House Amendment Would Kill FAA's Modernization Plan
The House of Representatives has
passed the Transportation-Treasury-Housing Appropriations bill --
with an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). That
amendment means, in plain English, that the FAA would be forced to
terminate the FSS modernization contract with Lockheed-Martin, the
taxpayers would pay a $350 million penalty to Lockheed, and pilots
would continue to suffer through interminable hold times and
briefers who don't have access to all the data in the system.
It is, however, not a done deal. The Senate would have to pass
the bill with that amendment before it could become law, and there
is strong opposition to Sanders' amendment from the FAA and the
Bush administration. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill
if it crosses his desk with the amendment still attached.
The House members who favored the anti-modernization amendment
cited two reasons: safety and loss of jobs. And as Rep. Sanders
noted during the floor debate, the amendment had "the strong
support of the AFL-CIO, representing 13 million American workers,
the Transportation Trades Department, the Professional Airway
Systems Specialists (PASS), and the National Association of Air
Traffic Specialists (NAATS)." (PASS and NAATS are the unions
representing federal employees who maintain FAA equipment and staff
flight service stations.)
A flight service station in Sanders' district would eventually
close; the 32 specialists there have been offered jobs at other
facilities. All the House members speaking in favor of the
amendment would lose union jobs in their districts if flight
service station modernization is allowed to proceed.
But members who opposed the amendment rejected the safety
argument as unfounded. "Under the FAA [flight service station]
reform plan, $2.2 billion in taxpayers' dollars will be saved, and
again we will have new technology to make the airspace for our
general aviation pilots safer, with the best, most efficient,
cost-effective technology, and at the same time, we protect the
employees that are in place," said Rep. John Mica (R-FL), chairman
of the House aviation subcommittee.
"Contracting out flight service
stations will result in no erosion in safety," said Rep. Joe
Knollenberg (R-MI), a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
"It is a safer system, and 600,000 general aviation pilots will get
better service. The contract will save taxpayers money. Not a bad
idea. Employees will be protected. This, in my judgment, is a
no-brainer. Congress should not step in after the fact to stop this
contract and deny better services to more than 600,000 private
pilots."
Some of the members of Congress acknowledged that the current
FSS system is inadequate and overpriced, even quoting AOPA
President Phil Boyer during the debate: "Any pilot who has been
stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing can
tell you, the system is overloaded and frequently non-responsive.
The system had to change, and this is a change for the better."
In fact, the AOPA says it has been working for years to ensure
that the new FSS system would provide better service at a better
price. With that sort of prodding, the contract with
Lockheed-Martin includes service and performance metrics and
guarantees, such as a contractual guarantee that a live briefer
will answer pilot phone calls within 20 seconds and acknowledge
their radio calls within five seconds. Flight plans will be filed
within three minutes. And there will be no user fees.
All of that, of course, is contingent on Congressional
approval.