... You know, there are some hard facts that we've just got to
face. One is that we'll vault past a billion passengers by 2015.
The second is that the system as we know it today just can't stand
up to that load. Those of us who stood on line or in the queue on
the runway this year already know that. 2006 was the worst on
record for delays. If we don't move toward a next generation air
transportation system, 2006 will look like the good old days.
Fortunately, we have a NextGen plan in place combining the
firepower of five separate cabinet-level agencies. It will take us
to 2025 and beyond with a heavy focus on delivering in the near
term, too. When the traffic doubles, NextGen will have a string of
seamless technologies in place that can accommodate it. Whether
we're looking at A-380s or new GA aircraft, microjets, UAVs or the
low-cost and regional jets that are driving the bus today, NextGen
can handle it.
But there's one thing holding us back, and that's the funding
stream the FAA has in place today. Now bear with me here. I know I
have an uphill climb, but with an entire panel on Friday devoted to
the "negative effects" of our proposal and the status quo being
touted as the right method for the future, I do want to talk with
you for a few minutes about it.
I'm going to start with a couple of questions for you. How many
of you have long-range business plans in place that can only be
funded a year at a time? How many of you tie those business plans
to the price of an airline ticket?
No one does unless you're an airline. A funding system put in
place decades ago, a funding system that didn't contemplate fare
wars or Orbitz or Southwest. No one did.
But with the expiration of the FAA's financing system at the end
of September, we have a chance to fix that. It's an historic
opportunity. But unfortunately it's in danger of degrading into a
stick fight over user fees. General Aviation's afraid of user fees.
That's why GA is paying through a fuel tax. Under our proposal, the
majority of GA will never pay a user fee. What they're missing is
the $4.3 billion in capital funding those user fees would finance
over the next five years. We've put our money where our mouth is,
increasing capital spending by 40 percent. We're putting big
investments into ADS-B and other core NextGen technologies.
Some of the rhetoric out there is just flat out wrong. The
criticisms that we can't be trusted with this plan just don't hold
water. One hundred percent of our major capital projects are on
schedule and on budget. I'll stack that up against any federal
agency anytime.
When you hear horror stories about the FAA being "anti-GA," I
want you to take a good look at the numbers. In our proposal, Joe
pilot in a Cessna 172 will experience an operating cost increase of
about four dollars per hour. In other words, the owner of a very
expensive airplane is engaged in a heated dispute that hinges on
the cost of a Starbucks latte. It's important to note here that if
the fuel tax is increased, it still represents less than five
percent of the overall cost to fly your GA aircraft.
This is about paying your fair share. While we're having a
debate over who's going to pick up the tab, the passenger in the
middle seat is footing the lion's share of the bill for operation
of the system. The commercial traveler is paying 95 percent of the
cost but imposing only 73 percent of the cost. A seat on a
commercial jetliner is the most heavily taxed spot in all of
aviation.
If I were a GA pilot, I'd be afraid of gridlock. When gridlock
comes, we'll have to slow things down because of safety. That could
spell an end to the first-come, first-served system we know today.
In a gridlock scenario, a plane carrying three hundred people is
going to trump one carrying three.
There are a few other myths out there that warrant attention.
The rumor and innuendo you're hearing about controller salaries is
particularly vexing. It would lead you to believe that we're trying
to undermine our own workforce. If we really wanted to undermine
our controllers, as some allege, we wouldn't be paying them $50,000
after a year on the job or $94,000 after five years. That's pretty
good money by anyone's standard. Veteran controllers, mind you,
have been held virtually financially unharmed.
There's another contention floating around, a notion that
somehow our proposal eliminates congressional oversight of the FAA.
That's just not true. Our bill does nothing of the sort. The
Congressional oversight that's in place today stays in place. I've
got to tell you, a fee-based system is much more transparent and
accountable, and therefore easier to review.
Then there's the matter of the $600 million less that our
critics claim is raised under our financing system versus the
current one. No. Ours is a cost-based system, meaning we raise
exactly what we need.
Another common criticism we hear is that there is no specific
map for NextGen. Let me be clear on this. There is a specific road
map for NextGen. We're moving to a satellite based system that's
going to provide terrific benefits to pilots all the way across the
board and to the flying public. We have a detailed concept of
operations, and we know exactly how we're going to spend the money
over the next give years. We know the cost of NextGen.
This is particularly troubling because a next generation system
is not a novel idea. If you head overseas, you'll find that the
rest of the world is moving forward on plans of their own. They're
not mired in an argument of how to pay for it. They don't have time
for the world leader in aviation to get all the ducks in a row.
Let's keep our eye on the big picture here. The people who are
rejecting this proposal aren't offering one of their own. They're
telling us to stick with the status quo. I'm drawing a line in the
sand, and I'm telling you that the status quo is a recipe for
gridlock. What we need here is constructive discussion, resolution.
We — that's all of us; that's each and every one of us
— need to get it done. Time is not on our side.
Classic Aero-TV: The Switchblade Flying Car FLIES!
See All