We at AOPA often refer to our U.S. air transportation system as a great American resource. Other countries of the world look to our use of general aviation with envy, and FAA regulations often set the pace for worldwide standards.
For a moment, let's compare the air transportation system to our more widely used roadways on the ground. Victor airways might be thought of as interstate highways, expressways, or freeways traversing the countryside. Our airports would become the off-ramps to those highways, providing access to the many local communities they serve. Imagine what it would be like if the highways were federal, state, or county government owned, but the off-ramps were all privately held. Yes, you'd have the freedom to drive across the countryside, but you'd also have to contend with a variety of fees and rules set up by the individual companies that would own the off-ramps. Under this system, running low on fuel in your automobile, you might note a turnoff ahead, only to discover the owner doesn't allow your size vehicle to use the off-ramp. Why? Because the corporation that bought the off-ramp has found its best return on investment is to serve only as a truck stop for commercial vehicles.
This analogy could come to pass, and destroy our air transportation system, if privatization was taken to its full extreme. Yes, private ownership is a nice, American-sounding idea. President Bush recently signed an executive order that gives state and local governments new freedom to have publicly funded facilities sold or run as private businesses — and this includes airports.
It could place much of this country's infrastructure into the hands of professional managers. The idea is that businesses, not governments, would operate and maintain things like bridges or highways or harbors. And you know what? Some of it might work out just fine.
But airports are something else altogether. There is a great deal of confusion when one uses the term privatization, especially as it relates to airports. Most of us think positively of the many "private" airports we have used because they are usually owned and operated by individuals with a deep devotion to aviation, not giant corporations that must report profits to shareholders. Many of us also hold the belief that private enterprise can run a more efficient operation than the government. In a recent survey, AOPA members split almost fifty-fifty when asked whether local governments could operate GA airports as efficiently as private corporations. However, in this same survey, almost 75 percent of you stated a concern should a locally owned airport be sold to a private company. At the real heart of the matter, almost 75 percent of those questioned felt that prices would rise if an airport was sold to a commercial operator.
AOPA has many problems with the privatization of airports: It could open the door to pricing general aviation off the airport; fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory access to general aviation would be compromised; and it just may happen that some airports could end up as shopping centers or subdivisions. Plus, what happens to the federal grant assurances that local sponsors had to sign in order to gain needed funding? What happens to the airport if a private corporation folds, as so many did in the buy-out fever of the 1980s? And none of this addresses a fundamental question: We as taxpayers in the aviation system have funded these airports. Can the government sell our investment out from under us?
So much depends on the specifics of each case, but there is no question that, taken to the extreme of privatizing both the airside and landside of airports, the action will definitely be a negative to both the airlines and general aviation. Many foreign countries have already experimented with this same concept. We turned to the International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA) to find examples of how privatization has fared abroad.
When airports in the United Kingdom were first sold to commercial interests, the British Airports Authority (BAA), PLC, made a huge annual profit. Fees to the users of airports in England jumped by 25 to 30 percent. Ultimately, the British government had to step back in and put price controls on the BAA.
Down under, in Australia, another privatization nightmare hit directly at general aviation. This time, it was charging for some services that simply were not needed by the lightplane users of the airport. This list included sophisticated crash, fire, and rescue capabilities far beyond general aviation's needs. GA pilots in Australia found themselves footing the bill for much more equipment and manpower than necessary, even if emergency services were required.
So what's AOPA doing about privatization? We're not convinced that it's entirely legal. President Bush's executive order specifically limits privatization "to the extent permitted by law." AOPA does not believe that existing law allows unqualified privatization of federally funded airports.
We're working hard to convince the Department of Transportation, as well as the White House, that privatizing airports is bad public policy. Naturally, as the situation develops, we'll enlist general aviation's friends in Congress to help in our cause.
AOPA intends to open the public debate on privatization. We may have an interesting ally, in that commercial airlines are as concerned and uneasy about privatization as we are. They're afraid their costs may rise as private airport companies try to maximize their profits, as they did in England.
Though we often find ourselves on opposite sides of political and regulatory aviation issues, general aviation and major air carriers could be the force to put privatization back where it might work: bridges, tunnels, and water treatment plants — but not our valuable airports.
Related Articles
