The User Fee Fight Gets Personal

Aero-Views OPINION by ANN Managing Editor Rob Finfrock

It would be an understatement to say remarks in a speech given this week by FAA Administrator Marion Blakey -- which likened the opposing viewpoint on the FAA's controversial funding reauthorization plan to "partisan politics," propogated by "narrow, individual interests" -- took the ANN staff by surprise.

Those vitriolic words were a harsh and abrupt departure from the Administrator's previously cordial, diplomatic statements in support of the bill... and they also got me thinking of a recent visit  to my favorite airport on Earth: Addison (KADS), which is a short hop away from my soon-to-be former home in Dallas, TX.

When I first came to Dallas from Albuquerque, NM three years ago to search for a place to live, the first place I went to was Addison. I knew nothing about the city of Dallas at that time, other than vague memories of the 1980s prime time series (information that was woefully inaccurate, by the way). So, I gravitated to what I knew: an airport. I soon found a small apartment that was 40 minutes away from the job I was relocating with -- but it was only two minutes away from ADS.

In the years since, and throughout the time I was grounded from flying -- first by finances, then by cancer -- Addison was my sanctuary. And still today, when I need some time to think, or to contemplate... I park my car at an office complex off the end of Runway 15, and watch as planes land and depart. Sometimes for minutes, often for hours.

I've never flown out of Addison; the lack of a sport pilot training center at ADS makes the hour-long drive to Grand Prairie Muni a necessity. But that's just logistics; Addison is still "my" airport. And as I prepare to move back home to New Mexico permanently in the coming weeks, it's probably the part of Dallas I'll miss the most. (You can still call and email friends.)

I'm not alone in my appreciation for Addison. Even during the week, you will find other cars parked nose-out in that office complex parking lot, to give their planespotting drivers a better view of the runway. Some are on their lunch breaks, away from their office jobs. One I spoke to a few months back admitted he had woken up that morning, and decided to play hooky so he could go watch planes instead.

While signs are posted in that office parking lot to discourage "loitering" --  one office has even gone so far as to post a sign encouraging payment for planespotters (shown below) -- I've never seen anyone hassled or told to leave, including myself. Everyone involved seems to have an unsaid, tacit understanding of the forces at work here. People love to watch airplanes. They are inspiring.

And such was the case on my most recent visit. I'd been away from Addison for a little bit, after starting up lessons in Grand Prairie. A service bulletin has kept the SportStar grounded for the past several weeks (ugh, right after my solo) awaiting a new fuel pump.

On this particular Sunday, after two weeks on the ground, I realized I needed my airport fix, and badly. So off to Addison I went, NavCom in hand and Jimmy Buffett playing on my MP3.

Traffic was comprised of the usual mix of swanky business jets; older Lears and Falcons, flying for freight dogs; a plethora of Cirruses and Cessnas; and an eclectic mix of other general aviation aircraft. Addison is an equal-opportunity airport; as long as you can afford the fuel and fees, all are welcome to use the airport's single 7,200' x 100' runway. The tower controllers are also some of the cheeriest folks I've ever heard.

I parked my car, and joined the others watching as a beautiful Cessna 310 taxied towards the end of the runway. An even more pristine late-1950s-vintage Cessna 182A followed close behind... and behind that, a Pilatus PC12. A FlexJet Lear 45 was holding short at the front of the line, ready for takeoff... waiting for a Long-EZ to cross the threshold on landing, so they could take position.

Some of the spotters, like me, take pictures. Others sit in their cars, or on folding chairs, and simply watch. A few have their scanners tuned to the Addison tower frequency. A family is sitting at the far end of the parking lot, in front of their Land Rover SUV, their kids playing on the grass. Those kids stop what they're doing when the Lear throttles up to take the runway... and they continue to watch as it takes off. And then they go back to their game... until the next plane comes along (which turned out to be a P40 Warhawk... like I said, this is one cool airport.)

You don't have to be a pilot to appreciate airplanes. Heck, you don't even have to like flying to like airplanes. My dad hates to fly... but he loves going to airports. I'd like to think his son had some influence on him there.

So... what does all this have to do with the FAA, and Administrator Marion Blakey? Good question.

Until recently, I believed the ongoing user fee battle was something of a dog-and-pony affair. The FAA has presented what it wants; the GA and bizav community flatly replied it wants none of it. In a past life, I sold enough cars to know how this process of negotiation plays out: after a lot of bombast and grandstanding, all parties will win something, and all will lose something. In the end, the planes flying today will in all probability still be flying tomorrow, too (right?)

Throughout the FAA's suspect logic in pitching its user fee plan, I never took arguments made by the Administrator, or her associates, personally.

And even though Ms. Blakey's own words lately have sounded less like the general aviation advocate she's presented herself to be through her years of attending Oshkosh and other GA events... and more like someone who's grooming herself for an airline job when her tenure with the government expires later this year... I still liked and admired the Administrator, and even the FAA. Really.

As EAA President Tom Poberezny pointed out in an Aero-Cast special feature interview this week, the user fee battle is but one aspect of the general aviation's community's relationship with the FAA. Yes, the funding battle looms large... but we should also keep in mind the good the FAA has done. And in my book, the good has outweighed the bad.

While I might be a rare example, all of my dealings with the FAA -- including a recent visit to the Dallas FSDO to clear up some paperwork with my sport pilot student certificate, that was admittedly my fault -- have been painless. I've met some really great people in the agency's employ, too. And speaking of sport pilot... if it weren't for the FAA's advocacy and approval of the sport pilot rule in 2004, I wouldn't be flying right now. I'm eternally grateful for that opportunity.

From the FAA's first official announcement of its funding plan last month, I also suspected Blakey was tasked with pitching a plan that she herself likely had little actual input on. Like a car salesperson running to their manager for approval, Ms. Blakey's main job right now is to "sell" a set of numbers put together by others behind the scenes -- both within and without the FAA. It worries the hell out of me that some of those players are domestic airlines... operations that, with precious few exceptions, have shown little aptitude in running the kind of "business" the FAA wants to be.

Which brings me back to Addison. Should the FAA's funding reauthorization plan go through, fewer aircraft will be flying into ADS, and all other general aviation airports. That also means fewer people working, and fewer dollars contributed to the economy. If user fees are implemented, fewer aircraft will be worked on by mechanics... fewer corporate pilots will be flying clients to far-off destinations... fewer FBO workers will be needed to fuel planes, in the aftermath of a steep dropoff in general aviation traffic.

That is not partisan "rhetoric," as Blakey would love to have us believe it is. That is fact... and that is history. One merely needs to look at the effects similar user fees have had on general aviation traffic in Europe and Canada to see it. When GA pilots are levied fines on services disproportionate to what are used -- or, on services those pilots simply DON'T use -- a significant portion of that country's transportation infrastructure vanishes.

Or, worse... they still fly, but take several risks in flight in order to avoid being charged that extra landing fee, or decline to get that updated enroute weather briefing because they need that money for fuel. (Want proof? Watch this short video on the AOPA website.)

Encouragingly, it appears many of our representatives in Congress have gotten the message loud-and-clear from their pilot constituents, and are passing that argument along as we've voted them to do. That's not "rhetoric," that's Democracy. All patriots please rise, and salute.

But Ms. Blakey doesn't see it that way. Instead, at first we heard the same old arguments against congestion, and for the need for an advanced ATC system; now, we get accusations of narrow interests, and "partisan politics."

With all due respect, Administrator... I belong to the same political party your boss does, as I would daresay about half of all pilots do. Representatives on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against the proposed FAA funding plan. How on Earth are our concerns partisan? I'd like to hear your answer; I'd like you to HAVE an answer.

I'd also like to know what happened to the FAA Administrator who told audiences at AirVentures past that she was a supporter of GA. I don't particularly care for the person who has taken her place, who spouts the company line and appears to have little concern for the Other Side Of The Story.

I was at AOPA Expo last year in Palm Springs, and I attended the Meet the Administrator forum... where Ms. Blakey stood up and said she was passionately opposed to the same "broad" user fees she now espouses. I was also there when one pilot -- obviously tired of what he considered to be the Same Old Story -- took direct aim at the fact the Administrator is, herself, not a pilot.

Like many in the audience, I cringed when I heard that... and I applauded when AOPA president Phil Boyer responded the FAA Administrator doesn't have to be a pilot, to appreciate general aviation. No, she does not. But she does have to like airplanes, little ones and big ones.

To that end, I'd ask that Ms. Blakey consider taking a Sunday afternoon off to go watch planes land and take off at a nearby GA airport, and get some perspective. Consider how many jobs are behind each of those planes -- from the lowliest Beech to the ritziest BBJ -- and what would happen to them if that plane wasn't flying.

More importantly, the FAA Administrator should also take a look at some of the other faces in the crowd.

Watch the people watching the planes, Ms. Blakey. Look at the parents pointing out aircraft coming into land to their children. Look at aviation's future. And consider what the plan you're pitching so enthusiastically -- like the team player you are -- would do to them. Fewer planes flying mean fewer reasons for those kids to go to their local airports on any given Sunday, and be inspired.

If this admittedly emotional argument doesn't sway you, Ms. Blakey, then consider the long-term impact your plan would also have on the very airlines that want reauthorization to go through. Fewer planes flying also means fewer students with the financial means available to undergo flight training; it also means fewer schools will be around to teach them. How will the airlines fly without pilots? Eventually, even airline-oriented flight schools will suffer the fiscal impact, when they pass their increased fuel and registration costs directly on to their students.

Ms. Blakey, you've been to Oshkosh. You've been to AOPA. You've spoken with pilots, and said to their faces they wouldn't have to worry about the kinds of charges you are now a vocal advocate for. You know better than to pitch the bill of goods you're now selling.

Or is it too late?

FMI: Comments? Criticism?