Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aviation Fuel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport and airlines urge Senate panel to drop 2% jet‑fuel surcharge in H944, warn of competitiveness hit
Summary
Burlington International Airport and representatives from Airlines for America and Breeze Airways told the Senate Transportation Committee that a 2% jet‑fuel surcharge in H944 could raise local jet‑fuel taxes to about 9%, risk service reductions, and may not increase revenue; the airport also asked that aviation fuel revenues be allowed for operating as well as capital costs.
Burlington International Airport representatives and commercial carriers urged the Senate Transportation Committee to remove a proposed 2% jet‑fuel surcharge added to H944, arguing the levy could make local fuel taxes among the highest in the country, undermine competitiveness and possibly reduce revenue.
Why it matters: Committee consideration of H944 would add a permanent 2% surcharge on jet fuel in Vermont in addition to the state’s 6% sales tax and South Burlington’s 1% local tax; witnesses said the combined rate (about 9% at Burlington) could deter airlines or prompt operational changes that reduce flights and economic activity.
Jeff Bartley, a director at Burlington International Airport (BTV), described the airport as an economic engine and told the committee the airport supports thousands of jobs and generates substantial payroll and regional economic output. “We are asking…that this committee remove the 2% jet fuel search charge from H944,” Bartley said, adding that the surcharge is likely to make the airport’s combined fuel tax among the highest in the nation and that aviation demand is price‑sensitive.
Bartley asked the committee to align state practice with federal rules (49 U.S.C. § 47133) so revenues from aviation fuel taxes can be used for either capital or operating costs rather than being restricted only to AIP matching. He also said Vermont receives roughly $2–3 million annually in aviation fuel revenue but that the airport receives only a $500,000 capped appropriation from the state.
Airlines for America (A4A) echoed industry opposition. John Elmaris, managing director for taxes at A4A, said the trade group “strongly opposes the tax increase” and warned that higher fuel costs can push airlines to reduce service and harm regional economic activity. Heritage Aviation and airport staff provided a fuel volume breakout, reporting roughly 1.45 million gallons of retail Jet A and 1.37 million gallons in contract deliveries in the prior year; witnesses explained that distributors are the legal taxpayers and that reporting complexities can obscure simple gallon‑to‑tax calculations.
Marin Klein of Breeze Airways told the committee the surcharge would disproportionately affect carriers that fly longer routes and larger aircraft from Burlington, because longer flights consume more fuel per trip.
The committee did not adopt or vote on the surcharge during this hearing. Witnesses asked the committee to either remove the surcharge from H944 or to revisit the allocation and cap on aviation fuel revenue so that airports can access a fairer share for operating and capital needs.
Next steps: Committee members signaled continued discussion and possible amendments; airport and industry representatives said they would testify in related committees and follow up with written requests.
