Cross-posted from USA Today.
Analyzing and writing about Washington policies is a much different experience once you enter the arena where those policies are shaped. As someone who just spent seven months struggling to craft proposals for federal aviation regulations, I've learned some lessons about the complexity of the airline industry.
Call to duty
In May, I was given the honor and challenge of representing Consumers Union by serving as the lone consumer advocate to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Our mandate? To provide DOT Secretary Raymond LaHood with "information, advice and recommendations…on ensuring the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to address the evolving transportation needs, challenges and opportunities of the global economy."
The FAAC consisted of 18 members representing "stakeholder" interests, and was chaired by Susan Kurland, the DOT's Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We met for the first time in May, and for the final time last month, when we presented a total of 23 recommendations to Secretary LaHood and Randy Babbitt, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
It's fair to say that government committees—particularly those involving the airline industry—often generate skepticism and even mistrust. Washington bookcases are filled with dusty reports from past commissions that put forth dozens of proposals that were never enacted; in the past, I've written about many of these failures.
But from the beginning, we were told the FAAC would be different; all our proposals were to be "actionable" so that the DOT could begin implementation on them immediately. And on Dec. 15th, when we met for the final time, Secretary LaHood told us: "I guarantee you these recommendations will not sit on a shelf."
Our mandate was quite broad, though for the most part we addressed the concerns of the commercial airline industry rather than the wider world of civil aviation. We were also instructed not to address security issues, since they fall under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security. For the most part, the process was transparent, since all discussions were on the record and all meetings were open to the public, whether we met in Washington or Atlanta, Chicago or Denver, Seattle or Los Angeles.
Each of us was assigned to two of five FAAC Subcommittees: Safety; Competitiveness and Viability; Environment; Financing; and Labor. Since Consumers Union is most concerned with airline safety and passenger rights, I served on the Safety and Competitiveness Subcommittees. Although the FAAC required a tremendous amount of work from all of us, I felt it was an honor to serve—even though not all of the initiatives I advocated were adopted in the end.
Our group was truly a microcosm of the industry at large. Heated discussions quickly arose between labor and management; environmentalists and aircraft manufacturers; economists and analysts; airport managers and airline managers; and passenger rights advocates and industry executives.
One key lesson I took away from this experience is that the airline industry's dysfunction seems to be due at least in part to a breakdown in communication among the key players. The challenge for all of us is inducing the "stakeholders" to speak more openly and more frequently with—and not just at—each other. I believe passengers are the most important airline stakeholders of all, so I remain hopeful that airline executives will ensure consumer interests are placed in the forefront.
A wide-ranging list
Among the recommendations we voted to approve:
• Develop improved methods of predicting and analyzing safety risks.
• Accelerate the development and implementation of NextGen, the Next Generation Air Transportation System, a systemic overhaul of the nation's air traffic control infrastructure.
• Examine how sustainable fuels and improved technology can reduce aviation's environmental footprint.
• Improve intermodal transportation links, particularly at airports.
• Update and reform the Essential Air Service program, which provides subsidies to keep commercial aviation at certain small airports.
• Implement an Aviation Industry Workforce-Management Conference to "bridge the gap" with labor.
The full list of recommendations is available on the DOT's site. I encourage you to review these proposals and forward any questions or comments.
In addition, I was closely involved in three specific areas of recommendation:
• Broadening passenger protections, particularly by providing greater consumer transparency, beyond the impressive passenger rights proposals already put forth by Secretary LaHood. On Monday we received the good news that the DOT had already taken action, by instituting a new ruling requiring disclosure on code-sharing flights.
• Re-examining the FAA's long-standing refusal to mandate the use of child restraint systems for children under 2 on U.S. commercial aircraft.
• Ensuring the FAA has the necessary resources to provide adequate oversight of airline maintenance outsourcing.
The first two issues were included in the final set of 23 recommendations; however, consensus could not be reached on the issue of maintenance oversight. In future columns, I'll be addressing these topics in greater depth.
It sounds like the FAAC did a great job on some tough issues. Its too bad about the overseas maintenance outsoursing though, especially since many airlines out source to maintenance contractors located in developing countries and in view of the recent accident in Jackson Hole where there had been problems with one ohf the plane's braking systems because it had not been installed the way it was supposed to have been and a part on it was missing after completing maintenance. But the FAAC does seem to have made some good and positive steps. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.
Posted by: Michael E. Bailey | January 16, 2011 at 03:09 AM