The issue of product liability remains one of the main concerns of our AOPA members across the country. For the past eight years, your association has been a consistent supporter of legislation introduced by Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum (R-KS) and Representative Dan Glickman (D-KS) to help address the impact that product liability has had on the general aviation industry.
One of our greatest disappointments is the lack of progress on this issue, despite many years of effort. What we've learned from the past is that it is time for a fresh approach to the problem. Let me take a moment to review the history, as well as some of the new thinking that AOPA has recently initiated.
The problem is not as simple as it is sometimes portrayed. As we attempt to represent the interests of our members, AOPA must strike a delicate balance between two competing and occasionally conflicting concerns.
On the one hand, AOPA members are among the likely victims of accidents that result from defective general aviation aircraft. The association must act as a consumer advocate to ensure the availability of a fair compensation system for any members who may be affected by manufacturer neglect.
On the other hand, AOPA members have a clear interest in the continued availability of general aviation aircraft and parts at a reasonable cost and in the development of new, more technologically advanced aircraft. As you know, many manufacturers and suppliers have curtailed production, and others have abandoned the general aviation business altogether, due in large part to product liability concerns.
It is for these reasons AOPA has remained involved in the product liability issue. We have worked closely with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and others who are seeking reform. It has been a good-faith, give-and-take effort, but the bill has failed to move. It is a moderate and reasonable proposal consistent with our role as a representative of consumers.
So why has this reasonable proposal failed to make any significant progress in the U.S. Congress? The chief reason is that those who oppose the legislation are well-organized and very well funded. The principal opponent to the tort reform is the powerful Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA).
Unlike AOPA, which must divide its legislative efforts across a broad range of issues important to its members, ATLA has been able to devote most of its time and effort to this one matter. It views the issue as vitally important. It sees the general aviation bill as the "camel's nose under the tent." Consequently, it is willing to dedicate resources to defeating the bill that seem disproportionate to the actual impact that the legislation would have on its members.
I'm sorry to say that the prospects for passing the existing general aviation bill are no better during the current Congress. The longstanding obstacles to product liability reform have caused those of us at AOPA to begin rethinking the problem. We have asked ourselves, "What is the fundamental objective of the general aviation product liability bill?" The answer is to help ensure the future availability of affordable aircraft for AOPA members. In all candor, passage of product liability legislation alone will not achieve that objective. It will help, but it is not a complete answer to the problems of our industry.
Are there other ways to stimulate the production of affordable general aviation aircraft? That is the issue we are now exploring. It is too early to talk about specifics. But we believe there are other initiatives that, individually or in combination, will help revitalize general aviation.
For example, AOPA has consistently advocated the concept of Primary category aircraft or other simplified certification procedures as one way of reducing costs for the producers of basic models of general aviation aircraft. In addition, working with Congress, perhaps a package of small-business incentives could be developed that would help attract entrepreneurs to the industry.
More important, we believe there may be key components of the product liability bill that, if proposed separately, would stand a better chance of passing than the existing proposed legislation in its entirety. One is the so-called "statute of repose," which would relieve manufacturers from the burden of product liability lawsuits on aircraft manufactured more than 20 years ago.
We also believe the manufacturers must be willing to bring a meaningful "pro-consumer" incentive to the table. For example, this could take the form of substantially enhanced warranty protections. Or perhaps the answer is manufacturer responsibility for airworthiness directives during the first several years after a new aircraft is purchased. There may be other alternatives.
Regardless, some meaningful consumer incentive is essential. Congress must be satisfied that aviation consumers will benefit significantly if they give up their theoretical right to sue indefinitely for defective aircraft. After all, that's what product liability reform ultimately means to you, the consumer.
These are the issues we are working on right now. In the next few weeks, we'll be announcing a new and exciting effort. The GA industry has bottomed out, and we must develop creative approaches to begin an upward trend. We invite you to continue working with us as we examine this most difficult of issues from a new perspective. It's past time to move forward with a product liability reform effort that has real benefits for both manufacturers and consumers.
Related Articles
