GA advocates are sounding the alarm about a plan to create a privatized Air Traffic Control system funded by user fees.
The plan was unveiled last month by House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), when the Congressman said he intended to introduce legislation to create an independent ATC corporation that would be funded by user fees and separate from the annual budget process.
The plan, brought up now as part of the reauthorization of the FAA, raises — once again — the spectre of user fees, which GA has been fighting for more than a decade.
GA advocates also warn that a privatized ATC system might prioritize certain air traffic — read airlines — over others, such as general aviation.
Under federal ownership, the ATC system guarantees equal access for all of its users, with GA’s share of the costs largely funded through fuel taxes, officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association noted. A privatized ATC will likely lead to user fees for GA, EAA officials said, adding that is something they “vigorously oppose.”
“Any privatization effort must not result in a pay-to-play scheme for general aviation,” said Sean Elliott, EAA vice president of Advocacy and Safety. “Though we certainly understand the desire to find ways to make the air traffic system more efficient and cost-effective, the current fuel tax system of revenue generation works and is efficiently and fairly collected.”
EAA officials also noted that, among other consequences, per-use fees for air traffic services “penalize the prudent practice of using ATC services, such as filing for IFR in marginal conditions or simply receiving VFR advisories.”
Also sounding the alarm is Ed Bolen, president of the National Business Aviation Association 
(NBAA).
“The FAA reauthorization legislation that has recently been discussed would be nearly identical to legislation that was put forth during reauthorization in 2006,” said Bolen. “If the kind of legislation that is being considered were to receive a majority vote in Congress, it would cause irreparable harm to general aviation and to those we serve.”
Officials with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) echoed those concerns, adding that it “believes the current method of collecting revenues through a tax on aviation fuel is not broken.”
“Moreover, we believe any air traffic system must preserve GA access to airports and airspace on a first-come, first-served basis, like we enjoy today,” said AOPA Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Jim Coon.
AOPA officials noted that before any reauthorization legislation can become law, it must also be approved by the Senate.
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have already gone on record noting they are against any proposal exempting ATC from the federal budget. Committee members say they disagree with arguments “that the public is served by exempting any part of the FAA from annual congressional oversight” and added they “would oppose legislation to put the FAA or parts of the FAA on funding autopilot.”
The Senators note that the appropriations process provides oversight and and ensures that the “FAA maintains a system that works across the aviation industry, including general aviation, small and rural communities, as well as commercial airlines and large metropolitan cities.” Limiting congressional oversight could reduce small community service, restrict public input and increase consumer costs, according to the Senate committee members.
Expect more discussion on this as debate over FAA reauthorization resumes in September. The current FAA reauthorization expires Sept. 30. Besides providing funding for the agency and its programs, the reauthorization also sets Congressionally-mandated priorities for the FAA.
GA advocates acknowledge that some changes are needed in the FAA and ATC, but warn those changes should not come without the oversight of elected officials.
“There is no doubt that the FAA has spent billions over the years on efforts to modernize our air traffic control system, and we recognize that change is needed to ensure continued U.S. leadership in aviation,” said Coon. “But we must avoid any unintended consequences for general aviation. We’ve seen issues in other countries where general aviation has been put aside and we can’t allow that to happen in this country.”
Lobbyists for the GA groups will be active on Capitol Hill, but it’s important for pilots and aircraft owners to also get involved.
“Our elected representatives respond to active engagement by constituents,” the NBAA’s Bolen said. “If we want our voices to be heard on this issue, we must write letters, send emails, make phone calls, and show up to Town Halls lawmakers host in their home states and congressional districts. If we, as a community do nothing, then we will get nothing.”
Just go on Flightaware and see how many GA airplanes are in Europe or Canada. I was looking at types flying and there were 0 BE-35s flying. Nor did I find any other type of GA flying in those places; how’s that for private ATC?
They are not doing this for efficiency, They are doing it for control. They think it keep them in office if they make new rules, new offices, and who is putting money in there pockets. Sorry for being so cynical.
It would cost more to collect than they would take in,sounds like another scheme to expand big brother.
Maybe if they do this it will be a money maker & efficient like the Post Office & Amtrack are.
This is a “VERY BAD IDEA”. I remember when the air traffic controllers went on strike in the 80’s. President Reagan took care of that problem immediately. ” He Fired ” all of them. Now if this new system goes into action there is no way the president or congress can act in a timely efficient manner.
We all would held to the actions of the controllers who work for us, the people of the United States of America, not the corporation.
This whole concept is wrong from the get go. Our country is too large and there are way to many different points of view of how who and does someone operate within our National Airspace System.
Our system works because of freedom of movement and not by being overlooked and watched by Big Brother for violations so fines and penalties can be imposed. Our system is the best and safest in the world because of our freedom of movement.
Yes, we would like to see a better way to do things but Privatization is not the way to do it. Have Congress and the President hold the FAA’s hands to the fire. Tell the top echelon personnel they are fired and do it. Remember, they work for us, all the people and not for their own private interests.
Remember, AMTRAK doesn’t do very well either and it’s essentially privatized. What makes you think ATC privatization can do better. Answer : It can’t and doesn’t. Other countries only wish they could have the freedoms we have. But they all fail to realize it’s just a big money and jobs game. In Europe, France for example can’t do this or that because their controllers go on strike. Then everyone ends up paying more in the long and short term. Sorry, this is a Very Bad Idea that should be shelved.
The best and most economical way to assure GA survives into the future, especially for low end GA, and for sport flying, and for LSAs, and UAVs, and parachutists, and gliders, …and has the best chance for assured airspace access, is to support the efforts to split out ATS from FAA, as a separate ANSP (air navigation services provider).
Providing funding for a “split out” ATS services, is a completely different issue, and should not be inherently tied to splitting up of FAA. The present seriously dysfunctional FAA has not only already given us fouled up 3rd class medicals, delayed and fouled up UAV rules, and fouled up pilot qualification requirements such as for the ATPC, … but it has also hopelessly fouled up an overly expensive and poorly designed NextGen, such as with unnecessary and inappropriate equipage requirements for ADS-B that will not ultimately work, and much much more.
So now is the time for GA to get behind efforts to completely rethink NextGen, and bust up FAA, and not to start some “letter writing campaign” of “ready-fire-aim”, that will just divert or stop the very actions needed for GA’s long term survival, such as serious regulatory and NextGen reviews, to address their indirect but critical effect on ATS and aircraft operation cost containment.
Further, Congressional oversight is fine, but airspace users need to have a much better and more direct input into regulatory and ATS modernization plans and efforts, as well as being able to make seriously considered inputs to prospective costs to users, and for equipage.
At present, FAA’s NextGen plan is heading directly toward a $40B failure. To see this one need only look at the ill-advised 2020 deadline for ADS-B, that is not only outrageously and unnecessarily expensive for what it (poorly) does, and what doesn’t do (that is otherwise needed),that the airlines are already likely going to get relief from. ADS-B as FAA has configured it will imply not work in the long run to solve the airspace access or cost containment issues, especially for low end GA.
So GA (and all other airspace users too) ought to be supporting Congress now, to bust up and re-organize FAA, and split out ATS as a separate ANSP, …and NOT be fighting against that proposal.
Privitization hasn’t worked in Europe, Canada, or elsewhere. Why would you think it would work here? Once ATC is out from under Congressional scrutiny, who would protect the interests of GA? Since the airlines would pay the bulk of the user fees (and revenues to the managing entity) their needs, wants, and restrictions on GA would be paramount. It wasn’t too many years ago that the airlines were publically blaming GA for all of the delays and problems because “the little guys” were using up the system raesources. Of course, this had nothing to do with airline overscheduling at crowded airports without runway or gate capacity to handle the load. Once in private hands, we would be the “redheaded stepchild” aviation.
The FAA, though bloated and out-of-touch with reality, is no worse than all of the beauracracies in the federal government. Its just that we have to suffer more directly from their incompetence than any other agency except the IRS.
It is essential to fix ATS. ATS costs are out of control, and affordable capability for GA at any reasonable cost is hopeless, with the present antiquated ATS system. Many other states and ANSPs are doing less badly. Further we just lost another F-16 and C150 likely completely unnecessarily, due to conceptual if not even tactical failure of the FAA’s separation service.
Our system needs to evolve better and faster and at much lower user “fully allocated” cost. Additionally, users from UAVs to GA to air-transport to military are being frozen out of more and more airspace completely unnecessarily (that’s what FAA’s 2020 equipage mandate is all about). So a separate ATS ANSP, with more direct control of both services provided and control of costs BY USERS is key. Many states are doing less bad than FAA. FANS was done in the Pacific region over 20 years before FAA is just now considering it. Canada and other states like Australia have well functioning ADS-B currently in use WITHOUT any need for the overblown and useless obsolete WAAS based NIC and NAC that unnecessarily drives cost up. This poorly framed FAA performance all ultimately affects how much ATS will cost GA. Direct oversight by well informed airspace users is key, and is a significantly less bad option than the present system. The present “Fully allocated ATS costs” are out of control. The present “hand carrying” ATS system is massively obsolete, and FAA’s current rules and policies are substantially inappropriate for modern aviation (from 3rd class medicals to impossible and irrelevant cert standards, per RTCA TF4). So splitting up FAA and re-formulating it, with a separate ANSP offers the best opportunity to get it right this time. But that holds IF AND ONLY IF THE AIRSPACE USERS take the lead, and not let FAA’s consultants, or FAA’s lucrative present equipment contractors, or avionics companies looking to make an inordinate profit off selling FAA mandated equipment continue to drive FAA and the criteria for the NextGen. Congress can help, can take the lead in splitting up FAA, and provide high-level oversight. But Congress is NOT the right place to be making the day to day strategic rules, policies, or ATS design decisions. For evidence, just look at how Congress had a role in recently completely screwing up the ATPC requirements that FAA just implemented. So it is now time for GA to get behind the move to split up FAA, and separate out the ANSP function, and re-baseline the remaining FAA rules and policies for the modern era, for the sake of survival of low end GA as we’ve know it since at least the 1920s. Otherwise we will see the continued rapid dwindling of the GA fleet, loss of pilots, loss of GA airports, loss of small GA FBOs, loss of mechanics, and relegation of GA to a once a year event at KOSH, largely for only those who can still afford to keep 50 to 100 year old airplanes alive (unless perhaps you’re willing and able to spend $500K on a new single engine Cessna or $700K on a Cirrus?).
We Need the AOPA! Where would we bee with out them. We would have a European stile system that restricts our flying, and the expenses would be double or triple what they are now. Our system is not perfect but it is better then Europe!
“…we recognize that change is needed to ensure continued U.S. leadership in aviation,” – Mr Coon from AOPA.
AOPA trying to support the GOP/Airline privatization scheme for ATC without being held responsible for the user fees that come with it.
Time to dump AOPA.