My 2012 Political Forecast: Mostly Foggy

Pilots like to have a good weather forecast, and if I were to offer one to my aviation colleagues about the political weather we face in the next twelve months, it wouldn’t be pretty.  America’s aviation industry hasn’t seen much sunshine in recent years and whenever our mood starts to brighten, along comes another wet blanket from the White House like their renewed campaign to vilify corporate aviation, impose user fees, overhaul aircraft depreciation schedules, and raise taxes on business owners or families earning over $250,000 a year.   If they keep this up, I may start to get really angry.

Perhaps we can be consoled with the thought that it is all mere politics – and lately we’ve come to expect this kind of populist class warfare as a supposedly harmless feature of presidential election campaigns.  But this time I’m more than a little worried.  The coming election cycle is not your ordinary struggle between two parties fighting for votes from undecided voters in the middle, each therefore trying to sound reasonable to centrist voters.  2012 is shaping up more like those bloody infantry battles of yore (think Waterloo or Gettysburg) where there aren’t many “undecideds” on the battlefield, and neither side sees a path to victory through compromise or conciliation.  

The Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz lamented that the outcomes of great battles were much less predictable than military strategists might expect because of something he called “the fog of war” – an uncertainty that arises from the chaos, confusion, and strategic vagueness of intense military confrontation.  If current trends continue, the 2012 election will be a climactic political battle with enough chaos, confusion, and strategic vagueness to cover the electoral landscape with zero visibility and indefinite ceilings for months. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher.  After 33 months, the economic and political agenda of the Obama administration is much clearer than it was in the warm and fuzzy days of the 2008 election.  Their support for Keynesian spending and ‘stimulus’ programs continues unabated, despite dubious results.  Their fealty to the agenda of powerful unions is steadfast, whatever the cost to the public purse.  Their antipathy to private businesses is reflected in their rhetoric and their tax and regulatory proposals.  Their faith in government’s ability to choose winners in the private economy, from healthcare to solar energy to high-speed rail, is undiminished.  And their criticism of “the rich” is a never-ending torrent.

Republicans have a starkly different vision of cutting the size of the federal government: dramatically restructuring the tax code, defunding public unions, creating a national energy policy (God forbid), slashing spending, and establishing a predictable and stable regulatory, fiscal, and monetary environment so that businesses can reduce the government-induced uncertainties that confound them today.  On these issues there is consensus, but on a range of other issues, from immigration to globalization, they find lots to debate.  Still, on one thing they all agree: the curtain must fall next year on the Obama administration and all it stands for.   

Thus, the two sides are more polarized than I’ve seen in over 40 years of watching politics.  It is, as they say, a watershed year, and after a hurricane and an earthquake in Washington in recent months, I’m battening down the hatches for one heck of a storm next year.

Despite the fog, there are some apparent trends that are likely to continue and give rise to some cautious predictions.  First, republicans are, at this point, not only encouraged by polls but also by the evidence that their hard-core voters are more energized than they’ve been in decades.  The democratic base is diminished, somewhat disaffected, and deeply discouraged by the continuing high unemployment.  Also, important democratic constituencies, e.g. Hispanics, may drift away, especially if the republicans put someone like Senator Marco Rubio on the ticket.

In addition, the opening line-up for next year’s Senate races heavily favors the republicans (they are defending only 10 of the 33 seats at stake in 2012).  Although “none of the above” would win most Congressional elections if it were on the ballot, the “throw the bums out” mentality on Election Day should help republicans win control of the Senate, even if it slightly reduces their majority in the House. 

But many questions remain and the fog continues to roll in to cloud our view of the horizon:

Will republicans nominate a presidential candidate that won’t offend centrists (and will that matter as much this year)?

Will class warfare rhetoric and economic envy mobilize Obama’s base?

Are the millions of Americans (nearly 50%) who receive government checks automatically voting for big government, even if it’s bankrupt?

Do the unemployed blame government or Wall Street for our economic difficulties?

Will the various divisions within the republican party all support a single (perhaps imperfect) candidate?

Will seniors punish republicans because they dared to suggest that entitlements like Medicare need to be reformed?

Will democrats be able, in the weeks before the election, to create an issue that distracts the voters’ attention from the dismal economy?

If the election were held today, the democrats would suffer their worst electoral defeat in decades, and time is quickly running out for the administration and its allies in the Senate to persuade voters that they deserve another chance.  There’s always a possibility that some unforeseen event will give them a ray of sunshine to brighten their prospects, but at this point my weather forecast, even with all the fog, favors the GOP.   If they are victorious, the bigger question is: Can they govern according to their conservative principles or will they succumb once again to the pandering appeasement that marked their most recent period of political power?   This may be their best (or last) chance to shine.

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

How to Fire Your Airport Manager

Let me begin with a cordial reminder to all my airport manager friends that this commentary is not about you.  You know who you are – and aviation businesses need more people like you helping us build a strong air transportation system.  But for the rest of you, this article’s headline reflects our collective concern that, frankly, we don’t seem to be on the same team.

Jack Welch, GE’s iconic chairman for over 20 years, was famous for a management philosophy that encouraged GE managers to fire one subordinate out of ten every year.   Donald Trump has taken his “You’re fired!” message and turned it into a virtual trademark.   Suffice it to say, the private sector is filled with managers who know how to use a pink slip.  The public sector is a different story.

Every airport is unique, but all  management problems fall under common headings – what I call the three perils of unprofessionalism: a Paucity of Purpose, Pretend Partnerships, and Procedural Pettiness.   Sometimes these management flaws stem from a confused political structure or an airport commission that has an agenda all its own.   In a few cases, the airport manager is as much a victim as the aviation businesses that are his tenants.  But most managers have the power and independence to set their own course — sometimes with disastrous results.

Their greatest mistake is to simply misunderstand what their job is and how it relates to the fundamental purpose of a public airport.  Airports exist (and justly get billions of dollars in federal grants) in order to promote the economic well-being of their community.  They generate jobs, create wealth, support the delivery of a wide variety of critical services, improve the economic efficiency of virtually every local enterprise, and bring direct and indirect benefits to the entire citizenry.  

They are not just a big piece of real estate with runways, hangars, tenants, and the occasional airplane taking off.  They are not merely places to board an airliner.  They are not just a ‘department’ of the sponsoring political unit.  They are not a clubhouse for a collection of aircraft owners.   They are not just a big interchange and parking lot that connects cars with highways in the sky. 

They are much more.  Airports are most communities’ largest and most valuable public investment – the one that can (or should) play the biggest role in promoting long-lasting economic development and growth in the surrounding region.   Your airport is your town’s most important connection to the world!

Many airport managers can’t see this big picture.  For them, it’s just a question of keeping the political higher-ups off their backs, keeping the grass mowed and the snow plowed, and learning to say “no” to anything that looks like a new idea.  They see their job as a caretaker – and the thought of taking any steps in a new direction is terrifying.  Others are just real estate managers, like superintendants of a big shopping mall, whose job is to collect rents, maintain security, and paint the lines in the parking lot.  These managers don’t understand the many facets of aviation and simply don’t belong at an airport.

Another critical test of a good airport manager is in the partnerships he or she creates.  Each manager, like the airport itself, sits at the center of scores of external relationships that collectively add value to the airport and its users.  Foremost among these potential partners are the aviation businesses at the airport.  The manager’s job is to work with these companies to foster economic activity at the airport – not to just send them a bill every month.

Other partnerships can be just as important – with the state and federal aviation funding entities, with Congress, ATC providers, aviation organizations, economic development officials, hospitals, universities, major corporations, local entrepreneurs, and many, many more.  Unfortunately, some airport managers only give lip service to these potential partners.  For them, it is all about their career, their compensation package, and their little empire.  An effective manager leverages his resources through the creation of true public-private partnerships.  More importantly, he knows that a successful airport needs successful and profitable aviation partners.  Without them, it’s hard to justify his salary.

Perhaps the greatest peril an airport faces is the threat of becoming a bureaucracy, and only a good manager can prevent this from happening.  It’s the curse of the public sector, of course, and aviation endures more than its share with the mind-numbing organizational inefficiencies at many of the federal agencies with whom we interact, but many great airports are run with the kind of customer-friendly policies and procedures that can cut through miles of red tape.   Sadly, however, many airport managers succumb to the temptations of bureaucracy and turn into petty tyrants.  The symptoms are familiar: lots of unproductive meetings, endless delays, piles of paperwork, and a dearth of decision-making.  These managers don’t really manage at all, they just shuffle.

So take out a report card and grade your airport manager.  Does he or she understand the true scope of the job and have a vision to match it?  Does the airport build partnerships that produce results – and are they working to increase economic activity and promote profitable enterprises in and around the airport?  Does the airport manager understand that bureaucracies stifle innovation, creativity, and growth?  If not, it’s time for an engine overhaul at your airport.

Firing an airport manager is an art unto itself, but if properly accomplished, it may be the best thing that ever happened at your airport.  A proactive manager who understands his mission and is willing to build effective, productive partnerships with those who want to help can transform any airport.  All it takes is finding the right man or woman and persuading the airport community that it’s time for a change.

Every airport, of course, has its own procedures and political paths that determine how and when a manager is replaced.   It’s usually best to present a convincing case for change, rather than attack the incumbent’s shortcomings.  Building an alliance of disaffected aviation interests and supportive business groups is a good first step, followed by an independent effort to identify some attractive new candidates for the position.  A broad review of the airports financial position and prospects can provide further arguments for a change of leadership.  Remember that you’re entitled to see all relevant airport documents.

After you’ve built your alliance, found some candidates, and created a plan of attack, move quickly to build public support for your campaign.  Emphasize how valuable the airport is and how much more it could bring to your community, if only it was well managed.  Show how the existing bureaucracy is limiting investment and innovation at the airport.  Present a new vision of your airport as an engine of growth for your region.

If you are successful and can replace a worn out manager with a new, energetic and visionary leader, your airport can achieve its real potential, giving the businesses and leaders of your home town new opportunities for expansion, innovation, and job development.  If that’s the kind of change your airport needs, grab the bull by the horns and go for it, before it’s too late.

(As seen in the 3rd Quarter ABJ. Click on the rotating ABJ image on the homepage of www.nata.aero to read the full issue.)

The Great California Airway Robbery

Is there something in the drinking water in California that causes their legal system to be polluted with dumb ideas?

Maybe it’s just too much chardonnay or perhaps all that ‘medical’ marijuana.  Whatever the reason, the latest legal salvo against aviation in Californiais rewriting the terms of “innocent until proven guilty.”  Suddenly, without so much as a committee hearing in Sacramento, 100LL avgas is alleged to be an illegal product to sell and those that sell it are being pursued by bounty hunters who smell millions of dollars of ‘rewards’ as part of this game.

Of course, everyone familiar with aviation knows that we are more heavily regulated than virtually any other commercial enterprise, with the federal government long ago declaring that it had the absolute authority to write the rules that affect the American air transportation system.  Just about anyone and anything that touches an airplane needs an OK from Uncle Sam.  Now a few lawyers inSan Francisco, fronted by some so-called health experts inOakland,California, think they have the power to shut down general aviation as we know it in California and, presumably, extend their unfettered authority across the other 49 states.

The particular legal action taken against avgas producers and dealers in California is based on Proposition 65, passed in 1986 to give citizens the ‘right to know’ what toxic substances were in their communities and to help protect them from chemicals that caused cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  Proposition 65 also created a master ‘Prop 65 List’ of hazardous materials that require ‘Prop 65 warnings.’

Most Prop 65 litigation, in fact, deals with products (and often the retailers thereof) that are allegedly sold without the proper Prop 65 warning.  That’s why consumers across America check their GPS and wonder why “WARNING:  This product contains a chemical known to the State ofCaliforniato cause birth defects or other reproductive harm” is on almost everything in their local hardware or convenience store.

 

The Lexington Law Group, the lawyers behind the avgas ‘Notice of Violation,’ have built a prosperous legal practice in this murky legal arena, taking aim at a wide range of ordinary products that contain an ingredient from the Prop 65 list.  They tried, for example, a case against makers of smoking-cessation products, like Nicoderm and Nicorette, since these products contain small amounts of nicotine, which is on the Prop 65 list.  Even though the warnings on these products were required by the FDA, theLexingtonlawyers argued that they weren’t up to Prop 65 standards.  The bounty hunters lost the case (Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, etc., et al.) at first but won a reversal on appeal.  SmithKline et al. then took the case all the way to the California Supreme Court where they were eventually successful.

I was impressed by a passage in the appeals court’s opinion describing when and if state laws like Prop 65 are pre-empted by federal authority.  While the entire opinion, especially as it involves specific congressional direction about the FDA’s authority, is complex and was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court inSacramento, it is instructive when it defines three very different situations where federal law is pre-emptive.  The court’s opinion has, I suspect, special relevance in the case of avgas:

“The United States Supreme Court has explained that federal preemption arises in three circumstances. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law.  Pre-emption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is easy.  Second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively.  Such an intent may be inferred from a ‘scheme of federal regulation so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,’ or where an Act of Congress ‘touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject….’  Finally, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law.”

Thus, despite what appears to be clear federal pre-emptive authority in aviation, someone might argue thatCalifornia’s experience in the regulation of gasoline for automobile use justifies a claim that they should have similar control of avgas ingredients.  However, the power of individual states to regulate automobile use and ownership, along with their authority to license drivers, inspection stations, and the like, is totally absent in the field of aviation, where virtually all authority rests with the federal government.

It seems to me that, no matter how artfully they try to use the power of Prop 65 to extort avgas suppliers, the lawyers at the Lexington Group have a difficult case to win.  Hopefully, the ‘responsible parties’ named in the notice of violation, the defendants as it were, will seek summary judgment to have this case dismissed, but no one can predict how California’s courts will react.

The Dowhal v. SmithKline case is illustrative in two other important ways.  Its tortuous (forgive the pun) route through theCalifornia legal system demonstrates how tenacious lawyers can be within the strange world of Prop 65 litigation.  The payoffs are powerful incentives for plaintiffs to pursue even marginal cases.  Fortunately, the defendants in this case were equally tenacious and persistent. 

It is also interesting that the plaintiffs’ (temporary) victory at the appeals level was achieved because of the court’s consideration of utterances during the Senate floor debate on an authorization bill for the FDA. California’s Senator Barbara Boxer, a stalwart supporter of the plaintiffs bar if ever there was one, insisted thatCalifornia’s Prop 65 was not being pre-empted by congressional action authorizing new drug regulations.  Don’t be surprised if, during the debate over FAA Reauthorization in the weeks ahead, someone fromCaliforniasuddenly tries the same gambit and attempts to remove pre-emptive federal authority over avgas specifications in theGoldenState.  Hopefully, members of the General Aviation Caucus will be on the lookout for innocent-sounding colloquies that could undermine the case for FAA pre-emption.

Of course, there are many other arguments to make against this unwarranted legal action inCalifornia.  Presumably, aviation interests across the state will explain how impractical, not to mention potentially dangerous, unilateral state regulation will prove to be. 

Someone might also raise the simple question of benefit versus cost.  Taking thousands of planes out of the sky might be justified if scientific evidence proved that public health would be significantly improved, but no one has presented any real data directly connecting avgas use inCaliforniato any injury or illness.   

Someone could also point out that lead occurs naturally in our air, ground, and water, and that millions of products are legally sold every day in California containing lead or one of the myriad other substances on the Prop 65 list.  Even the Chinese herbs sold there need a Prop 65 lead warning (see http://www.drshen.com/proposition65.htm)!

Automobile gas in Californiaalso has a Prop 65 warning, in part because of the 50 million gallons of toluene in all the unleaded mogas sold in the state every year.  Apparently the legal eagles at the Lexington Group aren’t as picky about any unpopular ingredients in the transportation fuels that they want to buy.  

The simple truth is that Prop 65 has become a nightmare for thousands of California businesses.  A high-stakes California law firm now has our industry in its sights, but we’re only the latest in a long list of targets for these opportunistic extortionists (see http://www.drshen.com/Prop65-NYTimes-June11-2007.pdf for a few unbelievable examples).  One California appeals court judge, David G. Sills, calls the whole mess a system of “shakedown litigation.”  If ever there were a time for the aviation community to stand firm, this is it.

Visit or return to www.nata.aero.

The Truth about the Freedom from Government Competition Act

Reading and writing in the blogosphere can be confusing, in part because there’s no penalty for creating statements that are simply false.  I work hard, in my posts, to be as accurate as I can, and I generally find that our colleagues at other aviation associations make a similar effort to research the facts and be truthful.  But I also realize that there are millions of bloggers who simply blather without much concern for the accuracy of their statements.  There are others who rush to publish their spin on hot topics or react to controversial new issues without a lot of deliberation, and the result can be pretty ugly.  On issues and statements that get broad circulation on the Internet, you can easily check their validity with the help of sites like Snopes.com, but the aviation blogosphere has no one to check the facts except other bloggers, who hopefully can catch serious errors and restrain unbridled rhetoric before it gets too damaging.

Recently, a trade association that mostly represents large, air-carrier airports, ACI-NA, published on their Centerline Blog a piece by a staffer with the provocative title: Washington Doesn’t Know Best and Neither Does NATA.  Her argument is with our support of some proposed legislation called the Freedom from Government Competition Act of 2011 (H.R. 1474, introduced by Rep. John Duncan, and S. 785, introduced by Senator John Thune).  If you’d like to see what gives ACI-NA such heartburn, please read the bill and then read the ACI-NA blog.  When you’re done, you’ll have enough facts, I hope, to make up your own mind.

The ACI-NA blog begins in the first paragraph with a distortion of the language of the bill that is so brazen that they kindly put most of it in italics.  As an antidote, I ask you to read the bill and try to understand the intent of the authors rather than the hysterical imaginings of the ACI-NA blogger.  One wonders if she intentionally wants to mislead her readers in that opening paragraph.  The bill proposes that the government shall not compete with the private sector, but clearly spells out three obvious and necessary exceptions.  In her analysis, mysteriously, only two of these exceptions are identified.  The other one, rather significant in my mind, is in the case of “a good or service (that) is so inherently governmental in nature that it is in the public interest to require production or performance, respectively, by Government employees.”  Whether this includes running airports may be debatable, but I can’t imagine why ACI-NA wouldn’t tell their members about this part of the bill.

The next line of her blog manages to have three factual errors in one sentence!  This may be a record.

First, this legislation was not introduced “at the request of NATA.”  The legislative history of this bill goes back many years.  My research shows that the first “Freedom from Government Competition Act” (H.R. 716) was introduced on February 12, 1997, and that since then Rep. Duncan has offered a version in every congressional session.  I can say categorically that NATA played no part in introducing this bill, although I certainly would have been a supporter when I served in Congress.  In the years since, its justification as a brake on rampant government competition with private sector companies has only grown.  The fact is, however, that scores, if not hundreds, of trade associations and business groups support this legislation and requested that it be reintroduced regularly since 1997.  But to read the ACI-NA blog you’d think this bill was something created solely in the sinister mind of NATA to attack government-run aviation service monopolies at ACI-NA airports.

Second, it is totally inaccurate to imply that NATA represents only private FBOs.  Many NATA members are airports that manage their own FBOs rather than lease land for private companies to offer these services.  Hundreds of smaller airports are unable to attract private entrepreneurs to invest in and operate an FBO at their location, and many other airports have decided to be the exclusive provider of such services.  NATA welcomes such airports as members and works closely with them on many legislative, safety, and business management priorities.  The airport manager of one of these airports, in fact, serves as a member of the NATA Board of Directors.  Many large airports, I’m proud to say, work closely with NATA in partnership with the many FBOs that support aviation activities at their facilities.  The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, as just one example, has been an extremely valuable NATA member and regularly joins with us to develop important programs with the enthusiastic cooperation of their private FBO tenants, all of which are also NATA members.

Third, there is no ongoing effort at NATA to prohibit airports from serving as FBOs.  There has always been, however, an ongoing effort to ensure that airports do not compete with private FBOs at the same airport.  It is hard to imagine a more troubling example of an unlevel playing field than those rare cases where an airport authority has its own FBO and leases land to a private FBO at the same time.  This is exactly the kind of competition that the Freedom from Government Competition Act should prohibit, if current law and congressional guidance doesn’t already instruct the FAA to do so.  Also, we are an unabashed advocate for the advantages that well-run private FBOs can provide – especially in terms of efficiency, safety, and customer service.  However, we also work to promote these same goals at airports without private aviation service providers.

My other complaint with the ACI-NA blog is the absurdity of its rhetoric.  How can NATA be considered an advocate of a “Washington-knows-best” or a “one-size-fits-all” philosophy?  This is precisely the opposite of what private sector entrepreneurs and their businesses bring to aviation – at any airport.  These businessmen and women know how to adapt to and meet local needs and customer concerns.  Please visit a few FBOs (I’ve been to over 1000 – how many has our hapless ACI-NA blogger seen?) and you’ll see how different they all are.  It’s their job, after all, to use those differences to compete effectively and expand their businesses.  Government telling them that they can’t compete is their worst nightmare.  

But perhaps the worst error in the ACI-NA diatribe is their claim that we seek a hostile takeover of public airports.  We feel no hostility toward airports.  They are respected as the landlords for most of our members, and we share a common mission to support and expand the nation’s air transportation system.  I serve, in fact, as a commissioner at an airport.  Yet, no one can deny that many public entities have to answer difficult questions from skeptical voters and taxpayers who worry about bloated public sector budgets, extravagant spending, unfunded retirement programs, and troubling deficits.  NATA and most of our sister trade associations stand up to defend airports from these attacks when they are based on erroneous public perceptions and political or technical ignorance.

If anyone can be accused of advocating the takeover of anything, it’s in those few cases where airports seem eager to force private FBOs off the field.  Usually they learn that running an FBO is a lot different from running an airport, and not the pot of gold that some naïve bureaucrat imagined.  Fortunately, most airport managers make intelligent decisions about how best to provide local FBO services and rarely abuse that authority.  They know that just because a public entity runs the airport, it doesn’t mean that the government should be the service provider of choice for activities at the airport that private entities can often deliver more effectively. 

Some countries, many years ago, went down that route, and there are many examples where governments owned virtually every part of aviation – the airlines, fuel distributors, and even aircraft manufacturers.  But throughout our country’s history, the private sector has had a very central role in almost all sectors of air transportation.  Americans understand that our public and private sectors have different duties, strengths, and political realities, and that, above all, the government must not misuse its power in American aviation.  Although the scope of the legislation proposed by Senator Thune and Congressman Duncan is quite broad, we agree with its purpose particularly as it applies to aviation.  Simply put, even as our government grows bigger and more pervasive in many parts of our lives, the important role of private companies at airports as providers of fuel and other services should be respected and supported as an integral part of our national aviation policy.

Visit of return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

Putting the FAA’s Workforce Where it Belongs

If you’re a typical NATA member, you probably spend a big part of your day managing your employees.  It sounds pretty obvious — that’s what managers do; but most of us also depend on the cooperation of others who are not employees, and whose timely completion of their work is essential for our own effectiveness.  These are usually vendors, suppliers, contractors, or other business colleagues, most of whom won’t get paid if they don’t do their job as required – on time and on budget.  

Then, of course, there are our friends at the FAA.  For many aviation businesses, they are a manager’s worst nightmare.  Their timely approvals or reviews of our work are often mandatory, yet they have little or no interest in helping us meet the most fundamental scheduling or cost-control objectives.  Millions of dollars may be at stake, but that usually doesn’t matter in the least.  The work may be as routine as putting an inspector’s signature on a document that is virtually irrelevant in terms of safety or performance, but unless and until it is done, everything grinds to a halt.

This problem is certainly not unique to the FAA.  If you’ve served in the military, you’re very familiar with the problem; and frankly, there are many government agencies that are far worse than the federal inspectors with whom we work.  Customs, OSHA, and the FDA come to mind.  Still, when so many of us are struggling to keep our businesses in the black, the uncooperative or unresponsive federal bureaucrat is the last thing we need.

This is one of the reasons, no doubt, that the original charter of the FAA stated that an important part of their mission was to promote aviation.  No one expected the FAA to be buying TV ads about the joys of air travel, but the FAA’s founding fathers knew that the workforce needed to be reminded that the whole regulatory system must play a supporting role in aviation – helping us meet the expectations of our customers – on time and on budget.  Now, unfortunately, the goal of promoting aviation has been abandoned and few FAA professionals have the shared sense of purpose that many veterans once took for granted.

In my mind there are three fundamental and related issues.  Are there enough people at the FAA to do the job and are they assigned and allocated where they’re needed? Do FAA employees keep up with changing technology and are they smart and flexible enough to meet the needs of diverse customers?  Are they managed and given incentives to be as productive as we should expect from well-paid public servants?  In every case, unfortunately, the current regime is falling short.

The size of the FAA workforce has been mostly stable for the past decade, even as flight operations have declined, new airport construction has been reduced to almost nothing, and America’s share of global aircraft manufacturing has fallen.  Government agencies work hard to preserve their head count, and the FAA is certainly no exception; department heads across the agency are pleading with congressional staffers for more bodies, arguing in almost every case that future growth and looming retirements dictate immediate new hiring authority.

The FAA plays an annual game with Congress when they issue their aviation forecast each spring.  You can go to http://www.slideshare.net/jeffreybreen/faa-aviation-forecasts-20112031-overview to see the latest dog and pony show.  Every year the forecast seems to come out the same, predicting an imminent upturn in air traffic, an improving economy, and optimism about external factors like oil prices (the most recent forecast says that oil won’t hit $113/barrel until 2031!)  The purpose of this exercise is mostly to justify more spending and manpower at the FAA.

In my humble opinion, the FAA has enough bodies – but most of them are doing the wrong thing.  Over 15,000, for example, staff control towers and en route centers, where, if any modernization and productivity-enhancing technology had been permitted, the function of separating aircraft safely could long ago have been transformed, allowing the job to be done with far fewer men and women (even if some are allowed an occasional nap).  There is also a huge, over-manned acquisition workforce (for a harrowing glimpse of this monster, see http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2010_Acquisition_Workforce_Plan.pdf) whose absurdly complex and unfathomable procurement procedures give drunken sailors reasons to be proud.

If the FAA exists to regulate the nation’s air transportation system, then that’s where its manpower should be, helping to insure that the aircraft, the airports, and the operators meet the highest standards, but at the same time supporting them with timely oversight and public investment, when required.  If, on the other hand, manpower decisions within the FAA are based on the power of a particular union, then limited human resources will go where political influence lies, not where safety, efficiency, customer service, and the competitiveness of our national economy would dictate.  

It was truly comical last week to see the Secretary of Transportation insist that the problem of sleeping controllers is best solved by hiring more controllers to sit alongside their weary, but underutilized, colleagues.  However, in the real world, I hear almost weekly from NATA members whose local FSDOs claim that they can’t possibly handle any more certification requests or even routine paperwork approvals.  Somehow, the controllers have convinced the public that they alone keep our skies safe, and the media buys this simplistic notion as easily as it embraces Donald Trump as a credible political figure.  Let’s get serious!

The first job of management is to determine staffing levels, then to manage, motivate, and monitor their performance.  Isn’t it time that the FAA takes this basic task more seriously, even if it means stepping on a few political toes?  Do they need Mr. Trump to come in and say, “You’re fired”?

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

Wake Me, I Must Be Dreaming!

Like most adult Americans, I learned long ago not to put much stock in the superficial “special reports” and “in-depth analysis” I see on the nightly news, but I never stop being fascinated with the media’s power to set the policy agenda in Washington.  The ongoing saga of sleeping controllers, embellished occasionally by other catastrophes like Mrs. Obama’s plane doing a go-around (seriously, a go-around?), has given aviation more air time than it has had in years – not to mention all the one-liners from late night comedians.  If only the media knew the real story.

Yesterday, as one more air traffic controller was ‘discovered’ to be sleeping on the job and as the FAA administrator and the Secretary of Transportation were promising that they “would never rest” until this problem was eliminated, I had a long, off-the-record meeting with a former FAA official who was once responsible for air traffic control at the FAA.  If only he would tell the media what he told me.

The most important fact that should come out from all this media coverage is simply this: the FAA does not manage its controller workforce.  They are, forgive the pun, out of control!  In fact, this whole mess is a reflection of the most significant (and hazardous) reality about how the FAA operates across its entire structure: the FAA’s so-called ‘management’ does not have the tools and is effectively prohibited from managing their operational and regulatory workforce.  The bosses don’t boss and most of the time the workers don’t have to work.

A visit to an ATC facility will quickly reveal that managers are almost irrelevant.  They have little authority and little responsibility, and get no respect.  The ‘work force,’ with the help of union leadership and their allies on the Hill, has the final say in virtually all operational decisions.  They set their own schedules, in effect, so they can get the long weekends and vacation flexibility they covet.  While the FAA is quick to tell pilots when they must rest, it is almost comical how derelict they’ve been about the problem of fatigue within their own ranks.

The FAA’s response to this ‘crisis’ has been equally amusing, even as it implicitly reveals their own powerlessness.  Yesterday, the administrator made a tour of ATC facilities and essentially begged the controllers to do better.  He appealed to “their sense of personal responsibility” to provide effective air traffic services to the public, reminding them, no doubt, that this is no way for good ‘public servants’ to behave.  But next to him every step of the way was the President of NATCA, the controllers union, explicitly sending the message to the workforce that nothing drastic would really be done and none of them should be thrown overboard.

The other official action, of course, was to find a scapegoat and throw him overboard.  In this case it was Hank Krakowski, the Bush-era political appointee who had the unenviable job of “managing,” without an ounce of political support from anyone in the administration, the entire air traffic organization.  His acting replacement is now the recently-appointed FAA General Counsel, David Grizzle, who probably knows a little more about air traffic control than most of his classmates at Harvard Law School, but surely knows a lot more about the realities of FAA politics.  In the opinion of virtually all aviation policymakers in Washington, finding a full-time replacement for Hank is about as likely as getting Charlie Sheen appointed head of CBS.

Of course, the FAA still must show that it is serious about fatigue, so controllers are now told they must have one more hour between shifts, but I doubt that their managers will actually punish anyone who ignores this new rule.  Controllers have come to believe that they and they alone can establish when and how long they work.  Nearly half their work schedule is devoted to “breaks” and other euphemisms for not working.  They have fabricated a public image that their job is exhausting, stressful, and so demanding that only a superman-like controller-of-steel can handle the pressure.  The reality is the complete opposite.  They sleep, goof-off, watch videos, routinely leave their posts unattended, and collect the highest salary of any workforce within government with a schedule so generous that some of them can have full-time second careers.

Of course, the saddest truth is that our current air traffic control structure is hopelessly out-of-date.  We preserve an archaic controller-centric system that uses inefficient two-way analog radios to convey information to pilots in a manner that is a million times more error-prone than virtually all modern digital communication.  Our system implicitly maximizes the possibility of human error – both by sleeping or otherwise careless controllers and by pilots who misunderstand or get imprecise information.

But just as the controllers’ union has fought efforts to relinquish management authority over the ATC workforce to the FAA, Congress, or anyone outside the union itself, it has been equally effective in preventing air traffic control modernization to proceed in any form that might take power away from the union, reduce the number of controllers or even, heaven forbid, increase their productivity.  For over two decades, Congress and a series of FAA administrators have held out the hope for some form of ATC modernization, always just ten to twenty years in the future, most recently under the rubric of NextGen.  Despite the unending promises and big budget proposals, I’ve been skeptical that FAA management has the political will to make NextGen happen. 

Now, it’s even more obvious that NextGen will never happen in my lifetime.  If, after all, the FAA can’t even manage a simple task like safely scheduling the controllers so they don’t fall asleep, how will they ever achieve something as complicated and ambitious as NextGen?  Simply put, NATCA won’t let them.

Is there a solution?  Can the FAA establish the most basic elements of management within this chaotic, inefficient, costly labor-centric public service monopoly?  Is there a clearer example of the most crucial and fundamental political question of our times:  Who controls public sector-provided services?  Must we get only what the unions want or should the public, the taxpayers, and the users of these services, whether it’s education, public safety, healthcare, or transportation, establish and manage these programs?

On August 3, 1981, the air traffic controllers union of its day, PATCO, asserted their power and, contrary to federal law, declared a strike, demanding a 32-hour work week.  On August 5, 1981, President Reagan fired them all.  A generation later, they work less than 32 hours and get far more in pay and benefits than they ever dreamed of in 1981.  But today, no one dares stand up to them.  In fact, today’s President is using this latest crisis as a reason to hire more controllers!

Once again, it seems, the unions are in control.  But now, at last, the public media has been aroused, the curtain has been drawn aside and the Wizard of Oz is exposed – pretending to be all powerful as always, but smoke and mirrors notwithstanding, he’s actually asleep on the job.

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

Private Sector Initiative, What It Means At Your Airport

The mid-term elections were about many things: taxes, jobs, the deficit, the size of government, Obama, congressional leadership, and local issues, too; few things got voters more upset in the weeks before the election than reports of corrupt, bloated, and wasteful local government.  New Jersey Governor-elect Christie’s vivid confrontation with public employee unions went viral on the Internet, and exit polls showed that most Americans are worried that state and local government budget, payroll, pension, and benefit levels are unsustainable.  It didn’t help that there were widespread reports of graft and corruption from California to Illinois to Maryland.  Government, at all levels, was told by voters to go on a diet!

Many people are fundamentally suspicious that government bureaucrats are more interested in self-preservation and empire-building than delivering local services efficiently.  Government programs seem to last forever.  Even when they underperform or fail, politicians are tempted to throw more money at them.  But now, the tide has turned.  Austerity is “in” and everyone is looking for ways to cut out the fat and lighten the load on local taxpayers.

Your airport, of course, is not immune from this fiscal contagion, especially if it depends on the local community for financial support.  Airport commissions face public scrutiny of their budgets, and if, for one reason or another, revenue is down, they face the same difficult choice that every local government entity has to make:  Should we increase fees or must we cut back on expenses somewhere? 

Hundreds of airports are struggling with this question right now, as many of them face the reality of less flight activity with fewer commercial and general aviation operations over the past few years.  But this is just part of a much greater struggle across the country, as local and federal policymakers grapple with fundamental political questions:  Government or the private sector?  Who should we turn to for economic growth?  Who can manage with limited resources most efficiently and fairly?  Who can get the job done?  On whom should we rely? 

When I worked for President Reagan years ago, this debate was a familiar one, but Mr. Reagan admitted his bias toward the private sector.  He knew that government was important and necessary, but it always seemed to him that bureaucrats had very different incentives than businesspeople had.  Private sector initiative, he said, gets things done.  Public sector initiative might be an oxymoron.

Airport managers and commissioners face this issue every day, and many of them know that their airport succeeds largely because of the initiative of the businesses based at that airport and the off-airport businesses that they serve.  More importantly, federal guidance to airports is very clear:  the airport doesn’t exist to make a profit, but rather to support the local community, foster economic growth, and provide other non-economic benefits like emergency services and support for healthcare providers. 

With all the budgetary problems facing some airports, however, airport commissioners face hard decisions and sometimes “simple” answers are tempting, even when wrong.  Most tempting, it seems, is the strategy of forcing a private FBO to leave, usually at the end of its lease, and having the airport offer FBO services directly.  There’s a pot of gold hidden somewhere in that FBO, they must think.  How wrong they usually are!

Airport-run FBOs exist, and in some locations make sense.  In most cases, however, the lack of private sector initiative is economically fatal.  The airport is constrained by public sector employment rules that reduce its workforce flexibility and add extra costs.  Also, few public sponsors are prepared for the liability issues that come with direct operational responsibility.  But most of all, they misunderstand the service demands of a time-sensitive aircraft user community and rarely manage costs as consistently and effectively as private sector owners.   

Private sector FBOs, by contrast, have used their initiative in recent years to invest millions of dollars in new passenger facilities, on-line ramp safety training, new technology that gives pilots, passengers, and aircraft dispatchers real-time aviation-related information, modern fuel safety and storage programs, and new state-of-the-art hangars – not to mention a wide variety of marketing investments to bring more based and transient aircraft to their facility.  In fact, advertising expenditures by airport-owned or managed FBOs is less than 1% of all FBO advertising.  Governments must just expect the public to come when they feel like it.  Private businesses, on the other hand, are eager to offer incentives, and these extra efforts can make the difference between profit and loss at many small airports across the country.

Also, I’ve seen no evidence that airport-run FBOs save their customers any money.  Government price increases in other areas, from highway and bridge tolls to postage rates, convince me that government entities are quick to raise prices whenever they face a budget shortfall.  Private sector operators usually pay much closer attention to the need to maintain competitive prices that will preserve or increase market share.

Americans understand that there are jobs that only the public sector can do, but I don’t think that pumping fuel is very high on that list.  Do we expect to find government-run gas stations when we need gas for the family sedan?  Those airport commissioners or managers who, out of desperation, think they can balance their budget by pumping fuel should, at a minimum, give it a second thought.  Their best financial strategy is to operate the airport as efficiently as possible – and let private sector initiative meet the needs of the marketplace.

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

Impact Of The 2010 Mid-Term Elections

Tomorrow, America votes and Republicans expect to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives (and maybe even the Senate).  How will Washington react?  What will be the impact of these changes on the aviation community?  What are the voters trying to tell us? 

First, there is the question of a lame duck session.  Speaker Pelosi and the current Democratic majority will control the House until the 112^th Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2011, just as Senator Reid will still drive the agenda in the Senate until then, even if he is defeated in his reelection bid in Nevada.  The last days of the 111^th Congress promise to be chaotic, at best.   

Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of unfinished business left over from the past 22 months of “work” by the departing Congress.  Virtually every appropriations bill was left undone, and no one knows the fate of the expiring ‘Bush’ tax cuts.  More specific to our industry, the FAA reauthorization will once again come up against its ‘continuing resolution’ deadline, so we may see a last ditch effort to forge a compromise between the previously-passed House and Senate versions. 

There are also mutterings from liberal Democrats that this lame-duck session will be their best and perhaps final opportunity to pass some of the most-favored parts of their ‘progressive’ agenda, such as cap-and-trade energy taxes, ‘card check’ union election rules, and immigration amnesty.  These issues were too hot to debate before the election; and they could easily ignite a true wildfire of populist anger if they appear as part of a post-election congressional Pelosi-Reid agenda.

My guess is that the current House leadership will be too tired and chastened by the electorate to maintain enough unity among the Democratic rank and file to get much passed in the House without reaching some tentative agreements with the Republicans.  The Senate will be a different matter, depending on how some of the key races come out.  If Majority Leader Reid is defeated but Republicans fail to gain a majority, the ensuing leadership battles among the surviving Democrats will give them more than enough to stay busy without resurrecting unfinished and unpopular left wing legislation. 

The greatest impact from tomorrow’s election will most certainly be the new leadership in the House.  Speaker Pelosi and the current committee chairmen are largely from the left-most wing of the Democratic Party, having entered politics in the sixties and seventies.  As power moves to Speaker Boehner and the Republican committee and subcommittee chairs, the political shift will be dramatic.  The large class of newly-elected freshmen Republicans will also be a force to be reckoned with, and the result will be a Congress with a totally different fiscal and regulatory agenda.

The biggest change, I predict, will be that cutting spending will be politically popular and desirable, and reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on job-creating small businesses will once again be a priority.  More than anything, the center-right American electorate wants a smaller federal government and more support for employment growth in the private sector. 

Federal aviation expenditures will be subject to much more scrutiny in a Republican House, which brings both opportunities and challenges to the aviation business community.  General revenue allocations to aviation may be more difficult to achieve, but it will be easier to persuade fiscal conservatives that higher user fees are just the same as higher taxes – and just as bad for economic growth.

The biggest loser after the election, however, will be the big public employee unions, whose waning influence may eventually have an effect within the FAA.  For now, of course, they have won a controlling position in the design of the NextGen air traffic control program.  Whether tomorrow’s election results eventually mean more aggressive NextGen program milestones and a renewed focus on benefits to aviation users, or merely more gridlock, only time will tell.

In the grandest sense, of course, every election is about giving control over government to “the people.”  The question always is, Which people?  To me, the anger so evident in this election reflects a widely-shared view that our “public servants” in government are both ineffective at getting the job done and selfishly concerned more with their own prosperity than that of the people who gave them their power.  As the recession has hurt so many businesses and individuals, many voters wonder why government still has money to waste or to give to its favored friends, whether they’re unionized teachers and auto-workers or bailed out companies in Detroit or on Wall Street. Why not let those dollars stay in the private sector and in taxpayers’ pockets in the first place?  At least let us stop borrowing endless billions from our grandchildren!

The election will bring thousands of new people to Washington.  Most of them will want to do the right thing, but the great irony is that merely by becoming a part of the government they soon come to think like government leaders and workers always do: Government must and can find the answer to every problem. 

For now, the ‘power pendulum’ seems to be swinging away from Washington.  Our president, however, firmly disagrees with this conclusion, even as his power is about to be seriously eroded.  Thus, it may be premature to predict a grand transformation of how our federal government and more especially, the FAA, the TSA, and all the rest, share power with and respect the contributions of the private sector.

What will happen after tomorrow is unknowable, but it does seem that America is about to turn a corner – one that looks to businesses and entrepreneurs for more solutions, more creativity, more energy, and renewed ambition.  That, by itself, may offer the most hope.  As America’s private sector is given more responsibility, respect, authority, and opportunity, I predict that it will rise to the challenge.  As it rises, so will the aviation industry that is the wind beneath its wings. 

Won’t that, at last, be the clearance to take off for which we’ve all been waiting? 

visit www.nata.aero

When Airports Change Sides, Is There An Antidote?

Airports are under a lot of economic pressure these days.  Most of them have tight budgets and worry that the continuing recession means lower revenues, fewer operations, and less aid from state and federal coffers.  These financial pressures can lead to service cutbacks, higher fees, tougher lease negotiations, more rules, and less openness.  In some extreme cases, unfortunately, the airport’s management seems literally to transform itself from a friend and partner with local aviation businesses into an opponent, adversary, and outright competitor.  It’s almost as though the professional, reliable and esteemed Dr. Jekyll has become a monstrous Mr. Hyde, committed to destroying those he once admired.

Public airports, truth be told, do have two very different personalities.  They operate one of capitalism’s most important assets.  The airport is the very foundation of their community’s private economy – a vital link to markets, customers, tourists, investors, and development.  But they are also part of government, with all the bureaucracy, politics, and public posturing that the public sector often fosters.  An airport manager from a foreign socialist country might even feel right at home at some airport meetings as he observes his U.S. commissar-counterpart running roughshod over private businesses.  

Fortunately, most airports are run by Dr. Jekyll, not Mr. Hyde.  They know that the temptations of government autocracy and socialist empire-building are antithetical to American values and political traditions; but some airport managers, it seems, cannot control themselves.  Their split personality leads them to pretend that they support business tenants, even as they use their powers to weaken them and force them into submission.

One recent example is the attempt by the Chattanooga Airport (CHA) to create a new FBO out of thin air.  Of course, airports have long had to decide if a proposed privately financed new FBO is a good idea, consistent with their long-range plans, economically viable, and able to meet the standards they’ve established at their airport; but in this case the airport itself is the driving force behind the new FBO, even as the existing private sector FBO exceeds all the established metrics of performance at the airport.

Chattanooga will build the new FBO and then (they hope) find someone to profitably (probably not) operate it under a management agreement, even though operations at the airport have declined dramatically in recent years and expansion at a nearby GA airport is already drawing tenants away from CHA.  If ever there were a plan to build an unlevel playing field, this is it.  The existing private FBO will suddenly have a competitor that is literally the airport management’s “baby,” having come into existence only after the airport’s shotgun marriage with a new ‘management company.’  

Airport managers sometimes simply don’t understand the FBO business and suppose that ‘if you build it, they (paying customers) will come.’  Instead, the new FBO will inevitably fail to meet its sales targets, even as the incumbent’s fuel volumes drop from prior levels.  Both operators will be tempted to raise prices to maintain margins as operating costs per gallon rise, and customers will, as a result, buy less fuel or move away from the airport.  The end result: Everyone loses.          

The biggest loser, I suspect, will be the unsuspecting taxpayer and airport user who, one way or another, will be paying for this fiasco.  The question for him or her and for everyone else involved is, How do you stop such nonsense?  Is there an antidote we can give to Mr. Hyde?

Some suggest that we just try logic.  No town would go out and spend public money to add another gas station at an Interstate off-ramp, even if it could withstand the public outcry about the inequity of direct public competition with a private business.  That’s simply not the job of government!  The public, especially these days, certainly would be persuaded, but would Mr. Hyde?

Others say that confrontation at public meetings is the answer.  Demand to see market forecasts and give everyone a chance to question their economic assumptions. Bring in experts to shoot holes in the airport’s plans and then ask what the specific economic return will be (if any) on the public dollars at risk.  The middle of a recession is no time to waste scarce public resources.  Aren’t there better things to do with this money?

Alternatively, we can send in the lawyers.  Is this legal?  Is it a valid expenditure of appropriated funds?  Is it consistent with FAA precedents?  Would Congress approve?  Has the airport provided full disclosure and revealed their long-term intentions?  Is there a hidden agenda?  Have they abused their powers?

As a last resort, we can take Mr. Hyde on a tour of a few dozen airports around the country where a strong partnership between the airport management and the private aviation service businesses has produced growth, predictable revenues, and world-class service.  If his insanity hasn’t advanced too far and his personality can be redeemed, we may save Mr. Hyde.  After all, he’s not a monster.  He just manages an airport.

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero

GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS

I testified last week before a congressional hearing on the FAA’s new rules for residential through-the-fence (RTTF) agreements at public-use airports.  NATA supported the new draft FAA policy, which essentially allows existing RTTF agreements to continue under tighter and more uniform regulation, but prohibits airport sponsors from entering into any new agreements; yet it was clear from questions to the witnesses and in subsequent analysis by our friends in the blogosphere that some aviation enthusiasts feel RTTF agreements are harmless and that any lover of aviation should support them.

Our friend and stalwart pilot-legislator, Congressman Sam Graves, from Missouri’s Sixth District, argued along two familiar lines: Firstly, local control over what happens around an airport is better than federal control, and secondly, the FAA’s fear that RTTF agreements limit the airport’s ability to grow and adapt to future needs is without merit.  Longtime aviation promoter and ally Dave Higdon further opines in his passionate blog that eminent domain makes all worries about land use or misuse around an airport irrelevant and that residential TTF agreements are worthier than commercial TTF agreements, which he thinks the FAA and NATA support.

Congressman Graves, like most Americans, has a healthy skepticism about the “I’m from Washington and I’m here to help you” attitude of most federal regulators, the FAA included, so I certainly understand his “local communities will always make the best decisions about a local airport” philosophy.  All politics may be local, and federal politicians, especially these days, win points by fighting against the one-size-fits-all absurdities that often come out of Washington, but when it comes to preserving our nation’s threatened public-use GA airports, the FAA is aviation’s more important ally.

Local politicians, on the other hand, are notoriously fickle.  I’ve been involved in scores of airport fights, where once-supportive city councils decide that they want a park, a shopping center, or just the money from some developer instead of a long-standing airport.  Residents around GA airports can be just as fickle.  Thousands of homes were built next to Santa Monica Airport during WWII to house workers at the huge Douglas plant there, and all of them surely pledged their undying loyalty to aviation and SMO.  Today those dwellings no longer have taxiways to the runway, but they do house some rabid anti-airport activists who hope to shut down that historic airfield. 

Airport advocates have learned time and again that residential construction near a public-use airport is simply a bad idea.  Private airparks are another matter.  They properly exist to serve their residents, first and foremost, and NATA and the FAA encourage their development.  But public airports serve the public in the broadest sense of the term.  They are actually nodules in a giant network that makes up our national air transportation system (remember: It’s the System, Stupid) which exists for the benefit of every American and is generously supported by every American taxpayer, not just direct users of an airport. 

Public airports need to grow and improve and none of us can predict where future improvements will be needed in this network of over 3000 primary public-use, federally-supported airports.  But history shows that it is getting harder and harder to enhance and enlarge most U.S. airports, largely because anti-airport forces are so well-organized, vocal, and politically savvy, and because proponents of competing land uses and their environmental allies are so influential with local politicians. 

I am especially impressed by the power of real estate developers in local communities.  It is they, more than individual pilots, who profit from misguided land use around airports.  One of my long-time friends is a successful developer, and when I once complained about the stupidity of residential development around airports he just laughed.  “Of course it was stupid in the long run,” he replied, but the developer just wants to sell houses and then disappear.  He could care less if a homeowner comes to love or hate the airport, as long as he buys the lot.  In short, no one knows who will live in that RTTF house ten years from now or what his political or economic interests will be. 

If we want to have a national system of public use airports then we need a national system of rules and regulations to promote, preserve, and protect them.  Hundreds of airports with politically powerful opponents have been preserved primarily because the FAA enforces the grant assurances.  This does, I admit, reduce local control, but in my mind that is a good thing.  Otherwise, every local politician would assert some unique local requirement, e.g. a curfew, a weight restriction, a noise limit, or opposition to a longer runway that would weaken the effectiveness of our national air transportation system.  Rep. Graves cries foul because these local communities “have no choice” and are forced to accept RTTF rules.  Quite the contrary: They have the choice to accept federal funds for their airport (with grant assurances) or not.  But once they choose, they must honor their commitments.   

Of course, we will always have battles to fight at the local level as we work to build a 21^st-century airport network, but at least we have the FAA and, usually, Congress on the side of strong national rules and federal supremacy at public-use airports.  Let’s hope it continues.

Congressman Graves also asserts that land adjoining an airport is always a lawful target for a residential developer; therefore, trying to prohibit new RTTF projects will make no difference to those who want to misuse this exploitable airport-adjacent real estate.  This may be technically true, and a local government may be foolish enough to allow residential construction right up against an airport fence, but in actual fact few communities are receptive to these kinds of projects.  Developers in some locations, however, think they will be more persuasive to local zoning boards if they argue that pilots will want to move into the houses, but if future RTTF agreements are prohibited, then developers will be less likely to turn a piece of raw land next to the airport into a residential community.  In the long run, that’s a good thing.

Perhaps the weakest argument against the FAA’s RTTF proposal is that whatever the airport may need in the future, the construction of homes along the fence will prove to be no problem for future airport planners because they can waive their hands, declare eminent domain, send in the bulldozers and do whatever their expansion plans dictate, without even a thought or worry about the RTTF homes and their residents.  This may be possible in Russia or the City of Chicago, but not in the America in which I live.

I serve on an airport commission and know a little about how the real world operates.  Ask airport sponsors in hundreds of airports who are trying to lengthen a runway or expand an existing airport footprint if they can just blithely pull the ‘eminent domain’ card from their pocket and begin construction.  They’ll think you’re from another planet.  Unfortunately, our political system gives unusual power, especially at the local level, to those small, squeaky wheels who enjoy harassing unpaid commissioners and have the airport manager’s phone number on their speed dial.  Will an airport proponent who lives in an adjoining airpark stand up to these NIMBYs?  Maybe, but their testimony is often discounted or disregarded along with anyone else who flies an airplane. 

Homeowners have tremendous clout around airports – far more than many businesses and commercial property owners.  An RTTF homeowner, like any other, feels that his home is his castle, will swear that the ‘airport promised’ he could live there with his plane forever, and pull every possible political string to oppose airport development that degrades his hearth and home.  Once the RTTF homes are built, the airport’s future development is, without any doubt, constrained.

Congressman Graves and Dave Higdon both apparently believe that if an RTTF community is built, the public-use airport, empowered as they are with eminent domain and taxing authority, will be able to construct any new facilities, taxiways, ramps, hangars, runways, maintenance sheds, ATC facilities, terminals, parking lots, or safety areas that the 21^st century users of the airport will need, regardless of the opposition that a few homeowners may express.  Yes, this is theoretically true, just as all the land adjoining an airport is theoretically available for residential construction, but the FAA knows, as do NATA members, that aviation theory alone doesn’t enable airplanes to fly – and an airport’s future is too important to be left to mere theory.  Ask yourself, If just because Congress has the theoretical authority (not to mention the statutory and political responsibility) to pass an FAA reauthorization bill each year, will it necessarily do so?  I’m afraid these theories just won’t fly.

Mr. Higdon also raises a question about comparative regulatory equity between residential and commercial TTF agreements, asserting that the FAA, NATA, and airports seem to prefer the latter over the former.  Not so.  Both the FAA and NATA made clear in our testimony that meeting all commercial TTF regulations is an obligation of the airport sponsor under the same grant assurances that dictate residential TTF requirements.  We discourage commercial TTF arrangements just as strongly as we do the residential variety and consistently argue that airport management should reject commercial TTF requests, for many of the same reasons.  There was nothing presented at the hearing last week that said or implied otherwise.  The fact was, however, that the hearing was called solely to discuss the new FAA RTTF proposal and as far as I can recall, no questions were raised about any preference given by anyone to commercial through-the-fence arrangements.

In closing, let me reaffirm my support for pilots who want to live near airports.  The vast majority of them live at private airparks, and their commitment to aviation is legendary.  They are wonderful folks, enthusiastic and skilled pilots, and great Americans – many of whom served in our Armed Forces and have more aviation knowledge in their pinky than I will ever gain from a lifetime of flying.

I also understand how those who reside alongside public use airports want to preserve the lifestyle they have created and cherish.  Fortunately, the FAA RTTF proposal will let them do exactly that.  But as to the next generation of live-with-your-airplane pilots, I hope they will devote themselves to building and expanding private airparks.  NATA members include owners of private airports, one of whom was an NATA chairman, so we understand the important role these airports play across the country.  For many, many pilots, retiring to an airpark is a lifelong dream, and one that I can readily appreciate.

On the other hand, 97% of public-use airports have no through-the-fence residents.  Some might argue that we should bend the rules for the few with RTTF developments or plans, but experience suggests such exceptions can turn into problems.  A rule waiver in Wyoming turns into case law and precedent for lawyers and developers on Long Island who creatively assert a “property right” where none exists.  Before long, important airports are constrained by developments that violate grant assurances.

As Congressman Leonard Boswell concluded in his remarks at the hearing, we are all reasonable people and supporters of general aviation in America who should be able to embrace a reasonable compromise.  To my mind, that is what the FAA has done with their revised proposal and I hope that some of my passionate friends will give it a second look. 

In any case, I know that Congressman Graves, Dave Higdon, and others who have joined in this debate have only the best of intentions.  I hope my little discussion of the issue helps explain the NATA point of view.  Working together, there should never be barriers between any of us, especially as we work to build a good, strong, fair, and effective policy fence — if I can use that word in a slightly different sense — to protect aviation’s most valuable asset:  America’s public-use airports.

Visit or return to NATA site: www.nata.aero