gaunty
21st Feb 2007, 11:17
Costello Agenda: FAA Reauthorization, Budget, Safety Issues
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/12/2007, page 30
John M. Doyle and Adrian Schofield
New aviation subcommittee chairman to preside over FAA reauthorization
Printed headline: His Turn
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) took over chairmanship of the House aviation subcommittee in January after Democrats won control of Congress. Costello, 57, discussed FAA reauthorization and other issues facing the panel, with AVIATION WEEK editors John M. Doyle and Adrian Schofield. Excerpts follow:
AVIATION WEEK: The FAA reauthorization plans, outlined broadly in the president's Fiscal Year 2008 budget, call for a combination of user fees and taxes to pay for modernization, but haven't you questioned the need to change the funding system?
Costello: I believe that everything should be on the table. However, I am skeptical of the user fee system from the standpoint of how it would work, how the user fees would be collected, the administrative costs and the overhead of collecting these user fees. I'm not so certain that we couldn't use the existing structure to accomplish the same goals, but I am open to receiving the administration's proposal and to analyzing it, to see if it makes sense. My tendency is to believe that the current system is a better mechanism to reach our goals.
Credit: JOHN M. DOYLE/AW&ST
The FAA and others say modernizing the air traffic system will cost about $1 billion a year. Are you comfortable that kind of money is available in the system now?
I want to be convinced that under the current system, we do not have the revenue, that we can't pay for the modernization program. The FAA needs to convince us. The burden is on them to convince us the revenue is not there. I think the federal government has an obligation to make a robust contribution from the general fund.
Given the division within the industry over user fees and Congress's preoccupation with Iraq, are you at all concerned about getting FAA reauthorization done this year?
I'm hopeful that we can get it done. That is our goal, not only to get the reauthorization completed this fiscal year, but also to have a multi-year reauthorization. It is my intention and [House Transportation Committee] Chairman [James] Oberstar's (D-Minn.) intention to move very quickly. You're going to see in March and April a number of hearings on the administration's reauthorization proposal. I would expect we'll have anywhere from 4-5 hearings in March. I am committed to getting a reauthorization bill out this year.
Is there going to be room on the panel's schedule for other issues?
In addition to attempting to get the reauthorization done this year, we intend to provide what I believe has been lacking in the past: aggressive oversight of the FAA and other programs under our jurisdiction. I have concerns about staffing levels over at the FAA. Are we meeting the number of retirements, for instance, with the air traffic controllers? I want to make certain that we have enough air traffic controllers to handle the system. No. 2 is to make certain that we have enough inspectors for both the domestic and foreign repair stations. And there's a fatigue issue as well, for controllers and for others in the system.
Do you think you might require the FAA to revisit the air traffic controller contract that was imposed after a declared impasse? Controllers still don't regard that issue as settled.
The current law that allowed the FAA to implement their last and best offer is grossly unfair. Any time that one party can go into negotiations, knowing that in the end they're going to be able to get what they want if they don't reach an agreement, there is no incentive to reach an agreement or bargain in good faith. That is an issue I hope can be addressed by agreement between the FAA and Natca [National Air Traffic Controllers Assn.], but it's an issue we're going to look at in reauthorization. If I had my way, I'd send them back to the table tomorrow. There are issues that need to be resolved, but under current law the FAA is doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
Previously, the subcommittee has spent time exploring privatization of air traffic management. Are you at all interested in pursuing that?
When we talk about aviation, I think the No. 1 goal of our government and the FAA is safety and security. [Previous subcommittee] Chairman [John] Mica (R-Fla.) and I had disagreements over the issues of privatizing screeners and the air traffic control system. I think the system is safer today than it ever has been in the past because we have professional people doing the screening. I am not inclined, whatsoever, to privatize either the screeners or the air traffic controllers.
Do you anticipate any hearings this year on very light jets and UAVs in the National Airspace System?
If that happens, it will be later on in the year. The first part on the year is going to be consumed with the budget and with reauthorization and financing and other issues like safety. It's going to be a very busy year.
Just when the Republicans thought it was safe to go back in the air.:eek:
User pays in aviation was, is and will always remain a crock of you know what.
For the FAA side of the argument.
go here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/02/12/AW_02_12_2007_p28-01
.xml&query=Jerry+Costello
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/12/2007, page 30
John M. Doyle and Adrian Schofield
New aviation subcommittee chairman to preside over FAA reauthorization
Printed headline: His Turn
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) took over chairmanship of the House aviation subcommittee in January after Democrats won control of Congress. Costello, 57, discussed FAA reauthorization and other issues facing the panel, with AVIATION WEEK editors John M. Doyle and Adrian Schofield. Excerpts follow:
AVIATION WEEK: The FAA reauthorization plans, outlined broadly in the president's Fiscal Year 2008 budget, call for a combination of user fees and taxes to pay for modernization, but haven't you questioned the need to change the funding system?
Costello: I believe that everything should be on the table. However, I am skeptical of the user fee system from the standpoint of how it would work, how the user fees would be collected, the administrative costs and the overhead of collecting these user fees. I'm not so certain that we couldn't use the existing structure to accomplish the same goals, but I am open to receiving the administration's proposal and to analyzing it, to see if it makes sense. My tendency is to believe that the current system is a better mechanism to reach our goals.
Credit: JOHN M. DOYLE/AW&ST
The FAA and others say modernizing the air traffic system will cost about $1 billion a year. Are you comfortable that kind of money is available in the system now?
I want to be convinced that under the current system, we do not have the revenue, that we can't pay for the modernization program. The FAA needs to convince us. The burden is on them to convince us the revenue is not there. I think the federal government has an obligation to make a robust contribution from the general fund.
Given the division within the industry over user fees and Congress's preoccupation with Iraq, are you at all concerned about getting FAA reauthorization done this year?
I'm hopeful that we can get it done. That is our goal, not only to get the reauthorization completed this fiscal year, but also to have a multi-year reauthorization. It is my intention and [House Transportation Committee] Chairman [James] Oberstar's (D-Minn.) intention to move very quickly. You're going to see in March and April a number of hearings on the administration's reauthorization proposal. I would expect we'll have anywhere from 4-5 hearings in March. I am committed to getting a reauthorization bill out this year.
Is there going to be room on the panel's schedule for other issues?
In addition to attempting to get the reauthorization done this year, we intend to provide what I believe has been lacking in the past: aggressive oversight of the FAA and other programs under our jurisdiction. I have concerns about staffing levels over at the FAA. Are we meeting the number of retirements, for instance, with the air traffic controllers? I want to make certain that we have enough air traffic controllers to handle the system. No. 2 is to make certain that we have enough inspectors for both the domestic and foreign repair stations. And there's a fatigue issue as well, for controllers and for others in the system.
Do you think you might require the FAA to revisit the air traffic controller contract that was imposed after a declared impasse? Controllers still don't regard that issue as settled.
The current law that allowed the FAA to implement their last and best offer is grossly unfair. Any time that one party can go into negotiations, knowing that in the end they're going to be able to get what they want if they don't reach an agreement, there is no incentive to reach an agreement or bargain in good faith. That is an issue I hope can be addressed by agreement between the FAA and Natca [National Air Traffic Controllers Assn.], but it's an issue we're going to look at in reauthorization. If I had my way, I'd send them back to the table tomorrow. There are issues that need to be resolved, but under current law the FAA is doing exactly what the law allows them to do.
Previously, the subcommittee has spent time exploring privatization of air traffic management. Are you at all interested in pursuing that?
When we talk about aviation, I think the No. 1 goal of our government and the FAA is safety and security. [Previous subcommittee] Chairman [John] Mica (R-Fla.) and I had disagreements over the issues of privatizing screeners and the air traffic control system. I think the system is safer today than it ever has been in the past because we have professional people doing the screening. I am not inclined, whatsoever, to privatize either the screeners or the air traffic controllers.
Do you anticipate any hearings this year on very light jets and UAVs in the National Airspace System?
If that happens, it will be later on in the year. The first part on the year is going to be consumed with the budget and with reauthorization and financing and other issues like safety. It's going to be a very busy year.
Just when the Republicans thought it was safe to go back in the air.:eek:
User pays in aviation was, is and will always remain a crock of you know what.
For the FAA side of the argument.
go here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/02/12/AW_02_12_2007_p28-01
.xml&query=Jerry+Costello