Although Republicans typically have been harder to sell on the need for an increased passenger facility charge, the party’s dominant victories this week may not have a detrimental effect on the industry’s efforts, sources say.
The GOP increased its majority in the U.S. House and took control of the U.S. Senate – winning an upset over longtime aviation supporter, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., to boot.
But several observers say it’s too early to tell how the election will affect negotiations on the proposed PFC increase, which trade organizations such as Airports Council International-North America and the American Association of Airport Executives have made their top priority as the new Congress and the Obama administration prepare to start negotiations on a new bill funding the Federal Aviation Administration.
The current funding bill expires in September.
Stephen Van Beek, a vice president with ICF International and former member of the FAA Management Advisory Council whose term expired earlier this year, says the last two FAA reauthorization bills have been “status quo” bills with few major changes. He says stakeholders seem to understand that the existing framework no longer works long term and that there is a need for a more transformative bill going forward.
So, although a PFC increase faces heavy opposition from the airline industry and many lawmakers who oppose increasing taxes and fees, it might become more palatable if it results in changes to other aspects of the FAA’s funding mechanism, Van Beek says.
“I think we have one of those once-in-25-year opportunities to see big reform in aviation,” he says. “I think it would help everybody. … If that kind of thing happens, it will shuffle the deck with how things are currently done.”
In fact, one observer says if the industry plays its cards correctly, Republican control in Congress could benefit airports’ efforts to increase the PFC. Robert Poole, director of transportation policy for the Reason Foundation, says if trade organizations such as ACI-NA and AAAE can market the PFC as a method of shifting funding for airports from the federal level to the local level, they may gain support from the majority party.
“A Republican House and Senate are likely to increase the focus on getting the federal budget under control, which will mean further cutting the budget,” he says. “That means general fund money will be increasingly scarce in coming years. If large and medium-hub airports can make the case that higher PFCs would permit them to be self-funded rather than depending on [Airport Improvement Program] grants,” that could position the FAA as being able to get by with decreased general fund money.
The advisory council on which Van Beek was a member presented to lawmakers and the Obama information a lengthy document with several recommendations for changes. Those and others likely will be under consideration as negotiations commence, he says. Van Beek notes that President Obama recently has indicated that the aviation bill and a separate surface transportation funding bill could be areas where the Democrat administration and GOP Congress could find common ground.
It’s too early to say, Van Beek says, how the election could impact other political issues, such as funding for NextGen, privatizing airports or changing how air traffic control operates.
Also important and up in the air is how leadership on the various transportation committees will shake out, he adds. Rahall was a longtime aviation supporter, and his likely successor as the ranking Democrat member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., whose positions are similar, he says.
What’s not necessarily too early to see, Van Beek says, is that leaders in both parties seem to understand that there is no appetite for issues from the recent past such as sequestration, FAA furloughs and government shutdowns to rear their heads again.
“We don’t want that stuff to happen again,” he says.
