The White House is resurrecting a controversial push to shift air traffic control services from the Federal Aviation Administration to a nonprofit organization, prompting trade groups who recently praised the House for removing a similar proposal from their FAA reauthorization bill to rev their opposition back up.
The White House’s air traffic control proposal, released in June and included in a document that calls for revamping various government functions, argues that shifting air traffic control authority to a nonprofit organization will “better enable our aviation system to respond to consumer needs and modernize services.”
Although the document is sparse on details, it claims the nonprofit structure “has strong policy merits, as evidenced by the approximately 60 countries that have shifted air traffic responsibilities to non-governmental providers.”
Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, said he was surprised by the White House’s proposal and that the timing was “bizarre,” given that the issue was being debated in the House at the beginning of the year and has since been dropped after House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., announced in February he would no longer pursue a similar provision in the House’s FAA reauthorization bill.
“We had no clue that this was coming,” Poole said of the White House proposal.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Six organizations are fighting the move: the General Aviation Manufacturers Association; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Experimental Aircraft Association; Helicopter Association International; National Air Transportation Association; and National Business Aviation Association.
The groups slammed the White House’s proposal and pointed to hundreds of groups, individuals and politicians who have condemned similar air traffic control reform efforts.
In a joint statement issued last month, the groups argued that “there is a large and diverse chorus of opposition to the idea of privatizing our air traffic control system.
“Additionally, this concept has been fully considered in the U.S. Congress and rejected despite years of repeated attempts,” they added.
Historically, critics of removing air traffic control authority from the FAA to a nonprofit organization have cited a variety of reasons for their opposition, including that privatization would harm general aviation operators, aviation safety and rural communities, among other things.
“We are disappointed that the Administration continues to reintroduce a failed proposal,” the groups wrote. “Instead, it should put its weight behind FAA legislation pending in Congress that will advance the aviation industry, including general aviation, which contributes $219 billion to the U.S. economy and creates over one million jobs in the U.S.”
After the provision was removed in the House’s FAA reauthorization bill in the spring, the lower chamber passed its version of the measure and is now awaiting approval from the Senate before the FAA’s legal authority expires in September.
But Poole said he doubts the White House’s proposal will be included in the Senate’s version of the FAA reauthorization bill.
“At this point in time, I don’t see much chance that there would be anything like this added as an amendment to the Senate bill,” Poole said.
However, Poole said the White House’s push may result in the Senate proposing that air traffic control be moved to a stand-alone agency within the Department of Transportation.
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee did not respond to a request for comment.
Poole said he doesn’t believe air traffic control reform could happen separate from an FAA reauthorization bill. An exception might be a national crisis in which reform would be necessary, or if Republicans maintain control of both chambers of Congress after the 2018 midterm elections and insert the air traffic control reform into a sweeping government reorganization package, he said.
Poole admitted that the White House’s proposal included solid government reforms, but said he doesn’t believe it is “likely to have a big impact or have any impact.”
“In normal times, it would make a lot of sense to put a reform like this out,” Poole said. “But I think virtually anything that the White House proposes is going to be seen as bad because of who proposed it by the Democrats, and even getting Republicans all on board for anything seems to be a tall order these days, too.”
