Following opposition from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and other general aviation organizations, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) has withdrawn controversial language in Section 5 of a last-minute “manager’s amendment” to H.R. 4, the FAA long-term funding bill.
In response to calls by general aviation associations for action, pilots flooded the switchboard at the U.S. House of Representatives, urging their members of Congress to oppose Section 5 of Shuster’s “manager’s amendment.”
Shuster introduced the amendment late on April 23, just hours ahead of the planned vote on H.R. 4. The amendment included a plan to move management of the air traffic organization from the FAA to its parent entity, the U.S. Department of Transportation, which has no expertise in running such an operation.
The amendment also called for the establishment of a 13-seat “advisory” board, the composition of which looked remarkedly like the one from Shuster’s bill for the so-called “privatization” of ATC. The chairman pulled that bill in February after two years of debate when he could not get enough votes to advance it in the House.
“Once our members weighed in to express their opposition to the amendment, we had a constructive dialogue and we are grateful that Chairman Shuster withdrew the most troubling language in Section 5 of the amendment,” said Jim Coon, AOPA senior vice president of Government Affairs. “We hope now H.R. 4 can move forward. All of aviation will benefit from a long-term funding bill.”
“Once again, the power of a large, active, and engaged membership base proved important in stopping this onerous proposal,” said AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker. “AOPA members responded immediately Tuesday afternoon to our calls for action and House members quickly knew that general aviation was not going to allow this to pass. As always, we are thankful for AOPA members who took immediate action to get this last-minute deal stopped in its tracks. You made this happen.
“Let’s get this reauthorization bill passed to guarantee stable funding for the FAA for the next five years and then let’s call a summit of air traffic control stakeholders to develop a plan to modernize the system in a transparent and productive way,” Baker continued. “We are anxious to work with the administration, the airlines, and others to continue to advance our air traffic system, which is already the largest, safest, and most complex in the world. But we all know we can’t rest on our laurels. The system must continue to advance, and we support that.”
We need to keep a watch on this 65 retirement age for 135/91 pilots. Why do we need this retirement age? The airlines wanted it, and now want the captains kept around but back in the right seat for a few years while teaching new captains.
The old military pilots who smoke and drank, etc. have aged out. So we have a healthier pilot population over the age of 60. Why do we need a mandatory retirement age for 135/91?
This was a solution looking for a problem to fix — a problem that doesn’t exist.
Weasals on the public dole. They serve no purpose except to enrich themselves through what they laughingly call “public service”. It does not matter if they are local state or federal elected oficials – its all ego, greed and power. And dont they retire well?
Shuster’s long-time girlfriend is airline lobbyist Shelley Rubino. He says their relationship has no effect on his legislative efforts and there is no conflict of interest. We all know better. Shameful!
I agree with MarkB1118 on the flying pig comparison.
Simply supports the well known fact that Shuster, like far to many representatives, senaters and members of the U S Government are, like him, simply “Slimeballs”.
I am proud to be one of those GA Pilots who helped bring this Slimeballs attempt to destroy freedom to light.
Do not let your guard down – Slimeball Shuster and or his cronies in the Senate or committee to reconcile differences between the just passed House of Representatives FAA Reauthoration and the Senated version will try again. Or the Slimeball in Chief will veto so it will be easier to keep their ATC Privatization dreams alive.
Steve Hulland
I agree with Michael. We need to fight this 65 requirement for 135/91 pilots.
Shuster’s deceptive behavior clearly indicates he is a representative of the airlines and not the citizens who elected him. Bribery of politicians is legal in DC and Shuster is a poster-child of this behavior. Let’s vote him out.
It is not only Shuster, it is virtually every one of them. Congress is there to take care of itself. If there is any benefit to the public it is simply a coincidence. The best thing that could happen for the rest of us would be to start up a new Congress that cannot make up its own rules and pay scale.
His term is done in 2018 and he has already decided not to run again. This does make one wonder if he was setting himself up quite nicely in the private sector.
I am also concerned about the amendment he offered at the request of Flexjet. That one mandated an age 65 retirement for 135/91(k) pilots. Was that one also withdrawn?
Agree with JS. Would like to see how much money Shuster gets from airline lobbyists. What an underhanded maneuver!
Once again, Rep. Bill Shuster demonstrates the dishonesty those “representing” us in Congress. He withdrew the proposal from the bill due to the opposition stating that he would not attempt to put it back into the bill, then at the last minute tried to put it back in as an amendment. It sure smells like he was bought and paid for by the somebody, and they didn’t like it when he capitulated and withdrew the ATC giveaway from the funding bill. So, he made a last ditch effort and was once again pushed back by pilot opposition.
Gee, remind me again why people feel that they can’t trust politicians and don’t trust Congress??? Number one example on display with Rep Shuster!
What’s the difference between a flying pig and a politician?
The “f”