It's Said the Devil Is in the Details ...

... and that is certainly the case with President Obama’s proposal announced on Labor Day to invest in U.S. roads, railways, and airports. A phone conversation with Greg Principato, president of Airports Council International-North America, makes the point. Says Principato, “You have to sit down and look at the details and there really are no more details than can fit on a one-page fact sheet right now. It’s not three cheers – it’s sort of one and a half or two cheers. Infrastructure was deemed as important, and airports were seen as part of that; I will hold the third cheer until we see the details.” Regarding aviation, the White House press release states … “The Administration proposes to invest in our nation's airports by improving their runways and other equipment and facilities. We also propose a robust investment in our effort to modernize the nation's air traffic control system (NextGen). This investment will help both the FAA and airlines to install new technologies and, among other improvements, move from a national ground-based radar surveillance system to a more accurate satellite-based surveillance system -- the backbone of a broader effort to reduce delays for passengers, increase fuel efficiency for carriers, and cut airport noise for those who live and work near airports.” Chip Barclay, president of the American Association of Airport Executives, in a release states, “Greater funding for infrastructure is the right move and now is the right time -- for jobs, for the economy, and for future generations of Americans.” At the top of the ‘details list’ is getting a reluctant Congress to get on board and pass legislation. About that Principato says, “Any idea right now is going to be politicized. Every time someone has an idea – good, bad, or indifferent – there’s going to be a political context to it, which is unfortunate. The Administration has made it clear it will be paid for, without providing details.” Part of the Administration’s proposal calls for a new Infrastructure Bank to be created, which it claims will help depoliticize (or de-earmark) the grant process. I asked Principato if he saw that as a potential threat to the Airport Improvement Program. His thoughts: “It depends -- how it’s capitalized; what it’s used for. What I don’t want is for airport projects to be totally federalized. As Moses said, let our airports go. Let airports charge PFCs [passenger facility charges] that make sense, and use that combined with other revenues that are generated to finance projects that are needed in those communities, rather than have Washington figure it out. If the Infrastructure Bank is a complement to that, I think it’s good.” At the end of the day, he adds, there’s an easier way – pass the long-term FAA/aviation reauthorization bill, versions of which have long been approved by each House of Congress. Says Principato, “In the meantime, we have a bill sitting there that could be taken care of in a couple of hours and create 125,000 jobs a year; improve our aviation infrastructure; and have no impact on the federal deficit. Find me another bill that would do those things.” Amen. Thanks for reading. jfi