Fact: Claims that the AIR Act will meaningfully drive up passenger fares overlook how airlines actually purchase fuel, how airfare pricing works, and how modest the modeled per-seat impact is. The AIR Act turns a limited cost impact into direct reinvestment in airport safety, infrastructure, workforce development, and Pennsylvania’s aviation future.

Read More:

Understanding How Airlines Actually Purchase Fuel

An important operational reality often missing from public discussions is that airlines typically do not purchase fuel simply by “filling an aircraft’s tanks.”

Commercial airline fueling is driven primarily by:

• aircraft weight,
• route planning,
• payload,
• reserve requirements,
• weather,
• alternate airport planning,
• and aircraft performance calculations.

Jet fuel is fundamentally treated as a weight-based operational variable, not simply a volumetric purchase.

Airlines and dispatchers commonly calculate fuel in:

• pounds,
• kilograms,
• or total fuel weight,

because fuel itself adds substantial aircraft weight.

This matters because:

• heavier aircraft burn more fuel,
• excessive fuel loading reduces efficiency,
• and carrying unnecessary fuel increases operational costs.

As a result, airlines rarely operate aircraft with completely full fuel tanks unless operationally necessary for:

• long-haul operations,
• irregular operations,
• weather contingencies,
• or fuel availability concerns.

Instead, airlines seek to:

• maximize efficiency,
• minimize unnecessary aircraft weight,
• maintain FAA-required reserves,
• and optimize aircraft performance.

This operational reality is important when evaluating airline claims regarding fuel taxes because many public discussions assume aircraft are routinely filled to maximum fuel capacity. In practice, commercial airlines optimize fuel loads carefully to balance:

• safety,
• efficiency,
• payload,
• range,
• and operational economics.

For that reason, the “worst-case full tank” scenarios modeled in this analysis are intentionally conservative and operationally unrealistic for many routine commercial flights operating within Pennsylvania markets.

Airline Framing

Airlines argue that fuel tax increases are passed directly to consumers and will significantly increase ticket prices.

What the Data Shows

The Pennsylvania jet fuel cost modeling demonstrates that the actual per-seat impact of the AIR Act remains relatively modest across a wide range of commercial aircraft commonly operating in Pennsylvania markets.

Estimated Passenger Cost Impact of AIR Act

(Typical modeled operational assumptions)

Aircraft	Seats	Estimated Cost Per Seat
Airbus A319-100	128	~$1.25
Airbus A320-200	150	~$0.84
Airbus A321-200	190	~$0.83
Airbus A321neo	196	~$0.79
Airbus A321XLR	155	~$1.12
Boeing 737-800	172	~$0.80
Boeing 737 MAX 8	172	~$0.80

Average Estimated Passenger Impact

Across the most common narrow-body aircraft analyzed, the modeled average passenger impact remains approximately:

Average Estimated Cost Per Seat ≈ $0.92

Across the most common narrow-body aircraft analyzed, the modeled average passenger impact remains:

• less than $1 per seat,
• even before accounting for airline pricing flexibility,
• fuel hedging,
• operational efficiencies,
• or normal airfare variability.

Higher Fuel Load Scenario

Estimated Passenger Impact – 70% Full Tank Scenario

Aircraft	Estimated Cost Per Seat
Airbus A319-100	~$2.06
Airbus A320-200	~$1.39
Airbus A321-200	~$1.38
Airbus A321neo	~$1.31
Airbus A321XLR	~$1.85
Boeing 737-800	~$1.32
Boeing 737 MAX 8	~$1.31

Average 70% Full Tank Impact

Average 70% Full Tank Cost Per Seat ≈ $1.52

“Worst Case” Modeled Scenario

Even under aggressive “worst-case” assumptions:

Aircraft	Worst-Case Cost Per Seat
Airbus A319-100	~$3.74
Airbus A320-200	~$2.52
Airbus A321-200	~$2.50
Airbus A321neo	~$2.38
Airbus A321XLR	~$3.37
Boeing 737-800	~$2.40
Boeing 737 MAX 8	~$2.39

Average Worst-Case Impact

Average Worst-Case Cost Per Seat ≈ $2.76

Even under highly aggressive assumptions, the modeled passenger impact remains only a few dollars per seat.

Perspective Against Typical Airfare

Average domestic airfare in many Pennsylvania commercial markets routinely ranges between:

• $250–$400+ per ticket.

Compared against a representative $350 airfare:

Typical AIR Act Passenger Impact:

• approximately 0.26% of a representative airfare.

Worst-Case Passenger Impact:

• approximately 0.79% of a representative airfare.

Even under aggressive assumptions, the modeled impact remains less than 1% of a representative ticket price.

Important Structural Point: AIR Act Operates Through Pennsylvania’s Oil Company Franchise Tax Structure

Another important distinction is that the AIR Act is not structured as a traditional retail sales and use tax imposed directly on airline passengers.

Instead, the AIR Act operates through Pennsylvania’s existing aviation fuel taxation framework tied to the Commonwealth’s oil company franchise tax structure.

Under this structure:

• the tax is imposed at the distributor level,
• aviation fuel distributors are the direct taxpayers,
• and fuel purchasing arrangements throughout the aviation industry are considerably more complex than a simple per-ticket surcharge.

This matters because:

• airlines purchase fuel through negotiated supply agreements,
• fuel is often purchased regionally,
• aviation fuel may move through multiple distribution channels,
• and fuel pricing is influenced by wholesale contracts, hedging strategies, and supplier relationships.

As a result, it is overly simplistic to assume:
“every penny of tax automatically becomes a penny added directly to every passenger ticket.”

The actual economic relationship is significantly more complex.

Fuel Purchasing in Aviation Is Operationally and Contractually Complex

Commercial aviation fuel purchasing involves:

• distributors,
• fuel consortiums,
• airport fuel systems,
• long-term contracts,
• hedging strategies,
• and operational fueling decisions.

In many cases:

• airlines are not directly remitting the tax,
• fuel suppliers and distributors are the statutory taxpayers,
• and pricing impacts are absorbed and distributed throughout a broader fuel procurement system.

This is important because many public discussions incorrectly frame aviation fuel taxation as though airlines simply purchase retail gallons of fuel in the same manner as motorists purchasing gasoline at a service station.

Commercial aviation fuel purchasing does not function that way.

AIR Act Uses a Predictable, Fixed Per-Gallon Structure

The AIR Act is structured as:

• a flat cents-per-gallon assessment,
• not a percentage-based sales tax tied to fuel price.

That means:

• the assessment does not automatically increase when fuel prices rise,
• the structure is predictable and transparent,
• and airlines already routinely manage much larger fuel-cost fluctuations driven by global oil markets.

For example:

• if jet fuel rises from $2.50 to $3.50 per gallon,
• the AIR Act assessment remains unchanged.

The assessment is tied to gallons distributed, not market price.

What Academic Research Shows About Cost Pass-Through

Airlines frequently argue that increased fuel costs are automatically passed directly to passengers through higher fares.

However, academic research shows the relationship is considerably more complex.

A 2025 study examining U.S. airlines found that fare responses to fuel-cost increases were relatively limited and varied substantially by airline business model.

The study found that:

• a 10% increase in fuel prices resulted in only:
  • a 0.172% increase in fares for legacy carriers, and
  • a 0.351% increase in fares for low-cost carriers.

The study concluded that:

• fuel-cost increases are not passed through dollar-for-dollar,
• airline competition matters,
• and airlines often absorb a portion of increased operating costs.

Additional international airline pricing research similarly concluded that:

• the commonly assumed 100% cost pass-through is not supported by empirical results,
• most airline cost pass-through rates were below 50%,
• and competitive markets significantly reduce pass-through rates.

This is important because airlines do not simply add every operational cost increase directly to passenger tickets.

Pricing decisions are influenced by:

• competition,
• route demand,
• market share,
• aircraft utilization,
• and broader revenue strategy.

Research on Jet Fuel Tax Changes Shows Limited Demand Effects

A 2020 study examining jet fuel tax policy changes found:

• a jet fuel tax reduction increased air traffic by only about 0.2% on average,
• and the effect largely faded within approximately one year.

The study also found:

• insignificant effects on employment,
• limited long-term traffic impacts,
• and modest overall system effects.

This is important because it suggests:

• modest fuel tax changes do not produce the catastrophic reductions in service often suggested during legislative debates.

Key Context

The airline industry already operates within:

• major fuel-price volatility,
• rapidly fluctuating airfare pricing,
• and operational cost swings significantly larger than the modeled AIR Act impact.

Importantly:

• airfare pricing is driven primarily by competition, demand, route economics, and market concentration,
• not solely by modest state-level fuel assessments.

The airline industry itself routinely experiences fuel-market swings far larger than the modeled AIR Act impacts shown above.

How AIR Act Addresses the Concern

Unlike ordinary fuel-market volatility, the AIR Act converts a modest per-passenger impact into direct aviation reinvestment through:

• airport turnback funding,
• FAA match support,
• pavement preservation,
• terminal modernization,
• safety improvements,
• obstruction removal,
• hangar development,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation infrastructure investment.

That means the modeled passenger impact directly supports:

• safer airports,
• improved operational reliability,
• stronger statewide aviation competitiveness,
• and long-term aviation system sustainability.

show less

Fact: The claim that “every penny increase costs airlines $200 million” is misleading because it relies on a national fuel-consumption figure, not Pennsylvania-specific data. The AIR Act applies only to Pennsylvania-distributed aviation fuel, and the estimated statewide impact is far below the national figure opponents are using.

Read More:

Airline Framing

One of the most common arguments used by Airlines for America (A4A) and airline industry groups is the claim that:

“Every one-cent increase in jet fuel costs adds approximately $200 million annually to airline expenses.”

This figure has appeared repeatedly in:

• Montana,
• federal testimony,
• airline industry reports,
• and multiple state-level aviation tax debates.

The statement is intended to frame even modest fuel tax adjustments as economically catastrophic for the airline industry.

What the $200 Million Figure Actually Represents

The “$200 million per penny” figure is not a Pennsylvania number.

It is a NATIONAL airline industry figure based on:

• total U.S. airline jet fuel consumption,
• across all carriers,
• across all states,
• and across the entire national aviation system.

The figure is derived from approximately:

• 20 billion gallons of annual jet fuel consumption nationally.

At a national level:

20 billion gallons × $0.01 = approximately $200 million

This distinction is extremely important because the AIR Act applies only to:

• Pennsylvania-distributed aviation fuel,
• not every gallon burned nationally.

Pennsylvania Jet Fuel Expenditure Context

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

Pennsylvania recorded approximately:

$1.2129 billion in jet fuel expenditures during 2024

Source:

EIA Table F2 – Jet Fuel Consumption, Price, Expenditure, and CO2 Emissions Estimates, 2024

The EIA table reports:

• Pennsylvania jet fuel consumption:
  • 11,671 thousand barrels
• Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures:
  • $1,212.9 million

Converting the EIA figure to gallons:

11,671 × 1,000 × 42 = 490,182,000 gallons

Approximately:

• 490.2 million gallons statewide

Putting the AIR Act Into Perspective

Using the EIA statewide estimate:

490,182,000 gallons × $0.08 = approximately $39.2 million annually

An 8¢ structure applied against the EIA statewide estimate would therefore equal approximately:

$39.2 million annually

Compared against:

• approximately $1.2129 billion in annual Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures,

the AIR Act assessment would represent approximately:

$39.2 million ÷ $1.2129 billion = approximately 3.2%

Approximately:

• 3.2% of annual Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures

Current Structure Context

Under the prior 2¢ structure:

490,182,000 gallons × $0.02 = approximately $9.8 million annually

Approximately:

• $9.8 million annually

That means the net increase moving from 2¢ to 8¢ would be approximately:

$39.2 million − $9.8 million = approximately $29.4 million annually

Approximately:

• $29.4 million annually

Compared against:

• $1.2129 billion in annual Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures,

the incremental increase itself would represent approximately:

$29.4 million ÷ $1.2129 billion = approximately 2.4%

Approximately:

• 2.4% of annual Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures

Pennsylvania Collection Data vs. Reported Fuel Activity

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue collections data reported:

$7,247,477.69

in aviation fuel tax collections during 2024.

Source:
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue – 2024-25 Monthly Revenue Receipts Report

At the then-existing:

• 2¢ per gallon rate,

the collections imply approximately:

$7,247,477.69 ÷ $0.02 = approximately 362,373,884 gallons

Approximately:

• 362.4 million gallons

Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported Pennsylvania jet fuel activity at:

11,671 thousand barrels

Converted to gallons:

11,671 × 1,000 × 42 = 490,182,000 gallons

Approximately:

• 490.2 million gallons statewide

Apparent Gallon Discrepancy

Comparing:

• EIA statewide activity estimates,
  to
• gallons implied through collections data,

produces an apparent difference of:

490,182,000 − 362,373,884 = approximately 127,808,116 gallons

Approximately:

• 127.8 million gallons

At the previous 2¢ structure, that difference would equate to:

127,808,116 × $0.02 = approximately $2.56 million annually

Approximately:

• $2.6 million annually

Under an 8¢ AIR Act structure:

127,808,116 × $0.08 = approximately $10.22 million annually

Approximately:

• $10.2 million annually

The purpose of this comparison is not to assert any single dataset is definitively correct, but rather to demonstrate that multiple independent datasets appear directionally consistent with substantially higher fuel activity levels than what is implied through collections data alone.

Why the $200 Million Framing Is Misleading in Pennsylvania

The repeated use of the national “$200 million per penny” figure creates the impression that:

• Pennsylvania alone would impose hundreds of millions in annual costs on airlines.

That is not accurate.

The EIA data demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania airlines already spend over $1.2 billion annually on jet fuel,
• the AIR Act represents only a relatively small percentage of annual fuel expenditures,
• and the incremental increase from 2¢ to 8¢ would equal only approximately 2.4% of annual Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures.

At the same time:

• the AIR Act would generate long-term aviation infrastructure investment,
• strengthen airport competitiveness,
• improve safety,
• leverage additional federal funding,
• and modernize Pennsylvania’s aviation system.

The result is a predictable and measurable reinvestment structure tied directly to aviation activity occurring within the Commonwealth.

show less

Fact: The claim that “airlines will simply fuel elsewhere” overstates how commercial aviation fueling actually works. Airlines make fueling decisions based on aircraft weight, route planning, payload, weather, reserve requirements, and operational efficiency, and Pennsylvania’s aviation activity is anchored by passenger demand, cargo operations, population centers, and established airport infrastructure.

Read More:

Airline Framing

One of the most common arguments made by airline industry groups is that higher jet fuel taxes will cause airlines to:

• tanker fuel from lower-tax states,
• shift fuel purchases elsewhere,
• alter fueling behavior,
• or reduce in-state fuel purchases.

The argument is often framed as:

“If Pennsylvania increases jet fuel taxes, airlines will simply buy fuel somewhere else.”

This argument suggests:

• Pennsylvania would lose competitiveness,
• projected revenues would not materialize,
• and airlines would avoid purchasing fuel within the Commonwealth.

Understanding Airline Fueling Operations

Commercial airline fueling is significantly more operationally complex than simply purchasing fuel wherever it is cheapest.

Airlines must balance:

• aircraft weight,
• fuel burn efficiency,
• payload,
• passenger loads,
• weather,
• reserve requirements,
• route distance,
• alternate airport requirements,
• and aircraft performance limitations.

Jet fuel itself adds substantial aircraft weight.

That means:

• carrying excess fuel increases aircraft weight,
• heavier aircraft burn additional fuel,
• and unnecessary tankering can reduce operational efficiency.

For that reason, airlines typically optimize fuel loads carefully rather than simply maximizing onboard fuel volume.

While limited fuel tankering does occur within the airline industry, it is constrained by:

Fuel Tankering Has Operational Limits

• aircraft weight penalties,
• increased fuel burn,
• payload impacts,
• operational complexity,
• emissions considerations,
• and scheduling efficiency.

The economic benefit of avoiding modest state-level fuel assessments can quickly be offset by:

• additional fuel burn caused by carrying excess weight,
• operational inefficiencies,
• and reduced payload flexibility.

In practical terms:

• carrying additional fuel itself burns additional fuel.

This becomes especially important on:

• shorter-haul routes,
• heavily utilized aircraft,
• operationally constrained schedules,
• and routes where maximizing payload efficiency matters.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation System Is Operationally Anchored

Pennsylvania supports:

• one of the nation’s largest aviation systems,
• major commercial hubs,
• cargo operations,
• reliever airports,
• general aviation airports,
• military aviation activity,
• and emerging aviation technologies.

Major commercial airports such as:

• Philadelphia International Airport,
• Pittsburgh International Airport,
• Harrisburg International Airport,
• Lehigh Valley International Airport,
• and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport

exist because of:

• passenger demand,
• population centers,
• cargo demand,
• business activity,
• logistics networks,
• and long-established airline infrastructure.

Those operational realities do not simply relocate because of modest fuel tax changes.

Pennsylvania Fuel Activity Remains Extremely Large

Publicly available data demonstrates the scale of aviation fuel activity already occurring within Pennsylvania.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

Pennsylvania recorded:

• 11,671 thousand barrels of jet fuel consumption during 2024.

Source:

EIA Table F2 – Jet Fuel Consumption, Price, Expenditure, and CO2 Emissions Estimates, 2024

Converted to gallons:

11,671 × 1,000 × 42 = 490,182,000 gallons

Approximately:

• 490.2 million gallons statewide

The EIA also reported:

• approximately $1.2129 billion in Pennsylvania jet fuel expenditures during 2024.

This demonstrates:

• the enormous scale of aviation fuel activity already occurring within Pennsylvania,
• and the operational importance of the Commonwealth’s aviation system.

Commercial Airport Fuel Activity Demonstrates Operational Anchoring

Pennsylvania commercial airport fuel activity modeling identified approximately:

Airport	Annual Fuel Activity
Philadelphia International Airport	356.2 million gallons
Harrisburg International Airport	11.95 million gallons
Lehigh Valley International Airport	13.43 million gallons
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport	2.74 million gallons

These volumes reflect:

• long-term operational demand,
• established airline networks,
• passenger activity,
• cargo operations,
• and regional economic dependence.

The infrastructure, passenger demand, and operational realities supporting these airports are not easily displaced by modest changes in fuel taxation.

Multiple States Already Operate Above the AIR Act Structure

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) aviation fuel tax database, numerous states already impose aviation fuel tax structures above the AIR Act’s proposed 8¢ per gallon structure.

Source:

EIA Aviation Fuel Tax Rates by State Spreadsheet

Examples include:

State	Effective Jet Fuel Tax Structure
Illinois	~35.8¢
California	~27.2¢
Connecticut	~26.4¢
Arkansas	~25.8¢
Kansas	~22.5¢
Vermont	~21.0¢
Michigan	~20.4¢
West Virginia	~15.2¢
Hawaii	~15.1¢
Tennessee	~14.9¢
Colorado	~12.7¢
Massachusetts	~12.2¢
Louisiana	~12.1¢

This is important because many of these states:

• continue to support major airline operations,
• maintain strong commercial aviation activity,
• and remain operationally competitive despite substantially higher effective fuel tax structures than the AIR Act.

Airlines Already Operate Successfully in Higher-Tax Environments

Airlines routinely operate in states with:

• different fuel tax structures,
• higher operating costs,
• higher labor costs,
• higher airport costs,
• and higher regulatory costs.

They continue service because:

• passenger demand,
• market size,
• route profitability,
• airport infrastructure,
• and network economics

are the primary drivers of airline decision-making.

Fuel taxes represent only one component within a much broader operational and economic system.

Why the Fueling Migration Argument Is Overstated

The claim that airlines will simply “fuel elsewhere” assumes:

• airlines can freely tanker fuel without operational consequence,
• fuel costs are the dominant driver of airline economics,
• and airport activity can shift easily across state lines.

The operational reality is far more constrained.

Pennsylvania’s aviation system is anchored by:

• geography,
• passenger demand,
• cargo logistics,
• population centers,
• and established airline infrastructure.

At the same time:

• excess fuel weight itself increases operating costs,
• limiting the economic practicality of large-scale fuel tankering strategies.

Additionally:

• numerous states already maintain aviation fuel tax structures above the AIR Act proposal,
• yet continue supporting major airline operations and significant aviation activity.

Pennsylvania would therefore not become a national outlier under the AIR Act structure.

How AIR Act Addresses the Concern

The AIR Act converts aviation fuel activity into direct aviation reinvestment through:

• airport turnback funding,
• FAA match support,
• pavement preservation,
• terminal modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• safety improvements,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation infrastructure investment.

That means airlines directly benefit from:

• safer airports,
• stronger infrastructure,
• improved operational reliability,
• and enhanced long-term aviation competitiveness throughout Pennsylvania.

Rather than weakening Pennsylvania’s aviation system, the AIR Act is designed to strengthen the infrastructure that airlines already rely upon for ongoing operations within the Commonwealth.

show less

Fact: The claim that higher jet fuel taxes will reduce airline service overstates the role fuel taxes play in route decisions. Airline service is primarily driven by passenger demand, route profitability, market strategy, aircraft availability, and broader network economics, while the AIR Act creates direct reinvestment tools designed to strengthen airport infrastructure and support air service development.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups frequently argue that increasing aviation fuel taxes will:

• reduce airline service,
• eliminate routes,
• decrease flight frequencies,
• or discourage future airline growth.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Higher operating costs will force airlines to reduce service.”

This claim is often used to suggest that:

• smaller communities will lose connectivity,
• commercial airports will become less competitive,
• and statewide economic activity will suffer.

Airline Service Decisions Are Primarily Driven by Demand and Profitability

Commercial airline route decisions are driven primarily by:

• passenger demand,
• route profitability,
• load factors,
• available gate capacity,
• labor availability,
• aircraft availability,
• network strategy,
• and broader market economics.

Fuel taxes represent only one component within a much larger operational system.

Airlines routinely continue service in:

• higher-cost states,
• higher-tax environments,
• and airports with substantially higher operating expenses

because:

• passenger demand,
• market size,
• and route profitability

remain the dominant drivers of service decisions.

Research Shows Jet Fuel Tax Changes Have Limited Traffic Effects

Academic research examining aviation fuel tax changes has found:

• relatively modest impacts on overall air traffic,
• limited long-term demand effects,
• and little evidence supporting catastrophic service reductions.

A 2020 study examining jet fuel tax policy changes found:

• a jet fuel tax reduction increased air traffic by only approximately 0.2% on average,
• and the effect largely faded within approximately one year.

The study also found:

• insignificant effects on employment,
• limited long-term traffic impacts,
• and modest overall system effects.

This is important because:

• if lowering jet fuel taxes produces only modest traffic gains,
• then modest fuel tax increases are also unlikely to produce the dramatic service reductions often suggested during legislative debates.

Source:

MDPI Study – Effects of Jet Fuel Tax Changes on Air Traffic

Airline Service Naturally Fluctuates Even Without Jet Fuel Tax Changes

Pennsylvania has experienced:

• route additions,
• route reductions,
• airline exits,
• airline expansions,
• and changing levels of service

for decades under the existing jet fuel tax structure.

Airline service decisions already fluctuate based on:

• profitability,
• fleet availability,
• pilot shortages,
• macroeconomic conditions,
• mergers,
• competitive strategy,
• and changing passenger demand.

Examples include:

• service reductions at smaller regional airports during pilot shortages,
• airlines entering and exiting markets at airports such as Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Erie, and Harrisburg,
• COVID-era service reductions across the Commonwealth,
• and ongoing route restructuring throughout the Northeast aviation market.

This is important because:

• airline service volatility is not unique to fuel taxes,
• and service changes already occur regularly under the current structure.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation Demand Is Substantial

Pennsylvania supports:

• one of the nation’s largest aviation systems,
• major population centers,
• substantial cargo demand,
• major business travel markets,
• tourism activity,
• and critical regional connectivity.

Major commercial airports such as:

• Philadelphia International Airport,
• Pittsburgh International Airport,
• Harrisburg International Airport,
• Lehigh Valley International Airport,
• and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport

exist because of:

• strong passenger demand,
• established airline networks,
• cargo logistics,
• business activity,
• and regional economic dependence.

Those operational realities are not easily displaced by modest changes in fuel taxation.

AIR Act Creates Direct Airline Service Incentives

One of the most important differences between the AIR Act and ordinary tax proposals is that the AIR Act creates direct aviation reinvestment tools specifically designed to strengthen air service.

The AIR Act includes:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• statewide airport investment,
• and direct airport turnback funding.

These investments can be utilized by airports and communities to:

• attract new service,
• reduce startup risk for airlines,
• support minimum revenue guarantees,
• fund marketing support,
• and help stabilize routes during initial development periods.

In practical terms:

• this places money directly into the air service development ecosystem,
• helping reduce airline risk until routes become profitable.

Rather than discouraging service, these tools can actively support:

• route recruitment,
• market expansion,
• and improved regional connectivity.

Increased Infrastructure Investment Directly Benefits Airlines

The AIR Act also increases dedicated investment into airport infrastructure statewide.

That matters because airport infrastructure conditions directly affect:

• airline operating efficiency,
• operational reliability,
• passenger experience,
• gate availability,
• apron utilization,
• and long-term airport competitiveness.

Importantly:

• stronger airport funding can reduce pressure on airport rates and charges paid by airlines.

Airports often rely on:

• airline rates and charges,
• terminal fees,
• landing fees,
• and negotiated agreements

to fund infrastructure and operational improvements.

Additional dedicated aviation investment can help offset those pressures by:

• leveraging additional FAA funding,
• funding capital improvements,
• and reducing the financial burden placed directly on airport operating budgets.

Airlines Already Utilize Revenue-Sharing and Incentive Structures

Airlines already negotiate extensive incentive agreements with airports throughout the country.

These agreements frequently include:

• revenue guarantees,
• parking revenue sharing,
• marketing support,
• terminal incentives,
• waived fees,
• and other financial support mechanisms designed to retain or attract airline service.

In many cases:

• airports themselves assume significant financial risk to maintain airline service.

This demonstrates that:

• airline service decisions are already heavily influenced by negotiated financial structures,
• and direct aviation reinvestment tools can meaningfully support air service stability and expansion.

Passenger Cost Pass-Through vs. Airline Financial Impact

Importantly, airlines themselves frequently argue in other contexts that operational cost increases are ultimately passed through to passengers through airfare pricing.

To the extent any portion of the AIR Act results in increased ticket prices:

• the airline industry itself generally acknowledges that those costs are typically distributed across passengers through broader fare structures,
• not absorbed entirely by the airline.

This is an important distinction because opposition arguments often frame the AIR Act as though the full financial burden would remain directly on airline balance sheets.

In reality:

• airline pricing structures already fluctuate continuously based on:
  • fuel markets,
  • demand,
  • seasonality,
  • labor costs,
  • competition,
  • fleet availability,
  • and broader market conditions.

The anticipated per-passenger impact of the AIR Act remains comparatively modest when distributed across total passenger volumes.

At the same time:

• the resulting aviation investment directly strengthens the infrastructure airlines rely upon,
• improves operational reliability,
• enhances passenger experience,
• and supports long-term route sustainability throughout Pennsylvania.

This is particularly important because the AIR Act also creates:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• airport infrastructure investment,
• and air service development tools

that can directly reduce airline startup risk and support service retention and expansion throughout the Commonwealth.

The Real Risk Is Underinvestment

One of the greatest long-term threats to airline service is not modest fuel assessments.

It is infrastructure underinvestment.

Deferred maintenance, deteriorating facilities, inadequate modernization, and inability to leverage federal aviation funding create long-term operational and competitive risks for airports and airlines alike.

The AIR Act is designed to address those risks by creating:

• predictable aviation reinvestment,
• stronger statewide infrastructure,
• improved federal funding leverage,
• and long-term system sustainability.

Why the Service Reduction Argument Is Overstated

The claim that modest fuel tax changes will dramatically reduce airline service assumes:

• fuel taxes are the dominant driver of route decisions,
• airlines can easily abandon established markets,
• and passenger demand is secondary to modest fuel-cost differences.

The operational reality is far more complex.

Airline service decisions are driven primarily by:

• passenger demand,
• profitability,
• network strategy,
• and market economics.

Pennsylvania remains:

• a major aviation market,
• a major logistics market,
• and a critical transportation hub in the Northeast.

The AIR Act’s proposed structure does not fundamentally alter those realities.

How AIR Act Addresses the Concern

The AIR Act converts aviation activity into direct aviation reinvestment through:

• airport turnback funding,
• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• FAA match support,
• pavement preservation,
• terminal modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• safety improvements,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation infrastructure investment.

That means the AIR Act is designed not to reduce airline competitiveness, but rather to strengthen:

• airport infrastructure,
• operational reliability,
• passenger connectivity,
• and long-term aviation system sustainability throughout Pennsylvania.

show less

Fact: The claim that higher jet fuel taxes will make Pennsylvania less competitive overlooks the real competitive risk: underinvestment in aviation infrastructure. The AIR Act converts aviation activity into direct reinvestment that strengthens airports, leverages federal funding, supports air service development, and helps protect the aviation system that already generates approximately $43 billion in annual economic activity for Pennsylvania.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups frequently argue that increasing jet fuel taxes will:

• weaken Pennsylvania’s economic competitiveness,
• discourage aviation investment,
• reduce business activity,
• and place the Commonwealth at a disadvantage relative to neighboring states.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Higher aviation taxes make Pennsylvania less competitive.”

This claim attempts to position aviation fuel taxation as purely an economic burden rather than an infrastructure investment strategy.

The reality is far more nuanced.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation System Is Already a Major Economic Engine

According to the Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation industry supports more than 226,000 jobs
• and generates approximately $43 billion annually in economic activity

Source:

Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study

Pennsylvania’s aviation system supports:

• commercial aviation,
• cargo logistics,
• business aviation,
• manufacturing,
• tourism,
• emergency services,
• military operations,
• workforce development,
• and emerging aviation technologies.

Major commercial airports such as:

• Philadelphia International Airport,
• Pittsburgh International Airport,
• Harrisburg International Airport,
• Lehigh Valley International Airport,
• and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport

serve as critical economic gateways for:

• commerce,
• tourism,
• freight movement,
• corporate investment,
• and workforce mobility.

Maintaining long-term competitiveness requires sustained infrastructure investment.

Economic Impact Means Little Without Safe and Reliable Infrastructure

Pennsylvania’s aviation economy has not developed in isolation.

It has been built upon:

• decades of airport investment,
• federally funded modernization,
• runway rehabilitation,
• safety improvements,
• and long-term infrastructure planning.

In many respects:

• Pennsylvania has been growing its aviation economy on borrowed time and previous generations’ infrastructure investment.

The reality is simple:

Economic impact means little if airports are no longer able to safely and reliably support aviation activity.

Current pavement condition data already demonstrates the growing challenge facing Pennsylvania airports.

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

This means:

• nearly half of evaluated runways,
• the majority of taxiways,
• and a substantial portion of apron infrastructure

are already falling below preferred pavement condition thresholds.

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

These are not cosmetic concerns.

Pavement deterioration directly affects:

• operational safety,
• aircraft reliability,
• foreign object debris (FOD) exposure,
• maintenance costs,
• operational efficiency,
• and long-term airport viability.

Deferred investment does not eliminate costs.

It simply pushes larger rehabilitation costs further into the future while increasing operational risk.

Pennsylvania Already Provides Significant Aviation Tax Advantages and Incentives

Pennsylvania already provides substantial tax advantages and public incentives benefiting airlines and aviation-related businesses.

According to the Pennsylvania 2026-27 Commonwealth Budget:

Pennsylvania 2026-27 Commonwealth Budget Document

the Commonwealth currently provides aviation-related tax expenditures and incentives including:

Aviation-Related Exemption / Incentive	Estimated Annual Value (FY 2026-27)
Aircraft Parts, Helicopters, Flight Simulators, and Related Materials	~$8.3 million
Airline Catering	~$2.2 million
Air Freight Forwarding Special Apportionment	~$6.1 million
Airport Land Development Zone (ALDZ)	~$4.5 million

Combined:

• these aviation-related tax expenditures and incentives total approximately:
  • $21.1 million annually

Additionally, the Commonwealth projects approximately:

• $79.9 million annually
  in broader “Common Carrier” exemptions.

While the Common Carrier category includes:

• trucking,
• rail,
• freight,
• logistics,
• and transit industries,

airlines likely represent a meaningful portion of that preferential tax treatment.

Even assuming airlines account for only:

• approximately 10%–25%

of the Common Carrier category, that would equate to approximately:

• $8–20 million annually
  in additional aviation-related preferential treatment.

Combined, Pennsylvania likely already provides approximately:

Scenario	Estimated Annual Aviation-Related Incentives
Conservative Estimate	~$29 million annually
Moderate Estimate	~$33 million annually
Upper Estimate	~$41 million annually

before accounting for:

• airport-funded minimum revenue guarantees,
• airline recruitment incentives,
• marketing support agreements,
• parking revenue sharing,
• fee waivers,
• and additional negotiated airline incentive structures.

This demonstrates that Pennsylvania already makes substantial public investments and tax policy accommodations supporting aviation competitiveness.

Pennsylvania’s Jet Fuel Tax Structure Has Historically Remained Competitive

Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel tax structure has historically remained comparatively low.

Under the prior structure:

• Pennsylvania assessed approximately:
  • 2¢ per gallon

Under the AIR Act:

• Pennsylvania would assess approximately:
  • 8¢ per gallon

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

EIA Aviation Fuel Tax Rates by State Spreadsheet

many states already impose substantially higher effective jet fuel tax structures, including:

State	Effective Jet Fuel Tax Structure
Illinois	~35.8¢
California	~27.2¢
Connecticut	~26.4¢
Arkansas	~25.8¢
Kansas	~22.5¢
Michigan	~20.4¢
Hawaii	~15.1¢
Tennessee	~14.9¢
Colorado	~12.7¢
Massachusetts	~12.2¢

Even under the AIR Act:

• Pennsylvania would remain below numerous states already supporting major airline operations and significant commercial aviation activity.

Using the proposed AIR Act structure:

Comparison	Effective Differential Compared to Pennsylvania AIR Act
Illinois	Pennsylvania still ~27.8¢ lower
California	Pennsylvania still ~19.2¢ lower
Michigan	Pennsylvania still ~12.4¢ lower
Tennessee	Pennsylvania still ~6.9¢ lower
Colorado	Pennsylvania still ~4.7¢ lower

This demonstrates that:

• airlines operating in Pennsylvania would continue benefiting from comparatively competitive aviation fuel taxation even after enactment of the AIR Act.

Research Shows Fuel Tax Changes Have Minimal Long-Term Traffic Impacts

Independent academic research has found that aviation fuel tax changes have relatively limited impacts on long-term flight activity and employment.

A 2020 study evaluating jet fuel tax changes found:

• a reduction in jet fuel taxes increased flights by only approximately:
  • 0.2%
• and those effects largely dissipated within approximately one year.

Importantly, the study also found:

• no statistically meaningful long-term employment growth associated with the tax reductions.

Source:

MDPI Study – Effects of Jet Fuel Tax Changes on Air Traffic

This is highly significant because:

• if substantial fuel tax reductions only produce approximately 0.2% flight increases and negligible employment impacts,
• then claims that modest increases under the AIR Act would materially damage Pennsylvania’s aviation economy become substantially weaker.

The research suggests that:

• broader market conditions,
• passenger demand,
• network strategy,
• infrastructure quality,
• and operational economics

play a far greater role in airline decision-making than relatively modest fuel tax differentials alone.

Pennsylvania’s Current Fuel Tax Structure Already Contains Significant Operational Advantages

Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel taxation system operates through a distributor-level Oil Company Franchise Tax (OCFT) structure rather than a traditional retail sales tax model.

Under Pennsylvania law:

• licensed distributors are the statutory taxpayers,
• airlines themselves may qualify and operate as licensed distributors,
• and fuel may move through multiple licensed entities before final tax liability is ultimately determined.

Source:

Pennsylvania Title 75 Chapter 90 – Liquid Fuels and Fuels Tax

This system involves:

• distributor reporting,
• credits,
• deductions,
• transfers,
• reconciliation mechanisms,
• and complex accounting treatment.

As a result:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel taxation structure is already materially more complex than a simple retail fuel transaction system.

Significant Differential Exists Between Fuel Activity and Collections Data

Publicly available data demonstrates a substantial apparent differential between:

• statewide aviation fuel activity,
  and
• gallons implied through publicly reported aviation fuel tax collections.

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue collections data reported:

• approximately $7.25 million in aviation fuel tax collections during 2024.

Source:

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Monthly Revenue Report

At the prior:

• 2¢ per gallon structure,

that implies approximately:

• 362.4 million taxable gallons.

However:

• Pennsylvania commercial airport activity data reported approximately 468.3 million gallons,
• while U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) statewide data reported approximately 490.2 million gallons.

Source:

EIA Table F2 – Jet Fuel Consumption, Price, Expenditure, and CO2 Emissions Estimates, 2024

This creates apparent differences ranging from:

• approximately 106 million gallons,
  to
• approximately 128 million gallons

depending on the dataset utilized.

In dollar terms, those differences equate to approximately:

Gallon Differential	Value at Previous 2¢ Structure	Value at Proposed 8¢ AIR Act Structure
~106 million gallons	~$2.1 million annually	~$8.5 million annually
~128 million gallons	~$2.6 million annually	~$10.2 million annually

The purpose of this comparison is not to allege wrongdoing, but rather to demonstrate that:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel taxation structure is already highly nuanced,
• operationally complex,
• and contains substantial existing industry advantages and structural considerations.

Existing Aviation Incentives Already Rival Direct State Aviation Investment

Historically:

• Pennsylvania’s direct statewide aviation investment has remained comparatively modest relative to the size of the aviation economy.

Current annual Commonwealth aviation investment has generally remained in the range of approximately:

• $20–25 million annually

across:

• aviation development grants,
• airport improvement support,
• aviation operations,
• and related aviation programs.

This creates an important contrast:

Category	Approximate Annual Value
Aviation Tax Incentives & Exemptions	~$29M–$41M
Direct State Aviation Investment	~$20M–$25M

Pennsylvania may already provide more value annually through aviation-related tax expenditures and incentives than through direct statewide aviation infrastructure investment itself.

Aviation Infrastructure Investment Produces Measurable Economic Return

Federal transportation and aviation research consistently demonstrates that aviation infrastructure investment produces measurable economic return.

FAA-supported aviation studies and broader U.S. transportation infrastructure research commonly estimate that:

• every:
  • $1 invested in airport and transportation infrastructure generates approximately $1.50–$3.00 in broader economic activity

through:

• construction activity,
• passenger spending,
• cargo movement,
• tourism,
• workforce mobility,
• supply chain impacts,
• and business development.

Sources:

FAA Economic Impact of Civil Aviation

USDOT Transportation Economic Development Resources

This is important because Pennsylvania’s aviation system already supports:

• more than 226,000 jobs,
• and approximately $43 billion annually in economic activity.

The AIR Act is designed to:

• modernize aviation funding,
• leverage additional federal dollars,
• strengthen airport infrastructure,
• improve operational reliability,
• support air service development,
• and reinforce the infrastructure supporting one of Pennsylvania’s largest transportation-based economic sectors.

AIR Act Rebalances Aviation Investment Toward Infrastructure and Growth

The AIR Act is not designed simply to increase taxes.

It is designed to:

• modernize Pennsylvania’s aviation funding structure,
• stabilize long-term aviation investment,
• leverage additional FAA dollars,
• and ensure aviation-generated activity more directly supports aviation infrastructure and competitiveness.

The AIR Act creates:

• airport turnback funding,
• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• FAA local match support,
• pavement preservation funding,
• obstruction removal programs,
• hangar development funding,
• workforce development investment,
• and emerging aviation technology support.

Under AIR Act projections:

• statewide aviation investment capacity could increase toward:
  • $100 million annually

through:

• Aviation Restricted Account revenues,
• Aviation Trust Fund revenues,
• airport turnback funding,
• and dedicated aviation reinvestment.

Aviation Opportunity Grants Directly Support Airline Competitiveness

The AIR Act’s Aviation Opportunity Grants create direct economic development tools to:

• attract new airline service,
• reduce startup risk,
• support minimum revenue guarantees,
• and strengthen regional connectivity.

These grants function as:

• airline risk-reduction tools,
• economic development incentives,
• and strategic investments in statewide air service growth.

Rather than discouraging airline investment, the AIR Act creates mechanisms specifically designed to support:

• route recruitment,
• service retention,
• and commercial aviation expansion.

Increased Infrastructure Investment Directly Benefits Airlines

The AIR Act also strengthens airport infrastructure statewide.

That matters because airport infrastructure directly affects:

• airline operating efficiency,
• operational reliability,
• gate utilization,
• passenger experience,
• apron capacity,
• and long-term airport competitiveness.

Importantly:

• stronger airport funding can reduce pressure on airport rates and charges paid by airlines.

Additional dedicated aviation investment can help:

• offset infrastructure costs,
• leverage additional FAA funding,
• strengthen airport finances,
• and reduce long-term pressure on airport operating budgets.

This directly benefits airlines through:

• improved facilities,
• stronger infrastructure,
• enhanced reliability,
• and improved operational performance.

The Real Competitive Risk Is Underinvestment

One of the greatest long-term threats to Pennsylvania’s aviation competitiveness is not modest fuel assessments.

It is infrastructure underinvestment.

Deferred maintenance, deteriorating facilities, inadequate modernization, and inability to leverage federal aviation funding create long-term operational and competitive risks for airports and airlines alike.

A state with deteriorating aviation infrastructure does not become more competitive simply because taxes remain low.

Long-term competitiveness requires sustained reinvestment.

Why the Competitiveness Argument Is Overstated

The claim that the AIR Act will weaken Pennsylvania’s competitiveness assumes:

• lower taxes alone drive economic development,
• infrastructure investment is secondary,
• and aviation funding has little economic return.

The reality is the opposite.

Reliable aviation infrastructure is itself a major economic development asset.

Pennsylvania already provides substantial aviation-specific tax advantages and incentives because the Commonwealth recognizes aviation’s economic importance.

The AIR Act builds upon that framework by converting aviation activity into direct aviation reinvestment.

The legislation is designed to:

• strengthen airport competitiveness,
• improve operational reliability,
• leverage federal investment,
• support workforce development,
• support air service development,
• and position Pennsylvania for long-term aviation and aerospace growth.

Those investments directly strengthen the Commonwealth’s long-term economic competitiveness.

How AIR Act Addresses the Concern

The AIR Act converts aviation activity into direct aviation reinvestment through:

• airport turnback funding,
• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• FAA match support,
• pavement preservation,
• terminal modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• safety improvements,
• workforce development,
• hangar development,
• and emerging aviation technology investment.

Rather than weakening Pennsylvania’s economy, the AIR Act is designed to:

• strengthen transportation infrastructure,
• support aviation growth,
• improve airport competitiveness,
• and position Pennsylvania for long-term economic development and aviation leadership.

show less

Fact: The claim that aviation is already fully funded is misleading. Federal funding is critical, but it is limited, often requires local match, and does not eliminate the long-term infrastructure burden facing Pennsylvania’s 119 public-use airports, many of which receive limited federal support and struggle to advance needed safety and modernization projects.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups frequently argue that:

• aviation infrastructure is already funded through the federal system,
• airlines already pay substantial federal taxes and fees,
• and additional state-level aviation investment is unnecessary.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Airlines already pay into the federal aviation system. States should not impose additional aviation funding burdens.”

This argument ignores several important realities about how aviation infrastructure is actually funded, maintained, and modernized.

Federal Aviation Funding Is Critical — But It Is Not Unlimited

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding is one of the most important funding sources available to Pennsylvania airports.

However:

• FAA funding is not unlimited,
• not every airport receives large federal allocations,
• not every project is eligible,
• and many programs require state and local participation.

FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding primarily focuses on:

• safety,
• airfield infrastructure,
• runway rehabilitation,
• taxiways,
• lighting,
• and federally eligible development projects.

Source:

FAA Airport Improvement Program Overview

Federal funding was designed to supplement aviation infrastructure investment.

It was never intended to fully replace state participation.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation System Extends Far Beyond Commercial Airports

Pennsylvania currently has approximately:

• 119 public-use airports

supporting:

• commercial aviation,
• business aviation,
• cargo operations,
• medical transport,
• military readiness,
• emergency response,
• flight training,
• agricultural aviation,
• public safety,
• and workforce mobility.

However:

• only a portion of Pennsylvania airports receive significant annual federal entitlement funding.

Many airports:

• compete for discretionary FAA grants,
• receive limited federal support,
• or receive little federal participation altogether.

Roughly half of Pennsylvania’s public-use airports do not receive substantial annual federal entitlement funding.

For many smaller airports:

• particularly general aviation airports and rural airports,
  local match requirements remain one of the largest barriers preventing infrastructure projects from advancing.

The statewide aviation system functions as an interconnected network, not simply a collection of large commercial airports.

Source:

FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)

Local Match Requirements Remain a Major Barrier

Even when federal funding is available:

• local match requirements frequently delay projects,
• prevent infrastructure rehabilitation,
• or reduce airports’ ability to compete for discretionary grants.

FAA grants often require:

• sponsor participation,
• matching funds,
• state participation,
• or local financial commitments.

For many Pennsylvania airports:

• particularly financially constrained sponsors,
• smaller general aviation airports,
• and rural airports,

local match requirements remain one of the largest obstacles to advancing airport infrastructure projects.

The AIR Act directly addresses this issue by creating:

• FAA local match support,
• airport turnback funding,
• and long-term aviation reinvestment mechanisms.

Airlines Do Not Cover the Full Cost of Airport Infrastructure

Airline industry groups frequently argue that:

“Airlines already pay enough into the airport system.”

Pennsylvania airport financial data demonstrates a much different reality.

The majority of airline-generated airport revenue primarily supports:

• day-to-day airport operations,
  not the full long-term capital infrastructure burden required to sustain and modernize airports.

2024 Pennsylvania Commercial Airport System Financial Overview

Revenue Sources

Revenue Category	Amount
Aeronautical Revenue	$388.3M
Non-Aeronautical Revenue	$345.4M
FAA Grants	$146.3M
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)	$85.8M

Total Identified Revenue Sources

$965.8 Million

Airport Financial Obligations

Expense Category	Amount
Operating Expenses	$781.3M
Capital Expenditures	$830.2M
Debt Service	$236.4M

Total Airport Financial Burden

$1.85 Billion

Critical Financial Reality

Aeronautical Revenue vs. Operating Expenses

Category	Amount
Aeronautical Revenue	$388.3M
Operating Expenses	$781.3M

Key Finding

Aeronautical revenue covered only approximately:

49.7% of annual airport operating expenses

This means:

• airline-generated airport revenue did not fully cover day-to-day airport operations alone.

Aeronautical Revenue vs. Total Airport Financial Burden

Category	Amount
Aeronautical Revenue	$388.3M
Total Airport Financial Burden	$1.85B

Key Finding

Aeronautical revenue covered only approximately:

21.0% of total airport financial burden

once:

• capital expenditures,
• infrastructure modernization,
• runway rehabilitation,
• terminal development,
• and debt service obligations are included.

The Infrastructure Gap

Pennsylvania airports spent approximately:

$1.07 Billion

on:

• capital expenditures,
• infrastructure modernization,
• and debt service alone during 2024.

That amount exceeded:

• total aeronautical revenue by approximately:
  • $681.9 million

This demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania airports are not solely airline-funded systems,
• and long-term aviation infrastructure relies heavily on:
  • FAA investment,
  • Passenger Facility Charges,
  • debt financing,
  • non-aeronautical revenue,
  • and public infrastructure support.

Source data derived from:

• FAA Form 127 airport financial reporting,
• Pennsylvania commercial airport financial data,
• FAA grant allocations,
• and airport capital reporting.

FAA Airport Financial Reporting:

FAA Airport Financial Reports (Form 127)

FAA Airport Improvement Program Data:

FAA Airport Improvement Program Grant Data

Pennsylvania’s Aviation Economy Has Been Built on Previous Infrastructure Investment

According to the Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation system supports:
  • more than 226,000 jobs
  • and approximately $43 billion annually in economic activity

Source:

Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study

However:

• that economic activity has been built upon decades of:
  • runway investment,
  • airport modernization,
  • federal participation,
  • terminal development,
  • and long-term infrastructure reinvestment.

In many respects:

• Pennsylvania has been growing its aviation economy on borrowed time and previous generations’ infrastructure investment.

Economic impact means little if airports are no longer able to safely and reliably support aviation activity.

Pennsylvania’s Own Transportation Advisory Committee Identified Long-Term Aviation Funding Challenges

Pennsylvania’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) independently identified many of the same aviation infrastructure and funding concerns the AIR Act is designed to address.

In its 2022 Aviation Transportation System Assessment Report, TAC concluded that:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation system faces growing infrastructure preservation challenges,
• many airports struggle with maintaining aging infrastructure,
• and long-term aviation funding sustainability remains a statewide concern.

Source:

Pennsylvania TAC Aviation Transportation System Assessment Report

The TAC report specifically highlighted:

• pavement preservation needs,
• safety-related infrastructure investment,
• local match limitations,
• funding constraints at smaller airports,
• and the importance of maintaining a viable statewide aviation network.

Importantly, the report emphasized that:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation system extends far beyond large commercial airports,
• and that regional and general aviation airports remain critical to:
  • economic development,
  • workforce mobility,
  • emergency response,
  • business connectivity,
  • and statewide transportation access.

The report further recognized that:

• infrastructure preservation becomes substantially more expensive when deferred,
• and that failure to adequately reinvest in aviation infrastructure creates long-term operational and economic risk.

This is highly significant because:

• the concerns identified in the TAC report were developed independently through Pennsylvania’s statewide transportation planning process,
  not through airline or airport advocacy efforts.

The AIR Act directly addresses many of the same issues identified by TAC through:

• pavement preservation funding,
• FAA local match support,
• airport reinvestment,
• obstruction removal,
• infrastructure modernization,
• and long-term aviation funding stabilization.

The report reinforces a central AIR Act principle:

Pennsylvania’s aviation system cannot remain economically competitive if long-term infrastructure preservation and modernization continue to lag behind system needs.

Current Infrastructure Conditions Demonstrate Existing Funding Pressure

Current pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure strain across Pennsylvania airports.

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

These conditions directly affect:

• operational safety,
• reliability,
• aircraft maintenance costs,
• foreign object debris exposure,
• and long-term airport competitiveness.

This demonstrates that:

• current funding structures are already struggling to keep pace with long-term infrastructure needs.

Aviation Infrastructure Investment Produces Measurable Economic Return

Federal transportation and aviation research consistently demonstrates that aviation infrastructure investment produces measurable economic return.

FAA-supported aviation studies and broader U.S. transportation infrastructure research commonly estimate that:

• every:
  • $1 invested in airport and transportation infrastructure generates approximately $1.50–$3.00 in broader economic activity

through:

• construction activity,
• passenger spending,
• cargo movement,
• tourism,
• workforce mobility,
• supply chain impacts,
• and business development.

Sources:

FAA Economic Impact of Civil Aviation

USDOT Transportation Economic Development Resources

The economic question is not simply:

“What does aviation investment cost?”

The larger question is:

“What economic return is lost when infrastructure supporting a $43 billion aviation economy is underfunded?”

Research Shows Fuel Tax Changes Have Minimal Long-Term Impact on Airline Activity

Independent academic research evaluating aviation fuel tax changes found:

• reductions in jet fuel taxes increased flights by only approximately:
  • 0.2%
• and the effects largely dissipated within approximately one year.

Importantly:

• the study found no statistically meaningful long-term employment growth associated with those tax reductions.

Source:

MDPI Study – Effects of Jet Fuel Tax Changes on Air Traffic

This suggests:

• relatively modest fuel tax differentials are not primary drivers of airline network decisions,
  particularly when compared to:
• passenger demand,
• infrastructure quality,
• operational reliability,
• market strength,
• and airport competitiveness.

The AIR Act Is Designed to Strengthen and Leverage Existing Federal Investment

The AIR Act is not designed to replace federal funding.

It is designed to:

• strengthen Pennsylvania’s ability to leverage federal funding,
• improve local match capacity,
• accelerate project delivery,
• support airports receiving limited federal assistance,
• modernize infrastructure,
• and stabilize long-term aviation investment.

The legislation creates:

• airport turnback funding,
• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• FAA local match support,
• pavement preservation funding,
• obstruction removal programs,
• hangar development support,
• workforce development investment,
• and emerging aviation technology funding.

These investments are specifically designed to:

• improve safety,
• strengthen airport competitiveness,
• modernize infrastructure,
• and maximize the effectiveness of existing federal aviation dollars.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“Airlines already pay enough and aviation is already federally funded.”

Response:

Pennsylvania airport financial data demonstrates that airline-generated aeronautical revenue primarily supports airport operating activity, not the full long-term capital infrastructure burden required to sustain and modernize airports.

During 2024:

• aeronautical revenue covered only approximately:
  • 49.7% of airport operating expenses
• and only approximately:
  • 21% of total airport financial burden

once:

• capital expenditures,
• debt service,
• and long-term infrastructure costs are included.

Pennsylvania airports rely heavily on:

• FAA grants,
• Passenger Facility Charges,
• public infrastructure investment,
• debt financing,
• and non-aeronautical revenue

to maintain the infrastructure supporting Pennsylvania’s aviation economy.

At the same time:

• Pennsylvania’s statewide aviation system includes approximately:
  • 119 public-use airports
• many of which receive limited federal funding and struggle with local match requirements.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee has independently identified:

• infrastructure preservation concerns,
• funding limitations,
• local match barriers,
• and long-term aviation sustainability challenges.

The AIR Act is designed to strengthen:

• infrastructure safety,
• statewide competitiveness,
• airport modernization,
• federal funding leverage,
• and long-term aviation sustainability.

Pennsylvania’s aviation economy was built through decades of infrastructure investment.

The AIR Act is designed to ensure that infrastructure remains safe, reliable, and economically competitive for the next generation of aviation growth.

show less

Fact: The claim that airlines are being singled out is misleading. Commercial airlines rely on higher-cost airport infrastructure, benefit from significant public investment, and currently pay a jet fuel tax that has barely changed since the 1950s, while the AIR Act would reinvest aviation-generated revenue directly into the infrastructure commercial aviation depends on.

Learn More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups frequently argue that:

• commercial airlines are being unfairly targeted,
• the AIR Act disproportionately places funding responsibility on airlines,
• and aviation infrastructure should instead be funded through broader public revenue sources.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Airlines should not be singled out to fund Pennsylvania’s aviation system.”

The structure of the AIR Act demonstrates the opposite.

The legislation is specifically designed so that:

• commercial aviation activity directly benefits commercial aviation infrastructure,
• aviation-generated revenue is reinvested directly back into airports,
• and the users placing the greatest infrastructure demands on the system help sustain the infrastructure supporting those operations.

Commercial Airline Operations Require Higher-Cost Infrastructure

Commercial airline operations place different infrastructure demands on airports than many other forms of aviation activity.

Airports serving scheduled commercial airline operations must maintain:

• higher runway standards,
• larger pavement structures,
• higher-capacity taxiways,
• expanded aprons,
• terminal infrastructure,
• airfield lighting systems,
• snow and ice control capability,
• emergency response readiness,
• wildlife mitigation,
• and extensive inspection and maintenance programs.

FAA Part 139 certification requirements specifically impose:

• runway safety,
• aircraft rescue and firefighting,
• signage,
• markings,
• fueling safety,
• wildlife hazard management,
• and operational compliance obligations on commercial service airports.

Source:

FAA Part 139 Airport Certification

FAA airport design standards also scale based on:

• aircraft size,
• operational type,
• pavement loading,
• and air carrier activity.

Source:

FAA Airport Design Standards Advisory Circular

In practical terms:

• larger commercial aircraft require stronger pavement,
• larger safety areas,
• more complex infrastructure,
• and substantially higher long-term capital investment.

Commercial aviation does not merely use airport infrastructure.

It drives some of the most expensive infrastructure and safety requirements within the statewide aviation system.

Other Aviation Users Already Pay Significantly Higher Direct Aviation Taxes and Fees

Commercial airlines are not the only participants contributing toward Pennsylvania aviation funding.

General aviation users already pay:

• substantially higher fuel taxes,
• registration fees,
• licensing fees,
• and inspection fees.

Pennsylvania aviation gasoline (avgas) tax rates have historically remained significantly higher than commercial jet fuel tax rates.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue tax compendium:

Fuel Type	2025 Effective Rate
Aviation Gasoline (Avgas)	5.7¢ per gallon
Jet Fuel	1.7¢ per gallon

Source:

The same compendium notes:

• Act 164 of 1984 capped:
  • aviation gasoline taxes at no more than 6¢ per gallon,
  • and jet fuel taxes at no more than 2¢ per gallon.

Additionally:

• general aviation users already pay:
  • aircraft registration fees,
  • airport licensing fees,
  • inspection fees,
  • and other aviation-related charges.

This creates a substantial disparity between:

• commercial airline fuel taxation,
  and
• the broader aviation community already supporting the system at materially higher effective rates.

The AIR Act does not create participation for the first time.

It modernizes and rebalances a structure where many other aviation users already contribute proportionally more.

Pennsylvania Jet Fuel Tax Has Remained Effectively Frozen Since the 1950s

Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax has remained effectively stagnant for decades.

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue tax compendium shows that:

• Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax was:
  • 1.5¢ per gallon on June 1, 1956
• and:
  • 1.7¢ per gallon on January 1, 2025

That means Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax increased only:

• 0.2¢ per gallon over nearly 70 years

During the same period:

• inflation increased more than 1,100%.

Using CPI inflation calculations:

• $1 in 1956 is approximately equivalent to:
  • $12.24 in 2026 dollars

Source:

U.S. Inflation Calculator – 1956 to 2026 CPI Comparison

If Pennsylvania’s original:

• 1.5¢ per gallon jet fuel tax

had simply kept pace with inflation, the equivalent modern value would be approximately:

18.4¢ per gallon

Comparison	Rate
1956 Jet Fuel Tax	1.5¢
2025 Jet Fuel Tax	1.7¢
Inflation-Adjusted 1956 Equivalent	~18.4¢
AIR Act Proposed Rate	8.0¢

This is highly significant because:

• the AIR Act’s proposed 8¢ structure remains substantially below what the original 1956 rate would equal if adjusted for inflation alone.

The AIR Act is not creating an unprecedented burden.

It is partially restoring purchasing power lost through decades of inflation and statutory stagnation.

The Effective Fuel Tax Burden Is Actually Lower Today Than in 1956

The most important comparison is not simply:

• cents per gallon,

but rather:

• the effective fuel tax burden relative to fuel cost itself.

When Pennsylvania established its:

• 1.5¢ per gallon jet fuel tax in 1956,

jet fuel prices were approximately:

• 30¢ per gallon.

That means Pennsylvania’s original jet fuel tax represented approximately:

5.0% of fuel cost

By comparison:

Pennsylvania EIA data for 2024 reported:

• approximately:
  • 490.2 million gallons of statewide jet fuel consumption,
• and approximately:
  • $1.2129 billion in statewide jet fuel expenditures.

This equates to an average fuel cost of approximately:

$2.47 per gallon

Source:

EIA Table F2 – Jet Fuel Consumption, Price, Expenditure, and CO2 Emissions Estimates, 2024

Using that fuel cost:

Scenario	Effective Tax Burden as % of Fuel Cost
1956 Original Tax Structure	~5.0%
Current 1.7¢ Structure	~0.69%
AIR Act Proposed 8¢ Structure	~3.24%

This means:

• even under the AIR Act,
• Pennsylvania’s effective jet fuel tax burden as a percentage of fuel cost would remain substantially lower than when the tax was originally enacted.

This is one of the clearest indicators that:

• Pennsylvania’s commercial jet fuel taxation structure has failed to keep pace with:
  • inflation,
  • infrastructure costs,
  • and long-term aviation investment needs.

Pennsylvania’s Fuel Tax Structure Is Already Exceptionally Complex

Pennsylvania’s commercial jet fuel taxation system operates through the:

• Oil Company Franchise Tax (OCFT)

under:

• Title 75, Chapter 90.

Unlike a traditional retail fuel sales tax:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel taxation structure operates at the distributor level.

Under Pennsylvania law:

• airlines themselves may qualify as licensed distributors,
• fuel may move through multiple licensed entities,
• and distributor-to-distributor transactions involve credits, deductions, and reconciliation mechanisms before ultimate tax liability is determined.

Source:

Pennsylvania Title 75 Chapter 90 – Liquid Fuels and Fuels Tax

This creates a highly nuanced and administratively complex taxation structure compared to a simple retail fuel tax model.

Publicly available data already demonstrates substantial differences between:

• statewide jet fuel activity,
  and
• gallons implied through collections data.

During 2024:

• Pennsylvania commercial airport activity data reported approximately:
  • 468.3 million gallons
• EIA statewide jet fuel consumption data reported approximately:
  • 490.2 million gallons
• while Pennsylvania collections data implied approximately:
  • 362.4 million taxable gallons

depending on methodology utilized.

This creates apparent differences ranging from approximately:

• 106 million gallons
  to
• 128 million gallons

Sources:

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Monthly Revenue Report

EIA Table F2 – Jet Fuel Consumption, Price, Expenditure, and CO2 Emissions Estimates, 2024

This does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

However, it demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania’s commercial jet fuel taxation structure is already highly nuanced,
• operationally complex,
• and materially different from a simple retail transaction model.

Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause Creates Additional Structural Constraints

Pennsylvania’s Constitution contains a strong Uniformity Clause requiring taxes to operate uniformly upon the same class of subjects.

This creates important legal limitations regarding:

• preferential treatment,
• industry carveouts,
• and selective fuel tax classifications.

Because Pennsylvania’s aviation fuel taxation system operates through a distributor-level OCFT structure rather than a traditional retail sales tax:

• creating separate commercial airline fuel treatment becomes substantially more difficult administratively and constitutionally than in many other states.

The AIR Act modernizes Pennsylvania’s structure within its existing constitutional and administrative framework rather than creating increasingly fragmented carveouts and exemptions.

The AIR Act Returns Revenue Directly Back Into Commercial Aviation Infrastructure

The AIR Act is specifically structured so that aviation-generated activity is reinvested directly back into aviation infrastructure.

The legislation creates:

1. 50% Airport Turnback Allocation

The AIR Act allocates:

50% of Aviation Restricted Account revenue generated under Sections 6121, 6131, and 6132

back to the airports from which the revenue originated.

This creates direct reinvestment tied to:

• aviation activity,
• airport infrastructure,
• FAA local match support,
• pavement preservation,
• safety improvements,
• and modernization.

2. 25% Aviation Trust Fund Commercial Airport Allocation

The AIR Act additionally dedicates:

25% of the Aviation Trust Fund

specifically toward:

• commercial service airports.

This creates a second dedicated funding stream supporting:

• terminal modernization,
• operational competitiveness,
• air service development,
• infrastructure preservation,
• and long-term airport sustainability.

Airlines Already Benefit From Publicly Funded Infrastructure

Commercial airlines directly benefit from:

• federally funded runways,
• taxiway rehabilitation,
• navigational infrastructure,
• terminal modernization,
• safety systems,
• apron development,
• emergency response infrastructure,
• and publicly financed airport improvements.

Pennsylvania airports rely heavily on:

• FAA grants,
• Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs),
• debt financing,
• non-aeronautical revenue,
• and public infrastructure investment

to sustain and modernize airport infrastructure.

2024 Pennsylvania commercial airport financial data demonstrates:

Category	Amount
Aeronautical Revenue	$388.3M
Operating Expenses	$781.3M
Capital Expenditures	$830.2M
Debt Service	$236.4M
Total Airport Financial Burden	$1.85B

Key findings:

• aeronautical revenue covered only approximately:
  • 49.7% of airport operating expenses
• and only approximately:
  • 21% of total airport financial burden

once:

• capital expenditures,
• modernization,
• and debt service obligations are included.

This demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania airports are not solely airline-funded systems,
• and airlines already operate within infrastructure networks heavily supported through public investment mechanisms.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“Airlines should not be singled out to fund aviation infrastructure.”

Response:

Commercial aviation already benefits from:

• substantial public infrastructure investment,
• federally funded airport modernization,
• state tax advantages,
• airport incentives,
• FAA grants,
• and publicly financed airport systems.

At the same time:

• many other aviation users already pay materially higher fuel taxes and aviation fees than commercial airlines.

Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax has also remained effectively frozen since the 1950s and has lost substantial purchasing power due to inflation.

Importantly:

• the original 1956 jet fuel tax represented approximately:
  • 5% of fuel cost
• while the AIR Act’s proposed structure would represent only approximately:
  • 3.24% of modern fuel cost

even after the increase.

The AIR Act also directly returns aviation-generated revenue back into:

• commercial airport infrastructure,
• FAA local match support,
• airport modernization,
• safety improvements,
• and statewide aviation competitiveness

through:

• 50% airport turnback funding,
• and 25% Aviation Trust Fund allocation dedicated specifically toward commercial service airports.

The AIR Act does not single out airlines.

It modernizes and stabilizes the reinvestment structure supporting the infrastructure commercial aviation itself requires to safely and reliably operate.

show less

Fact: The AIR Act is not government expansion, it is aviation infrastructure modernization. The legislation uses existing aviation structures to improve project delivery, strengthen federal funding leverage, support workforce development, and address safety and infrastructure needs identified across Pennsylvania’s airport system.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups and fiscal opponents may argue that:

• the AIR Act creates unnecessary government expansion,
• adds administrative bureaucracy,
• increases regulatory overhead,
• and grows state aviation programs beyond what is necessary.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“The AIR Act creates more government instead of solving infrastructure problems.”

The structure of the AIR Act demonstrates the opposite.

The legislation is primarily designed to:

• modernize existing aviation funding structures,
• stabilize long-term infrastructure investment,
• improve leverage of federal funding,
• create more efficient statewide aviation infrastructure delivery,
• strengthen airport competitiveness,
• and improve aviation safety.

Most importantly:

• the AIR Act is fundamentally infrastructure modernization legislation,
  not government expansion legislation.

The AIR Act Primarily Funds Infrastructure — Not Bureaucracy

The overwhelming majority of AIR Act funding is directed toward:

• airport infrastructure,
• pavement preservation,
• FAA local match support,
• obstruction removal,
• hangar development,
• airport modernization,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation investment.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act includes administrative spending limitations.

The Aviation Restricted Account specifically limits administrative expenditures to:

• no more than 10%

of annual funding.

That means:

• at least 90% of Aviation Restricted Account funding must support aviation infrastructure, programs, and reinvestment activities rather than administration.

This is not a structure designed around administrative growth.

It is a structure designed around infrastructure reinvestment.

The AIR Act Modernizes the Bureau of Aviation

The AIR Act is not simply a funding bill.

It modernizes how Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Aviation operates by:

• creating statewide aviation incentive tools,
• improving project delivery,
• strengthening FAA leverage capability,
• supporting infrastructure bundling,
• modernizing airport investment strategy,
• and improving statewide aviation competitiveness.

These reforms are specifically designed to create measurable operational and economic benefits for:

• airports,
• commercial airlines,
• passengers,
• aviation businesses,
• and Pennsylvania’s broader transportation system.

The AIR Act Creates New Commercial Airline Incentive Tools

One of the most important modernization components within the AIR Act is the creation of:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants.

These grants function as:

• air service recruitment tools,
• startup risk reduction mechanisms,
• minimum revenue guarantee support,
• route development assistance,
• and airport competitiveness incentives.

This is critically important because:

• many states already utilize aggressive aviation incentive structures to recruit and retain commercial air service.

The AIR Act gives Pennsylvania a dedicated statewide tool allowing the Bureau of Aviation to:

• proactively support commercial airline expansion,
• strengthen regional air service,
• reduce airline market-entry risk,
• and improve airport competitiveness.

This directly benefits:

• airlines,
• airports,
• regional economies,
• and passenger connectivity.

Importantly:

• reducing the AIR Act’s proposed jet fuel structure directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to invest in these airline-supportive incentive programs.

The AIR Act Creates Statewide Infrastructure Efficiencies Through Bundled Project Delivery

The AIR Act also modernizes how Pennsylvania approaches aviation infrastructure delivery.

Historically:

• aviation infrastructure projects have often been addressed individually airport-by-airport.

The AIR Act creates the opportunity for:

• statewide bundled project delivery,
• coordinated infrastructure programs,
• and systemwide procurement efficiencies.

This is particularly important for:

• pavement preservation,
• obstruction removal,
• navigational infrastructure,
• airfield lighting,
• and statewide safety upgrades.

Bundling projects statewide can:

• reduce mobilization costs,
• improve procurement efficiency,
• accelerate project delivery,
• improve contractor participation,
• and create more predictable infrastructure planning.

This approach has historically been underutilized within Pennsylvania aviation infrastructure programs.

The AIR Act modernizes the system by allowing the Commonwealth to think about aviation infrastructure as:

• a statewide transportation network,
  not simply isolated airport projects.

The AIR Act Significantly Expands Aviation Safety Investment

The AIR Act substantially increases direct aviation safety investment.

This includes:

• pavement preservation,
• runway rehabilitation,
• taxiway maintenance,
• obstruction removal,
• airfield modernization,
• and safety-related infrastructure upgrades.

Current Pennsylvania pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure pressure:

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

Additionally:

• obstruction removal remains one of the most important aviation safety investments available to airports.

Obstructions affect:

• approach minimums,
• operational reliability,
• runway safety,
• and long-term airport usability.

The AIR Act directly increases Pennsylvania’s ability to address:

• deteriorating pavement,
• obstruction mitigation,
• and long-term airfield safety preservation.

This is not bureaucratic expansion.

It is direct aviation safety investment.

The AIR Act Creates One of the Largest State Aviation Workforce Development Investments in the Country

The AIR Act also creates what is likely:

• one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the United States.

The legislation establishes sustained statewide investment supporting:

• aviation education,
• technical workforce development,
• aviation career pipelines,
• airport operations training,
• maintenance workforce development,
• emerging aviation technologies,
• and next-generation aviation workforce readiness.

This is critically important because:

• workforce shortages remain one of the most significant long-term threats facing the aviation industry nationally.

The aviation industry is currently facing:

• pilot shortages,
• mechanic shortages,
• technician shortages,
• airport operations staffing challenges,
• air traffic workforce constraints,
• and increasing competition for skilled technical labor.

At the same time:

• advanced air mobility,
• autonomous systems,
• drone operations,
• electric aviation,
• and emerging aerospace technologies

are creating entirely new workforce demands.

The AIR Act recognizes that:

• aviation infrastructure alone is not enough.

Pennsylvania must also invest directly in:

• the workforce required to sustain and operate that infrastructure.

Importantly:

• few states have created dedicated statewide aviation workforce development funding structures at the scale proposed under the AIR Act.

The legislation positions Pennsylvania to become:

• a national leader in aviation workforce development,
• aviation education,
• emerging aviation technology training,
• and next-generation aviation economic competitiveness.

Reducing the AIR Act’s investment structure directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• build the aviation workforce pipeline,
• support future airline growth,
• strengthen airport staffing,
• improve aviation competitiveness,
• and prepare for the next generation of aviation technologies.

Pennsylvania’s Existing Aviation Funding Structure Is Already Inadequate

Pennsylvania currently supports approximately:

• 119 public-use airports
• and a statewide aviation system supporting approximately:
  • $43 billion annually in economic activity

Source:

Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study

Despite the size of Pennsylvania’s aviation economy:

• statewide aviation reinvestment has historically remained comparatively limited.

At the same time:

• Pennsylvania airports face growing:
  • pavement preservation needs,
  • infrastructure modernization requirements,
  • local match challenges,
  • and long-term funding pressures.

This is not evidence of excessive government expansion.

It is evidence of long-term infrastructure underinvestment.

Pennsylvania’s Own Transportation Advisory Committee Identified Funding and Infrastructure Gaps

Pennsylvania’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) independently identified:

• aging aviation infrastructure,
• funding limitations,
• local match barriers,
• pavement preservation concerns,
• and long-term aviation sustainability challenges.

Source:

Pennsylvania TAC Aviation Transportation System Assessment Report

The TAC report emphasized:

• the importance of preserving airport infrastructure,
• maintaining statewide connectivity,
• improving aviation funding sustainability,
• and strengthening Pennsylvania’s aviation competitiveness.

Importantly:

• these concerns were identified independently through Pennsylvania’s transportation planning process,
  not through aviation advocacy organizations.

The AIR Act is specifically structured to address many of the same deficiencies identified by TAC.

Deferred Infrastructure Investment Ultimately Creates Higher Costs

One of the most expensive infrastructure strategies is:

• delaying maintenance and reinvestment.

The TAC report specifically recognized that:

• deferred infrastructure preservation significantly increases long-term costs.

This principle is well established in transportation infrastructure management:

• preventative maintenance and pavement preservation are substantially less expensive than full reconstruction after deterioration accelerates.

Current pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure pressure across Pennsylvania airports:

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

The AIR Act is designed to:

• reduce deferred maintenance pressure,
• improve long-term asset preservation,
• and avoid substantially larger future reconstruction costs.

That is fiscally preventative infrastructure policy, not unnecessary bureaucracy.

The AIR Act Strengthens Pennsylvania’s Ability to Leverage Federal Funding

The AIR Act improves Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• compete for FAA discretionary grants,
• provide local match funding,
• accelerate project delivery,
• and maximize federal infrastructure investment.

Many airports currently struggle with:

• local match requirements,
• limited sponsor capacity,
• and insufficient state funding participation.

The AIR Act directly addresses those limitations through:

• airport turnback funding,
• FAA local match support,
• and long-term aviation reinvestment mechanisms.

This is important because:

• stronger state investment often results in greater federal leverage,
  not simply increased state spending.

Reducing the AIR Act Primarily Reduces Investment in the Airports Airlines Use Most

Commercial airline opponents frequently frame the AIR Act as:

• a cost increase.

However:

• reducing the proposed AIR Act investment structure primarily reduces:
  • infrastructure reinvestment,
  • airport modernization,
  • FAA leverage capacity,
  • air service incentive programs,
  • workforce development investment,
  • pavement preservation,
  • obstruction removal,
  • and safety improvements

at the very airports commercial airlines rely upon most heavily.

The AIR Act specifically returns aviation-generated activity back into:

• commercial airport infrastructure,
• operational modernization,
• airport competitiveness,
• and long-term aviation sustainability.

Reducing that investment does not eliminate infrastructure needs.

It simply reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to address them proactively.

The AIR Act Is Fundamentally Infrastructure Modernization Legislation

The AIR Act is fundamentally designed to:

• modernize Pennsylvania’s aviation funding structure,
• stabilize long-term infrastructure investment,
• improve airport safety,
• strengthen federal funding leverage,
• support statewide economic competitiveness,
• modernize airport operations,
• improve workforce readiness,
• and preserve critical transportation infrastructure.

The legislation primarily invests in:

• airports,
• infrastructure,
• safety,
• modernization,
• workforce development,
• and long-term system sustainability.

The central policy question is not:

“Does the AIR Act create more government?”

The real policy question is:

“Can Pennsylvania continue supporting a $43 billion aviation economy with infrastructure funding structures that have remained largely stagnant for decades?”

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“The AIR Act creates unnecessary government expansion and bureaucracy.”

Response:

The AIR Act is primarily infrastructure modernization legislation, not government expansion legislation.

The overwhelming majority of AIR Act funding supports:

• airport infrastructure,
• pavement preservation,
• obstruction removal,
• FAA local match support,
• modernization,
• safety improvements,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation reinvestment.

The legislation modernizes how Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Aviation operates by:

• creating statewide infrastructure efficiencies,
• improving project delivery,
• strengthening airport competitiveness,
• creating direct airline-supportive incentive programs,
• and significantly expanding workforce development investment.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

Administrative expenditures are limited,
existing aviation structures are primarily utilized,
and the legislation includes accountability and reporting requirements.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee independently identified:

• funding deficiencies,
• infrastructure preservation challenges,
• and long-term aviation sustainability concerns.

The AIR Act directly addresses many of those same statewide infrastructure needs.

Reducing the AIR Act primarily reduces:

• airport reinvestment,
• safety modernization,
• infrastructure preservation,
• workforce investment,
• and commercial airport competitiveness

at the very airports commercial airlines rely upon most heavily.

The AIR Act is designed to modernize and stabilize Pennsylvania’s aviation infrastructure system before deferred investment and aging infrastructure create substantially larger economic and safety consequences.

show less

Fact: FAA funding is critical, but it is not enough on its own. Only about half of Pennsylvania’s 119 public-use airports are positioned to receive meaningful federal Airport Improvement Program support, while the AIR Act helps address local match barriers, infrastructure preservation, obstruction removal, workforce development, and other needs FAA funding does not fully cover.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups and fiscal opponents may argue that:

• the federal government already funds aviation infrastructure,
• FAA grants should be sufficient to maintain Pennsylvania airports,
• and additional state aviation investment is unnecessary.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“The FAA already funds airports. Pennsylvania does not need additional aviation investment.”

This argument fundamentally misunderstands:

• how FAA funding works,
• how airport infrastructure is financed,
• and the size and complexity of Pennsylvania’s statewide aviation system.

FAA funding is critically important.

But FAA funding was never designed to fully fund an entire statewide aviation system by itself.

FAA Funding Primarily Supports Federally Eligible Projects

The FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) primarily funds:

• safety-related airfield infrastructure,
• runway rehabilitation,
• taxiways,
• lighting,
• navigational systems,
• and federally eligible airport development projects.

Source:

FAA Airport Improvement Program Overview

However:

• not all airport projects are fully eligible,
• not all airports receive large federal allocations,
• and many airport needs fall outside traditional FAA participation categories.

Examples of infrastructure areas often requiring additional state or local participation include:

• terminal modernization,
• hangar development,
• airport access improvements,
• workforce development,
• obstruction removal,
• economic development infrastructure,
• emerging aviation technologies,
• and operational modernization initiatives.

FAA funding is designed to supplement airport infrastructure investment.

It was never intended to fully replace state aviation participation.

Only About Half of Pennsylvania’s Public-Use Airports Receive Meaningful Federal Funding Eligibility

Pennsylvania currently supports approximately:

• 119 public-use airports

supporting:

• commercial aviation,
• business aviation,
• cargo operations,
• emergency response,
• military readiness,
• medical transport,
• agricultural aviation,
• flight training,
• and statewide economic connectivity.

However:

• only approximately half of those airports are included within the:
  • FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)

which is the primary gateway for significant federal Airport Improvement Program eligibility.

Source:

FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)

This is critically important because:

• airports outside the NPIAS system generally receive little or no direct federal AIP participation,
• despite still supporting important aviation activity and regional economic functions.

Many Pennsylvania airports therefore:

• compete for limited discretionary opportunities,
• receive minimal direct federal participation,
• or rely heavily on state and local investment to maintain infrastructure.

This is especially true for:

• smaller general aviation airports,
• rural airports,
• reliever airports,
• and community aviation facilities.

The statewide aviation system functions as:

• a connected transportation network,
  not simply a collection of federally funded commercial airports.

Pennsylvania’s Identified Aviation Infrastructure Need Already Exceeds Existing Funding Capacity

Pennsylvania’s own aviation planning documents already demonstrate that:

• existing federal and state funding levels are insufficient to address long-term aviation infrastructure needs.

The Pennsylvania Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Aviation Transportation System Assessment identified approximately:

$2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs

across Pennsylvania’s aviation network.

Source:

Pennsylvania TAC Aviation Transportation System Assessment Report

Importantly:

• this figure reflects statewide aviation infrastructure needs,
  not simply commercial airport projects.

The TAC report identified:

• pavement preservation,
• safety infrastructure,
• modernization needs,
• operational deficiencies,
• local match challenges,
• and long-term sustainability concerns across Pennsylvania’s aviation system.

Even Federal NPIAS Development Estimates Alone Demonstrate Massive Funding Need

The FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) independently identified approximately:

$981.97 million

in Pennsylvania airport development needs between:

• 2025–2029

for federally eligible NPIAS airport projects alone.

Importantly:

• this figure only reflects:
  • federally eligible development projects
  • at federally participating airports.

It does not fully account for:

• non-NPIAS airport infrastructure needs,
• local match obligations,
• operational modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• statewide pavement preservation programs,
• workforce development,
• aviation economic development,
• or emerging aviation technologies.

This is critically important because:

• only approximately half of Pennsylvania’s:
  • 119 public-use airports
    are positioned to receive meaningful federal Airport Improvement Program participation through the NPIAS structure.

That means:

• a substantial portion of Pennsylvania’s statewide aviation infrastructure system relies heavily upon:
  • state investment,
  • local investment,
  • and airport-generated revenue.

Local Match Requirements Remain One of the Largest Infrastructure Barriers

Even when FAA funding is available:

• local match requirements remain one of the largest barriers preventing airport projects from advancing.

FAA grants frequently require:

• sponsor participation,
• local match funding,
• state participation,
• or financial contribution from airport sponsors.

For many Pennsylvania airports:

• particularly financially constrained airports,
• smaller general aviation airports,
• and rural airports,

local match obligations delay projects even when federal dollars are available.

This creates a paradox:

• federal funding may technically exist,
• but airports cannot fully utilize it without adequate state and local participation.

The AIR Act directly addresses this issue through:

• FAA local match support,
• airport turnback funding,
• and long-term aviation reinvestment mechanisms.

Pennsylvania Airports Already Show Significant Infrastructure Funding Pressure

Current pavement condition data demonstrates growing infrastructure preservation concerns statewide.

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

These conditions directly affect:

• airport safety,
• operational reliability,
• maintenance costs,
• foreign object debris exposure,
• and long-term airport competitiveness.

If FAA funding alone were sufficient:

• Pennsylvania would not already be facing widespread deferred preservation concerns across its aviation system.

Pennsylvania’s Own Transportation Advisory Committee Identified Aviation Funding Gaps

Pennsylvania’s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) independently identified:

• infrastructure preservation concerns,
• funding limitations,
• local match barriers,
• pavement deterioration risks,
• and long-term aviation sustainability challenges.

Source:

Pennsylvania TAC Aviation Transportation System Assessment Report

The TAC report specifically emphasized:

• the importance of preserving statewide airport infrastructure,
• strengthening aviation funding sustainability,
• and maintaining a viable statewide aviation network.

Importantly:

• these concerns were identified through Pennsylvania’s transportation planning process,
  not through airport advocacy organizations.

The AIR Act directly addresses many of the same deficiencies identified in the TAC report.

Pennsylvania Airports Require More Than Basic FAA Participation

Commercial airline operations require:

• highly maintained runway systems,
• stronger pavement structures,
• larger taxiway systems,
• terminal infrastructure,
• safety systems,
• emergency response capability,
• snow and ice control,
• and operational modernization.

FAA funding alone does not fully sustain these long-term infrastructure obligations.

2024 Pennsylvania commercial airport financial data demonstrates:

Category	Amount
Aeronautical Revenue	$388.3M
Operating Expenses	$781.3M
Capital Expenditures	$830.2M
Debt Service	$236.4M
Total Airport Financial Burden	$1.85B

Key findings:

• aeronautical revenue covered only approximately:
  • 49.7% of operating expenses
• and only approximately:
  • 21% of total airport financial burden

once:

• capital expenditures,
• modernization,
• and debt service obligations are included.

This demonstrates that:

• airport infrastructure already relies heavily upon:
  • FAA grants,
  • Passenger Facility Charges,
  • debt financing,
  • public infrastructure investment,
  • and non-aeronautical revenue.

FAA funding is one component of a much larger airport infrastructure financing system.

The AIR Act Improves Pennsylvania’s Ability to Leverage Federal Funding

The AIR Act is not designed to replace FAA investment.

It is designed to:

• maximize Pennsylvania’s ability to leverage federal investment.

The legislation strengthens:

• FAA local match capability,
• airport project readiness,
• statewide infrastructure planning,
• airport competitiveness,
• project delivery capacity,
• and long-term infrastructure preservation.

Importantly:

• stronger state investment often allows airports to compete more effectively for discretionary federal grants.

The AIR Act therefore improves Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• attract federal aviation dollars,
  not simply spend additional state dollars.

The AIR Act Also Funds Critical Areas FAA Programs Do Not Fully Address

The AIR Act creates investment mechanisms supporting:

• obstruction removal,
• statewide pavement preservation,
• workforce development,
• airport modernization,
• air service recruitment,
• hangar development,
• emerging aviation technologies,
• and Aviation Opportunity Grants.

These are all critical aviation competitiveness and safety areas that:

• FAA funding alone does not comprehensively address.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

Reducing AIR Act investment directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• build aviation workforce pipelines,
• improve airport competitiveness,
• modernize infrastructure,
• and support the future aviation system.

FAA Funding Alone Was Never Intended To Sustain an Entire Statewide Aviation System

FAA programs are fundamentally designed to:

• partner with states,
• partner with airport sponsors,
• and leverage local participation.

The federal aviation funding system was never structured around:

• states making little or no direct aviation reinvestment.

Pennsylvania’s aviation system supports approximately:

• $43 billion annually in economic activity
• and more than:
  • 226,000 jobs

Source:

Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study

Maintaining infrastructure supporting that level of economic activity requires:

• federal participation,
• state participation,
• airport reinvestment,
• and long-term infrastructure modernization.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“FAA funding alone should be sufficient.”

Response:

FAA funding is critically important, but FAA programs were never designed to fully fund Pennsylvania’s statewide aviation system by themselves.

Only approximately half of Pennsylvania’s:

• 119 public-use airports
  are positioned to receive meaningful federal Airport Improvement Program participation through the NPIAS system.

At the same time:

• Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee identified approximately:
  • $2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs
• while FAA NPIAS development estimates alone identified approximately:
  • $981.97 million in federally eligible airport development needs between 2025–2029

Many Pennsylvania airports:

• receive limited federal participation,
• struggle with local match requirements,
• and face growing infrastructure preservation pressures.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee independently identified:

• funding limitations,
• pavement preservation concerns,
• and long-term aviation sustainability challenges.

The AIR Act strengthens Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• leverage federal funding,
• improve local match capability,
• modernize infrastructure,
• preserve airport safety,
• improve project delivery,
• and strengthen long-term statewide aviation competitiveness.

The legislation also funds critical areas FAA programs do not fully address, including:

• obstruction removal,
• workforce development,
• statewide pavement preservation,
• airport modernization,
• and Aviation Opportunity Grants.

The AIR Act is not replacing FAA funding.

It is creating the state partnership and long-term reinvestment structure necessary to maximize and sustain federal aviation investment throughout Pennsylvania.

show less

Fact: The AIR Act does not create uncertainty, it addresses it. By creating predictable aviation funding, improving FAA local match capacity, supporting workforce development, and investing in pavement preservation and airport modernization, the AIR Act reduces the long-term operational risks that airlines face from deteriorating infrastructure and inconsistent capital planning.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups may argue that:

• changes to Pennsylvania’s aviation funding structure create uncertainty,
• increased aviation taxation complicates operational planning,
• and airlines require predictable cost environments to make long-term investment decisions.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“The AIR Act creates uncertainty for airlines operating in Pennsylvania.”

The reality is the opposite.

The AIR Act is fundamentally designed to:

• create long-term funding stability,
• improve infrastructure predictability,
• modernize statewide aviation investment,
• and reduce operational uncertainty across Pennsylvania’s aviation system.

The Greatest Long-Term Operational Risk Is Infrastructure Deterioration

Airlines depend upon:

• safe runways,
• reliable taxiways,
• operationally efficient airports,
• predictable infrastructure conditions,
• and long-term airport sustainability.

The greatest threat to long-term operational certainty is not:

• predictable infrastructure reinvestment.

It is:

• deferred maintenance,
• deteriorating pavement,
• infrastructure backlogs,
• local funding instability,
• and reactive capital planning.

Current Pennsylvania pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure pressure:

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

Infrastructure uncertainty creates:

• operational inefficiencies,
• increased maintenance exposure,
• construction disruption risk,
• pavement deterioration,
• and long-term operational instability.

The AIR Act is specifically designed to stabilize long-term infrastructure reinvestment before those problems worsen.

The AIR Act Creates Predictable Long-Term Aviation Funding

One of the largest structural problems facing Pennsylvania aviation today is:

• inconsistent and inadequate long-term aviation funding.

The AIR Act modernizes this structure by:

• creating dedicated aviation funding streams,
• stabilizing statewide reinvestment,
• improving airport planning certainty,
• and increasing infrastructure predictability.

This benefits:

• airports,
• airlines,
• tenants,
• fixed-base operators,
• and long-term aviation capital planning.

Predictable infrastructure investment allows airports to:

• phase projects more efficiently,
• improve capital planning,
• reduce deferred maintenance,
• coordinate construction schedules,
• and improve long-term operational reliability.

Those outcomes directly benefit commercial airline operations.

The AIR Act Creates Predictable and Easily Forecastable Fuel Costs

One of the most important realities from an airline planning perspective is that:

• the AIR Act’s proposed fuel structure is:
  • fixed,
  • transparent,
  • and highly predictable.

The AIR Act proposes:

• a fixed cents-per-gallon structure.

It is not:

• a percentage-based tax,
• a fluctuating sales tax,
• or a variable market-indexed surcharge tied directly to fuel price volatility.

This is important because:

• many states utilize aviation fuel structures involving:
  • percentage-based calculations,
  • sales tax formulas,
  • wholesale price indexing,
  • excise layering,
  • or additional variable fuel-related charges.

Those systems can create:

• unpredictable effective tax burdens,
• fuel-price sensitivity,
• and increased volatility during fuel market swings.

By comparison:

• the AIR Act’s fixed-rate structure allows airlines to:
  • forecast fuel costs more accurately,
  • model long-term operating expenses more easily,
  • and incorporate Pennsylvania fuel costs into route planning with far greater certainty.

Fuel Market Volatility Is a Much Larger Airline Cost Driver Than the AIR Act

Commercial airlines already routinely manage:

• substantial fuel market volatility,
• commodity price fluctuations,
• geopolitical fuel disruptions,
• refining market shifts,
• and seasonal pricing swings.

Fuel prices regularly fluctuate:

• far more dramatically than the AIR Act’s proposed fixed cents-per-gallon structure.

For example:

• Pennsylvania’s average jet fuel expenditure during 2024 was approximately:
  • $2.47 per gallon

Yet jet fuel prices have historically experienced:

• swings of well over:
  • $1.00 per gallon
    within relatively short timeframes.

Compared to normal airline fuel market variability:

• the AIR Act’s fixed structure represents a relatively small and highly predictable operating variable.

The AIR Act Improves Airport Competitiveness

The AIR Act is not simply about revenue generation.

It modernizes Pennsylvania’s ability to compete for:

• commercial air service,
• airport investment,
• federal funding,
• workforce development,
• and aviation economic growth.

The legislation creates:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• statewide modernization tools,
• airport reinvestment mechanisms,
• and infrastructure preservation funding.

Aviation Opportunity Grants specifically function as:

• air service recruitment tools,
• startup risk reduction mechanisms,
• minimum revenue guarantee support,
• and route development incentives.

This gives Pennsylvania a statewide aviation competitiveness tool that:

• directly supports airlines entering or expanding service within Pennsylvania.

Reducing AIR Act investment directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• recruit service,
• support route development,
• and improve commercial airport competitiveness.

The AIR Act Reduces Long-Term Airport Cost Pressure

Airlines often express concern regarding:

• airport rates and charges,
• operating costs,
• and long-term infrastructure expense.

The AIR Act helps reduce future financial pressure on airports by:

• increasing state participation,
• improving FAA leverage capability,
• supporting local match participation,
• and reducing deferred infrastructure deterioration.

Importantly:

• deferred maintenance is typically far more expensive than preventative preservation.

Without long-term reinvestment:

• airports face increasing reconstruction costs,
• larger emergency capital expenditures,
• and greater pressure to recover costs through airport rates and charges.

The AIR Act helps stabilize long-term infrastructure conditions before those pressures escalate further.

The AIR Act Creates More Predictable FAA Leverage and Project Delivery

Many Pennsylvania airports currently struggle with:

• local match requirements,
• limited sponsor funding,
• and inconsistent capital programming.

This creates uncertainty for:

• airport sponsors,
• infrastructure delivery,
• and long-term airport modernization.

The AIR Act improves:

• FAA local match capability,
• statewide project readiness,
• capital planning predictability,
• and infrastructure delivery capacity.

The legislation also modernizes project delivery through:

• statewide infrastructure coordination,
• bundled infrastructure programs,
• and systemwide planning approaches.

This creates:

• greater operational consistency,
• improved planning reliability,
• and more efficient statewide infrastructure modernization.

The AIR Act Strengthens Workforce Stability

The aviation industry is currently facing:

• pilot shortages,
• mechanic shortages,
• technician shortages,
• airport staffing shortages,
• and increasing competition for skilled labor.

The AIR Act creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

The legislation supports:

• aviation education,
• technical training,
• airport operations workforce development,
• emerging aviation technologies,
• and long-term aviation workforce pipeline growth.

This directly benefits:

• commercial airlines,
• airport operators,
• aviation maintenance providers,
• and the future operational stability of the aviation industry itself.

Reducing AIR Act investment directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• strengthen aviation workforce pipelines,
• improve operational stability,
• and support future aviation growth.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation System Already Faces Large Identified Funding Gaps

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee identified approximately:

$2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs

across Pennsylvania’s aviation infrastructure system.

Additionally:

• FAA NPIAS estimates identified approximately:
  • $981.97 million in federally eligible airport development needs between 2025–2029

for participating Pennsylvania airports alone.

At the same time:

• only approximately half of Pennsylvania’s:
  • 119 public-use airports
    receive meaningful federal Airport Improvement Program participation through the NPIAS structure.

This demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation infrastructure system already faces significant long-term funding pressure.

The AIR Act is designed to create:

• greater funding predictability,
• improved infrastructure stability,
• and long-term modernization planning.

The AIR Act Creates Long-Term Operational Stability — Not Uncertainty

Commercial airlines require:

• reliable infrastructure,
• operational predictability,
• safe airports,
• modern facilities,
• workforce stability,
• and long-term airport sustainability.

The AIR Act directly supports each of those goals through:

• infrastructure modernization,
• pavement preservation,
• obstruction removal,
• workforce development,
• airport reinvestment,
• FAA leverage improvement,
• and statewide aviation modernization.

The legislation is fundamentally designed to:

• reduce uncertainty created by deferred infrastructure investment,
  not create new uncertainty.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“The AIR Act creates uncertainty for airline planning and operations.”

Response:

The AIR Act is fundamentally designed to create greater long-term stability and predictability across Pennsylvania’s aviation system.

The legislation:

• stabilizes aviation funding,
• modernizes airport infrastructure investment,
• improves FAA leverage capability,
• strengthens workforce development,
• supports commercial air service recruitment,
• and reduces long-term deferred maintenance pressure.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act utilizes a fixed cents-per-gallon structure that is transparent and easily forecastable from an airline planning perspective.

Unlike many percentage-based or variable fuel taxation systems used elsewhere:

• the AIR Act does not expose airlines to fluctuating tax structures tied directly to fuel market volatility.

Commercial airlines already manage fuel market swings substantially larger than the AIR Act’s proposed fixed-rate structure.

The greatest operational uncertainty facing Pennsylvania aviation is not predictable infrastructure reinvestment.

It is:

• aging infrastructure,
• deferred preservation,
• inconsistent funding,
• local match limitations,
• workforce shortages,
• and growing capital backlogs.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee identified:

• approximately $2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs,
  while FAA NPIAS estimates identified:
• approximately $981.97 million in federally eligible development needs between 2025–2029 alone.

The AIR Act creates:

• more predictable infrastructure investment,
• more reliable airport modernization,
• improved statewide competitiveness,
• and stronger long-term operational stability for the airports airlines rely upon most heavily.

show less

Fact: The AIR Act does not discourage airline investment, it supports the conditions airlines need to invest. By improving airport infrastructure, reducing deferred maintenance, strengthening workforce pipelines, and creating Aviation Opportunity Grants for air service development, the AIR Act helps make Pennsylvania airports more competitive for future commercial service.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups may argue that:

• higher aviation fuel taxes discourage airline investment,
• airlines will prioritize growth in lower-tax states,
• and Pennsylvania risks becoming less competitive for commercial air service.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Higher aviation taxes will discourage future airline investment in Pennsylvania.”

The available evidence does not support that conclusion.

Airline investment decisions are driven primarily by:

• passenger demand,
• market profitability,
• airport infrastructure quality,
• operational reliability,
• workforce availability,
• geographic positioning,
• and long-term market opportunity.

The AIR Act directly strengthens many of those competitive factors.

Independent Research Shows Minimal Operational Impact From Aviation Fuel Tax Changes

One of the most important independent findings comes from:

• Georgia’s evaluation of aviation fuel tax policy.

Georgia’s analysis found that:

• even after significant aviation fuel tax changes,
• the measurable impact on flight activity was extremely small.

The study estimated approximately:

• only a:
  • 0.2% increase in flights
    following elimination of Georgia’s jet fuel sales tax exemption.

Importantly:

• the study also found:
  • no measurable creation of new jobs

associated with the exemption.

This is critically important because:

• it demonstrates that airline operational decisions are far less sensitive to modest fuel tax structures than opponents often claim.

The data suggests:

• airline investment decisions are primarily driven by broader market economics and operational factors rather than relatively small fuel tax differentials.

Airline Service Already Fluctuates Regardless of Pennsylvania’s Existing Fuel Tax Structure

Pennsylvania has experienced:

• airline expansion,
• airline contraction,
• route additions,
• route eliminations,
• and service changes

under the current low jet fuel tax structure.

In other words:

• airline service has historically come and gone in Pennsylvania even without significant changes to the state’s jet fuel tax structure.

This demonstrates that:

• airline network decisions are primarily influenced by:
  • profitability,
  • passenger demand,
  • fleet allocation,
  • and broader airline economics

rather than Pennsylvania’s historically low fuel tax structure alone.

Commercial aviation is an inherently dynamic industry.

The AIR Act does not change that reality.

The AIR Act Actually Creates New Airline Investment Incentives

The AIR Act does not simply increase aviation funding.

It modernizes Pennsylvania’s ability to actively compete for:

• airline service,
• route development,
• and airport investment.

One of the most important components is the creation of:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants.

These grants function as:

• air service recruitment tools,
• startup risk reduction mechanisms,
• minimum revenue guarantee support,
• and route development incentives.

This is critically important because:

• many states already utilize aggressive incentive structures to recruit and retain airline service.

The AIR Act gives Pennsylvania a dedicated statewide tool allowing the Bureau of Aviation to:

• proactively support commercial airline expansion,
• reduce market-entry risk,
• support route development,
• and improve airport competitiveness.

In practical terms:

• the AIR Act creates direct airline-supportive investment tools.

Reducing the AIR Act’s funding structure directly reduces Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• recruit service,
• support market growth,
• and incentivize airline investment.

Airport Infrastructure Quality Is a Major Competitive Factor

Commercial airlines rely upon:

• reliable pavement,
• safe taxiways,
• modernized airfields,
• operational efficiency,
• terminal competitiveness,
• workforce availability,
• and predictable airport conditions.

Current Pennsylvania pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure pressure:

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

Infrastructure deterioration creates:

• operational inefficiencies,
• higher maintenance exposure,
• construction disruption risk,
• and long-term airport competitiveness concerns.

The AIR Act directly addresses these issues through:

• pavement preservation,
• airport modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• FAA local match support,
• and long-term infrastructure stabilization.

These investments directly improve the airports airlines use most heavily.

The AIR Act Helps Reduce Long-Term Airport Cost Pressure

Airlines frequently express concern regarding:

• airport rates and charges,
• infrastructure cost recovery,
• and long-term airport operating costs.

The AIR Act helps reduce future airport financial pressure by:

• increasing state participation,
• improving FAA leverage capability,
• reducing deferred maintenance exposure,
• and stabilizing long-term infrastructure conditions.

Deferred infrastructure investment typically creates:

• larger reconstruction costs,
• emergency capital expenditures,
• and greater pressure on airport rate structures.

Preventative infrastructure investment is generally far less expensive than reactive reconstruction.

The AIR Act improves long-term airport financial stability.

Pennsylvania’s Aviation System Supports Massive Existing Market Demand

Pennsylvania’s aviation system already supports approximately:

• $43 billion annually in economic activity
• and more than:
  • 226,000 jobs

Source:

Pennsylvania Aviation Economic Impact Study

Pennsylvania also represents:

• one of the nation’s largest population markets,
• a major freight corridor,
• a significant business travel market,
• and a strategically important Northeast transportation hub.

Airlines invest where:

• passenger demand exists,
• operational reliability exists,
• and long-term profitability exists.

The AIR Act strengthens the infrastructure supporting all three.

The AIR Act Creates One of the Largest State Aviation Workforce Investments in the Country

The AIR Act also creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the United States.

The legislation supports:

• aviation education,
• technical workforce development,
• maintenance workforce pipelines,
• airport operations staffing,
• emerging aviation technologies,
• and next-generation aviation career development.

This directly supports:

• airline operational growth,
• airport staffing stability,
• maintenance capacity,
• and long-term aviation competitiveness.

Workforce shortages remain one of the largest long-term constraints facing the aviation industry nationally.

The AIR Act directly addresses that challenge.

The AIR Act Creates Predictable Operating Conditions

Importantly:

• the AIR Act utilizes a:
  • fixed cents-per-gallon structure.

It is not:

• a fluctuating percentage-based sales tax,
• a wholesale price-indexed surcharge,
• or a highly variable market-linked fee structure.

This gives airlines:

• predictable operating assumptions,
• transparent cost modeling,
• and easier long-term planning capability.

Fuel market volatility itself routinely creates:

• far greater operating cost variability
  than the AIR Act’s proposed fixed-rate structure.

The AIR Act therefore improves long-term predictability rather than reducing it.

The Real Long-Term Threat to Airline Investment Is Infrastructure Underinvestment

The greatest threat to long-term airline investment in Pennsylvania is not:

• predictable infrastructure reinvestment.

It is:

• deteriorating infrastructure,
• deferred maintenance,
• local funding instability,
• workforce shortages,
• and declining airport competitiveness.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee identified approximately:

$2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs

while FAA NPIAS estimates identified approximately:

$981.97 million in federally eligible development needs between 2025–2029

for participating Pennsylvania airports alone.

The AIR Act is designed to address these growing pressures before they create substantially larger:

• operational,
• economic,
• and safety consequences.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“Higher aviation taxes will discourage future airline investment in Pennsylvania.”

Response:

Independent research demonstrates that modest aviation fuel tax changes have limited measurable impact on airline operational behavior.

Georgia’s own aviation fuel tax analysis found only approximately:

• a 0.2% increase in flights
  and:
• no measurable new job creation
  associated with major fuel tax exemption changes.

Airline investment decisions are primarily driven by:

• passenger demand,
• airport competitiveness,
• operational reliability,
• infrastructure quality,
• and long-term profitability.

The AIR Act directly strengthens those competitive factors through:

• airport modernization,
• pavement preservation,
• obstruction removal,
• FAA leverage improvement,
• workforce development,
• and Aviation Opportunity Grants specifically designed to support commercial airline growth and route recruitment.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act also creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

The legislation is not anti-airline investment.

It is fundamentally designed to improve the infrastructure, competitiveness, workforce capacity, and operational reliability that long-term airline investment depends upon.

show less

Fact: The AIR Act is not just a tax increase, it is a statewide aviation modernization strategy. The legislation creates dedicated reinvestment mechanisms, including airport turnback funding, commercial airport allocations, FAA leverage support, workforce development, infrastructure modernization, and safety improvements, while addressing billions in documented aviation infrastructure needs.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups and fiscal opponents may argue that:

• the AIR Act is primarily a revenue-generation bill,
• the legislation is simply a fuel tax increase,
• and infrastructure language is being used to justify expanded taxation.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“The AIR Act is just a tax increase disguised as infrastructure policy.”

This characterization ignores:

• the structure of the legislation,
• the reinvestment mechanisms within the AIR Act,
• the scale of Pennsylvania’s documented aviation infrastructure need,
• and the fact that Pennsylvania’s aviation funding structure has remained largely stagnant for decades.

The AIR Act is fundamentally:

• a statewide aviation modernization strategy,
  not simply a revenue bill.

The AIR Act Is Built Around Reinvestment — Not General Revenue Collection

The AIR Act does not direct aviation-generated revenue into Pennsylvania’s General Fund.

Instead:

• the legislation creates dedicated aviation reinvestment mechanisms specifically tied to:
  • airport infrastructure,
  • safety,
  • modernization,
  • workforce development,
  • and statewide aviation competitiveness.

The legislation creates:

• the Aviation Restricted Account,
• the Aviation Trust Fund,
• airport turnback funding,
• commercial airport allocations,
• and statewide infrastructure reinvestment programs.

This is fundamentally different from:

• general taxation.

The AIR Act is structured so that:

• aviation-generated activity is reinvested directly back into aviation infrastructure.

Only Approximately 25%–33% of AIR Act Funding Comes From the Commercial Jet Fuel Structure

One of the most important realities frequently overlooked in opposition arguments is that:

Only approximately 25%–33% of the AIR Act’s projected annual funding is generated through the commercial jet fuel structure itself.

The AIR Act is projected to generate approximately:

$120 million annually

through a combination of:

• aviation revenue modernization,
• multimodal investment,
• registration fees,
• licensing fees,
• existing aviation funding streams,
• and Aviation Trust Fund support.

Importantly:

• only approximately:
  • $30–40 million annually
    is projected to come from the commercial jet fuel component.

AIR Act Funding Component	Approximate Annual Amount
Commercial Jet Fuel Component	~$30–40 million
Other Aviation & State Funding Components	~$80–90 million
Total AIR Act Aviation Investment	~$120 million

This is critically important because:

• opposition narratives frequently characterize the AIR Act as if the entire aviation modernization program is being funded solely through commercial airlines.

That is inaccurate.

Approximately:

• two-thirds to three-quarters of AIR Act investment comes from sources other than the commercial jet fuel structure itself.

The AIR Act is fundamentally:

• a statewide aviation reinvestment strategy,
  not simply a commercial airline funding mechanism.

At the same time:

• commercial service airports receive some of the largest direct reinvestment benefits through:
  • airport turnback funding,
  • dedicated commercial airport allocations,
  • FAA local match support,
  • Aviation Opportunity Grants,
  • infrastructure modernization,
  • and long-term operational stabilization.

This demonstrates that:

• the AIR Act creates a broad statewide aviation investment partnership,
  not a disproportionate or isolated burden placed solely upon commercial airlines.

The AIR Act Directly Returns Revenue Back Into Commercial Airports

The AIR Act specifically includes:

1. 50% Airport Turnback Allocation

The legislation allocates:

50% of Aviation Restricted Account revenue generated under Sections 6121, 6131, and 6132

back to the airports from which the revenue originated.

This creates:

• direct airport reinvestment,
• FAA local match capability,
• infrastructure modernization support,
• pavement preservation funding,
• and operational stabilization tied directly to airport activity.

Commercial airports generating the largest activity therefore become:

• some of the largest direct beneficiaries of the legislation.

2. 25% Aviation Trust Fund Commercial Airport Allocation

The AIR Act additionally dedicates:

25% of the Aviation Trust Fund

specifically toward:

• commercial service airports.

This funding supports:

• terminal modernization,
• operational competitiveness,
• air service development,
• pavement preservation,
• and long-term airport sustainability.

This is not unrestricted taxation.

It is direct aviation reinvestment.

The AIR Act Addresses Massive Documented Infrastructure Need

Pennsylvania’s own aviation planning documents already demonstrate that:

• current aviation funding levels are insufficient.

The Pennsylvania Transportation Advisory Committee identified approximately:

$2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs

across Pennsylvania’s aviation infrastructure network.

Additionally:

• FAA NPIAS development estimates identified approximately:

$981.97 million in federally eligible airport development needs between 2025–2029

for participating Pennsylvania airports alone.

At the same time:

• only approximately half of Pennsylvania’s:
  • 119 public-use airports
    receive meaningful federal Airport Improvement Program participation through the NPIAS system.

This demonstrates that:

• Pennsylvania’s aviation system already faces substantial documented infrastructure funding gaps.

The AIR Act is specifically designed to address those needs before deferred investment creates larger:

• operational,
• safety,
• and economic consequences.

Pennsylvania’s Jet Fuel Tax Structure Has Remained Effectively Frozen for Decades

Pennsylvania’s commercial jet fuel tax has remained largely stagnant since the 1950s.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue tax compendium:

• Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax was:
  • 1.5¢ per gallon in 1956
• and:
  • 1.7¢ per gallon in 2025

That represents only:

• a 0.2¢ increase over nearly 70 years

Meanwhile:

• inflation increased more than 1,100% during the same period.

If the original:

• 1.5¢ per gallon tax

had simply kept pace with inflation, it would equal approximately:

18.4¢ per gallon today

The AIR Act’s proposed:

• 8¢ structure

remains well below that inflation-adjusted equivalent.

This demonstrates that:

• the AIR Act is not creating an unprecedented tax burden.

It is modernizing an outdated aviation funding structure whose purchasing power has substantially eroded over time.

The Effective Fuel Tax Burden Is Lower Today Than Historically

The most important comparison is not simply:

• cents per gallon,

but rather:

• fuel tax burden relative to fuel price itself.

When Pennsylvania established its:

• 1.5¢ jet fuel tax in 1956,

fuel prices were approximately:

• 30¢ per gallon.

That represented approximately:

5% of fuel cost

By comparison:

• Pennsylvania’s average jet fuel expenditure during 2024 was approximately:
  • $2.47 per gallon

Even under the AIR Act’s proposed:

• 8¢ structure,

the effective tax burden would equal only approximately:

3.24% of fuel cost

This means:

• the effective fuel tax burden under the AIR Act would still remain lower than when Pennsylvania originally enacted the tax structure.

The AIR Act Modernizes Pennsylvania’s Aviation System

The AIR Act is not simply a revenue mechanism.

It modernizes how Pennsylvania approaches:

• airport investment,
• infrastructure preservation,
• workforce development,
• airport competitiveness,
• and statewide aviation planning.

The legislation creates:

• Aviation Opportunity Grants,
• statewide infrastructure bundling capability,
• workforce development investment,
• airport modernization programs,
• obstruction removal funding,
• and long-term pavement preservation support.

Importantly:

• the AIR Act creates one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

The legislation also modernizes:

• how the Bureau of Aviation can support commercial airline recruitment,
• infrastructure delivery,
• and statewide aviation competitiveness.

The AIR Act Improves Safety

The AIR Act significantly increases investment into:

• pavement preservation,
• runway rehabilitation,
• taxiway modernization,
• obstruction removal,
• and airport safety infrastructure.

Current Pennsylvania pavement condition data already demonstrates growing infrastructure pressure:

Infrastructure Type	Airports Evaluated	PCI 60 or Greater
Runways	49	53%
Taxiways	45	42%
Aprons	45	60%

Taxiways are particularly concerning, with only:

• 42%
  meeting PCI 60 or greater standards.

Economic impact means little if airport infrastructure is not safe, reliable, and sustainable.

Pennsylvania’s aviation economy has been built largely upon:

• previous infrastructure investment,
• historic federal participation,
• and long-term airport development.

The AIR Act recognizes that:

• continued economic growth requires continued infrastructure reinvestment.

The AIR Act Strengthens Federal Funding Leverage

The AIR Act also improves Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• leverage FAA funding,
• provide local match participation,
• accelerate airport projects,
• and compete for discretionary federal grants.

Many airports currently struggle with:

• local match requirements,
• limited sponsor capacity,
• and insufficient state participation.

The AIR Act directly addresses those limitations.

This means:

• the legislation does not simply increase state spending.

It improves Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• attract and maximize federal aviation investment.

The AIR Act Is Fundamentally an Aviation Modernization Strategy

The AIR Act is fundamentally designed to:

• modernize Pennsylvania’s aviation funding structure,
• stabilize long-term infrastructure investment,
• improve airport safety,
• strengthen workforce development,
• improve airport competitiveness,
• support commercial air service growth,
• and preserve critical statewide transportation infrastructure.

The legislation directly reinvests aviation-generated activity back into:

• the aviation system itself.

This is not a disconnected tax increase.

It is a long-term aviation modernization and reinvestment strategy.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“The AIR Act is simply a tax increase disguised as infrastructure policy.”

Response:

The AIR Act is fundamentally a statewide aviation modernization and reinvestment strategy.

The legislation:

• directly reinvests aviation-generated revenue back into aviation infrastructure,
• creates airport turnback funding,
• dedicates funding toward commercial airports,
• improves FAA leverage capability,
• strengthens workforce development,
• modernizes airport infrastructure,
• supports air service recruitment,
• and increases statewide aviation safety investment.

Importantly:

• only approximately 25%–33% of the AIR Act’s projected funding comes from the commercial jet fuel structure itself.

Approximately:

• two-thirds to three-quarters of AIR Act investment comes from sources other than the commercial jet fuel component.

Pennsylvania’s own planning documents already identified:

• approximately $2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs,
  while FAA NPIAS estimates identified:
• approximately $981.97 million in federally eligible development needs between 2025–2029 alone.

At the same time:

• Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax structure has remained effectively stagnant since the 1950s and has lost substantial purchasing power due to inflation.

The AIR Act modernizes that outdated structure while ensuring:

• aviation-generated activity is reinvested directly back into the aviation system supporting Pennsylvania’s economy, airports, passengers, and future aviation competitiveness.

show less

Fact: The AIR Act was specifically designed to address this concern by creating a direct airport-origin turnback structure. Under the proposed 8¢ per gallon structure, approximately 4¢ per gallon returns to the airport system where the activity occurred, while commercial airports also benefit from dedicated trust fund allocations, workforce investment, air service tools, and infrastructure modernization.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airline industry groups may argue that:

• commercial airlines should not subsidize airports they do not serve,
• airline-generated fuel tax revenue should remain only at the airports where operations occur,
• and statewide aviation investment unfairly redistributes airline-generated activity.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Airlines should not have to pay for airports they do not fly into.”

The AIR Act was specifically structured to address this concern.

In fact:

• the legislation directly returns substantial aviation-generated revenue back to the airports where the activity occurred.

Once the AIR Act structure is fully analyzed:

• the argument becomes largely moot.

The AIR Act Directly Returns 50% of Generated Revenue Back to the Originating Airport

The AIR Act specifically allocates:

50% of Aviation Restricted Account revenue generated under Sections 6121, 6131, and 6132

back to the airports from which the revenue originated.

This means:

• commercial airport activity directly generates commercial airport reinvestment.

Under the AIR Act’s proposed:

• 8¢ per gallon structure

approximately:

4¢ per gallon immediately returns to the airport system where the activity occurred.

This is critically important because:

• the current Pennsylvania structure does not contain this direct airport turnback mechanism.

Under today’s:

• 2¢ per gallon maximum structure

commercial airlines do not receive:

• a dedicated 50% airport-origin turnback allocation.

The AIR Act therefore actually creates:

• substantially more direct reinvestment linkage between airline activity and airport benefit than exists today.

Commercial Airports Already Receive the Overwhelming Majority of Federal Aviation Investment

Commercial service airports already receive:

• the overwhelming majority of direct federal airport funding flowing into Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania FY25 entitlement and formula modeling demonstrated:

Airport Category	Total Funding	Share
Primary Commercial Service Airports	~$75.1 million	~77.4%
Other Commercial Service Airports	~$3.4 million	~3.5%
Total Commercial Service Airports	~$78.5 million	~80.9%
General Aviation & Reliever Airports	~$18.6 million	~19.1%
Total	~$97.0 million	100%

Key finding:

Commercial service airports receive approximately 81% of modeled direct federal formula and entitlement airport funding in Pennsylvania.

General aviation and reliever airports receive approximately:

• 19%.

This is critically important because:

• commercial service airports represent only a small fraction of Pennsylvania’s:
  • 119 public-use airports

yet already receive:

• the overwhelming majority of direct federal airport investment.

Commercial airports therefore already operate within a system where:

• the largest activity generators receive the largest infrastructure participation.

The AIR Act strengthens this relationship further through:

• airport-origin turnback funding,
• FAA local match support,
• and dedicated commercial airport investment.

The AIR Act Also Dedicates 25% of the Aviation Trust Fund Specifically Toward Commercial Airports

The AIR Act additionally allocates:

25% of the Aviation Trust Fund

specifically toward:

• commercial service airports.

This creates a second major funding stream dedicated directly toward:

• commercial airport modernization,
• infrastructure competitiveness,
• operational sustainability,
• pavement preservation,
• and airport development.

This means commercial aviation benefits not only from:

• the 50% direct turnback structure,

but also from:

• a dedicated statewide commercial airport allocation.

Airlines Also Directly Benefit From Workforce Development Investment

The AIR Act additionally creates:

• one of the largest dedicated state aviation workforce development investments in the country.

Approximately:

• 10% of AIR Act investment
  supports:
  • aviation workforce development,
  • technical education,
  • maintenance workforce pipelines,
  • airport operations training,
  • and emerging aviation technology workforce readiness.

Commercial airlines directly benefit from:

• pilots,
• mechanics,
• technicians,
• airport operators,
• and aviation workforce stability.

This is not indirect or theoretical benefit.

It directly supports:

• the workforce commercial aviation depends upon to operate.

The Actual “Non-Direct Benefit” Portion Is Relatively Small

When the AIR Act structure is broken down mathematically:

Under the proposed:

• 8¢ per gallon structure

approximately:

• 4¢ immediately returns through airport turnback funding
• plus approximately:
  • 0.8¢ equivalent supports workforce development investment
• plus additional direct benefit through:
  • commercial airport trust fund allocation,
  • FAA local match capability,
  • infrastructure modernization,
  • and Aviation Opportunity Grants.

This means:

• a substantial majority of the AIR Act structure directly or indirectly benefits commercial aviation itself.

Importantly:

• under the current Pennsylvania:
  • 2¢ per gallon structure
    there is no equivalent:
• 50% airport-origin turnback mechanism.

This means airlines are effectively arguing over only approximately:

1.2¢ per gallon

of potential statewide reinvestment that may not directly flow back to their individual airport operation.

Even that amount is substantially offset through:

• commercial airport trust fund allocations,
• statewide infrastructure modernization,
• FAA leverage improvement,
• workforce development,
• and airport competitiveness investment.

Commercial Airlines Benefit From the Entire Statewide Aviation Ecosystem

Commercial aviation does not operate independently from the broader statewide aviation system.

Pennsylvania’s aviation system functions as:

“An interconnected statewide infrastructure network
not
a collection of isolated airports.”

Airlines directly benefit from:

• reliever airports,
• flight schools,
• maintenance airports,
• business aviation airports,
• cargo facilities,
• pilot training pipelines,
• aviation workforce development,
• emergency response aviation,
• and regional feeder aviation activity.

Reliever and general aviation airports:

• reduce congestion at commercial airports,
• preserve operational capacity,
• support maintenance and positioning operations,
• and absorb aviation activity that would otherwise strain major commercial facilities.

Flight schools and training airports directly support:

• the pilot pipeline,
• mechanic workforce development,
• and aviation operational staffing.

Many smaller airports also support:

• regional airline connectivity,
• charter operations,
• cargo support,
• and business aviation activity that feeds directly into larger commercial aviation markets.

Commercial aviation therefore benefits directly from:

• the broader statewide airport network,
  even when airlines do not operate scheduled passenger service at those facilities.

The AIR Act Creates a Much More Direct Reinvestment Relationship Than Exists Today

The current Pennsylvania fuel structure:

• does not directly return 50% of collected aviation revenue back to originating airports.

The AIR Act changes that.

The legislation creates:

• direct airport-origin reinvestment,
• dedicated commercial airport funding,
• workforce investment,
• infrastructure modernization,
• and commercial airline competitiveness programs.

This creates a substantially more transparent and equitable aviation reinvestment structure than Pennsylvania currently has.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“Airlines should not have to pay for airports they do not use.”

Response:

The AIR Act was specifically designed to address this concern.

Under the proposed:

• 8¢ per gallon structure,
  approximately:
• 4¢ per gallon directly returns to the airport system where the activity occurred through the AIR Act’s 50% airport turnback provision.

Commercial airports additionally receive:

• 25% of the Aviation Trust Fund,
• FAA local match support,
• Aviation Opportunity Grant eligibility,
• infrastructure modernization funding,
• and direct workforce development investment.

Approximately:

• 10% of AIR Act investment also supports aviation workforce development that directly benefits commercial airlines through:
  • pilot,
  • mechanic,
  • technician,
  • and operational workforce pipelines.

Importantly:

• commercial service airports already receive approximately:
  • 81% of modeled direct federal formula and entitlement airport funding in Pennsylvania

despite representing only a small portion of Pennsylvania’s:

• 119 public-use airports.

At the same time:

• airlines benefit directly from the broader statewide aviation ecosystem itself, including:
  • reliever airports,
  • flight schools,
  • pilot training pipelines,
  • maintenance facilities,
  • cargo infrastructure,
  • and regional aviation connectivity that supports commercial aviation operations statewide.

Once the AIR Act structure is fully evaluated:

• airlines are effectively arguing over only a relatively small portion of statewide reinvestment that may not directly return to their specific airport operation.

The AIR Act therefore creates a substantially more direct and equitable reinvestment relationship between airline activity and airport benefit than exists under Pennsylvania’s current aviation funding structure.

show less

Fact: Fuel markets fluctuate, but infrastructure deterioration compounds. The AIR Act creates a fixed, predictable structure that does not begin until January 1, 2028, while continued delay risks higher reconstruction costs, lost federal funding opportunities, greater airport financial pressure, and more disruption for the airports and airlines that rely on safe, modern infrastructure.

Read More:

Airline Framing

Airlines may argue that:

• carriers are already facing substantial fuel cost pressure,
• global instability is increasing jet fuel prices,
• and Pennsylvania should not impose additional fuel-related costs during a volatile economic environment.

The argument is commonly framed as:

“Airlines are already facing substantial increases in jet fuel costs due to global instability and conflict in Iran. Adding additional state fuel taxes only increases pressure on carriers during an already volatile operating environment.”

The more important question is not:

• whether fuel markets are volatile.

The real question is:

What is the cost of delaying aviation investment even further?

Because while fuel markets fluctuate temporarily,

• infrastructure deterioration compounds permanently.

The AIR Act Does Not Take Effect Until January 1, 2028

One of the most important realities omitted from opposition messaging is this:

The AIR Act’s proposed fuel structure does not take effect until January 1, 2028.

This means:

• airlines have years of advance notice,
• years of operational planning time,
• and years to incorporate the future structure into long-term financial forecasting.

This is not:

• an emergency surcharge,
• an immediate market shock,
• or an abrupt operating cost increase.

The proposal is:

• fixed,
• predictable,
• transparent,
• and implemented years in advance.

The Real Risk Is Continued Infrastructure Deterioration

Fuel price volatility is temporary.

Infrastructure deterioration is cumulative.

Every year Pennsylvania delays aviation reinvestment:

• pavement conditions worsen,
• preservation windows close,
• project costs escalate,
• FAA leverage opportunities weaken,
• and airports become more expensive to maintain long term.

Pennsylvania’s own Transportation Advisory Committee identified approximately:

$2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs

while FAA planning documents identified approximately:

$981.97 million in federally eligible airport development needs between 2025–2029.

These are not hypothetical future concerns.

They are existing documented infrastructure needs.

Delayed Maintenance Becomes Exponentially More Expensive

One of the most important realities in airport infrastructure management is:

preventative maintenance is dramatically less expensive than full reconstruction.

For example:

• a runway preservation project costing:
  • $2–5 million today

can eventually become:

• a $30–100 million reconstruction project
  if deterioration continues unchecked.

The same applies to:

• taxiways,
• aprons,
• lighting systems,
• drainage infrastructure,
• and safety areas.

Every year investment is delayed:

• long-term infrastructure liability grows.

That ultimately creates:

• larger airport debt,
• larger airline cost exposure,
• higher future rates and charges,
• operational disruption,
• and emergency reconstruction cycles.

Delaying Investment Risks Losing Federal Funding Opportunities

FAA grants are not unlimited.

Many federal aviation programs require:

• local match capability,
• sponsor readiness,
• and project advancement capacity.

Without sufficient state participation:

• airports struggle to leverage federal dollars,
• projects are delayed,
• and Pennsylvania risks losing competitive positioning for discretionary grants.

The AIR Act improves Pennsylvania’s ability to:

• maximize FAA participation,
• leverage federal infrastructure investment,
• and accelerate project delivery.

Delaying the AIR Act delays that leverage capability.

Airlines Ultimately Pay for Deferred Infrastructure One Way or Another

Airport infrastructure costs do not disappear when investment is postponed.

Those costs are eventually recovered through:

• airport debt financing,
• emergency reconstruction,
• operational disruption,
• deferred maintenance escalation,
• and higher future airport rates and charges.

In many cases:

• delayed investment ultimately becomes more expensive for airlines themselves.

The AIR Act helps stabilize:

• airport finances,
• preservation cycles,
• and long-term capital planning before costs escalate further.

The AIR Act Reduces Long-Term Operational Risk

Airlines depend upon:

• reliable pavement,
• safe taxiways,
• operational continuity,
• workforce availability,
• and modernized airport infrastructure.

The AIR Act directly improves:

• pavement preservation,
• obstruction removal,
• airport modernization,
• FAA grant leverage,
• workforce development,
• and statewide aviation competitiveness.

These investments reduce:

• operational uncertainty,
• future infrastructure disruption,
• and long-term airport cost escalation.

Current Fuel Volatility Actually Strengthens the Case for Long-Term Infrastructure Stability

Recent fuel market volatility tied to geopolitical instability demonstrates exactly why:

• stable long-term infrastructure investment matters.

Airlines already routinely manage:

• fuel cost swings measured in dollars per gallon.

By comparison:

• the AIR Act’s future fixed 6¢ adjustment is relatively small and fully predictable years in advance.

The larger long-term threat to Pennsylvania aviation is not:

• temporary fuel market fluctuation.

It is:

• continued underinvestment in airport infrastructure.

Core Response to Airline Claim

Airline claim:

“Airlines are already facing substantial increases in jet fuel costs due to global instability and conflict in Iran. Adding additional state fuel taxes only increases pressure on carriers during an already volatile operating environment.”

Response:

The AIR Act does not take effect until January 1, 2028 and provides airlines years of advance planning certainty.

The more important issue is:

• the cost of delaying aviation investment even further.

Every year Pennsylvania delays infrastructure reinvestment:

• pavement conditions worsen,
• preservation opportunities are lost,
• project costs escalate,
• FAA leverage weakens,
• and long-term airport financial pressure increases.

Pennsylvania has already identified:

• approximately $2.8 billion in statewide aviation system needs
  and nearly:
• $982 million in federally eligible airport development needs between 2025–2029.

Deferred maintenance ultimately becomes:

• more expensive,
• more disruptive,
• and more costly for airports and airlines alike.

The AIR Act is fundamentally designed to stabilize long-term infrastructure investment before those costs escalate further.

The real long-term threat to Pennsylvania aviation is not:

• predictable reinvestment.

It is continued infrastructure underinvestment and delay.

show less