The top ranking lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee are looking to ground a House Republican proposal to privatize large portions of the nation’s air traffic control system before it takes off in Congress.
“These proposals have two fundamental problems: they break apart the FAA, and they diminish the ability of Congress to oversee the aviation system,” Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) wrote in a letter a letter to the leaders of the Senate committee that handles transportation issues.
“The United States is a world leader in aviation, with the largest, most complex air transportation in the world,” the senators continued. “We are also a world leader in aviation safety. Commercial aviation fatalities are at historic lows, yet the FAA continues to innovate and improve its approach to safety oversight. It does not make sense to break apart the FAA, an essential part of our success in aviation.”
The lawmakers’ letter was circulated on Friday by the Alliance for Aviation Across America, which represents the noncommercial aviation industry and is opposed to the privatization plan.
Republicans in the House are pushing to create a new nongovernmental organization that would take over air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration in an upcoming funding measure.
Lawmakers are debating the air traffic control privatization proposal as Congress tries to beat a March 31 deadline for renewing the agency’s funding.
GOP leaders in the House have said the proposed nongovernmental entity could better manage the commercial and private jet flights in the nation’s airspace.
“After examining various models, I believe we need to establish a federally chartered, fully independent not-for-profit corporation to operate and modernize our [air traffic control] services,” House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said during a speech last June at the Aero Club of Washington.
The lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee said privatizing the nation’s air traffic control system would make it harder for the federal government to ensure that aviation safety standards are met by airlines and private jet operators.
“The public would not be well served by exempting any part of the FAA from annual congressional oversight,” they wrote.
“The annual appropriations process provides the oversight of agency resources that is necessary to ensure accountability for program performance and a sustained focus on aviation safety,” the letter continued. “Congressional oversight also ensures that the FAA maintains a system that works across the aviation industry, including general aviation and small and rural communities as well as commercial airlines and large metropolitan cities.”
Opponents of the air traffic control privatization proposal have mobilized against the plan before it has been unveiled by the House.
“An FAA reauthorization bill that includes severing and privatizing Air Traffic Control has not emerged, but, as petitions submitted today from the public demonstrate, the long suspense has understandably fed fears for public safety, loss and downgrading of middle class jobs, and increased costs passed on to passengers — unacceptable tradeoffs,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) after she and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) joined a group of liberal organizations that have collected 115,000 signatures for a petition against a proposal.
“As a member who once practiced constitutional law, I seriously question whether Congress can constitutionally delegate air traffic control to a private, even non-profit, entity,” Norton continued. “Yet, there is considerable frustration about the dysfunction of the current FAA, which has been repeatedly victimized by the chronic delays and cuts in the appropriations process even before the dangerous sequester cuts.
“We are long past due for serious discussions between Democrats and Republicans that could produce a bill that would pass both the House and Senate.”
The push to privatize most facets of air traffic control comes as the FAA is in the midst of a years-long effort to discard the World War II-era radar technology currently used to manage airplane traffic in favor of a new satellite-based system, known as NextGen.
The conversion has hit turbulence amid missed deadlines and rampant budget cutting in Washington, and supporters of the privatization proposal have said the FAA is ill-equipped to complete the project.
Most major airlines support the air traffic control privatization plan. The group that lobbies for them in Washington said this week that opponents are jumping the gun and mischaracterizing the proposal to alter the nation’s flight navigation system before it is unveiled.
“Proponents of reform advocate for a not-for-profit organization that will be overseen by the FAA and governed by a board inclusive of all stakeholders, including employee unions, general aviation and private fliers, and passengers,” Airlines for America said in a statement.
“That’s the way air traffic services are run in most of the rest of the world,” the group added. “We want to see more air traffic controllers hired. We want to make the system even more safe. And most importantly, we want to make flying better for the traveling public. Members of Congress should want the same thing.”
Smaller aviation groups that represent noncommercial flight operators have been more measured about the air traffic control privatization proposal, saying recently that lawmakers should not rush to embrace the air traffic control privatization proposals, despite claims from backers about the success of similar systems in Canada and several European nations.
“The general aviation community has very real and long-standing concerns about foreign air traffic control models, which go well beyond the user fee issue,” a group of 15 non-commercial aviation organizations in Washington said in letter to members of the House Transportation Committee earlier this month.
“These concerns are based on our operating experiences in foreign systems, as well as thoughtful analysis about what those systems might look like in the United States,” the noncommercial aviation groups continued.