GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is marking up a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill even though the agency and the air traffic controllers union have not reached an accord in contract talks.

Top Democrats and Republicans on the committee have agreed not to include in the bill language requiring FAA and the union to revive failed talks last year over wages and other issues, Transportation and Infrastructure ranking member John Mica, R-Fla., said.

But committee Democrats will offer an amendment that would support the union's position to retroactively require binding arbitration, which would have the effect of reopening last year's discussions, Mica said. The White House has threatened to veto that retroactive language and Mica said he expects Congress would sustain that veto.

The committee's bill was not yet introduced at presstime and a spokeswoman for Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., declined to comment.

Committee discussions over how to introduce a bipartisan measure and then move it through a markup -- along with renewed talks this month between the FAA and National Air Traffic Controllers Association -- had initially threatened to delay Thursday's consideration of the reauthorization bill until after the Independence Day recess.

The addition of the reauthorization bill to the agenda of Thursday's markup -- which will include other measures as well -- was not announced until Wednesday afternoon.

When talks broke down with NATCA in April 2006, FAA sent Congress its final offer to the union. FAA interpreted language in the 1996 FAA authorization bill as giving the agency the right to then begin implementing that final offer in June last year unless Congress acted within 60 days.

A Republican-controlled Congress did not act within those two months. FAA and NATCA resumed contract talks for the past 10 days under the urging of committee leaders, but that also failed to resolve their differences.

Mica, who backs FAA in the talks, suggested Wednesday he may not try to stand in the way of moving the bill through committee Thursday but he has "made no commitments beyond markup on what I'm going to do if they add the NATCA contract reach-back."

Mica said the committee is "going to continue to put pressure on [FAA and NATCA] to settle their differences rather than having a food fight over this issue on the Hill."

Oberstar and Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., argued in a letter in March to Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and House Democratic leaders that FAA's "interpretation of the law gives it an inherent, unfair advantage to impose its contract terms on employees." Further, "such a one-sided process has been an impediment to good faith negotiations that could have led to a voluntary contract."

FAA officials have countered that the agency would be the only taxpayer-funded federal entity other than the U. S. Postal Service to have to go to binding arbitration. The Democrats' effort also would remove budgetary control from Congress and the executive branch and give it to an unelected arbitrator, FAA has contended.

The committee's bill Thursday also will not include aviation user fees backed by the Bush administration but would raise from $4.50 to a maximum of $7 the fee per flight segment an airport can charge passengers, Mica said.

A four-year Senate Commerce Committee FAA reauthorization bill would impose a new $25 per flight user fee. The House Ways and Means Committee has yet to look at aviation excise taxes while the Senate Finance Committee is tentatively set to do so July 12.

COMMENTS

• It’s amazing to see all these people who aren’t air traffic controllers, or dare I say know it all’s, belittle us. Realize you are on the outside looking in. Controllers aren’t complaining about wanting an increase in pay. We are complaining about unfair labor practices! FAA imposed work rules on controllers as a statement. They didn’t negotiate! From the very first day, these imposed work rules have never changed. In plain words “take it or leave it”. That is what the FAA said during the negotiation process. In 1981, controllers were paid $18,000 USD as their starting salary. In 2007, 26 years later, the starting salary is still $18,000 USD! The FAA imposed a 30% pay cut across the board as well as cutting retirement pay and promotions. With the Iraq War, cuts or freezes are common. Who doesn’t understand that? But we have families to support. That’s why there should be negotiations, not the FAA abusing their power. The agency’s managers and supervisors still and have always made a lot more than the controllers without the pay cut. However their reason for cutting controllers pay is because of money issues. This war has put a toll on the economy but yet this agency is asking for 15 billion USD for their “next generation”. That’s a lot of money for a system that is based on a theory and the advancement of technology. Our current system is effective, efficient, and most of all safe. Controller base judgement calls on experience and instincts. This agency jeopardizes safety with their “cut all corners attitude”. I can go on but for now get all the facts and read between the lines before ridiculing us. By the way I am a veteran and did the exact same job in the military. The difference is I was appreciated in the military and I got a lot more benefits. its not a contract. Posted July 17, 2007 11:27 PM
• I'm sure there are plenty of controllers out there who love their jobs the same way that I did before I retired. But all we seem to hear about is the poor overworked controller who makes thousands of death defying decisions everyday and how thousands will die if they make a mistake. Who cares? Professional pilots who fly the system every day could make similar claims, but they don't. Many surgeons could make similar claims, but they don't. And there are certainly many jobs in our military that could elicit similar remarks but they don't. I don't know whether the difference is professionalism or what but you need to quit with the drama folks. It makes you look petty and belittles the great job that you are doing. Neither party (FAA/Union) is innocent in this matter with both sides out to get the other, but the employer has to prevail. End of story. Next! Ron Ivey Posted July 5, 2007 3:56 PM
• Dear Dan Ketter, First of all I am an Air Traffic Controller AND a Veteran. I am also a Union Representative. I believe that you are way off the mark! Let's talk about trading places with a soldier. Yes, I could do that! I could go to Iraq and pick up a gun and walk the streets looking for insurgents. But how many of them could do what I do every day? They are responsible for the lives of their comrades. I am responsible for thousands of lives every day! What about your job? I don't know what you do, but if you don't bat 1000 every day, what happens? In my job, if I don't bat 1000 every day, airplanes crash! What about the all controllers who were on duty on 9/11? They were serving their country just as surely as the soldier in Iraq. How many lives do you think controllers saved that day? Yes, a 50 hour week is a big deal for someone who can't just take a little cat nap while your airplane is cruising across the sky at 450 miles per hour, hoping everything works out ok! Controllers deserve a fair chance at bargaining a fair contract! Just think about how much you appreciate us next time you are at 35,000 feet and your life is in our hands! We think about you every time we sit down in front of a radarscope - and we pray to God that he guides our thoughts and actions and keeps us sharp, so that we CAN Guide You Safely Home! Jim Allerdice Posted July 4, 2007 8:54 AM