The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released its stopgap measure to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration last week.
The measure is a last-minute solution to avoid a funding lapse when the current authorization expires on July 15. Given the short timeline, the proposal already passed the House by voice vote on Monday and is expected to be cleared by the Senate soon after.
The bipartisan extension has largely been considered noncontroversial—as evidenced by its rapid passage in the House. The current extension is needed to give lawmakers more time to formulate a free-market bill, and in that regard, it’s preferable to the passage of the Senate’s original far-reaching proposal.
>>>New FAA Extension Could Drive Up Flight Ticket Prices
However, the agreement produced a bill that was more than a mere “clean” extension, meaning it contains some policy changes (though it is not nearly as sweeping as those contained in the House and Senate’s respective bills).
One of the more disappointing provisions is an increase in funding for the Essential Air Service, jumping from the current $155 million per year to $175 million for 2016 and 2017. The Essential Air Service is a wasteful program that subsidizes commercially inviable flights that are routinely half full and often nearly empty, benefitting politically connected areas at the taxpayers’ expense.
The increase will account for $40 million in more spending on the program over the next two years—especially galling given that the bill was supposed to extend spending programs “at current funding levels.” Instead, the bill flies in the face of accountability and ups spending on this perennial special interest. The right move for Congress would be reverse course and phase out the program’s funding altogether.
The bill also contains several mandates that interfere with air carriers’ business practices. One such mandate would require that air carriers refund baggage fees in the case that the luggage is lost or not returned within an arbitrary, federally approved time limit.
These mandates come with costs, which will likely be borne by consumers in the form of higher airfares or fewer choices. In a competitive industry, air carriers should instead be enabled to determine their own practices and allow customers to decide which they prefer.
The extension does contain some praiseworthy changes.
Security improvements such as expansion of the Transportation Security Administration’s pre-check program, an emphasis on risk assessments and red team tests, and the cooperation with foreign airports are steps in the right direction. Congress should build on these advances in the next authorization by expanding the Screening Partnership Program to take advantage of private sector effectiveness and efficiency in the screening process.
The extension will also provide lawmakers with more time to make much-needed changes to advance free-market principles in the aviation sector.
True privatization of Air Traffic Control should be a priority, as ending bureaucratic control of the agency would improve modernization efforts and yield large benefits to the industry. Phasing out the extensive federal involvement in airport funding in favor of more localized control would likewise reduce the federal footprint and improve the state of the nation’s most critical airports.
Lastly, Congress should remove excessive regulation of the industry (especially in regards to dubious consumer protection rules) and allow innovative drone technologies to flourish through a light-touch regulatory approach.
Though the 14-month extension largely eschewed these action items, lawmakers now have an opportunity to put together a comprehensive bill with these necessary reforms. Americans—always on the move—are counting on them to get to work.
