paying this level of tax when they have capacity at their Indianapolis and Greensboro hubs with little or no aviation fuel tax.”

White also cited state estimates that “losing one third of 36,000 jobs, mainly in West Tennessee, will result in a $1.4 billion loss in direct and indirect revenue and reduced wages and earnings across our state. So my contention is, do we want to look someday at a $1.4 billion loss or put a cap on this?”

White said the “amendment came from them” (FedEx).

Under questioning by committee members, Alice Rolli, an assistant commissioner at the Department of Economic and Community Development (ECD), said there’s no written agreement that the company will keep flights in the state if the tax break becomes law.

“There is not a written agreement from FedEx. It’s my understanding that securities law does not allow the company to make such a forward-looking statement without first registering a plan and going through a board (of directors) process to say that they intend to grow within the state,” she said.

“It’s our understanding from meeting with FedEx representatives, including (FedEx CEO) Fred Smith, that their intention is to be a long-term corporate citizen in the state but that it is difficult for them to support, to their shareholders, paying nearly $30 million in taxes in this state when they have the opportunity to fuel up their flights in Indiana where they have zero tax or North Carolina where they have a $2.5 million tax.”

But the heads of two Tennessee airport associations — one representing the six major air-carrier airports in Chattanooga, Jackson, Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville and Tri-Cities, and the other representing 65 small general-aviation airports — told the House committee the bill will hurt airports because of the reduced revenue for airport improvements.

Patrick Wilson, executive director of the Tri-Cities Airport Authority and president of the Tennessee Association of Air Carrier Airports, said he was speaking for large airports except Memphis International on the issue.

“This bill is presented as economic development for one section of the state, but it has the potential to significantly harm economic development across the state if it hurts the ability to grow and maintain the airports we have,” he said.

“The proposed action will negatively impact our state airport system and the ability to attract aerospace and aviation-related companies. We’ve seen a large migration of aerospace companies to the state, and the state has started a recruitment effort and the airports play a big role in that. We think the loss of these funds will hurt our efforts to recruit additional companies to our state,” Wilson said.

Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, the Senate sponsor, added an amendment in the Senate committee Wednesday setting up a task force to examine the impact and possible new revenue sources.

Wilson said the cut will hurt the ability of airports to fund expansions, and could result in higher taxes on other air carriers to make up the difference.

Wilson and Steve Smith, executive director of the Jackson-Madison County Airport Authority and president of the association representing 65 smaller airports, both said they’ve had little time to analyze the bill since the amendment surfaced late in the week before the Easter holiday. The amendment is still not posted on the legislature’s website.

“We’ve only had two working days since we realized there is an issue with our funding. House Bill 1147 as amended will seriously harm our airport system. Once this cap goes into effect and there are no additional funds to help us, you will see your local airport go to just a simple maintenance-type program,” Smith said.

The aviation-fuel tax flows into the state’s Transportation Equity Trust Fund. Half of the money is divided among the six large airports; the other half is divided among the smaller airports, both under an activity-based formula. Most airports use the state money as the share of costs they are required to pay to draw down federal airport improvement money. To get 90 percent federal funding for a project, airports must come up with the other 10 percent.

The Haslam administration is putting on a full-court press for the tax break. TDOT Commissioner John Schroer sent a letter Thursday to all airports in support of the tax cut.
“Together, TDOT, the Department of Revenue and the Department of ECD have examined our state’s competitiveness in the aviation industry and how we encourage cargo and passenger carriers that could locate their planes anywhere in the world to grow their business in our state,” he wrote.

Full story available to subscribers only.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 04-22-2015, 03:44 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,217
Default

We tankered fuel from DFW back to MEM all last month.....
Huck is offline  
Old 04-23-2015, 03:52 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sluggo_63's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,268
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
Yepp, it's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel. I do it all the time.

How can my state legislators be so gullible? :rolleyes.
I don't know, but I bet they're worried about FedEx tankering fuel into Memphis and them not getting hardly any tax revenue. We just tankered over 110,000 pounds of gas from HKG to KIX. Maybe they're not so gullible after all...
Sluggo_63 is offline  
Old 04-23-2015, 06:05 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

At last weeks Family Awareness Day at IAD SS said that they REALLY BIG FUEL SAVINGS from low oil prices were already figured into the Corporation's $1.6B cost cutting measures by way of new, more fuel efficient, aircraft purchases ...

So ... we'll (ALPA) will see NO benefits from low fuel prices?


MaydayMark is offline  
Old 04-23-2015, 07:59 AM
  #6  
Line Holder
 
Knots2U's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 64
Default

On PFC from the Exec VP to the crew force, about fuel sense:

"You helped save $1 billion in fuel costs. That's one giant step toward achieving our profitability goal."

That, and delaying, and/or not paying you kind folks what you really deserve and have earned. But hey, I got my MBO bonus! And you get a nice thank you letter from us every year, so what more do you need?

All I have to say about that is: Hey, Llama, how about something, you know, for the effort.
Knots2U is offline  
Old 04-23-2015, 10:52 AM
  #7  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 View Post

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post

Yepp, it's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel. I do it all the time.

How can my state legislators be so gullible?


I don't know, but I bet they're worried about FedEx tankering fuel into Memphis and them not getting hardly any tax revenue. We just tankered over 110,000 pounds of gas from HKG to KIX. Maybe they're not so gullible after all...
I was referring to Tennessee State Senator Mark Norris of Collierville, a Republican who sponsored the bill in the Tennessee Senate, who said the deal is needed to keep FedEx from moving its refueling operations from Memphis to another state. He said, "It's just a fact of jet aircraft. It's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel."

Well, it's not a fact. If it were so easy, we'd be doing it all the time. In fact, let's look at another quote from the second article. Rep. Mark White, R-Memphis, the bill’s House sponsor, told the committee, “FedEx states that it is unsustainable for their company to justify keeping on paying this level of tax when they have capacity at their Indianapolis and Greensboro hubs with little or no aviation fuel tax.”

White also cited state estimates that “losing one third of 36,000 jobs, mainly in West Tennessee, will result in a $1.4 billion loss in direct and indirect revenue and reduced wages and earnings across our state. So my contention is, do we want to look someday at a $1.4 billion loss or put a cap on this?”

Well, if it's unsustainable, pray tell why are we still doing it? If it's cheaper to fly out of Indianapolis or Greensboro, why haven't be been doing it all along? It's not like we don't have a nice big hub in Indy. It's not like we haven't spent a lot of money building a hub in Greensboro. If it's cheaper to fire 12,000 people in Memphis and hire replacements in Indiana and North Carolina, why aren't we doing it already?

It wreaks of the same garbage that was spewed in years past that if the pilots won't behave, Fred will turn this into a trucking company. If it were more profitable to move the freight with trucks, don't you think we'd have been doing it already?


Sure, we'll always tanker cheaper fuel when it makes sense. Sometimes that means bringing tankering cheaper fuel to Memphis, and sometimes that means tankering cheaper fuel FROM Memphis. (I tankered MEM to Toronto a couple of weeks ago.) But this cry that we can no longer pay our taxes in Tennessee is completely disingenuous and embarrassing. It may save FedEx a buck, and we know how bad we're hurting, but it will seriously harm aviation in the Great State of Tennessee. Our legislators should be looking out for the entire state, not just one big company complaining about paying their fair share.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 04-23-2015, 01:39 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Walrus's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
Default

Stopping short. That was Frank Costanza's move.
The Walrus is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:34 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sluggo_63's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,268
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
I was referring to Tennessee State Senator Mark Norris of Collierville, a Republican who sponsored the bill in the Tennessee Senate, who said the deal is needed to keep FedEx from moving its refueling operations from Memphis to another state. He said, "It's just a fact of jet aircraft. It's just real easy to put down one state short and refuel."

Well, it's not a fact. If it were so easy, we'd be doing it all the time. In fact, let's look at another quote from the second article....
Tony, I wasn't commenting on whether it was right or wrong, I was just saying that you were incredulous that I state senator could be so gullible that he would believe that it's easy to land a state short and refuel. We all know how horribly wrong legislators and the media are when it comes to aviation issues. One of his staffers probably told him that this bill was designed to cap FedEx's aviation fuel cap because they (FedEx) was threatening to get their fuel elsewhere and not use Tennessee fuel. In his mind, he equated that to stopping somewhere to land. We all know that FedEx is talking about tankering fuel where appropriate.

Whether FedEx has a moral responsibility to the state of Tennessee to help fund aviation is another issue, but not the one I was talking about here.
Sluggo_63 is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 06:06 AM
  #10  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 View Post

In his mind, he equated that to stopping somewhere to land. We all know that FedEx is talking about tankering fuel where appropriate.

If he was equating tankering to "put[ting] down one state short and refuel", then I understand your remark.

I don't think he was. But you're right -- I shouldn't be so incredulous that a legislator could get something so wrong.






.
TonyC is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
benzoate
Major
271
05-10-2013 10:34 AM
jungle
Money Talk
48
04-13-2010 12:05 PM
Brown
Cargo
5
06-03-2008 11:05 AM
ImperialxRat
Major
17
03-01-2007 08:03 AM
SWAjet
Money Talk
0
03-30-2005 10:12 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices