Editorial: Happy Election Year
By Ed Downs
The customary greeting for a January editorial would be “Happy New Year.” And, so be it! HAPPY NEW YEAR! 2012 comes upon us with the same promise carried by every new year. All beginnings contain “good news” and “bad news.” It is up to the individual to write history and decide how each day, or year, turns out. But 2012 comes with special promises of good or bad. It is a Presidential election year. The FAA, federal budgets for aviation, private flying and business aviation are going to be topics for political controversy and we, the average flying guy or gal, are going to have an audience as never before. Let’s take a look at the “bad news” first, and then offer some creative solutions. We can make this a winning year for aviation, no mater who wins the election.
With political campaigns now well underway, it becomes clear that our major political parties will continue to ignore the real problems and opportunities facing our country. Instead, the PR firms hired by the DNC and RNC will focus upon inflammatory sound bites, insulting TV commercials, and daily “talking points” memos issued to those seeking election, to be quoted to “target voting groups” like trained parrots (apologies to parrots!). And what, you may ask, do any of these insulting realities have to do with you and your airplane?
If recent history is used as a guide post, our passion for flying may soon become a political football in the quest to win over “target voting groups” by employing one of the oldest tricks in politics. And that trick is the simple process of selecting an easily identifiable entity (like airplanes and aviators), and then claiming that this entity is wasteful, superfluous and consumptive of resources that could be spent on target voting groups.
Vilification of the use of privately-owned airplanes for business purposes is already a popular talking point. The first shots against the freedom of flight in America have already been fired. The American public has been summarily told that it is okay to use the “people’s transportation” (airlines) but that corporate use of aircraft is lustful wastefulness. Funding for the FAA is under constant criticism and, in fact, the FAA now operates under a temporary funding structure. The FAA has no long-term funding for our national airspace system. Crippling user fees are continually being proposed. After all, we “rich” airplane owners can certainly afford to pay for the special services we demand.
Foreign aircraft manufacturers are permitted to sell their wares into the American market with no tariffs of taxes, while American manufacturers must face overwhelming import restrictions from countries around the world. Both sides of the political isle see aviation related spending as an easy source of capital to be offered to target voting groups in their quest for votes. From a practical standpoint, the American aviation community has few friends “inside the beltway” and 2012 could be a turning point in America’s long held leadership in the world of aerospace. After all, we have surrendered manned space flight to Russia, is China going to be he next winner simply because our leadership decided that short-term votes were more important than Americas future?
Gloom and doom? Yup, if we (that is you, dear reader) don’t stand up and voice our concerns. The good news is that the focus on aviation means we have an opportunity to be heard, and in today’s world of e-mail, blogs and social networking, it has never been easier to get the word out. But, we must be careful and smart in how we approach criticism and attacks. To be sure, in the customer-service world, one is taught to first empathize, and then educate. That will not work in the world of politics! Critics do not care if you “feel their pain” and have minds stuck on rhetoric, not the quest for knowledge. Long-winded sermons full of facts and truth will not work. Like the PR guys who write all the witty stuff tossed about by the politicians, we need to quickly defend and attack, and then pose a question to counter the blow. We must learn to fight with the weapons used by the pros. Don’t just defend, push back! This writer spent many years in Washington DC as a representative for the aviation community. I have served on many airport commissions and testified before many aviation related committees and critics. I have had the pleasure of hearing the pros that support aviation in action, stopping critics in their tracks. Allow me to both quote and paraphrase some responses to comments and questions posed by those who would seek to benefit by a reduction in your ability to use the national airspace system.
Flying antagonist: Why should the American tax dollars be used to support a bunch of rich guys and their flying toys.
Flying defender: First, I find your willingness to define airplane owners and users as “rich guys” to be ill-informed and arrogant. Second, I find your definition of an airplane as a “toy” to be nothing but self serving rhetoric. If by “rich” and “toys” you mean the spending of expendable cash by successful, hardworking Americans, I question your belief in the American dream. Are you planning a publically-funded project to define “rich” and “toy” so that we can have an intelligent conversation?
Flying antagonist: American taxpayers pay huge taxes to support the FAA just so private pilots can safely fly. Each and every pilot should pay their fair share for those services every time they fly.
Flying defender: Your belief that private pilots, and for that mater, airline passengers, do not pay their fair share simply points out that you have not taken the time to understand federal, state and local community taxes associated with aviation. We all pay, plenty. You also do not understand that approximately 85 percent of the public-use airports in this country are in what the FAA calls “Class G” airspace, where FAA services are not available, or for that mater, even authorized. The vast percentages of FAA expenditures are dedicated to supporting and subsidizing the 15 percent of this countries airports that are served by airlines. I would like to know when we will see a reduction in subsides to commercial airlines?
Flying antagonist: How do you justify the use of federal funds to help local airports?
Flying Defender: We don’t defend federal funding for local community airports. Many local airports are, in fact, totally self sufficient and profitable ventures that need no federal funding. But airports are an integral part of Americans national transportation system as first envisioned under the Eisenhower administration. It was determined then, and is still true, that America’s economy is directly tied to free, intrastate commerce, be it by truck, bus, car, train or airplane. Are you suggesting that the concept of a national transportation system be dropped in favor of state-run systems, each charging user fees for roads, bridges, airports and rail systems, with each meeting standards of safety and technical standards that fit the needs of individual states?
Flying antagonist: The FAA spends a huge amount of tax dollars on our airway system and navigation aids. Shouldn’t each and every pilot pay a fee when they use those systems?
Flying Defender: Billions of dollars are collected each year through fuel and passenger taxes. We cannot control how you spend that money. The vast majority of private flights today use advanced satellite navigation systems, with no need for FAA nav aids that were developed in the 1940s. The FAA has simply failed to keep up with technology and has experience increased cost as a result of this. Should users of the national airspace system be asked to pay for the inaction and failures of a Federal agency that is supposed to answer to congressional oversight committees?
Flying Antagonist: Aircraft owners should pay their fair share of the FAA’s ongoing expenses insuring that the aircraft certification process and airworthiness monitoring system keeps airplanes safe.
Flying Defender: You are badly mistaken if you think the current, overwhelming, stack of rules and regulations “keep airplanes safe.” The remarkable safety record of American aviation is based upon the skills of pilots and professional maintenance technicians. Another certification and continuing airworthiness methodology has recently been developed by America’s aircraft industry, generically referred to as the “ASTM Process.” This process has dramatically cut FAA involvement in the day-to-day needs of aircraft airworthiness and is proving safe and reliable. Additionally, this process promotes bringing aviation products to the market and creates jobs. Are you suggesting that we ignore recent successes and simply figure out how to fund an old, outdated system of certifying and maintaining airplanes?
The preceding are examples of only a few of the comments this writers has heard over the years. I remember them because of their affect. In all cases, the complainers were put on the defense. In a couple of cases, committees were formed, giving the antagonist a chance to learn more and become a part of the solution, not the problem.
As 2012 matures into the political boiling pot that is typical of an election year, remember that there are a lot of voices to be heard, and your message must capture the attention of both the recipient and others who may hear of it. You have a voice, and computers have made it much easier to be heard. Amplify your voice by supporting and joining the variety of alphabet groups that support aviation. Outfits like AOPA, EAA, NBAA, Industry Organizations and many “type” clubs have outstanding connections and influence.
Send us your thoughts, and responses to challenges. Let’s share our experience and turn 2012 into a year of growth and opportunity.
