The proponents of "corporatizing" the entire FAA, or even just the air traffic control system, have used rhetoric but few facts regarding the funding and operations of the proposed new entity. This smoke and mirrors tactic has been employed numerous times by the fledgling Clinton Administration.
Anyone employing grade-school arithmetic can verify that to fund this new venture, more than the revenues produced by our present method of fuel taxes and airline passenger ticket taxes must be collected. In every country where ATC privatization has occurred, this has meant an increase in user fees. Fine for the airlines, who vigorously support this new plan. They'll simply pass any charges on to the passengers; the companies themselves won't feel a thing. But for the owner or pilot of a general aviation aircraft, the charges will have to be paid right from his or her pocketbook.
Now combine this economic reality with a statement by our new FAA administrator, David R. Hinson, who is a general aviation pilot and former owner of a Beech Baron. Hinson believes the proposed reform would pose "no safety issue." Yet House aviation subcommittee Chairman James Oberstar (D- MN), who has a long and distinguished reputation in aviation matters on the Hill, believes that safety will be compromised. Representative Oberstar believes that to allow the airlines — who as the primary beneficiaries of the FAA's ATC system and thus the obvious power in a privatized ATC — to determine aircraft separation standards, number of controllers needed, and a host of operational issues under the guise of economics sets up a safety disaster scenario.
Because the Administration has been so vague about the details of its proposal, let me cite some statistics from the only economic model that has been publicly released. Warning: it's not a pretty picture. In August of last year, the Reason Foundation issued a 37-page report titled "How to Spin Off Air Traffic Control." Contained within these pages was an analysis of the charges that would be levied against various categories of air transportation for use of the system: air carrier, commuter, general aviation turbine, general aviation piston, and government. Obviously, the general aviation piston column holds the most meaning to the majority of AOPA members. The author of the Reason Foundation study wrote the following to explain what he thought were abnormally low prices for this category: "In political terms, the vast majority of G.A. flyers are non- business, single-engine-piston users. They will not accept a pricing system that drastically increases their cost of flying, and they have the lobbying clout to make their concerns known to every member of Congress. Charging them only the true marginal costs makes good political sense, if a user-fee structure is to have any hope of being adopted as part of the shift to an ATC corporation." Remember these words as I describe a recent flight I made. I've analyzed the flight in economic terms using the Reason Foundation price schedule — which the author claims is purposely low for general aviation.
Sunday, January 23, I was to fly from Frederick, Maryland, to Vero Beach, Florida, to meet up with AOPA's Good As New 172. The 172 already was in Florida to be delivered to Dr. Bill Teschner of Fort Pierce, winner of AOPA's 1993 membership sweepstakes. I woke to a Weather Channel briefing that showed a huge high pressure area encompassing the East Coast. This probably meant a VFR trip down and back, which pleased me because I hoped to do it in one day.
As the sun was beginning to rise while I drove from my home to the airport, I noticed a mid-level overcast that I hadn't expected. Why hadn't I called flight service, you might ask? The Reason Foundation lists a pilot briefing at $9.27; to file a VFR flight plan costs $18.50. I learned that the overcast was a couple of thousand feet thick and started at 4,800 feet, so I elected to file IFR ($9.27 to file and an additional $17.08 for an IFR departure). Would I have made those normally routine decisions if the charges had been in place or would I have been reluctant to spend the money and instead tried to skim the tops of the Blue Ridge Mountains VFR?
Breaking out on top, I asked for clearance through the Washington, D.C., Class B airspace and canceled the IFR clearance while remaining with ATC for VFR traffic advisories as I made my way to the first stop southwest of Raleigh Durham, North Carolina. Would I have retained ATC services if I was paying $17.08 for each overflight through a center? Thank goodness there was no control tower at Smithfield, North Carolina; that would have cost $1.95. The second leg also was flown VFR with traffic advisories through the airspace of two more centers ($34.16).
When 100 nautical miles from Vero Beach, I decided to contact Flight Watch for the destination weather ($5.23). The briefer cited a 3,500-foot broken ceiling. Should I activate an IFR flight plan ($9.27) to make the descent through the broken layer, or look for a hole? Naturally, I used the system and converted my VFR contact with Center into an IFR arrival to Vero Beach, ending with a contact with the tower ($4.65).
Before we add up the numbers for this mostly good weather flight, let me recall Hinson's comment that privatizing ATC will not compromise safety. Not if you have deep pockets, David. But most of us are just trying to nurse our aging piston-engine airplanes through another annual inspection without undo expense; pay for aircraft insurance; shell out monthly tiedown or hangar fees; upgrade our avionics to comply with emerging technology like GPS or FAA equipment mandates; and hopefully have enough left over to be able to buy fuel to fly — fuel which includes the taxes to pay for our use of a system designed for the airlines, not general aviation.
I picked up N172GN at Vero Beach and made the 10-nm flight to Fort Pierce. Under the proposed privatization plan talking to two more control towers would have incurred costs of $4.65 and $1.95, respectively. Dr. Teschner and the crowd from the Florida Aero Club were ecstatic over the restoration of a 1974 airplane to like-new status. The two of us flew around this beautiful coastal community together (two more tower contacts at $1.95 each). Dr. Teschner signed the paperwork and the airplane was his.
I started back to Frederick in my airplane thinking about what might lie ahead for all of us who own or fly 172s or similar general aviation aircraft. I added up the cost of my mostly VFR, one-way trip south, using the ATC price schedule proposed in the Reason Foundation report: $95.53.
Remember, that is only for the privilege of using private ATC services. The cost of corporatization could bring an end to general aviation as we know it today, in the one country admired by the worldwide aviation community for its efficiency and safety. In the coming months, we'll hear more detail on this plan from the Department of Transportation and the White House. Many in Congress are on our side in opposing this concept. Supporters like Oberstar will be important in our effort to bring reform to the FAA but retain its role as a government agency. As the situation develops, AOPA will call on your help as members and voters — don't forget, this is an election year. Our elected congressional representatives are the only board of directors needed to oversee the FAA. Dr. Teschner may have won the Good As New 172, but will he be able to afford to fly it in the future? We need reform in government, but it won't be accomplished by spinning off vital and legitimate government functions like ATC into a quasi-government corporation. With everyone behind the effort to stop privatization, Dr. Bill Teschner and each of us will continue to enjoy the benefits of general aviation.
Related Articles
