Comments on: FAA left without new funding by Congress, now lacks authority says GAO http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/faa-left-without-new-funding-by-congress-now-lacks-authority-says-gao/ The last honest travel site Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthew B http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/faa-left-without-new-funding-by-congress-now-lacks-authority-says-gao/comment-page-1/#comment-7013 Matthew B Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:17:50 +0000 http://www.tripso.com/?p=5515#comment-7013 I think it would be better to separate the FAA into its regulatory component and its service component. The service component, particularly the provision of air traffic control infrastructure and personnel, should be vested in a government owned corporation that charges for its services and has the authority to develop infrastructure using its own resources, without requiring an appropriation from Congress. As a government owned corporation it would still be accountable to Congress, and as a service provider in the aviation industry, subject to regulatory oversight by the FAA's regulatory branch, which would continue to regulate airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aviation services, funded by appropriation from Congress. Whenever an essential service provider is dependant upon Congressional appropriations to fund infrastructure, we can always rely on Congress waiting until the service has failed to do anything. Congress has a multitude of very loud voices clamoring for public funds. By combining the regulatory and service provider components in one agency, we are assured that those in the aviation industry with a vested interest in ensuring less regulatory oversight will lobby Congress to limit the funding that is provided to the FAA. I am sure the airlines would love a more efficient ATC system that increased the productivity of their fleets, they just don't want the FAA provided with more resources because that would boost the regulatory arm as well. I think it would be better to separate the FAA into its regulatory component and its service component. The service component, particularly the provision of air traffic control infrastructure and personnel, should be vested in a government owned corporation that charges for its services and has the authority to develop infrastructure using its own resources, without requiring an appropriation from Congress. As a government owned corporation it would still be accountable to Congress, and as a service provider in the aviation industry, subject to regulatory oversight by the FAA’s regulatory branch, which would continue to regulate airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aviation services, funded by appropriation from Congress.

Whenever an essential service provider is dependant upon Congressional appropriations to fund infrastructure, we can always rely on Congress waiting until the service has failed to do anything. Congress has a multitude of very loud voices clamoring for public funds. By combining the regulatory and service provider components in one agency, we are assured that those in the aviation industry with a vested interest in ensuring less regulatory oversight will lobby Congress to limit the funding that is provided to the FAA. I am sure the airlines would love a more efficient ATC system that increased the productivity of their fleets, they just don’t want the FAA provided with more resources because that would boost the regulatory arm as well.

]]>