Dysfunction stymies FAA
Published 12:01 am Thursday, July 28, 2011
Under the radar that’s tracking any sign of movement in debt ceiling/deficit talks, Congress created another political pileup last weekend.
Partisan differences (surprise!) allowed the Federal Aviation Administration’s authorization to lapse, forcing the agency to furlough about 4,000 workers and stop collecting taxes that fund airport and runway construction.
Employees considered essential, like air-traffic controllers, remain on the job. But construction projects at airports have stopped, idling more workers in an already stalled economy.
As with the stalemate over the debt ceiling, both parties deserve blame, and neither seems willing to consider a grown-up approach that would involve compromise.
They’ve also created an unseemly sideshow within the airline industry. With the FAA unable to collect some $25 million a day in tax revenue that’s normally paid by passengers, most airlines have raised their fares by the amount of the tax, keeping the difference. (One notable exception is Seattle-based Alaska Airlines, which is passing the tax-holiday savings on to its customers in a potential public-relations coup.)
Now, we don’t necessarily begrudge struggling airlines trying to shore up their finances, especially given high fuel costs and a hyper-competitive atmosphere that has kept fares relatively low. A healthy airline industry is clearly good for our region’s aerospace-dependent economy, and overall, it hasn’t been healthy in years.
But Congress’ inaction has put airlines in a tough spot. They’ve argued consistently and loudly that such taxes, which they pass through to passengers at a cost of $25 to $50 per round trip, are bad for business. Yet when they’re eliminated, most don’t give passengers the benefit — rightly or wrongly.
Either way, the airlines look disingenuous; customers just feel dissed.
Because Congress has been locked in a disagreement over a long-term FAA authorization since 2007, a series of short-term extensions had become routine. The Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee, John Mica of Florida, apparently has had enough of that. He wants a cut of $16.5 million in the bloated Essential Air Service program, which subsidizes rural airport service and has ballooned far beyond its original mandate. The Washington Post reports that between 1997 and 2007, spending in the program quadrupled, to $109.4 million, with about a fifth of all commercial airports served by it. The program’s median subsidy is about $100 per passenger.
Mica’s point is valid, and Senate Democrats previously agreed to cuts in the program. So compromise on an amount to cut, already. Pass an extension, and get to work on negotiations for a new, long-term FAA authorization.
Failure to make a deal represents nothing less than a failure to govern. Yeah, we know … what else is new?
