Three Republican congressmen have introduced the Restoring Local Control of Airports Act of 2016, which would allow airports to pursue passenger facility charges in excess of the current $4.50 federal cap.
The bill, introduced by David Jolly and Gus Bilirakis of Florida and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, would require large hub airports to give up Airport Improvement Program grants if they do increase their PFC above $4.50.
The proposal is being met with support from airport stakeholders.
“We commend Representatives Jolly, Massie, and Bilirakis for understanding the need to offer real solutions to the challenges facing our airports when it comes to meeting essential infrastructure needs,” says Kevin Burke, president and CEO of Airports Council International – North America. “This bill recognizes that we cannot simply ignore our infrastructure challenges and provides an approach that gets Washington out of the way of local infrastructure decisions.”
Both ACI-NA and the American Association of Airport Executives called on Congress to act on this proposal when reauthorization is next under discussion.
“We’re encouraged to see a growing bipartisan recognition in Congress that the antiquated federal cap on local passenger facility charges last adjusted 16 years ago is significantly limiting the ability of local airport authorities to build and upgrade aging facilities bursting at the seams with record passenger levels, growing checkpoint lines and crowded terminals,” says Joel Bacon, executive vice president for government and public affairs with AAAE. “It’s past time for Congress to see past airline rhetoric on PFCs and give airport the local flexibility they need to get the job done for their communities and the traveling public.”
The bill also would reduce the federal airline ticket tax from 7.5 percent to 7 percent. The PFC has been capped at $4.50 since 2000. The airport industry has lobbied for several years to increase the cap but has met fierce resistance from airline lobbyists and many conservatives who see the charge as a tax.
The trade organizations, however, are not the only supporter of the new bill. Marc Scribner, a fellow in the Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has long supported putting PFC funds back in the hands of airports’ local jurisdictions.
In a write-up on the organization’s website, he wrote that running local PFC funds through the federal government puts a stranglehold on airports, which often requires them to turn to airline customers to complete needed facility expansions and enhancements.
“The PFC is a local user fee alternative to federal grants strongly supported by free-market transportation researchers, which allows participating airports to behave more like businesses,” Scribner wrote. “The hope is that shifting airports away from traditional government subsidies and toward user fees will set the stage for broader reforms, such as privatization, in the future.”
Both the Senate and House did not address requests for a PFC increase in existing bills aimed at reauthorizing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. The House bill’s main focus was on changing the management structure behind air traffic control operations in the U.S., a move that has come under scrutiny by both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
The FAA currently is operating under an extension of its current funding, which initially passed in 2012 and expired Sept. 30 of 2015.
“We hope that when the House once again turns to considering a long-term FAA re-authorization that this proposal will be a part of the debate about how we build and maintain world-class 21st century airports,” Burke adds.
