The state legislature has rightly shown interest in taking steps to ensure that our state’s airports are well-served by a broad mix of airlines that meet the needs of our state’s leisure and business travelers.

Air travel facilitates economic development, connecting our corporate community with business opportunities across the country and globe, and it provides easy access for tourists who wish to partake in our beautiful state. The Connecticut Airport Authority (CAA) airport system alone generates nearly $4 billion in total impact to the Connecticut economy, including support for over 25,000 jobs.

The question at hand is how to best nurture the vital aviation industry.

Some airlines, led primarily by one of the state’s newest ultra-low-cost carriers, have lobbied aggressively for the elimination of the state’s aviation fuel user fee. Arguing that such a fee inhibits route growth, this lobbying effort resulted in the suspension of the state’s aviation fuel user fee for a period of two years with a scheduled return in July 2025 at a roughly 50% reduced rate (saving the airlines millions of dollars compared to the pre-2023 tax rate).

As we approach the introduction of that reduced rate this July, some airlines and other interested parties are advocating to either permanently eliminate the fee or shift its proceeds to other entities.

Here’s why that is short-sighted:

1) The aviation fuel user fee supports the operation and capital development of the CAA’s five general aviation (GA) airports.

The CAA’s GA system operates at a deficit, as is common for GA systems across the country, but is maintained due to the significant economic impact that its facilities produce for the community. These airports (Danielson, Groton-New London, Hartford-Brainard, Waterbury-Oxford, and Windham) generate $409 million annually in total economic output, support 2,500 jobs, and generate over $15 million of state and local taxes.

These GA airports support military operations, state emergency services, flight schools, business flights, recreational travel, and many other businesses. Commercial service airports generate adequate revenues that self-fund their own operations, and they therefore should not require subsidization from this revenue stream.

If the aviation fuel user fee is eliminated or if the fee’s proceeds are diverted away from the CAA’s GA system, these airports will suffer from deteriorated infrastructure and the likely loss of services.

2) Connecticut is already a low-cost state for the airlines, as Bradley International has maintained an extremely competitive rate structure.

Airlines use a standardized metric, cost per enplanement (CPE), to compare their costs at different airports. BDL’s CPE has been lower than other major airports in the region for the last eight fiscal years. In FY24, if BDL had adopted the rate structures in place at TF Green in Providence or Boston-Logan airports, the airlines would have paid the CAA an additional $3.3 million or $43.6 million, respectively. As a result of the CAA’s cost-consciousness, impressive airline growth has followed – including pre-2023 with the higher aviation fuel fee rate.

3) Connecticut compares favorably to the tax structures in place in other states.

Some states, like Massachusetts, allow municipalities the ability to levy a 5% tax on aviation fuel. Ten states have lower “state aviation fuel fees,” but apply the state sales and use tax to aviation fuel sales. Some states impose separate environmental/inspection fees and taxes on aviation fuel. Connecticut allows none of these.

4) Arguments about the impact of a $0.15/gallon fee on airfares are overstated.

In an analysis of the fuel burn for the longest-haul service of the state’s new budget airlines (Bradley International to San Juan Puerto Rico), the CAA found that the fee impact would equate to $2.73/seat. And that is an extreme example. Shorter-haul services would naturally result in less fuel burn and lower fee impacts.

There is, however, a more effective way to incentivize growth in Connecticut.

Airline incentivization should be targeted and limited, not broad and perpetual. Eliminating the aviation fuel user fee, at the expense of the GA airports, incentivizes all routes regardless of whether they meet a strategic need. The CAA incentivizes air carriers that launch service to unserved destinations via fee waivers and marketing assistance for a limited period of time to encourage BDL route network growth and help the airline build public awareness in a brand-new market.

The state has also wisely selected targeted destinations for incentives in the past, including Aer Lingus’ service to Dublin and, more recently, service to Montego Bay, Jamaica. These routes served strategic purposes, reestablishing nonstop transatlantic service and providing connectivity for the state’s large, proud Jamaican-American population.

We can and should do what it takes to promote the growth of passenger air travel in the state for the sake of our residents and corporate community alike. But we can achieve that growth through targeted incentives that are limited in duration and do not damage other critical components of our state’s economy.

Tony Sheridan is Chair of the Connecticut Airport Authority Board. Michael Shea is the Connecticut Airport Authority Executive Director.