GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by voice vote Thursday approved a four-year $66 billion Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, provoking a White House veto threat over language reopening contract talks between the agency and the air traffic controllers union.

By a 53-16 vote, the committee approved an amendment from Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Costello, D-Ill., retroactively requiring FAA and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association to go to an independent binding arbitration board to settle differences over wages and other issues. It would be retroactive to affect contract talks that broke down between the FAA and the union in April 2006.

When those talks ended, FAA sent Congress its final offer to the union and cited language in the 1996 FAA authorization bill as giving it 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.

Costello said current law "does not promote good-faith negotiations" and "clearly benefits one side -- the FAA." His amendment received the backing of 14 Republicans -- including Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the panel's former chairman, despite a White House veto threat that was issued immediately following the markup.

"The union is now turning to Congress in an attempt to invalidate an almost year-old contract that saves the American taxpayer more than $1.9 billion over a five-year period, supports investments in new air traffic equipment and provides the flexibility needed to manage record demand for air travel," according to a statement from Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, which contained the veto threat.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., dismissed that threat. "Apparently everything is getting veto threats these days," she said.

Transportation and Infrastructure ranking member John Mica, R-Fla., asserted that retroactively reopening the contract talks was a "nonstarter" with Senate Commerce Aviation Subcommittee ranking member Trent Lott, R-Miss., who told Mica he would oppose naming Senate conferees if the House approved that language.

"This is the show stopper," Mica said. "This is the poison pill that really can kill FAA reauthorization."

Peters is open to another contract offer from the union, Mica added.

Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., clarified that Costello's amendment would be null and void if the two sides reach a contract agreement before the bill becomes law and that it should spur them to complete the talks.

A fight on the language is expected when the bill hits the floor as early as mid-July. Congress is trying to reauthorize FAA before aviation excise taxes expire at the end of September.

The FAA reauthorization bill from fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2011 would authorize $50.2 billion for FAA operations, facilities and equipment and $15.8 billion to modernize the nation's air traffic control system via the Airport Improvement Program.

It recommends that the House Ways and Means Committee raise the general aviation jet fuel tax from 21.8 cents per gallon to 30.7 cents per gallon to keep up with inflation and the aviation gas tax from 19.3 cents per gallon to 24.1 cents per gallon to help pay for modernization efforts and to stabilize the aviation trust fund.

The bill does not include user fees backed by the Bush administration and airlines and opposed by general aviation and the air traffic controllers union. But it does raise from $4.50 to $7.00 the maximum fee per flight segment an airport can charge passengers.

A FAA reauthorization bill the Senate Commerce Committee approved in May would impose a new $25 per flight surcharge.

Airlines and the Bush administration have advocated this type of user fee while criticizing the current system of excise taxes for being unfair to airlines.

Airlines contribute more than 90 percent of the revenue going into the federal aviation trust fund while using about 70 percent of the national air traffic control system.

General aviation proponents contend that the airlines are using the bulk of the more expensive and extensive infrastructure at major airports and should be responsible for a bigger piece of the trust fund revenue pie.

COMMENTS

• I have recently retired from a busy east coast center after 23 years "on the boards" as a controller at various towers and finally the center. The imposed work rules were a factor in my decision to retire as soon as I was eligible. Terry McGovern Posted July 23, 2007 10:02 PM
• PGFREE - it sounds like you're sipping the same Kool-Aid that the FAA management people are. You say that you know ALL about what life as an ATC is like huh? You have (WOW) 10 whole years as an ATC huh? Where - an some podunk VFR tower somewhere? We work our ASSES off at my ATC-12 facility. The ATM managament tools that you speak about are just about useless in busy corridors like the east coast and west coast. WE separate and sequence the traffic, NOT the damn ATM tools! Come here during summer thunderstorms and watch us perform our magic. I EARN my money and I deserve every penny of it. Mark Sickle Posted July 20, 2007 8:21 PM
• Hey there Mr. PGFREE. I bet your having been a controller for over 10 years doesn't include any recent time does it. As a REAL supervisory Air Traffic Controller, and a controller for almost 30 years, I see what these guys do day in and day out, and it's nothing short of incredible. They are the highest paid because they deserve to be. And as far as the "ATM (air traffic management) tools/computer systems currently in use at virtually all ARTCCs and TRACONs across the country", you must be kidding me right? What do they have to do with lessening a controllers workload. It's all about maximizing airspace and squeezing every bit of capacity out of the system, so don't talk to me about reducing thier workload 10 fold, because that is just a lie. An FAA management type lie. And where are those tools when the weather moves in? They are next to useless then, that's when the controllers really earn thier money. As far an NATCA goes, they are no worse or no better than FAAMA who lobbies congress for what they want for thier members. And while we're at it, let's tell the truth about the 5-15% pay bump they get for being coded as 2152's. First off it's maxed out at 10% and that is at the highest cost of living areas in the country, not all facilities get it.In fact most of them don't get anything I believe. Second of all , you conveniently forgot to mention that as a result of the "imposed work rules" they are going to lose 20% of that each year until it's gone. But management still gets it all. That's right, my paycheck didn't go down a dime this year. You speak like someone who used to be a controller and now is "hiding" from the traffic in some nice cushy office somewhere. Come on back, man, the water's fine. And we'll see how you change your tune about how overpaid and whiney these guys are. It seems to me by your post you are the one whining. disgruntled supervisor Posted July 8, 2007 11:35 PM