LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional

JUNE 9, 1999, WEDNESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2174 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
EDWARD M. BOLEN
PRESIDENT
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
SUBJECT - PRESERVATION & PROMOTION OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

BODY:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lipinski and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on General Aviation airports. My name is Ed Bolen and I am President of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). GAMA is proud to represent over 50 U.S. manufacturers of General Aviation aircraft, engines, avionics and other components.
As everyone on this Subcommittee well knows, General Aviation is technically defined as all aviation other than commercial or military aviation. General Aviation aircraft range from small, single engine aircraft to intercontinental business jets.
These aircraft are used for everything from flight training to emergency medical evacuations to border patrols to fire fighting. They are also used by individuals, companies, state governments, universities and other interests to quickly and efficiently reach the more than 5000 small and rural communities in the United States that are not served by commercial airlines.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to report to the subcommittee that since Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act in 1994, the General Aviation industry has experienced tremendous growth. Sales of General Aviation aircraft have more than doubled, exports have increased significantly, the number of people learning how to fly has grown, and tens of thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs have been created.
In short, the industry is delivering on the promises we made to this subcommittee five years ago when we urged passage of GARA.
The resurgence of General Aviation is not just good news for those of us in the industry; it is good news for all Americans. That is because General Aviation is the foundation upon which our nation's air transportation system is built. It is the primary training ground for our commercial airline industry. It is rural America's link to the air transportation system. And it is a critical engine in our nation's economy.Mr. Chairman, now that the General Aviation Revitalization Act is allowing manufacturers to invest their resources in research and development rather than lawsuits, we are seeing a plethora of new GA products which represent significant advances in technology. We believe that these products will make General Aviation an even more effective and efficient mode of transportation for individuals and companies.
However, GAMA is very concerned that the full benefits of General Aviation will not be fully realized by the general public if there is not a strong national system of airports in the United States.
The sad fact is that in the past 25 years our nation has seen a decline of almost 23 percent of its General Aviation airports. In 1973, there were 6,914 public use GA airports in the United States and today there are only 5,352. We are currently losing GA airports at a rate of about one per week. And these are not insignificant airports. Today, some of the busiest and most important GA airports in the United States are being subjected to significant operating restrictions and, in some cases, the threat of closure. Just think where we would be today if we had closed the GA airports that we know today as Chicago O'Hare and Los Angeles International.
What do we need to do to have a strong national airport system so that Americans can get where they need to go quickly, safely, affordably and comfortably?
First of all, we need to stop the closures. We simply cannot afford to keep losing an airport a week.
A primary weapon in our arsenal for keeping our airports open is the Airport Improvement Program. This program (and its predecessors) has been key to the development of airports. It can also be key to their preservation.
When communities accept AIP dollars they promise to keep the airport open for a minimum of 20 years. However, as the recent GAO report points out, there are a number of communities that eventually try to renege on their promise. They should not be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, the evidence is that AIP agreements are not always enforced. And where one community is allowed to break its promise without suffering any consequences, more inevitably follow.
We need to stop this cycle. AlP grants must be strictly and uniformly enforced. Compliance with a government contract should not be optional.
Of course, forcing communities to live up to their AIP agreements and keep their airports open really only treats a symptom. It does not really treat the underlying problem, which is that in many cases communities do not see their airport as an asset.
Those of us who care about aviation have got to work to change the public's perception of airports. We need to help people understand the benefits of airports to their lives, to their communities, and to their country.- A few months ago GAMA published a brochure called General Aviation Is... that highlights some of the ways General Aviation improves the quality of life for everyone living in the United States. I brought with me copies of that brochure for every member of the subcommittee. I hope you will all take a few minutes to look it and share the information it contains with your constituents.
In addition to educating people about the importance of their local airport, I think we also need to help Americans understand that their local airport is not just an isolated slab of concrete--it is part of a national transportation- system. In this room-we all know that we have a National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. But what about the general public? Are they aware that their local airport is part of an integrated system? For whatever reason, it seems that people inherently understand that railroad tracks and highways are part of an interstate system. But airports are viewed differently. People tend to think of airports as strictly local concerns--something they can exercise control over with little regard as to how their action will impact an interstate system. We need to change that mind set, and frankly I would hope that the federal government would be our strongest and most vocal advocate in that education process.
Unfortunately, as daunting as the challenge of saving our airports is, the fact is that simply saving our airports is not enough. If General Aviation is truly going to reach its full potential we are going to have to do more than just keep existing airports open. We are going to have to repair our airports, upgrade them, and even develop some new ones. NASA has confirmed that General Aviation airports have the potential to reduce door to door travel times for a large portion of our population in the next century. As a result, they are focusing on the technologies necessary for an all-weather Small Aircraft Transportation System or SATS. At GAMA we support NASA's effort and we are working with them on this project. But we also realize that we can't wait to invest in our GA airports.

Today, there are literally hundreds of GA airports across the country that need to have their runways lengthened and lighting systems installed in order for them to be viable transportation centers. We need to be rapidly implementing WAAS so that near precision approaches will be available at most GA airports. We need to be aggressive in the adaptation of non-strategic military airports to joint-use airports. And we need to make sure that our reliever airports remain viable alternatives to hub airports.
I think sometimes we focus so much attention on the importance of GA airports to small and rural communities that we tend to overlook the importance of GA to metropolitan areas. Very few people realize that over 30 percent of our domestic GA aircraft fleet is located at airports that have been designated as relievers. These are clearly important airports.
As you all know, the purpose of reliever airports is to minimize GA traffic at hubs. By that measure the reliever program has been a clear success. At the 10 busiest commercial airports in the United States, GA represents less than 7 percent of total operations. The reason for that low-rate is simple---there are good reliever airports near these hubs.
Mr. Chairman, GAMA recognizes that making the investments necessary for the United States to continue to have the most robust aviation industry in the world is not an easy thing to do.
Discretionary dollars are scarce and there are competing priorities. But investing in our aviation infrastructure is the right thing to do.
The history books are clear on the subject of transportation. Countries that invest in transportation systems-flourish. Countries- that do not have good transportation systems flounder.
On a smaller scale, the history of economic development in the United States is a case in point. During the 1800s communities located near railroads prospered while communities without access to the railroads perished. That scenario was repeated in the 1900s with our highway system. Today, it is our nation's airports that are the key to economic development, and we need to be investing in them. In testifying before this subcommittee today, I think everyone on this panel recognizes that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is committed to investing in our nation's aviation infrastructure. AIR 21 is ample testimony to that fact. The legislation provides substantial funding for GA airports.
For many years, GAMA has advocated two basic principles for funding our air transportation system: 1) that revenues generated from the aviation excise taxes should be used exclusively for aviation purposes; and 2) that a significant General Fund contribution should continue to fund the FAA's safety and security activities as well as the military's use of the system.
These basic principles, which were espoused by the Mineta Commission, are the foundation upon which AIR 21 is built.
That aviation revenues should be used for aviation purposes is a matter of basic fairness. When the Airport and Airways Trust Fund was established in 1970, industry largely supported the new aviation excise taxes because we believed the federal government would use those taxes for additional capital expenditures. Most of the industry thought that was a worthwhile endeavor and we were willing to step up to the plate on funding. We thought it was a fair deal that the federal government was proposing.
Within a few years, however, we saw the federal government using Airport and Airways Trust Fund revenues in ways that were not specifically intended. Trust Fund revenues began to be used to pay for a portion of the FAA's operations. The Trust Fund was also allowed to develop a surplus, which served the federal purpose of masking the size of the deficit.
Unfortunately, these two trends have continued and accelerated over the years. Today, the Airport and Airways Trust Fund has an $8 billion surplus and legislation is pending that would use Trust Fund revenues to pay for, not just capital expenditures, but all of the FAA's operational costs, including the military's use of the system. Clearly this is not the deal we supported back in 1970.
The elimination of the General Fund contribution which covers the FAA' safety and security functions and pays for the military's use of the system would represent a significant reversal of well-established public policy.
From the earliest days of aviation, our government has understood that all Americans benefit from a strong national air transportation system, including those-who-never set foot on an airplane. That "public benefit" has always been reflected in the General Fund contribution.
Eliminating the General Fund contribution would have a couple of very significant consequences. For one thing, it would leave our system under funded. Economists generally agree that transportation systems which rely solely on the revenues of the immediate user of that system will be under capitalized and under utilized. Another thing elimination of the General Fund contribution would do is to send the public the message that if you don't fly, the air transportation system is not something you need to care about. That is both inaccurate and the wrong message. The fact is that every American has a vested interest in the system, and we need to have the public engaged as we try to move this system forward.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that we are coming to the end of what has been called the American Century. Whether or not the 21st century will also be an American century will depend on a number of factors, including the wisdom of the investment choices we make today.
We know that transportation is a good investment, and we know that aviation represents the future of transportation.
With that in mind we urge Congress to use our aviation revenues exclusively for aviation purposes and to continue the General Fund contribution that has been so important to our ability to lead the world in aviation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions.
END

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 1999