Airports are struggling to accommodate the 2 million passengers that trek through their terminals every day as they operate with outdated technology and deteriorating facilities built in the 1960s and 1970s.
That was the consensus of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, which gave America’s airports a D. And fixing them won’t be cheap. In March, the Airports Council International-North America determined that U.S. airports’ total infrastructure needs from 2017 to 2021, with inflation taken into account, reaches almost $100 billion.
So airport groups weren’t pleased with the level of infrastructure spending in the House’s version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, saying it “falls short,” and are now pushing for more investment to be included in the Senate’s version of the legislation.
The calls come after the House passed its version of the FAA bill at the end of April, which would fund the FAA until 2023 and includes reforms that would affect safety and consumers. The request also follows signals from the administration and lawmakers that they do not expect major infrastructure reforms to be addressed this year.
Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for the FAA reauthorization measure in the House, airports groups have said the measure “misses a significant opportunity to provide airports with the resources they require to repair aging infrastructure” and other investments to their facilities.
“While the Administration and Congress continue to talk about infrastructure investment, much more needs to be done to address the systemic funding problems that put airports of all sizes at a significant disadvantage for modernizing their facilities to meet the needs of air passengers and local communities,” Airports Council International-North America President and CEO Kevin Burke and American Association of Airport Executives President and CEO Todd Hauptli said in a joint statement in April. “Unfortunately this bill is not the impactful infrastructure plan the aviation industry desperately needs at this critical juncture.”
Specifically, airports condemned the House’s measure for not adjusting the passenger facility charge, a fee that is automatically included in every airline ticket, and criticized the legislation for keeping the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program grants at their current level of $3.35 billion, even though the FAA calculates there are approximately $6.5 billion worth of eligible projects each year.
Airports have long called for the cap on the passenger facility charge, which has remained $4.50 since 2000, to be raised or eliminated, despite vehement opposition from airlines. Funds accumulated from the charge go toward new runways, terminals and gates, in addition to projects that enhance safety, reduce noise or promote competition among airlines.
“That’s been one of our big pushes, to try to get Congress to adjust this to account for inflation, to let airports address their capacity issues, let them repair aging facilities,” said Adam Snider, director of public affairs for the American Association of Airport Executives.
“Airports remain focused on securing the tools they need to accommodate rising demand and upgrade aging facilities, and we believe Congress acting to increase the federal cap on local passenger facility charges is the most effective way to accomplish this goal,” he added.
He noted that the primary purpose for backing a passenger facility charge adjustment was to address unmet airport infrastructure needs and to address the increased demand for flying.
Although Snider said that the American Association of Airport Executives supports eliminating the cap, he admitted the group was realistic about the prospect and backed the Senate’s effort in an appropriations bill last year to raise the cap to $8.50.
Ultimately, the passenger facility charge increase was not included in the omnibus spending bill that was approved last month. That absence was praised by airlines, which have historically argued that passengers are already burdened with plenty of fees and have encouraged funding already raised to be used first.
Additionally, opponents of adjusting the cap also claim passenger demand would take a hit. For example, Delta Airlines has cited a Government Accountability Office estimate that claims for every $1 increase in the passenger facility charge, passenger demand would decline by more than 1 percent.
Michael Sargent, a transportation and infrastructure policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, said it was uncertain if a passenger facility charge cap increase would be included in the Senate’s version of the FAA reauthorization bill, but noted the Senate’s past efforts to increase the cap to $8.50.
“At least some people are thinking about that in the Senate,” Sargent said.
The Senate Commerce Committee approved its version of the FAA reauthorization bill last year, but the measure has yet to come to the floor.
Sargent also said airports are receiving additional federal funding because a $5.3 billion discretionary grant program was included in the House’s measure, which would direct funds to rural and non-hub airports.
Snider said it was uncertain, though, if those funds could be accessed because they would be coming from the general taxpayer fund rather than the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and argued there would be greater competition to access those funds.
“This extra money, while it would be welcomed, is not going to go too far in addressing all of the unmet needs,” Snider said. “It’s not even guaranteed. It’s going to have to compete against a number of programs.”
“As large as our needs are, it’s going to be a pretty hard competition to try to get extra money from the general treasury fund,” he added.
Snider said that various groups calling for greater infrastructure investment in the FAA reauthorization measure were united because they want to address the “massive infrastructure investment gap that our country faces.”
As their next move, airport groups are now working toward policy changes that would benefit airports in the FAA reauthorization bill. Snider said the American Association of Airport Executives already is and will continue to work with the Senate and other associations to try to advance their priorities such as adjusting the passenger facility charge.
