The Politics Of Privatization
When aviation groups failed to jump on board the air traffic control privatization bandwagon, its proponents tried power politics. They failed miserably but we haven’t heard the last of them.
Tarkio, Missouri, isn't the sort of place someone like Rep. Bill Shuster would normally visit but sometimes a politician just has to do what a politician has to do. I suspect the urbane and well-connected Pennsylvania congressman, chairman of the prestigious Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, dug in his closet for a pair of old shoes and headed to the mall for some jeans and a cotton shirt. He then made the trek to corn country because he knew he could never get the kind of access and interaction with aviation's top leaders all at once in any other place.
With all due respect to AirVenture, NBAA, Sun 'n Fun and HAI, if you want to buttonhole the Who's Who of U.S. aviation, the somewhat presciently named Wingnuts Flying Circus airshow in Tarkio (population 1,583) is the place to be. The show has a nice lineup of well-known performers and the usual assortment of warbirds and military aircraft typical of the hundreds of small-town airshows that bring aviation to the masses across the U.S. It also hosts an aviation "town hall" meeting which, by the looks of Facebook photos, attracts about 100 people.
That's not the usual audience for a panel that includes EAA President Jack Pelton, NBAA President Ed Bolen, GAMA's Pete Bunce, NATA's Tom Hendricks, Matt Zuccaro of HAI, along with Jim Coon, the head of government affairs for AOPA, Andrew Moore, from the National Agricultural Aviation Association, and John Cudahy, who heads up the International Council of Air Shows. I've been to a lot of aviation meetings and I've never seen that big a lineup at any of them.
You get the idea that this is no ordinary country airshow. One of the organizers is Rep. Sam Graves, who grew up in Tarkio and has represented the 6th District for almost 15 years. He's an avid pilot and that's led to him becoming what Aviation Week calls "Aviation's Man in Washington." Graves also attracts some heavy hitters from the House and Senate and that's why all the groups show up. The ear-bending goes both ways.
So you can see why Shuster thought it a good place to float his idea. That, as far as I can tell, was the first place he talked about his bid to create a privatized air traffic control system. As dramatic as that news might have been, local reports suggest most of the discussion at the meeting was about the threat drones present to low-flying aerial application aircraft. Welcome to the Heartland, Bill.
But the formal meeting, held in a hangar just before the airshow started, was just the window dressing. The real work apparently takes place over drinks and barbecue. One of the aviation leaders told me it was apparent Shuster was there to push his agenda and not listen to input and the notion started to unravel at that point. Everyone knows the FAA is broken so why not fix it by giving away its biggest asset to the people who could most profit by controlling it? What could possibly go wrong?
Shuster was apparently deaf to the lack of verbal support and blind to the rolling eyes from the folks he went to woo and fell back on what he knows. He apparently figured the seamy mix of bribery, arm twisting and deal making that is the currency of Washington would eventually win aviation leaders over to supporting the biggest change in government operation in decades. The next couple of years would include a few clumsy media events and lots of hallway meetings to result in the ham-fisted reauthorization bill that collapsed from the weight of its own ineptitude last week. Right up until the last minute, aviation leaders were getting calls inquiring "what it would take" to bring them onside with the blockbuster legislation. Shuster's people had already salted the bill with goodies that appeared intended to bribe the aviation groups into compliance.
The most important was the guarantee that most private aircraft operators would never have to pay the hated "user fees" that would provide revenue for the new private system. Most of the aviation group leaders took that guarantee with a grain of salt, reasoning that if the corporation was setting up the collection system for those fees it was only a matter of time before they spread to GA. Another big carrot was a section of medical provisions stripped of all the due diligence measures contained in the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. It required no medical oversight whatsoever for private pilots of aircraft weighing less than 6,000 pounds and carrying five passengers or less whereas PBOR2 ensures that every pilot will have had at least one FAA medical in his or her life. There were also liberal changes to aircraft certification and even a section to formally allow homebuilders to work in airport hangars.
If we are to assume that the bill failed because of the privatization provision, then it's also fair to think that the medical, certification and homebuilding measures are still on the table. So the groups are now preparing to press the case for inclusion of those items in the next bill. They're also not holding their breath. Rather than considered pieces of legislation aimed at improving the form and function of aviation regulation, those measures could be simply bargaining chips in the bigger game, which, by the way, is far from over. We'll know that if they disappear from the next reauthorization.
Shuster knew this wouldn't be easy and he's clearly aligned himself with people who are ready to settle into a long campaign. But that's a whole other story that we'll let the Washington media have for now. One thing he surely learned from the first skirmish is that the aviation community isn't about to be bought off with a few cheap trinkets when the system they know, and seem to have found new respect for, is being sold off to the highest bidder.
It will be interesting to see what he comes up with next.
