This email went out from Hamid to the NWP
Hi NATCA Friends,
Last week, I shared Congressional testimony with many of you as we prepared to have discussions at our 2018 PHL Convention regarding several “privatization” resolutions. The Congressional testimony indicated that NATCA was having discussions about privatization and alternate sources of funding in 2013 and that we went to Congressman Shuster with a plan to remove the ATO from the Government.
The testimony by Robert Poole indicated that this was done well before the 2014 MSP Convention in which the supreme body of NATCA granted our leadership the ability to be “in the room” and be engaged on these types of discussions. This testimony became the basis of a rebuttal provided by NATCA Leadership on Day-2 of the 2018 NATCA Convention. The Congressional testimony was referred to as “Fake News” by our President and Robert Poole was accused of lying as part of his Congressional testimony when he stated:
“The key event was the budget sequester, which imposed furloughs on controllers, closed the FAA Academy, and threatened the closure of 189 contract towers. In response, A4A, NATCA, and AOPA all requested new discussions with the BRT working group, and at a meeting in the BRT conference room in May 2013, leaders of all three groups told us that a nonprofit, stakeholder-governed corporation similar to Nav Canada was their preferred option. It was only after some further work by the BRT working group over the summer of 2013 that Gov. Engler and several working group members briefed Chairman Shuster on its recommendations, and received an enthusiastic response”.
As part of this rebuttal, leadership played a video of me from the October 2014 MSP Convention in which I was speaking in favor of R14-11.
R14-11 Authors: National Executive Board
AMEND PSC-2 Contracting Facilities: The National Office shall spare no reasonable expense in the protection, continuation, and growth of all bargaining unit positions, and shall offer all lawful resistance to out-sourcing, privatization or contracting out.
The video served as a great reminder for me. It further reinforced my strong beliefs that we should be “in the room” and part of any discussions that impact the future of our membership and our aviation professions. Additionally, I stated that, “if we don’t do what you want us to do, then vote us out”.
I continue to support what I spoke of in 2014, that we should be “in the room” and part of the discussions. However, I do have serious concerns with the narrative provided to me and other NEB members that Congressman Shuster came to us wanting to do something “bold” and “transformational” when it appears that NATCA pitched the idea to him as part of the referenced Business Round Table discussions in May 2013.
As part of the timeline discussion on Day-2, leadership stated that a NEB working group was put together to research various Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) on or about Jan. 2014. Bryan Zilonis was on this workgroup. Bryan stated that one of their objectives was to research and study the funding model being used by Canada. It would certainly be deeply concerning if NATCA leadership had already advocated for a particular funding model before the NEB workgroup even had an opportunity to research other ANSPs.
As part of the Day-2 privatization timeline and the associated narrative provided by NATCA Leadership, it was unequivocally stated that NATCA had NOT advocated to have the ATO removed from the government or any singular ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider) model to any entity prior to the MSP 2014 Convention and that Robert Poole had misspoke/lied to Congress.
Without passing any judgments regarding the narrative provided to the 2018 NATCA PHL Convention attendees, I offer you the following information. Please review and use your own capacity for independent thought to reach your own set of conclusions on whether the narrative provided in PHL was accurate or not:
Governor John Engler’s Oral Testimony at House Transportation Hearing Nov. 18, 2014
John Engler's Oral Testimony at House Transportation Hearing | Business Roundtable
In the U.S., the FAA’s own Management Advisory Council recently studied the same issues. Their final report in January 2014 made three unanimous recommendations:
· First, remove all air traffic control funding from the federal budget, so that aviation users would pay directly for air traffic control services, and allow that revenue stream to be bonded.
· Second, create a governing board of aviation stakeholders—not just to advise on technology decisions but to actually set the priorities for management and modernization.
· Third, separate the operation of the air traffic control system from the FAA safety regulator. This will establish independent, arm’s-length safety regulation, the kind that currently applies to all the other actors in U.S. aviation.
FAA and Aviation Policy Reform: Now is the Time - PDF
FAA Management Advisory Council Report dated Jan. 29, 2014 (Paul Rinaldi is a member of the FAA MAC. The MAC report comes out on the same month that the NEB selected a workgroup to study other Air Navigation Service Providers)
2012 (Page 5): Speaks to AOPAs involvement
3. External interests begin hearing of the MAC’s work and members decide to prioritize engaging FAA stakeholders. Accordingly, Ed Bolen (NBAA) and Craig Fuller (AOPA) were invited in to discuss their views of financial and policy reform. Following the meeting, MAC members prioritize outreach with a focus on air traffic service delivery and NextGen (the areas of common ground).
(Page 21):
Industry Members of the FAA MAC Unanimously Agree on this Future Path
1. Create a sustainable financial future for the FAA: The most important goal is to establish a funding system that provides dedicated and sufficient user‐based revenues to pay for FAA obligations. MAC members believe that general fund support for the aviation industry should be phased out as soon as possible in order to insulate the agency and the provision of user services from day‐to‐day politics.
2. Separate a new commercialized Air Traffic Organization (ATO) from the FAA: Modeled after other Air Navigation Service Providers (such as NAV CANADA), separate the service‐oriented ATO from the FAA and appoint a board consisting of users and aviation stakeholders to oversee its work. MAC members strongly believe that ATO reform must be accompanied by overall aviation policy reform due to the links between policy and funding decisions.
3. Assess and codify FAA Authorities and programs: Simplify statutes, regulations and policy by reviewing existing rules and procedures and eliminating redundant regulatory oversight. MAC members believe that this process will result in significant savings to the FAA and will obviate the need for a near‐term increase in user revenues after the phase‐out of general fund support.
4. Reform the tax structure: Eliminate the current mix of AATF taxes and fees and replace it with transparent schedules of cost‐based fees that provide sufficient funding for services such as air traffic control and aircraft certification. MAC members believe that new schedules should be (1) “revenue neutral” and (2) flexible in their administration in order to gain the confidence of stakeholders and facilitate the transition to a new system.
Elections are about choice. Please educate yourself on the issues and exercise your right as a union member to elect someone that shares your goals, values, and vision for the future.