WASHINGTON, D.C. – Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey) have introduced the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, legislation that establishes an independent, not-for-profit corporation, outside of the federal government, to modernize and provide air traffic control (ATC) services.
The AIRR Act (H.R. 4441), a six-year reauthorization of the FAA, maintains the FAA’s role as the nation’s aviation safety regulator, the congressmen note.
The reauthorization bill also streamlines the FAA’s aviation equipment and aircraft certification processes, provides additional consumer protections, addresses aviation safety issues, gives the FAA more tools for the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems, and provides for airport infrastructure improvements across the country, according to the bill’s sponsors.
“The United States has led the world in aviation since pioneering this modern mode of transportation. We have the safest system in the world, and we will continue to do so under this bill,” Shuster said. “But our system is incredibly inefficient, and it will only get worse as passenger levels grow and as the FAA falls further behind in modernizing the system.
“Furthermore, the FAA’s overly bureaucratic certification processes are handicapping American companies and causing us to fall behind our competition,” he continued. “The AIRR Act is transformational legislation that prepares the U.S. aviation system for the future, helps ensure a modern, safe system that benefits passengers and the economy, and keeps America competitive in a vital industry.”
Shuster and his team even put together a video explaining why the changes are necessary. You can see it here.
Shuster acknowledges that there have been “genuine policy differences” in putting together the bill. The committee meets next week to discuss the bill, offering members a chance to “further discuss” the changes, as well as “offer amendments during the markup process.”
The current authorization of the FAA expires at the end of March.
According to Shuster, the committee has held numerous meetings, listening sessions, roundtables, and hearings over the past two years to gather input and ideas from transportation officials, stakeholders, and policy experts in developing the AIRR Act.
He says the legislation “recognizes that maintaining the status quo will result in more setbacks and soaring costs of failed federal ATC modernization efforts, a bureaucracy that continues to stifle American innovation, and a system that is incapable of handling growing demand.”
Establishing an independent ATC provider has become the standard across the world, he said, noting the United States is one of the last industrialized nations yet to do so.
“Countries that have done so have consistently benefited from safety levels that have been maintained or improved, successful modernization of their ATC systems, improved ATC services, and generally lower ATC service costs,” he noted in a prepared released on the proposed legislation. “The AIRR Act seeks to move U.S. aviation into the modern era and beyond.
The 270-page actually includes several positives for general aviation, according to officials with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
“There are some very good things for general aviation in this bill. I think everyone can agree that the FAA can be more efficient and effective, and this legislation creates opportunities for both third class medical reform and certification reform that have the potential to make flying safer and more affordable,” said AOPA President Mark Baker.
But there are other provisions AOPA will firmly oppose, he add, “such as user fees for any segment of GA, including business aviation.”
“And still other elements, like the plan to separate air traffic control from the FAA, raise important questions that demand meaningful answers,” he continued. “Ultimately, we need to know that any FAA reauthorization legislation will protect the interests of general aviation now and into the future.”
AOPA officials say they plan to carefully study the bill’s language and its potential consequences over the coming days.
“This is extremely complex legislation and we need to be sure we get it right and fix only the things that are actually broken, so we will be going over it with a fine-toothed comb,” said AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jim Coon. “This bill is an important starting point and there are many more steps to go before it is finalized. AOPA is going to be actively involved in the process, representing the needs of our members at every step along the way and opposing any provisions that would harm GA.”
“With FAA funding set to expire March 31, it seems unlikely that the House and Senate can reach agreement on final legislation before the deadline, increasing the chances that we’ll see another short term extension of the status quo,” he added.
Officials at the Aircraft Electronics Association echo many of AOPA’s comments.
“At first glance of the 270-page bill, the AEA is pleased the legislation addresses easing the burdens of certification and includes language that FAA aviation safety inspectors need more training to perform their jobs,” said Paula Derks, AEA president. “However, we are extremely troubled with the proposed privatization of the air traffic control system.
“Our concerns include unforeseen transition costs and the increased operational costs within the industry, which will be financed by a user fee scheme,” she said. “Lobbied for by all major airlines, with the exception of Delta, we feel this privatization proposal is a power play by the airlines to dictate what fees the general aviation industry will pay in the future.”
To All,
After spending much time reading and digesting the proposed bill to privatize the Air Traffic Control system I am more convinced this is a very “Bad, Terrible and Horrible” idea. It downright sucks. Period.
There are many reasons for my decision, but one that really stands out is the so-called 11 impartial member board of directors.
The breakdown is as follows :
2 appointed by the Secretary of Transportation
4 appointed by the airlines
1 appointed from Air Traffic Control
1 appointed from the airline union
2 appointed from GA
Boy what are the odds of this stacked in favor of the airlines and why are all the airlines wanting this except Delta. answer: Because they have the money.
Just from the top down in a push comes to shove fight, GA would lose every time.
Just look at the way the board of directors is comprised. Two from the secretary of transportation (very political) and Four from the airlines. Another political favors group. The airlines are the ones proposing this. Why ? answer: Because they want control. That’s all. Very un-American and wrong in my opinion.
If you just count this up, you get a 6 to 5 vote in favor of whatever the board wants. This whole thing sounds and smells fishy from the get go. It would be very hard to believe the board would be independent and impartial. Really how can it be ? answer: It can’t. Not going to happen.
Who do you think the airlines are going to go behind ? It’s sure not GA, and why should they. Most have nothing to gain because airline flying is a different type of flying and airspace use. Also, in this world of mergers and other big business moves. One would think not to make real enemies of another airline or airlines because someday they may be looking for a job. Aviation is a tight knit group and many people don’t forget or forgive the past.
I have read the proposal from the air traffic controllers union and initially they were against the idea of privatization. Then in the last couple of days they have changed their minds and now support privatization. Again, Hmmm, sounds fishy. What are they promised in return ? Higher wages, more new hires ? Who knows ? but controllers union isn’t talking nor will they.
The airlines largest union also gets a member on the board. Wow, what a surprise. It was also a surprise that when medical reform issue was working its way thru the legislative process and there was no comments whatsoever from them until the very last minute before the bill was about to be put up for a vote.
Then the union sent letters to all the senators and congressman voicing their disapproval of the bill and not to vote for it. Again, what a major fishy way to conduct business. Great scare tactics. And to think medical reform issue has not been around for many years. Also, If the medical reform issue was so bad then why did they wait until the last minute to voice their disapproval. answer : Politics. Plain and simple. Hmmm, great organization to rely on for fairness.
GA gets 2 board members, “Whoopee”, the deck is already so stacked against GA right now there is nothing it can do. Who cares. GA would almost certainly lose everytime.
Let’s face reality, The top six board members won’t risk their careers just for the sake of GA. It’s not going to happen. The top six board members “political appointees” plain and simple. We all know what that means. When the political winds want something, the appointees make it happen. That’s just the way it is. The appointees work for the people who appoint them and write their check. Or they get fired. Plain and simple.
I’m sorry this whole idea of privatization is just way to lop-sided to even think GA has a chance at fairness and reform. It doesn’t.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Aryan
You think general aviation is being screwed, what about the vast number of FAA employees who don’t belong to NATCA??? We don’t even have a seat at the table. We were all thrown under the bus by NATCA who cut some kind of insider deal with Airlines for America….. Most NATCA members don’t even support this horrible bill!
Its Christmas in February for the Airlines who get billions of dollars in FAA assets turned over to them for no cost….. And the old out of date facilities they don’t want they can just flip back to the FAA and let them deal with the millions and billions it will take to remediate those facilities once they are decommissioned.
Splitting out ATS as a separate non-profit entity to properly modernize ATS (not NextGen) and reduce its costs substantially is critical to GAs future. As is completely rebuilding seriously dysfunctional FAA from top to bottom.
Without a doubt, privatization of ATC is coming. And while user fees won’t happen right away that too will come with time, probably sooner than later. The country is financially bankrupt and has been for some time living on borrowed and printed money, mostly the latter. If a republican administration is elected in November and especially if its a Trump Administration it’s almost a guarantee that this will be just a starting point in bringing financial money management expertise back to the federal budgeting process.
What planet are you on? ATC is funded by the users through the fuel tax. Nothing what you mention is applicable to ATC services.
Gee, kind of silent around here. Just imagine of two Democrats had proposed this, the howling about “his administration” and blah blah blah. Two Republicans stab us all in the back and not a word.
If two…. “This administration”
Are they going to build toll booths in the sky. Sounds like another excuse to hire more people.
I have a simple suggestion: give qualified parties access to the FAA’s data feeds, and let them go ahead and build a private ATC system. Then users who prefer the private system can pay the fees, and those who are happy with the current system can stick with the FAA. Competition should help to drive innovation on both sides. We’ve seen this before, when Jeppesen was able to charge quite a lot for charts, at the same time as the FAA/NACO provided them at a much lower price (being cheap, I always found the FAA charts perfectly acceptable).
But, there’s no need to force current FAA users into a private, fee-based system. Jeppesen did fine without that.
I realize there’s a need to coordinate between controllers, but that’s a problem that already exists within the FAA. I bet there are fairly straightforward solutions.