Hmmm...not sure why it wants you to log in...I can look at it OK.
Here's the text:
Longtime supporter of GA Republican Representative Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) has gone rogue.
The chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Shuster, is who is thought of by AOPA as one of the good guys in the House, announced yesterday that he would support eliminating the FAA's air traffic control services to be replaced by a private not-for-profit company that would fund itself by charging user fees to pilots who made use of its services.
It's possibly the worst idea in the history of Congress meddling in aviation affairs. And in its support of user fees the idea would be in line with President Obama's longtime support of direct payment for ATC services. Shuster, as you might guess, is not usually so tight with the president.
The FAA's inefficiency — hey, I'm being nice here — is well known, but its impeccable safety record is, too. It overspends, over-regulates, under plans and still manages to provide world-class services. I pay for those services too. Every time I fill up and drop a few hundred dollars at the pumps, a hefty chunk of that dough goes to running the National Airspace System. It's a tax I'm glad to pay because I get a lot for my money and I know the people running the joint are answerable to the people, at least in theory and in practice to some very real degree. Ask the former head of the TSA how his track record of screening for weapons worked out for his job security.
The move would be a profoundly undemocratic one, too. Instead of the corporation that would end up running ATC being responsible to the American public, it would be beholden to two masters, its board and its shareholders. Congress could conceivably design an oversight role for itself in the plan, but most of us would agree that Congress' record on spending and achievement compares unfavorably to that of the FAA. When they do anything.
The system isn't broken. Fuel taxes pay for services.
The airlines, bless their microscopic little souls, would love to pawn off the cost of ATC onto GA through user fees that would count their 300-passenger airplane going out of JFK and crossing the continent the same as a four-seater getting vectors for the approach to a local strip because of worsening weather. The airlines believe in making money by spending as little of it as possible, as evidenced by, well by just about everything they do, from employment contracts to peanut distribution — finally, they've put an end to that wasteful practice. Letting GA pay more than its fair share for ATC is a potential windfall for them.
That our friends in Congress, well at least one of them, is behind the idea is disheartening, but not all that surprising. Follow the money, and you'll see that being a champion of what's right and a friend to the little guy doesn't pay for elections and campaign chests the way that being on the side of airlines and giant corporations does. Selling out the American heritage of open skies not just for the big boys but for all of us is the cost, in this case, of having wealthy friends in high places. Shuster, who has consistently backed pilots' rights, is on the wrong side on this one.
We all need to let him know that in no uncertain terms.
