Carpe Diem
The core question is this: How can Congress direct aviation's future without clear, uniform industry input?
BY J.E. Murdock III, Partner, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
June 1999
As the decade of the 1990s comes to a close, there are a lot of exogenous variables (the economy, oil prices, security threats in the Middle East and Europe, etc.) that can be very threatening to all aspects of aviation. One of these concerns must be the Congress of the United States and what it will (probably will not) do this year or next in defining the rules by which general aviation, airlines, manufacturers, pilots, repair stations, etc., operate.
If the member who
holds the pen for such legislation has particularly myopic vision, we
could see ...
• an Air Traffic Control system that is underfunded (perhaps further short
of capital);
• an FAA that is falling behind in its agenda and loses the global initiative
to the rest of the world;
• gridlock in aviation because of real limits on runways; or
... a whole host of other horribles that are unthinkable to those of us
who earn our livings from aviation.
The Washington Impasse
Conventional wisdom places the Congressional process in the same category
as weather — it is very easy to complain about the situation, but it is
almost impossible to do anything about it. The analogy is quite apt: The
Administration and the Congress are far distant from the reality that
is aviation. They tend to listen to ad hoc consumer horror stories from
constituents and try to take that data as a basis for defining general
solutions. They listen to self-nominated safety experts who seem to be
omniscient and adopt their unproven solutions to complex FAA systems or
engineering issues. (The gods don't seem to listen to mere mortals, so
why bother?)
Yet, the situation
is not that dire — our Senators and Congresspersons want to hear from
our industry. The problem is that they get conflicting advice from each
segment of the business:
• labor has its answers;
• the ATA reports its solutions to the problems but every so often one
of its airline members goes directly to Congress (Why can't we suspend
the First Amendment?) and suggests the opposite is true;
• NBAA has its agenda, but AOPA, NATA, GAMA, EAA, NASAO, and all the others
in this segment of the industry have certain truths on which they all
agree, but each must have its slight variations on those themes.
• AAAE and ACI-NA agree on a lot, but their views are from a very different
perspective.
Ah, Excuse Me, Mr. Senator ...
For the moment, assume that you are a Senator, Congressperson, or, more
likely, her/his staff member trying to fathom what the aviation industry
wants from the current pattern of positions that more resemble a scattergram.
There is virtually no industry consensus on any of the major issues that
aviation is presently facing , and there are a lot :
• PFCs,
• user fees,
• slots at the high-density airports,
• taking the Trust Fund off budget,
• consumer protection rules,
• hub concentration issues,
• competition,
• contract towers,
• ATC modernization; and, on and on and on.
Under these contentious circumstances, it's not surprising that the Hill is not anxious to write the definitive law on aviation. For the past 18 months or so, after several short-term extensions of the FAA's authorizing statute, it has become abundantly clear that Congress will do little to resolve these critical issues — without some clear consensus.
This is the moment to capture
These observations are the predicate for the headine of this essay: Carpe
Diem (seize the day). The leadership of the aviation industry — the Carols
and Jacks and Jims and Eds and Davids and Chips, who represent their segments
of this fantastic business, must seize this opportunity. Their charge,
however, is not to see that the interests of each segment maximizes its
advantages in the political fray; that task is traditionally why the airlines
and unions and States and unions and GA pilots and manufacturers and all
other interests have paid them the big bucks as their Washington representatives.
They have been very successful in these micro-strategies. Now, however, they need to get some new orders from their constituencies.
It is time that we as an industry try to optimize the benefits for the industry as a single entity. It is no longer prudent for GA to think "zero sum" games when it devises its strategy on user fees. The multi-faceted airline industry needs to take a far more macro look at its real long-term agenda. (Are PFCs really all that bad?) Unions, airports, manufacturers, States, etc., must try to think out-of-the-box and recognize that a compromise of some "need" may allow another segment to capture some truly important goal.
The leaders mentioned herein are capable of such vision. They are also realists and know that without support from their members they will be fired as quickly as they were hired. So Carpe Diem applies to each of us in the industry.
Call/write/email your favorite aviation association executive and tell her/him to expand their statesmanship (statespersonship) capacity. Tell them that you want to look to the long-term interests of all segments of aviation. That, in the long term, a healthy, cooperative aviation business will be the most successful approach.
Yea, on dark nights when you are at home alone, you harbor evil thoughts about your competitor, but later you realize that most rules that target your competitor require little adjustments to harm you.
Aviation has almost reached 100 years of recorded history. We, as an industry, need to keep that long-term, broad-based perspective in mind as we move into the year 2000. Myopic approaches will not result in long-term optimization. We must allow our leaders to take the macro road to tomorrow and minimize their micro-perspectives. Give them a call and let them know that you want him/her to take such a position.
