"Airport projects could grind to halt if Congress doesn't reauthorize funding"

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

FAA faces widespread furloughs
By Bryon Okada
The Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram


TAMPA, Fla. - Thousands of the Federal Aviation Administration's 48,000
employees could be furloughed and airport projects could grind to a halt
Oct. 1 unless Congress reauthorizes the agency's funding in the next few
weeks, an FAA official said Monday.

FAA divisions must begin identifying employees today who are not essential
to aviation safety or security for a near-shutdown of the agency, Woodie
Woodward, the FAA's associate administrator for airports, said at a
conference of airport directors.

"It's not something we're bluffing about," Woodward said. "It's a real dire
situation."

The furloughs would extend to nearly every FAA division, including airspace
redesign, environmental clearance and grant applications for airport
projects. Safety inspections would be handled by a skeleton crew, Woodward
told those attending the conference of Airports Council International-North
America in Tampa, Fla.

But the National Air Traffic Controllers Association accused the FAA of
posturing in front of the airport directors. FAA funding has lapsed in the
past without an agency shutdown being necessary, union officials said.

The four-year FAA reauthorization bill, which is nicknamed Flight 100 or
Vision 100, has languished in Congress over the issue of whether federal air
traffic controller jobs should be taken over by private companies. The Bush
administration has pushed for the change. And in the current version of the
bill, up to 69 control towers nationwide, including those at Fort Worth
Meacham and Alliance airports, could be affected.

Proponents say the government would save money without affecting safety. But
officials for the air traffic controllers union said the system would not be
as safe because private companies would be focused on making money.
Privatizing controllers at some towers now may also lead to a full-scale
privatization in four years, they said.

Both houses of Congress passed versions of the bill that essentially banned
the privatization of air traffic controller jobs. But Bush threatened to
veto any bill with such a prohibition. A conference committee then inserted
the provision for the 69 towers.

Each side of the privatization issue accuses the other of endangering
billions in aviation funding.

Congress could extend the FAA's funding while the privatization issue is
debated, said Darrell Meachum, southwest region vice president for the air
traffic controllers union.

"And we have every reason to believe that is what they'll do," Meachum said.
"We're not the ones holding this issue hostage."

But such an extension may not be allowed, said David Schaffer, senior
counsel for the House Aviation Subcommittee.

Long-term airport construction projects and projects to be built in phases
could essentially come to a halt, officials said. Even if an airport
received a 2004 federal grant to build a project, there may not be anyone at
the FAA after Oct. 1 to do the paperwork or cut the checks, Woodward said.

But because air traffic controller jobs are integral to safety, they cannot
be touched by furloughs, Woodward said.

Either way, airports' planning could be hampered in what is already a tough
economy, said David Plavin, president of ACI-North America.

Democrats are expected to support the union's position, Schaffer said. Most
Republicans support Bush's position.

Bush supporters, such as U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, said the
administration has bent over backward to work with the union. As written,
the bill would prevent 94 percent of air traffic controller jobs from being
privatized during the four years of the funding bill.

That's a far cry from the blanket power to privatize that the Bush
administration has now and wanted in the bill, Mica said.

Congress will pass the bill, Mica said. "If we do not, we may be headed for
a crisis."

Schaffer, however, said he's not so sure.

"If we give the controllers what they want and get a veto, we're back to
square one," he said. "That puts us in a box."


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************