The U.S. Senate by an 87-8 vote last week approved a $34.5 billion, two-year Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. The U.S. House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee previously approved a four-year, $59.7 billion FAA bill that now awaits a vote by the full House. If the House version is approved, it would need to be reconciled with the Senate version, which has many similarities but also a few key differences. Congress has extended the existing FAA reauthorization bill 17 times, with the most recent extension set to expire March 31.
Within the Senate bill, lawmakers sought to "establish clear deadlines" for implementing the Next Generation air traffic control system--at the busiest 35 airports by 2014, and for the entire national airspace system by 2018. The Senate bill also would create an oversight board for FAA's modernization programs and a "Chief NextGen Officer" at FAA to oversee implementation of and provide greater accountability for all NextGen programs. It sets aside for air traffic control equipment the first $500 million collected each year from aviation taxes "derived from the Air Traffic Control System Modernization Account of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund."
"The bill will support thousands of jobs, strengthen airline safety and modernize America's outdated air traffic control system," according to a statement attributed to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee chairman John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.).
Approved by the House Transportation Committee by a vote of 34 to 25, the House version also addresses NextGen ATC by providing funding and calling for streamlined development processes. Like the Senate bill, the House bill would set implementation deadlines and also establish "metrics for better measurement of NextGen progress and to ensure more effective cost management," according to the House Transportation Committee, which claimed its bill would create and protect more than 600,000 jobs during the next four years.
The House bill also would require the FAA administrator "to identify significant cost savings without cutting any safety-critical activities," according to House Transportation Committee chairman John Mica (R-Fla.), adding that the legislation would provide "approximately $4 billion in savings compared to current funding levels."
"The federal government must do more with less," Mica continued, "and this bill does just that by requiring the FAA to identify savings in a manner that does not negatively impact aviation safety. Our aviation system is critical to the U.S. economy, and this bill ensures that the nation's aviation industry remains vital and competitive."
Disagreements
The House and Senate versions of a new FAA reauthorization present some differences for lawmakers to overcome. For example, the House bill would phase out funding for the Essential Air Service Program--which guarantees a minimum level of air service for smaller communities--by cutting $400 million over four years. By contrast, the Senate bill would allocate $200 million to the Essential Air Service Program, "allowing communities greater flexibility in attracting desired air service," according to Rockefeller. The Senate bill permits "new financial incentives in contracts with EAS carriers, allows for longer-term contracts, and allows for development incentives for large airlines to code share on service to small communities."
"Thankfully, we fought off efforts by some to cut back on rural air service," Rockefeller added, noting how such service benefits his state. "Although we must and will reduce the deficit, haphazard cuts will compromise the safety and growth of our aviation system. I hope we can work with the House to get a bill to the President's desk quickly."
Meanwhile, the Senate bill calls for adding 16 daily takeoff and landing slots at Washington Reagan National Airport while the House version calls for 10.
Similarities
Notwithstanding the differences, the two bills agree in many respects. Despite, for example, suggestions from the Obama administrationthat airport passenger facility charges could be increased to offset cuts in federal monies allocated to airport projects, both the Senate and the House versions of the FAA reauthorization would maintain the cap at $4.50 per flight.
Additionally, both bills would require airlines within 180 days of enactment to publish on their websites updated lists of "chronically" delayed and canceled flights, including the on-time performance and cancellation rates of such flights.
The Senate bill also addresses such passenger rights issues as lengthy tarmac delaysand improper use of airport full-body scannerimages. It also would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue a rulemaking to compel carriers to publicly disclose a complete list of optional service fees, including those for checked baggage, meals and beverages, exit-row seating and ticket purchases completed through "an airline ticket agent or a travel agency."
Meanwhile, the House bill omits several controversial items, including a provision for grants of antitrust immunity between carriers to expire within three yearsand a ban on inflight cell phone use. According to Mica, those items, as well as a provision that would have allowed easier unionization by FedEx workers also excluded from the House bill, in the past "have stopped previous FAA bills from moving forward and becoming law."
"The last reauthorization was in 2003, and that expired in 2007," according to House aviation subcommittee chairman Tom Petri (R-Wis.) "That's no way to run a vital federal agency. Getting this bill enacted into law will provide needed certainty and consistent funding for more efficient and effective investment. We are in a difficult budget environment and can't do everything we want to right now, but we need to get on with the things we can and must do."
A statement from Global Business Travel Association executive director Mike McCormick urged the House "to quickly reach consensus in conference committee."