Although air traffic control reform will not be pursued in the next Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, lawmakers still need to hash out some issues, and may even debate some new topics as they proceed to reach a long-term reauthorization solution.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., who is set to retire after this year, announced late last month he would no longer seek to include a controversial provision in the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act that would have removed air traffic control from the FAA, and instead established an independent nonprofit to oversee the function.
As the expiration of the FAA’s legal authority approached the end of September 2017, the bill did not gain enough support, which led to a six-month extension that is set to expire at the end of March.
“Although our air traffic control reform provisions did not reach the obvious level of support needed to pass Congress, I intend to work with Senator Thune and move forward with a reauthorization bill to provide long-term stability for the FAA,” Shuster said in a statement last month.
But although the most controversial aspect of the House bill will not be pursued, experts say lawmakers will still need to hammer out some issues with a long-term reauthorization.
“There’s a number of differences between the House and the Senate [versions],” said Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation.
Poole noted that one of the key differences is that the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill contains an amendment from Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., that would relax pilot-training requirements.
The provision would broaden the scope of non-flight training, such as structured safety training courses, that could be counted toward the 1,500 hour training requirement for airline transport pilot certification. It faces opposition in Congress from members, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
Additionally, Poole said those who lobbied for the 1,500-hour training requirement following a fatal plane crash in 2009 staunchly defend it, but within the aviation community, many consider the rule to be stringent and claim it has contributed to a pilot shortage.
Meanwhile, Thune has signaled he is open to removing the amendment and addressing the pilot shortage another way.
Given that the FAA’s legal authority expires on March 31, experts said it was unlikely a long-term solution could be reached in that window. As a result, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee told the Washington Examiner a short-term extension will be rolled out in March.
“In light of Chairman Shuster’s recent statement, you can expect an extension before the end of the month, in order to allow the House and Senate to work on a long-term reauthorization,” a senior committee aide said.
Although no official extension has been introduced yet, experts say it’s likely the extension would last until August or September and could generate discussion about other provisions that should be included in the reauthorization bill.
For example, experts believe that lawmakers may debate whether to adjust or end the cap on the passenger facility charge, a fee that is automatically added to every airline ticket that goes toward funding projects that enhance safety, reduce noise, or generate competition among airlines. The charge has been capped at $4.50 since 2000.
Although efforts to adjust the cap or remove it are not included in the House or Senate FAA reauthorization bills, Poole said it’s possible a bill sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., would be introduced as an amendment to the House’s FAA reauthorization bill.
Their proposal would remove the passenger facility charge cap, and airports that raise their fee above $4.50 would then forego receiving federal Airport Improvement Program grants.
“Airports need flexibility and local control to finance major construction projects. This market-driven reform will help modernize our nation’s airports and return power to local decision-makers,” Massie said in a statement last year after the bill was introduced.
Although Michael Sargent, a transportation and infrastructure policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said he expects the passenger facility charge to be a topic of debate, he said he’s uncertain there’s an appetite to include it in legislation.
Additionally, Poole remains hopeful that even though air traffic control reform will not be included in the FAA reauthorization bill, other types of reforms to the FAA could occur, such as changes to “how they procure projects, how they fund things.”
But overall, Sargent is less optimistic that any major changes would be included in a reauthorization bill.
“My hopes are fairly low for anything significant,” he said. “It’s an election year, so I don’t think they’ll be doing that much.”
However, Sargent said he could see a “relatively clean, longer-term reauthorization” moving forward this year.
As far as the future of air traffic control reform, what happens is contingent upon whether Democrats or Republicans have control of the House, Poole said.
If Democrats win the House, Poole said the issue probably won’t be resurrected. If Republicans keep their majority, it’s possible “the idea would remain in play” or that there would be an effort to include air traffic control reform in a massive infrastructure bill, he said.
But Sargent believes the effort has been put on the back burner.
“Unfortunately, I think it’s back on the shelf for now at least,” Sargent said. “You really need a champion for this thing, be it in the White House or in one of the committees of jurisdiction in the House or Senate.”
