Thinking outside the box
The problem is many of the recommendations call for further study putting off any potential benefits to the airlines industry or consumers. Calling for further study is a typical Washington stalling mechanism but, given the expertise of the committee members, the recommendations pinpoint areas that really require further study to build a case for meeting the recommendations goals. They also reflect the committee’s willingness to think outside the box in proposing solutions.
For example, the committee recommended FAA “review and refine what is meant by aviation infrastructure.” Based on the conclusions in that study, the department should update and modernize the eligibility criteria for the Airport Improvement and Passenger Facility Charges programs - paid for by passengers - with an eye toward using such funding for “NextGen equipment, operational capabilities, and performance based procedures to produce a demonstrated, near-term improvement in operational performance at airports.”
Changes, however, would not only require increases in funding levels for both programs but will require legislative action. FAA would be tasked for developing such legislation for DOT. Airports are already facing stiff opposition from airlines on raising the PFC from the current USD4.50 to USD7 even as they continue to pour on ancillary fees.
Creative thinking can also be seen in its recommendations for a task force on intermodal transportation in addition to a review of the eligibility criteria for Essential Air Services. The committee wants to reform EAS linking it to how intermodal programs can meet the needs of keeping communities connected more efficiently. For instance, intermodal programs are already out there including a United/Continental bus between Pennsylvania’s Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton airport to Newark as a codeshare.
Such reforms would acknowledge the realities of EAS service including the fact that the leakage from many EAS points is already at 90%, according to committee member Severin Bornstein, ET Grether Professor of Business Administration and Public Policy at the Haas School of Business at Berkeley. That means the market has already spoken and it is driving to the nearest hub. He likened the INVESTMENT to getting 10 cents of value for every USD1 spent. He suggested points within a reasonable driving distance of a hub, such as Hagerstown, MD, be eliminated from EAS.
Recommendations, including a limit on the number of EAS eligible points in the lower 48 states, although the committee made a point that EAS should be maintained for certain points especially those in really rural areas and Alaska. Changing EAS could be another hard issue since Congress is reluctant to give up this piece of pork. The program was supposed to sunset in 1988 but it was made permanent by Congress in the 1990s. Just in the past few years, Congress has increased funding for the program despite withering criticism from the media.
Here again, the committee is thinking outside of the box in tying the EAS to the development of intermodal programs. It also indicated that any legislation developing an infrastructure bank, include in the eligibility, projects that link airports with other forms of transportation, such as rail and transit to create transportation hubs that serve multiple cities. It wants barriers to intermodal transport removed.
Also on the study agenda would be prioritizing the FAA safety agenda. To this Babbitt pinpointed one of the toughest challenges as the committee recommended the DOT use data analysis to determine whether current priorities are getting the biggest safety bang for the buck.
“As everyone knows, I have a great deal of help establishing priorities including from our 535 friends not far from here,” he said in a massive understatement on the political interference coming from Capitol Hill. Indeed, the agency’s agenda is riddled with Congressional mandates which distract resources from pursuing safety initiatives which are more important.