Nine aviation advocacy groups have asked Congress to fully fund the Contract Tower Program as part of the FAA’s fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill.
In a March 2 letter to lawmakers, industry leaders voiced support for language in the current version of the bill that calls for “not less than $172,000,000” in funding for the program.
“The FAA Contract Tower Program has provided cost-effective and essential air traffic safety services for over three decades,” the groups stated in the letter. “More importantly, the safety and efficiency of the FAA Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by the Department of Transportation Inspector General, as well as by FAA safety audits.”
The program supports ATC towers at 254 smaller airports in 46 states. While the towers handle 28% of all ATC operations in the U.S., they account for only 14% of FAA’s overall ATC tower operations budget.
Contract towers are staffed by FAA-certified controllers who meet the identical training and operating standards as FAA-employed controllers. Most federal contract controllers are former FAA controllers or veterans with prior military ATC experience.
The FAA controls and oversees all aspects of the Contract Tower Program, including operating procedures, staffing plans, certification and medical tests of contract controllers, security and facility evaluations.
Contract towers operate seamlessly with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the country, and they play a critical role in expanding tower services to the communities they serve, GA advocates note.
“The bottom line is that, absent this highly successful partnership, many local communities and smaller airports would not receive the significant safety benefits of ATC services, as part of a unified national air traffic control system,” the letter reads.
The letter was sent to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11-NJ), Ranking Member Rep. Nita Lowey (D-17-NY), as well as to the committee’s Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-FL) and that subcommittee’s Ranking Member Rep. David Price (D-4-NC).
Also receiving the letter were Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Ranking Member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), as well as the committee’s Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ranking Member Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI).
Alphabet groups involved in the letter include the National Business Aviation Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, National Association of State Officials, National Air Transportation Association, and the Airport Councils International-NA.
You can read the full letter here.
Contract Towers were envisioned where there was complex traffic but the airport did not meet the traffic count to establish a facility. The first contract tower, Martin State in MD, was financed by the State of Maryland when Martin pulled out. So, the precedent was set and somehow later ignored, that the “Host or owner of the airport would pay”.
But now the FAA pays and by ding so establishes a “B Scale”. If an airport meets traffic criteria for an FAA tower, then one should be established. If not, the host should be paying for a private tower.
Current contract towers do a fine job but it is a job and situation that should not exist in present form.
Taxpayers foot these bills and now we have a $20 trillion debt. And sadly no one protects taxpayers as the endless and bottomless building of this debt continues. It would be nice of aviation would step up and offer to get off the gravy train but no cigar as they say…
I’m sorry, but the joke is clearly on us.
A few weeks ago AOPA and the other alphabet constellations celebrated “victory” as the efforts to privatize ATC ran out of steam. According to AOPA and others the world would surely have ended if privatization had moved forward, and we were apparently expected to believe that privatization would have destroyed “the world’s best and safest ATC system”. Also, we were supposed to believe that a privately operated ATC would be much more expensive to operate.
And yet here is a quote from this article’s referenced letter to Members of Congress from the very same alphabet soup:
“The FAA Contract Tower Program has provided cost-effective and essential air traffic safety services for over three decades. Currently, 254 smaller airports in 46 states participate in the program, including one in New Jersey. Together these 254 towers handle approximately 28 percent of all air traffic control tower (ATCT) aircraft operations in the U.S. but only account for about 14 percent of FAA’s overall budget allotted to ATCT tower operations and save FAA and taxpayers approximately $200 million per year. More importantly, the safety and efficiency record of the FAA Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by the DOT Inspector General, as well as by FAA safety audits.”
AOPA – make up your mind – what’s it going to be?? Are privately operated ATC functions good or bad?? A few weeks ago they were supposedly a catastrophe and now they are supposedly the best thing since the invention of sliced bread??
We should not expect anybody in Washington DC to pay attention to general aviation owners/pilots as a group when we have that kind of incompetent representation in Washington DC.
It still comes down to how we as GA pilots could have a say on how things have been lately, alphabet reps helping. The way the executive branch especially the last few administrations threatening to privatize the whole thing, I would rather see a few private towers here and there. Those private towers at GA airports being funded by the FAA is better than us paying fees for using ATC for anything.
The fact that ATC could go to the airlines is still scary due to the fact it will squeeze us GA pilots out. So let’s experiment with the private towers that are up. However I agree with Steve that maybe 250 plus private towers might be a little much.
You are confusing the ATC privatization issue with using contractor resources as an efficient means to provide tower services to mid to low volume airports. ATC privatization has to do with handing over a 15,000 employee operation with a $15 billion dollar budget to a private for-profit corporation controlled by the airlines. In that scenario, General Aviation loses. That’s why AOPA fought against it, and thank god. In a contract tower operation, General Aviation benefits. That’s why AOPA supported it. The idea that you can take the efficiency of a contractor-supported operation at low volume airports and scale that efficiency to a national level doesn’t work.
The financials of converting to a private entity are deceptively complex. A turn-key transition of ATC “as is”, with all the benefits we have today, is HUGELY expensive.
Another example of private companies doing business better and more affordably than the government….it only works every time you try it. However, there is one thing that government is good at — holding back progress and ingenuity.
Before simply allocating funds, there should be a review to determine how many of those airports even need towers any more. I know at least three airports here in Washington state that still have towers (I don’t know if they are contract) that definitely do not need them.
I totally agree Steve