President Donald Trump released his first budget proposal March 16, 2017, which calls for spinning off Air Traffic Control from the FAA to an independent non-government organization.
The proposal mirrors that of a report released recently by the Eno Center for Transportation’s Aviation Working Group.
“The purpose of spinning off air traffic control from the federal government is to create a safer and more efficient system with the potential to continue the growth of America’s aviation industry. If the FAA was freed of its role of directing air traffic, it would be able to focus on its core mission as the aviation safety overseer,” said Eno’s President and CEO Robert Puentes.
By not being subject to budget sequestration, spending caps, government shutdowns, and hiring freezes, an independent entity would also be better able to undertake upgrades, as well as go to the capital markets for funding.
“Necessary, but sometimes cumbersome, federal procurement rules have hindered the government’s efforts to modernize air traffic control,” said Eno aviation expert Rui Neiva. “This shift would save taxpayers money and help make this crucial part of our economy more efficient.”
Not surprising is GA’s continued opposition to the possible privatization of ATC, with worries that a private entity would be controlled by the airlines.
GA advocates worry that an ATC controlled by the airlines will restrict general aviation access to certain airports or airspace. They also are opposed to the implementation of user fees to fund the system.
“We know that the notion of privatizing ATC has for decades been pushed by large airlines,” said Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). “Under such a proposal, the ATC system – which is a natural monopoly that currently serves the public’s interest, and is overseen by the public’s elected representatives – would be turned over to a non-governmental entity effectively controlled by the airlines.
“Under such a scenario, the small and mid-size towns that rely on access to general aviation for everything from civil services, to emergency support, to business access and more, could have their access to airports and airspace threatened,” he continued. “This is among the many important reasons NBAA has long been very concerned over the big airlines’ proposal. Simply put, privatization of the ATC system would benefit commercial airlines at the expense of the citizens, companies and communities that rely general aviation.”
Removing ATC from FAA control and oversight would pose a significant risk to general aviation’s long-term access to the National Airspace System (NAS), echoed officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association.
“We cannot stress enough the threat ATC privatization poses to our ability to enjoy recreational aviation as freely as we do today,” officials said in a statement released March 16, 2017.
“Under such a system, ATC would be overseen and managed by a board made up of commercial interests, with the nation’s airlines having the most powerful and numerous voices,” EAA officials said. “These interests would inevitably drown out whatever token representation and economic impact GA would have on such a board, creating an ATC system that would serve commercial interests with the greatest financial resources.
“Proponents of such a system claim it will make our NAS more efficient, comparing the proposal to other privatized systems around the world,” the EAA statement continued. “But the size and complexity of the U.S. NAS dwarfs those airspace systems, and in many of those systems general aviation has been stifled.”
Additionally, proponents claim that the proposal from the White House, as well as previous privatization proposals, would save U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars, but fail to specify how that would be achieved when all existing labor and infrastructure costs would be transferred to a corporatized system, EAA officials continued.
“The truth is, these proposals do not address the underlying problem of a stable Congressional funding stream for ATC services and system modernization,” the statement noted. “A privatized system would inevitably rely on the flying public, including general aviation users, for its operations and capital investments, with resources flowing to the areas of greatest economic impact: Air carrier hubs and urban facilities.
“As such, ATC privatization would likely threaten funding for infrastructure improvements to rural airports such as towers, instrument landing facilities, and other safety-critical needs for general aviation,” the statement continued. “In fact, consistent with this shift in resources from rural needs to major air carrier commercial operations, the White House budget eliminates funding for the Essential Air Service program, which is designed to preserve commercial air service in rural areas.”
EAA officials note that the FAA and Congress “are the only unbiased arbiters ensuring fair access to the NAS to all of its users.”
“Access today is on a first come, first served basis,” they noted. “The trend under the FAA’s modernization programs has been toward a best equipped, best served model while still preserving access for general aviation operations that cannot meet new equipment mandates. Once responsibility for the air traffic system is taken out of the hands of the FAA and given to a corporate entity, the fair arbiter is lost and the organization that controls the nation’s airspace becomes beholden solely to commercial and economic interests. Those stakeholders that are the best funded, best equipped, and/or carry the most passengers will likely be the best served in a privatized system. General aviation will lose over time to economically powerful interests whose primary goal is to obtain control over the system and its resources. They will seek to minimize their own direct operating costs by reducing or eliminating services that do not directly address their needs and/or by shifting cost burdens onto other users of the system.
“The White House will be relying on Congress to draft this proposal into law under the upcoming FAA reauthorization legislative process intended to be completed by the end of September,” EAA officials said, noting the association is “already advocating on Capitol Hill on behalf of our members and general aviation as a whole to ensure any changes to the air traffic control system serve the needs of GA.”
30 nautical mile radius around airports served by air carriers and military bases from ground up to 12,500 MSL and airspace above 12,500 should be limits of controlled airspace, All other airspace should be uncontrolled with controlled airspace below 10,000 feet within 10 nm of airports with instrument approaches. Clearance needed for conducting an approach or operating in IMC within the airspace.
Equal access must be guaranteed with a maximum charge based on the actual cost of service and aircraft gross weight.
ADS-B is soon to be required and in most of the country, IFR in Uncontrolled Airspace doesn’t need the FAA today. Airlines and jets can be required to operate above 12,500 or within the 30NM radius of the airport.
Glad you are not my CFI…… “IRF in uncrotrolled airspace is not needed by FAA…” Dude…. 90 percent of the USA is covered by class E which is controlled and starts at either 700 agl or 1200 agl. Anyone flying around in IMC under those heights is a freaking moron! There are countless radio, radar and cell phone towers, wind turbines, and buildings in that “uncrontolled airspace” flying around in that airspace “blind” is not only crazy its downright rediculous.
Who is going to collect the fees? Hire more people,create more paper work,this will only increase the cost of flying.
Currently in this country we have 253 contract towers. One of the contractors is Serco. From my research, the home office of Serco is in the United Kingdom.
Do we need more tax dollars going out of the United States?
I fly all over the world delivering Piper Cubs to Boeing airliners and I can say beyond any doubt that the USA has the biggest, the best and the safest most effiecent ATS in the world. Don’t fix something that is not Broke! Once user fees get started here GA will start to crumble. Don’t believe me then just check any country who has them.
I love flying GA in the USA. I can jump in my Cessna 180 any time day or night and fly coast to coast VFR or IFR with a full array of services available to me that no other country in the world can come close to matching.
Why do you think so many forgein students come to the USA for flight training. It’s because we have great flight schools that can operate effiecently at a more reasonable price than other countries who have user fees. We will lose this business if we go to user fees. In fact we will lose tons of jobs in this country as a result of what user fees will do to GA.
Once started user fees will grow in number and will be arbitrarily raised at will pricing many GA pilots out of flying. Flying will only be for the rich. Safety will take a hit as well.
I remember flying into Sydney, Australia under an overcast sky when a plane descended down out of the clouds right in front of me causing a near miss. It was supposedly VFR but actually flying in the clouds. What a scary sight! When I got on the ground I started asking around about this and the answer I got was, that was not uncommon because it costs more to file an IFR flight plan in Australia than a VFR flight plan. This kind of thing is pure craziness!
Yes if we truly want to mess things up with absolutely no upside potential for GA then start user
When it comes to user fees, JUST SAY NO!!
Michael: you are right on the money! This is the best take on the airline’s grab for control of our airspace I have seen. We must not let this happen.
This will happen despite all the usual objections just as ADS-B will happen in time for everyone, no exceptions. We might as well get ready to fight for whatever restrictions and limitations are favorable for GA with ATC under a private entity with congressional oversight. I suspect in time we’ll be paying user fees as well. The national debt has soared too much and the fed is basically broke having been forced to print dollars for the past 8 years to pay its expenses. Trump being the business man that he is will be looking to conserve spending as much as possible and stop inflating the money supply. The FAA being the typical government run agency has for years been lethargic and costly and most recently under Obama given to hiring Air Traffic Controllers not on the basis of merit and demonstrated skill but political correctness. It is a dinosaur agency whose time has come to be pared down.
HI Paul: At least YOU had the balls to state; “what is, is”!
Yet your businessman Trump is spending more money elsewhere. How is that reducing debt? How is making something privatized worth the cost if it loses job, destroys local revenue and creates broken process all under a layer of government oversight?
I profoundly disagree with the “privatization” that you support.
I have flown in the Canadian and Australian aviation environments and the only change has been greater bureaucracy and added cost.
Australia privatized, and created four bureaucracies – CASA (like the FAA, is a regulator), air traffic control, airports (sold off, many closed and redeveloped, and fees introduced by remaining private operators), and fire/ground services. The prior government aviation minister in Australia made a glowing speech during his reign how wonderful and efficient that his government was in not building new infrastructure since demand had diminished. The truth was that demand was choked by fees and his government’s bureaucracy and that is where this ATC privatization will take us. Previously the entire system was paid from fuel taxes – did the ‘privatization’ see the government eliminate the fuel taxes? NO! The taxes remained and the government ‘double dipped’.
Canada did a ‘sleight of hand’ where it had a budget deficit and it formed a ‘new’ air traffic corporation and ‘sold’ the ATC to it for C$One Billion Dollars. The users of the new system have to pay for use and the fees cover actual cost plus the interest and repayment on the $One Billion Dollars. This trick appeared to reduce the government deficit by the $One Billion, but saddled aviation users by fees that had been paid by fuel taxes. Did the government reduce or eliminate the fuel taxes? NO!
Will Trump’s privatization eliminate fuel taxes? No, of course not. The Transportation Secretary spent this week in Canada studying their system, so I expect that is what will be foisted onto us here.
My experience in Canada’s airspace is that preference is still given to jet traffic (aka airlines) and that general aviation is provided with fewer services. Canada introduced fees at major airports in addition to all of the other fees so if you go to Vancouver, Calgary etc you have a landing fee.
I am confident that no benefit for General Aviation will be derived from this privatization. Airlines have promoted this for decades, apparently so they can offset much cost onto GA and reduce their costs. I was intrigued when Delta, United, American had a day of Trump’s time about two weeks ago, and now we see the outcome – privatization!
The present system isn’t broken and works reasonably well – the only predictable change is added cost which will lead to the (already pressured) GA portion of aviation being restricted and diminished.
I’m an ATP and I fly a Twin Comanche and various business jets and I feel that I am qualified to express this position.
PB,
You are correct all the way! Been to Australia many times flying and the fees are awful! They
also have landing time restrictions at certain airports (Alice Springs, etc…) which restricts
general aviation.
Going to really miss flying here…
Will
Excellent response. Keyword: INFRASTRUCTURE. Thank you.
Not sure where I stand on this HOWEVER having seen the lethargy of so many government run ‘companies’ I am willing to listen to better understand how this new ‘company’ would work. Devoid of government’s heavy hand I can see how it could be an improvement. I flew very heavily for 10+ years all over this great country (300+ hrs per year) I will admit that I got great service from the current ATC system.
I’ve been seeing this comment, “vastly better GA airspace access”, by many posters in many areas recently. Perhaps my experience flying in Southern California, Northern California, Denver and Chicago (as a GA instrument rated pilot) isn’t sufficient qualification to ask this question, but alas here we go. Are GA pilots “denied” access routinely? I fly into the some of the world’s busiest airspace as a GA pilot, typically under IFR, and have never, not even close, been denied access to the airspace, the facility or services. So I ask, is there a mass denial of services and blanket acquiescence to such that I’m blindly unaware of? Maybe I’m on the wrong frequency? Fairly sure that in my last approach to Hawthorne in California that I didn’t pay an approach fee, an arrival fee, a landing fee, a filing fee and an ATC use fee (as they do in EMEA).
You paid those fees, Micfhael but it was with the fuel tax.
I’m with you, Michael. I have to wonder, “how much better can it get?” Most of my flights are in Florida, through and around Orlando and Miami’s Class B airspace, Fort Lauderdale’s Class C airspace and in and out of Class D fields. I’m pretty darn happy with our Air Traffic Controllers and our national airspace infrastructure. How much better could it possibly get?!
I see no reason that serves the public interest to privatize ATC. I see no reason that serves the national interest to take what is federal infrastructure out of the federal domain and place it into the hands of a private organization.
You state that you flew IFR – thus, you had a clearance. If you had a ground hold it was to wait for an enroute opening or a slot at your destination, but they fitted you into the system.
Most GA flights are VFR, and many request flight following. Upon arrival at Class B or C you might be told to “stay clear of Class Charlie airspace” and this is an access denial – not a heavy one. They will typically bring you in when a space opens since IFR traffic (typically airlines that have flight plans on file and slots) has priority by being sequenced into the system. When IFR congestion is heavy they’ll have aircraft hold, and VFR traffic is told to stay clear.
I’ve had very annoying and unfair flight following denials in Los Angeles region air space, and also Oakland. I recall one time when the LA Basin was socked in and I requested flight following to KSNA and the controller denied me. It was heavy IFR below so I called flight service and filed IFR and the controller was very annoyed to hear back from me – I told him I had a an IFR flight plan on file so he had no choice but to open it and accept me into the system, but this is an example of denial.
I’ve had many instances over the years of similar events but, overall, controllers are generally helpful and positive. However, privatization will not improve ATC access, it will primarily charge fees. File IFR? A fee. Request flight following? A fee. Every en route frequency as you are handed off from one sector to another? A fee. We will pay and pay and pay.
In Australia, when the fees were introduced, I remember getting letters from the government asking that pilots quote their correct registration identifier, Apparently people had heated by quoting a different registration so as to avoid the fees.
The system that we have now, while annoying many, is still the best in the world and recommend keeping it.
Never head anyone that actually flies use the term “ATS”. Who do you work for “ManyDecadesGA” ?
“…with resources flowing to the areas of greatest economic impact: Air carrier hubs and urban facilities.”
Are we foolish enough to believe that this is not the case now?
EAA officials note that the FAA and Congress “are the only unbiased arbiters ensuring fair access to the NAS to all of its users.”
The FAA and Congress are “unbiased arbiters”? You really need a better argument, as this is as far from the truth as one can get. I’m laughing uncontrollably over that one……..
@ManydecadesGA- This is a bad idea. You will end up with 2 bureaucracies (3 really if you include the NTSB) instead of one. That means less accountability where responsibility is de-localized. Why not just fix the FAA? The above comment already concedes that is possible.
Exactly! Fix the broken agency. Congress should be demanding Huerta show transparency, accountability, and performance, or fire his butt. (of course, part of the problem is airlines, manufacturers, employees unions, etc. are big donators to congressional reelection campaigns; thus, the real beneficiaries of both the NextGen and privatization programs have effectively bought silence from the elected officials who then fail to represent the people).
IMHO, FAA is an excellent example of a broken, over-matured federal agency. It is representative of a problem afflicting probably all federal agencies. If Trump et al really wanted to do something brilliant, they would pick an agency like FAA, focus on it, force it to reform; set an example, and repeat this process to reform all the broken federal agencies.
Splitting out ATS as a separate entity and reconstructing a rational FAA remainder from first principles could be the best thing that has happened to GA in decades. It could assure both an affordable much less costly and safer system, with vastly better GA airspace access. Both FAA ATS and their regulatory policies are massively obsolete, counterproductive, or overly constraining. It is long past time for change at FAA. GA’s very survival depends on this chance to finally “fix” both FAA and the ATS. NBAA, EAA, and AOPA are profoundly wrong to now be mobilizing to fight this change. This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with airlines wanting to take over ATS.
I agree with this, with one YUGE caveat: there must be competition. Private enterprise is more effective and efficient than government not because it’s private, but because of competition. Private monopolies – especially government-guaranteed monopolies – are neither (think electric utilities and cable companies).
There is no reason why most ATC cannot be provided on a competitive basis. Controllers hand off to each other and coordinate with each other all the time. All that’s needed is the radar feeds. Yes, right now a single controller has sole “ownership” of a patch of sky, but if we have to choose between a government-mandated privately-controlled monopoly and addressing the single-controller issue, let’s address the single-controller issue.
Oh, and yes, the current proposal is EXACTLY about the (incumbent) airlines wanting to take over ATS. They want to improve it, yes. But they also want control. Just watch what happens if you suggest competition (which would also provide improvement, but only limited control).
How will it be less costly? You will still be paying the taxes for services once provided by the fed, and which private company has ever operated for no profit gain? You will eventually be paying more to someone, be it thru the fed to the private entity or directly to the private entity.
I have to disagree. I’m a retired FAA ATC (a whistleblower forced to retire early) and, though not a pilot (never could afford it in no small part because of FAA retaliation), I think EAA has nailed the problems with this proposal. And, this has EVERYTHING to do with airlines wanting to control the huge money pot collected by FAA today.
I’ll add one other point: if FAA, Congress (Shuster) and Trump really wanted to make a smart ‘transformational’ move, they would put all system users (not just GA) on a fuel tax revenue basis. The airlines have resisted this because it would force them to split up their oversized hubs – which in reality are like cattleyards, enormous sorting facilities for passengers passing through those few airports – and offer many more single-hop flights that are direct from origin to destination. I recently studied data on tickets which showed, 40%+ of tickets from Boston to LaGuardia or JFK were through-passengers; in other words, pairs of congested airports are only adding to congestion by offering dozens of daily flights not to serve either origin or destination, but to create more traffic for an inappropriate hub location.
If aviation revenues were generated from fuel taxes, it would slightly reduce hub-based airline profits, but it would also reduce the enormous revenue streams airport authorities salivate over, so they can grow their local bureaucracies, too. And, critically, such a new revenue system would significantly reduce schedule pressure at those few oversized hubs (including JFK and LGA), thus significantly reducing delays that cascade through the entire airport system.
“This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with airlines wanting to take over ATS”
The airlines would not take over air traffic directly, I guess, although if the new ATC corporation (as in Canada) was privately financed you can bet the airlines would own it.
What I expect is a reallocation of services and costs. In Australia every ‘service’ has a cost. Every frequency, every sector, has a fee. You want to file a flight plan? You get a bill. You want to shoot a practice approach (provided only if the controller is not busy with jet traffic) – a $15 fee. Every function has a fee. But the added fees don’t guarantee better access.
I just don’t see any benefit for GA in privatization. I do see added cost which will eliminate much demand because of the inability for many GA pilots to pay.
Australia and Canada’s air space users are wealthy people because only the wealthy can afford it there, like Europe.
Look at all those buzzwords, talking points and repeated key phrases @ManyDecadesGA. Either you swallowed the koolaid, are being paid to serve the koolaid or will benefit financially from the decimation of ATC and the creation of this new private entity.