President's Position

Several months ago, when it appeared we might have a chance to achieve tort reform for general aviation during 1994, a Wheeling, Illinois, member wrote me: "I can see it now. We'll get product liability solved and then have a private ATC system! What will they do next to kill off general aviation?" The events occurring this last month, relative to the administration's concept of "privatizing" our ATC system, may make that members' thoughts a reality.

The Administration's proposal establishing the United States Air Traffic Services Corporation (USATS) was released by the Department of Transportation (DOT) last May and I reported the key points to you in my June "President's Position." While continuing to oppose the Clinton Administration's concept of a corporate ATC, AOPA was pleased to see that they had dropped the idea of a direct user fee structure for general aviation's access to air traffic services (flight plan filing, weather briefings, enroute services, and control towers). Those fees would provide a safety disincentive for cost-sensitive general aviation pilots. However, we continued to be concerned about a plan which essentially gave control of the proposed corporation to the airlines.

Not much happened publicly over the summer months with this issue. With the aviation leadership in Congress openly opposed, the unspoken airline displeasure, and our own dissatisfaction — not to mention the administration's preoccupation with the crime and health reform bills — the matter stalled. Meanwhile, we basked in the glory of our product liability win.

Recently, however, rumors of a meeting between senior DOT officials and the Air Transport Association (ATA), the key representative of the airline industry, refocused our attention on the Administration's widely unpopular proposal. It was clear that the Administration was trying to sell the airlines a new version of the USATS plan that would be acceptable. As with the initial plan, general aviation has not been consulted, but reports indicate that USATS-II contains "potential refinements" that AOPA finds more onerous than ever toward G.A. Intelligence on the new plan indicates that all users, including the military, would pay fees, not just the airlines, as originally stated. In addition, rather than Congress being able to set fees, the USATS board would be responsible for issues such as fee schedules. A board dominated by airline interests? So the revised plan appears to include fees for general aviation.

Recent surveys of AOPA members indicate few problems with our present air traffic system. A majority of members feel that controllers give them routings and service to more than meet their needs. As a matter of fact, many air traffic controllers are G.A. pilots, and we have always thought of them as on our side. We question then why the controllers' union testified before a Senate subcommittee stating that the only real problem it had with the original plan was no general aviation fees. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association even staged a rally on the steps of the Capitol in early October to gain publicity and support for the administration's corporatization proposal. The union officials claim "the air traffic system is broken and desperately needs fixing." Are they speaking of the same system you and I fly in on a regular basis? On the other hand, they protested FAA's plan to contract out more than 100 low- activity Level I control towers over the next four years, a move that would save taxpayers millions of dollars in operating expense. Many of the contract personnel will be former controllers, and general aviation has not found any real problem with safety or efficiency at contract tower locations. Corporatization and contract towers: two similar issues, yet two opposite opinions from the same source. It would appear economic self- interest is driving NATCA's public agenda, not their stated safety claims.

As the 103rd Congress came to an end, there was both good and bad news surrounding last minute legislation relative to the corporatization issue. Keep in perspective that next year brings a new Congress and these bills will require re-introduction.

The good news is that Senator Wendell Ford (D-KY) and Representative James Oberstar (D-MN), chairmen of the Senate and House aviation subcommittees, introduced legislation that formed an "independent FAA." Squarely addressing the issue of FAA reform, this concept eliminates time consuming and unnecessary DOT oversight and review. There are differences between the two bills, and Congressman Oberstar's removes the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the budget process, so the "$5 billion a year contributed by aviation users will be spent on a current account basis for the intended purposes of developing the Nation's airports and purchasing capital equipment for the ATC system." He goes on to state that this is "an important building block in the process of FAA reform." The Minnesota congressman indicates this is only a beginning and he plans to introduce to the 104th Congress a more detailed version of this bill, and look into further legislation allowing FAA to improve the air traffic system in an efficient manner.

Both proposals allow us to keep a single federal agency, rather than the hybrid federal agency and USATS corporation the Administration is proposing. Senator Ford stated that "we must begin the process of talking to the users of the system to hear their concerns and needs for the future.... We have spent more than a year arguing over the need for a corporation...we must now step back and recognize what is in all our and the users' best interests." Even Secretary of Transportation Pena calls the introduction of these bills "an important step forward," but he still upholds his administration's corporation as the way to reform the FAA.

The bad news legislation, however, was introduced just hours before the end of this year's Congress. Representing a district that encompasses Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced HR 5209 to establish a wholly owned government corporation, basically the Clinton Administration's original plan calling for an 11-member board, users fees, and similar financial structure. While not a member of any aviation or budget committee, Representative Barton is a member of a caucus of legislators known as the "Congressional Leaders for a Balanced Budget."

It's a topsy-turvy world in Washington. If you paid close attention, the good news legislation comes from two Democrats in opposition to the Administration, and the bad news bill was introduced by a Republican. This month you will have an opportunity to vote for all members of the House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate. This is an opportunity for you to ascertain the position of your politicians on the privatization issue, and cast your ballot accordingly. Those who are elected will determine whether the road taken to reform the FAA will lead to the creation of a quasi-government corporation in addition to an existing FAA as the safety organization. Or, these same elected officials could choose the path to continue the passage of meaningful procurement and personnel reform affecting all government agencies, and consider the good idea of allowing the FAA to become an independent federal agency.