You start figuring out what it really costs to have the safest aviation traffic system in the world, and it won't be FAA that downsizes or will be asked to...
Public opinion will sway harder toward user fees. Especially if airlines get all their fuel taxes back in that process.
What we pilot know about FAA (bloated, inefficient, like all large government agencies with no natural competition) isn't what the public will hear in that discussion.
They pay some of the best PR spin people on the planet to represent them, on your dime. Those PR people are not instructed to have the taxpayer's interests at heart when defending their agency, whether its FAA or any other.
100% guaranteed, if the wave of public opinion started crashing ashore that said FAA was too expensive, they would throw GA and everyone else they serve, under the bus and say we all just need to pay more to retain their services as the Galactic Aviation Wondefulness Force.
In all fairness, and speaking as one who intensely dislikes the federal government in general and believes that better of 80 percent of it should be dismantled, I must say that FAA seems much more efficient and annoys me a lot less than do most federal agencies.
I've been interacting with FAA in some way or another since the late 1970's, when I was in A&P school. I don't recall ever having had any bad experiences when dealing with FAA. When I've called, I've been able to talk to people who had good answers. When I've had occasion to visit in person, appointments have always been kept on-time, and the people I dealt with have been competent. When I've written, I've always received timely responses that accurately addressed whatever matter was in question.
So I really can't lump FAA in with the more typical federal agencies, most of which are staffed by nitwits whose overriding priorities are to remain unavailable, inaccessible, unaccountable, and essentially useless -- and to waste as much money as possible in the process.
I mean, seriously. Compare the experience of calling FAA with a question to that of calling almost any other federal agency. With FAA, after punching a few buttons, you'll get through to a real person who knows his or her job. Better yet, if you know which department handles whatever issue you're calling about and you call that department's published phone number directly, you can most likely skip all the button-pushing, because a real person usually will answer.
Try calling the VA, on the other hand. I tried for the better part of a week to get through to a real person at the VA regarding the mortgage guarantee benefit. No joy. No matter which number you call, you respond to about five minutes worth of prompts until finally you get to the last one, which informs you that no one's available -- and HANGS UP! There's not even a message or callback option.
Now, the fact that I have said nice things about the FAA doesn't mean I think everything they do makes sense. For example (and back to the topic), the third-class medical. They set the standards so high that many airmen who are perfectly able to fly safely are "disqualified;" and then routinely grant "special issuances" to these same "disqualified" aviators after the requisite amount of paperwork changes hands.
On the other hand, they let other aviators (SP) operate using their driver's licenses in lieu of medicals. The possession of a driver's license proves only that the holder wasn't completely blind and had the presence of mind to find the DMV office the last time they renewed their driver's license, which can be up to 10 years ago in New York.
Or more succinctly:
To fly, say, an Evector Sportstar or a Tecnam Sierra, you merely have to prove that you were neither totally blind nor too senile to find the DMV office as many as ten years ago.
But to fly a Cessna 150, you have to prove that you're healthy enough to qualify for the first manned mission to Mars -- except that if you're not healthy enough and are medically "disqualified," there's a better than 90 percent chance you can get certified anyway if you spend enough money, push enough paper, and waste enough of someone's time in OKC.
So how many dollars does FAA spend every year processing third-class SI's? Thousands? Millions? Why not just revise the third-class standards to bring them more in line with modern medicine, since more than 90 percent of SI requests are going to be approved, anyway?
Or alternatively, allow the CDL medical card to be used as an alternative for domestic, non-commercial operations. The physical itself is virtually identical, anyway.
Of course, using the CDL card as a medical wouldn't help perpetuate the myth that flying a light airplane is somehow more physically and mentally taxing than, for example, pulling a fully-loaded trailer (or two, or three) over crowded Interstate highways or through congested city traffic. That could be a problem because it would satisfy neither pilots' desires to feel "special" nor FAA's desire to pretend that setting absurd medical standards, and then routinely waiving those standards, makes some kind of sense from an aviation safety perspective.
No worries. Just add enough meaningless restrictions to keep everyone happy. For example: The CDL card is valid only domestically (obviously, since it wouldn't meet ICAO standards); it must be issued by a physician (as opposed to a PA, RN-P, etc.) to be valid for aviation use; no more than six souls on board could be carried; no aircraft with a MTOW greater than 12,500 could be flown... you know, stuff like that, just enough to perpetuate the respective myths and keep everyone feeling special and important.
-Rich
.
