|
United States Pilots Association |
This is being written on Friday, May 2nd. I have just been informed that after two years of begging, lobbying, cajoling, and other appropriate verbiage, we have gotten to the point where a no user fee bill is about to pass in both houses of Congress. To help you all analyze what comes next, I offer the following scenario.
The bill passes and President Bush vetos it because it does not give the airlines greater power to regulate the air traffic control system. His second reason to veto is that user fees to you and I are excluded in the current version of the bill as it comes out of the joint Senate-House conference. Both reasons have been stated by the President's advisors. (See the AOPA newsletter of today online).
I have a theory on why the President is doing this. First, John McCain (Republican) is on record as stating no new taxes. If President Bush forces the inclusion of user fees and permits the proverbial fox into the hen house by giving the airlines the ability to control the skies, Sen. McCain will not be blamed for the increases in fees, should he be elected. The dubious honor will fall to President Bush.
Do we really want the airlines running the FAA ATC system?. I think not. Every time deregulation has been tried, it ends up a disaster. Just look at your electric and phone bills. Look at the chaos in the airline industry with bankruptcies and mergers where the only ones who profit are the CEOs and upper level management. Look at the banking industry where greed leads to lending that requires the federal government to step in and bail them out. I see convoys of truckers surrounding the capitol protesting the price of fuel. Even the brilliant CEOs of the airlines missed that one coming. I also see many less of us out there flying every day due solely to the price of fuel. Even with all of the inconvenience, it is still cheaper for two people to fly in an airliner than to use their own plane.
It has become very apparent to me that our government is pro big business (the airlines) and wants to get out of the aviation regulation business by "outsourcing" as much of the FAA's functions as it can. The problem, as I see it, is: What happens when most of the remaining airlines are unable to stem the flow of red ink and succumb to their own greed by filing for bankruptcy protection? Who then benefits? Is the government going to spend our money bailing out the airlines as they have done the banks and the investment industry (Bear-Stearns)?
My suggestion is to get rid of the petrified wood running the FAA. Send Mr. Sturgell to a FSDO in Alaska and let him learn first hand what it takes to be an administrator. Send Nick Sabbatini to retirement. Anyone who grounds a fleet of MD-80 aircraft because of a possible half inch or less of spacing in wire bundles needs to be fired. Why was it OK to take the grounding action against American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, when all the furor raised over the weather delays last winter was legitimately blamed on the airlines, and here the FAA grounded hundreds of thousands of people for no legitimate reason?
I was there when the Aloha 737 shed it's cabin roof in Hawaii. I totally agree with the required inspections for fuselage cracks, now mandated by the FAA. Could someone please explain to me how an airline can perform dye penetrant or eddy current inspection on a fleet involving hundreds of planes and get it done in one night. This is what was done by Southwest. The wiring bundle problem (?) involving the American Airlines MD-80 fleet astounds me. I think this is all part of the "feel good" mentality the government is trying to promote.
My conclusion inevitably comes back to this. George Bush has an agenda favoring big oil, the airlines, and big business. He apparently owes some folks big time for getting him into his present position. There is no doubt in my mind that the price of oil will sooner or later fall back to far more reasonable costs. Will we be flying when this happens? Only time will tell.
Steve Uslan, President
USPA