Departures: Don't Privatize Public Safety

Aviation Daily 05/23/2003

 

By Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.)

 

In Departures May 14, Robert Poole, Jr., of the Reason Foundation, predicted I would offer an amendment to

the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill to "redefine air traffic control as 'inherently

governmental.'"

 

First, I should correct the record: I did not have to offer that amendment, because, by bipartisan agreement, the

language was included in the bill itself.

 

And it was President Bush who redefined our air traffic control (ATC) system when, on June 4, 2002, he signed

an executive order to reverse a previous order by President Clinton that declared air traffic control to be an

"inherently-governmental function."

 

The National Air Space system is a complex, integrated network of thousands of distinct systems, regulations,

procedures, and people, all interfacing with one another to accomplish one of the most intricate missions in

the world: ensuring our country's ability to safely and efficiently move over 600 million passengers a year.

 

The operation of ATC requires the cooperative, coordinated efforts of many FAA divisions, including those

responsible for ATC services, facilities and equipment, safety certification and regulation, airport development,

technology research and aviation law. All are required by law to make safety their highest priority.

 

Any plan to privatize or corporatize the ATC system contemplates that system users, principally the airlines, will

be saddled with a fee structure to pay for the corporation. This means that the ATC system will be an expense

for airlines, affecting profit and loss. At the same time, airlines will play a role in setting policies for the new

corporation and deciding how much the corporation will spend.

 

At a time when our largest air carriers are either teetering on the brink of bankruptcy or are already in

bankruptcy and trying to stave off liquidation, is it truly in the best public interest to link airline profitability with

decisions affecting safety or security? To be blunt, when airline profit margins are tight, airlines will be tempted

to cut ATC costs. Safety margins will be eroded, and that would not serve the public interest.

 

One of the main justifications advanced by Mr. Poole to support an ATC corporation is that it has been tried

successfully in other countries. However, two of the most prominent countries that have privatized their ATC

systems -- Great Britain and Canada -- have had numerous problems. Both countries' systems are financially

distressed and suffering from performance setbacks.

 

Perceived gains by privatizing the ATC systems in these countries -- lower fees and increased efficiency -- have actually translated into higher fees, numerous flight cancellations, and delays. This is not a model that the U.S. should emulate.

 

Furthermore, comparing privatized ATC in the U.K., Canada and Norway to the U.S. is invalid. The combined

operations of all three of these ATC systems are fewer than what is handled by the 15th largest U.S. air route

control center, Albuquerque, N.M.

 

Under our existing ATC system, the FAA and Congress make decisions on safety issues in the overall best

public interest, with input from system users. If there is any move towards privatization or some form of

government corporation, how will the public be assured that ATC will be managed with a primary goal of

protecting the interest of airline passengers and ensuring safety and security?

 

Why should we risk the uncertainties of creating a new system to promote ATC safety and security when we

already have in place a system with an outstanding safety record?

 

We must act now to halt any efforts to privatize or corporatize our nation's air traffic system functions. We need

to guarantee the continued integrity of our nation's air traffic control system. We cannot allow this or any

administration to sacrifice on the altar of marketplace ideology. We cannot afford to place the lives of the flying

public at the mercy of the shifting sands of airline economics.

 

Oberstar, a representative from Minnesota serving his 15th term, is Ranking Democratic Member on the U.S.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

 

Opinions expressed are not those of Aviation Daily or McGraw-Hill. Bylined submissions should be sent via

e-mail to aw_departures@aviationnow.com and limited to 650 words. The Daily reserves the right to edit for

space. A photo of the author, in print form or via e-mail, is welcomed. Submissions become the property of

McGraw-Hill and will not be returned.

 

                                    

 Copyright ? 2002 Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies