WASHINGTON, D.C — A wise person once commented that we learn from history that we learn nothing from history.
Nothing could be more accurate than the current flap over privatizing the air traffic control system.
More than two dozen industrialized nations have turned air traffic control over to private or semi-private organizations. None of these have the number of non-commercial, general aviation flights as the United States.
Although Congress, controllers, and users of air traffic control successfully kept the system under the control of the FAA in the past, once again there are rumblings about taking it away from the federal government and letting a private company provide the service and charge individual users.
When this was proposed under President Bill Clinton, it was opposed by users and gained the support of only two lawmakers, George Donohue, a former FAA associate administrator, told the Wall Street Journal. That Journal article stated opponents once opposed to privatization “have now endorsed talks.” Willingness to talk would be more accurate than endorsed.
Users of the U.S. air traffic control system have not changed their views. They are still opposed to anything but federal government control of ATC, as well as government control of establishing any fees for use. GA organizations still consider fuel taxes a fairer and practical way to pay for the use of ATC services.
Willingness to talk about privatization by no means implies a willingness to accept it. Rather, it is a symbol of GA’s willingness to present its views and obtain a forum in which to continue to present its opposition.
Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association, states it this way: “NBAA remains highly skeptical that privatized systems, funded by user fees, are a better alternative to the aviation system we have in the U.S. today.”
Aviation interests here are more deeply concerned about sequestration and the 2014 budget that began this month. Sequestration demands $1.2 trillion must be over the next 10 years. The 2014 budget must cut $54.7 billion. With that kind of reduction in spending, aviation groups are expending their lobbying efforts to keep fuel taxes as the means of paying for using the system instead of proposed fees, which are once again in the budget proposed by President Obama.
One point stressed in opposition is the fact that determining use and collecting user fees would be extremely expensive, whereas a fuel tax is relatively inexpensive for the government to collect.