Jump to content

Trump Targets FAA

gbigs

By gbigs
in Random Thoughts

Recommended Posts

FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Posted
Posted

Last time I looked at any information on what was being proposed, there was nothing on an actual pricing structure.  If that is indeed the case and that won't be decided until the board that runs it is formed, then we could wind up with almost anything. 

 

With that I completely agree.  The structure would need to be determined before passage for me to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Koerner

Mike Koerner

Posted
Posted

Privatization of air traffic control in the U.S. has been proposed by both Democrat and Republican administrations for many years. Congress has consistently blocked this change… with strong encouragement from the general aviation community (especially AOPA). The reason for general aviation’s steadfast resistance is three-fold – voice, access and cost.

As a federal agency, the FAA operates under the direction of the President but with funding provided by Congress. Ultimately, they answer to Congress. That means that several hundred thousand pilots, some of considerable means, have a voice. Issues like the pilot’s bill-of-rights and third-class medical reform (such as it ended up) get shoved down the FAA throat. We need this voice. Pleading with an independently-funded private organization will get us nowhere. Even though the plan is that general aviation will have a certain number of seats on the new organization’s Board, past proposals have left GA representation well short of that of the airlines. And as we just saw with third-class medical reform, the airlines will not look out for us (they nixed the original plan which was that private pilots wouldn’t need medicals at all).

Let me give a personal example of the advantage of congressional control. Years ago, while working on a record flight, I needed the FAA’s permission to violate a whole slew of FARs. The FAA sat down with me and discussed what I needed and what they could do. The result was a letter of agreement, with all kinds of conditions, which was approved up through their chain of command. The cost of this effort on their part (your cost) was undoubtedly more than I could afford. At one point the airspace manager I was working explained why. He said that within the FAA’s congressional mandate was a sentence that said they will support record attempts. Congress considered this to be in our national interest. You will never convince a private air traffic control agency that this is worthwhile.

The second issue is access. When private planes impede the flow of airlines, impacting their bottom line, they will push us aside. Again, I assure you our representation on the private organization’s Board will not be as equals. Class Bravo will be greatly expanded and access into it will get much more restrictive... until we are completely out of their way.

The third issue is cost. Each of you have your own concept of “fairness”, but in fact the term is completely subjective. Is "fair" based on maximum gross weight, as if the number of air molecules defected downward is somehow important? Is it based on the number of passengers carried, because of what? Or is it the amount of time a controller spends looking at your blip on his radar screen, whether you are under his control or not. Which by the way, is probably quite a bit more than the time he spends looking at an airline on a standard SID or STAR route. No matter what the initial agreement is as to user fees, it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Subsequent adjustments will be made as necessary to ensure “fairness”.

As general aviation pilots in the U.S. we enjoy a degree of freedom shared by very few others in the world (I just got back from a flight into Mexico and I can assure you they don't). If you enjoy our current freedoms, you should work to maintain them. That is not to say that the FAA is, by any means, perfect. But we should be working to improve it rather than taking our chances on privatization.

Mike Koerner

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andy

Andy

Posted
Posted

From a Harvard Business Review article on privatization of government services (https://hbr.org/1991/11/does-privatization-serve-the-public-interest):

 

Conclusions about the practice include the following:

 

"1. Neither public nor private managers will always act in the best interests of their shareholders. Privatization will be effective only if private managers have incentives to act in the public interest, which includes, but is not limited to, efficiency.

 

2. Profits and the public interest overlap best when the privatized service or asset is in a competitive market. It takes competition from other companies to discipline managerial behavior.

 

3. When these conditions are not met, continued governmental involvement will likely be necessary. The simple transfer of ownership from public to private hands will not necessarily reduce the cost or enhance the quality of services."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbigs

gbigs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, thanks Mike, and Andy.

 

Just to be clear about who runs the FAA...it's the president.  The BasicMed had to be signed by the president.  The director of the FAA is a presidential appointee and reports to the president as do all other government agency heads..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doug G.

Doug G.

Posted
Posted

If you look up FAA congressional oversight you will find that it isn't as simple as you make it sound. Congressional committees have oversight of most government agencies including the NTSB and the FAA. They report to these committees on a regular basis and to the president when it is requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FredG

FredG

Posted
Posted

Yes, the FAA is under the executive branch.  But, it doesn't run anything without funding from congress.  Funding bills can include very specific language for the agency.  Similar to what Doug G just posted.  

 

So the dichotomy (congress versus president) that keeps getting posted here is a bit false.  And no, I will not debate it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Posted
Posted

Hmm...that's just a survey saying most oppose privatization. But what a majority thinks means nothing about whether it's a good idea. At various times a majority has supported all manner of horrendous ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Posted
Posted

Sorry Andy, I guess AOPA felt it was relevant. It probably has to do with the public's perception of safety.

I thought it fit the discussion.

 

 

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it just doesn't help to figure out if the proposal is a good idea on its merits.  Like taking a poll on whether rat poison is harmful if swallowed.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andy

Andy

Posted
Posted

If you go look at the makeup of the corporation board in the House bill trying to accomplish this, there is: (1) the CEO, (2) 2 directors appointed by the Secretary (of Transportation), 4 directors appointed by the principle organization representing mainline air carriers, 2 directors representing noncommercial owners and recreational operators of GA aircraft; 1 director representing ATC unions, and 1 director representing Airline Pilot unions.  As a GA owner operator, are you expecting a fair shake?  (ALPA opposed the bill but not for the reason you think...they were concerned that GA was not going to be paying their fair share and the airlines would be paying too much.  It's no wonder that the Air Transport Association and Airlines for America (who has a lobbyist dating Rep. Shuster) loves this bill!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ralarcon

ralarcon

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, it just doesn't help to figure out if the proposal is a good idea on its merits.  Like taking a poll on whether rat poison is harmful if swallowed.   :D

Like you said before, I would not agree or disagree with any proposed bill, until I knew the specifics. "The Devil is in the Details". Count me skeptical.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N456TS

N456TS

Posted
Posted

I do not agree with:

1) because it is not true - the courts have said Santa Monica must stay open until 2028 and cannot penalize the FBOs or take any other punitive actions against the airport.

2) Nextgen and ADS-B are added value and to stop it now would be damaging to GA.

3) privatization is fixing a problem that does not exist by setting up a system that may well have staffing issues (and others).

Otherwise, if we are heading down this road - I'm with Tim.

 

I agree.  Well said Doug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbigs

gbigs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

1. Huerta is allowing them to shorten their runway immediately....and 2028 is a mere 13 plus years away.  Once the airport is gone, it's gone, forever.

2. ADS-B - the hue and cry.  Less than half of planes have made the upgrade and the Military has applied for and gotten an exemption from the deadline due to costs.

3. The airlines want privatization.  The taxpayers today are subsidizing aviation...and we all know the past history with the ATC unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doug G.

Doug G.

Posted
Posted

1. Huerta is allowing them to shorten their runway immediately....and 2028 is a mere 16 plus years away.  Once the airport is gone, it's gone, forever.

2. ADS-B - the hue and cry.  Less than half of planes have made the upgrade and the Military has applied for and gotten an exemption from the deadline due to costs.

3. The airlines want privatization.  The taxpayers today are subsidizing aviation...and we all know the past history with the ATC unions.

1. The courts made the decision, not Huerta. (And it was a limited agreement to begin with. Short sighted on Santa Monica's part, but that is a different story.)

2. It was never a requirement that all planes have ADS-B. There are a lot of folks who either don't have electrical systems and many who never fly into class B or C that will not be required to have ADS-B. That does not mean that if you have ADS-B in you won't see them. Radar ground stations will still make them show up if there are stations available. Same goes for military.

3. Taxpayers subsidize all types of transportation, even walking and bicycling. (Not to mention golf, football, baseball, concert halls and event venues, etc.) What is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbigs

gbigs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The courts did not make the decision.  The FAA settled with Santa Monica by capitulating.   “Mutual cooperation between the FAA and the city enabled us to reach this innovative solution, which resolves longstanding legal and regulatory disputes,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.  < Polyspeak for we give up.

 

No one said all planes.  Less than half the planes with a Mode C or S xpndr have not upgraded (the presumption being that if you have a Mode C or S you are flying into airspace where ADS-B will be required).  This also includes ALL military aircraft that fly into and out of civilian airspace.

 

Taxpayers subsidize a tiny fraction of the population who engage in Aviation.  And subsidize the entire commercial Aviation industry. For over a century.  Long overdue time for taxpayers to get some relief from this burden...  Privatizing ATC is a good step toward that...  Also, it's long overdue time the government get out of subsidizing airport maintenance and construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Posted
Posted

I believe gbigs is correct, the suit by Santa Monica was thrown out of court since the FAA has sole authority over aviation matters and Santa Monica had signed an agreement "in perpetuity" for the airport property (back when having a local airport was a huge status symbol for a municipality).  The FAA basically agreed to allow the airport to be closed, but they had no obligation to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...