Be careful what you wish for. It may come true. In the case of the current FAA bill that was just voted on by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee, consumers who wanted to be part of the action have had their opportunity. Those who wanted to shout had their chance as well.
In the end, this bill has turned into one of the best examples of bureaucratic sausage-making ever. The combination of congressional egos, willing associations, committee structure and partisanship adherence has resulted in a bill that no one really expected, nor wants.
What started as a bill where many like-minded consumers, lobbyists and legislators all thought a smooth path forward was mapped out, became a roadmap about what not to do with legislation.
Plus, consumer issues have been front and center as part of the debate on this legislation. Not only was the new ATO being deliberated, but a backlash against callous airline customer service and the shrinking personal space aboard aircraft have been front and center in both House and Senate committee hearings.
Here is my quick 10-point analysis about what has happened:
1. At the beginning of 2015, Travelers United urged Congress to move forward with a bill that had no extensions and that would continue funding for the current system. The consumer group noted that the biggest failures in developing the new air traffic system through the FAA was consistency of funding. Keeping the bill on track would be the best solution. Many other stakeholders agreed.
2. Rather than making this a bill about continuing funding for the new air traffic control system, political interests and basic, let’s-try-to-fix-a-system-that-is-not-working mentality took over. This resulted in a move for “transformational change” of the air traffic control system in one fell swoop.
3. Changing the air traffic organization (ATO) is not a new dream in Washington. This reengineering of the ATO has been discussed for about a decade or more, but the details of how such a system would work were never hammered out through a bureaucratic process.
4. Three camps developed — those in favor of a total overhaul of the ATO; those who wanted to set up an official study group to move forward with change in the next FAA bill (around 2022), and those who didn’t want to change anything.
5. Only about six months before the new FAA funding bill needed to be ready to go, the committee leadership and airline leadership decided that this was the time to push for a new ATO. The original bill schedule was delayed from September 2015 to March of 2016.
6. When the bill crafted by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was released, it faced a firestorm of opposition from those who did not want to see the federal system lose government workers to a new semi-private organization. Plus, the funding and governance systems for this new ATO were still controversial.
7. Eventually, a split membership voted the bill out of the House committee, however, leadership squabbles dealing with financing and other issues stopped the House bill in its tracks.
8. On the Senate side, Commerce Committee leadership decided to move forward a FAA bill that did not include the controversial ATO. That bill was introduced last week and was voted out of committee two days ago, Wednesday, March 16. However, rather than funding the FAA for a full six years as was the original intent, this Senate bill acts almost as another extension until September 2018.
9. Both the House and Senate will eventually approve a formal extension of this bill until the end of June or mid-July. Then the bill will be negotiated by House and Senate conferees and reconsidered. The tenacity of the House leadership cannot be discounted. The new ATO cannot be dismissed. Nor, can the difficulties of coming to grips with a new semi-government organization.
10. My prediction — the Senate and House will not come to an agreement about this FAA bill and, ultimately, another extension until September 2017 will mean that Congress will have a chance to sort out whether or not reorganizing the air traffic system is the path the country will take. Or, will the air traffic system continue on its plodding path to improvement (albeit safe).
A combination of the passenger protection clauses in each of these bills is a strong start for renewed customer service standards and consumer empowerment as the new FAA funding bill comes to a vote sometime in the next 18 months.
Whatever Congress finally decides about how the air traffic management will be organized, both sides of The Hill have served public notice that Congress’ traditional hands-off approach to consumer issues at the airlines is coming to an end. As airlines keep making the flying experience more and more uncomfortable for passengers in the air and more difficult for consumers purchasing air travel, Congress is stepping up with a stronger stance, telling airlines that enough is enough when it comes to ignoring aviation consumers.
Charlie Leocha is the President of Travelers United. He has been working in Washington, DC, for the past 14 years with Congress, the Department of Transportation, and industry stakeholders on travel issues. He was the first consumer representative to the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protections appointed by the Secretary of Transportation from 2012 through 2018.
