The fight against higher federal fees has begun in what promises to be a protracted dispute as lawmakers figure out a formula to keep the US Federal Aviation Administration thriving.
The FAA pleads poverty every four or five years, when it goes to Congress for renewal of its basic funding structure, including ticket taxes, passenger fees, air traffic charges and a host of other income sources to pay for controller salaries, tower, centre and en-route facilities upkeep and its safety inspection and oversight services.
This time, with its renewal expiring in late September, is different: air traffic is back at near-record levels as private and corporate aviation booms, a new generation of very light jets is poised to compete with commercial airlines for airspace and services, and airports are at breakpoint. And this time, the FAA’s air traffic controllers are demanding pay raises in a new contract that the FAA says it cannot afford as it prepares to transition to satellite-based traffic control. It needs this new technology to handle the anticipated 25% increase in traffic over the next decade. Showing Congress it can control spending is critical to getting the legislature to sign off on the satellite-based air traffic control system.
And this time, administration officials suggest the formula to pay for it all will be different. FAA administrator Marion Blakey began laying the groundwork last autumn for a new regime of user fees. As the controller union contract fight intensified early this year, she stepped up the suggestion that users would have to pay fees that would be in closer proportion to their actual burden on the system.
Blakey’s boss, transportation secretary Norm Mineta, has promised a profoundly new funding concept for the FAA, to be announced in April or May. Mineta says: “We are in the final stages of shaping those ideas...I expect that we are going to see a cost-based plan that creates a more direct relationship between revenue collected and services provided.”
Against this comes the persuasive plea of poverty from the airlines, and through its main trade grouping, the Air Transport Association (ATA), the industry has pointed to its likely strategy. Allying with the basic thrust toward “proportionate” user fees, the industry has in effect formed a silent partnership with the administration. ATA chief Jim May calls for “a fair, equitable and simple cost-based system for establishing national airspace system funding. The funding should be based on proportional use.” The pairing still faces opposition from corporate aviation and its influence on Capitol Hill, and demands from other agencies and entities, but the battle lines are drawn.
The airlines face a battle as congressional “buyers’ remorse” continues over the rescue or “bailout” package of 2001. They must also fend off demands to pay more of the costs of providing security. ■
DAVID FIELD / WASHINGTON
Source: Airline Business
