LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional

JUNE 9, 1999, WEDNESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2489 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
CHARLES E. PRIESTER
PRESIDENT
PRIESTER AVIATION
CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
SUBJECT - PRESERVATION AND PROMOTION
OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS

BODY:

INTRODUCTION
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) represents nearly 2,000 aviation businesses owning, operating and servicing aircraft. These companies serve the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, aircraft parts sales, aircraft storage, flight training, non-scheduled air charter, aircraft rental, and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are the vital link in the aviation industry that provides services to the airlines, general aviation, and the military. The members of the NATA strongly support the efforts of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee under the leadership of Chairman Bud Shuster, Ranking Minority Member James L. Oberstar, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr. and Ranking Subcommittee Member William O. Lipinski to increase funding for airport development and provide protections for aviation tax revenues that are deposited into the Aviation Trust Fund.
This year is pivotal for approving a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization bill incorporating an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) that will lead the Nation into the 21st century. Protecting and promoting general aviation airports is vital for the future of the national air transportation system. We are pleased to appear before the Subcommittee and address NATA's views on these key issues.
PUTTING FISCAL INTEGRITY INTO THE AVIATION TRUST FUND
The members of NATA have long been frustrated by the on-going inequity of taxes paid by aviation users not being spent for developing the air transportation system. The aviation industry was assured, going back to agreements made in the early 1980s, that aviation taxes would be used for aviation purposes. Although history has painfully proven otherwise, the aviation community actually supported increased taxes at that time based on promises to receive increased spending. Thankfully, Chairman Shuster and his fellow supporters haven't forgotten this commitment.
The buildup of the Aviation Trust Fund that provides financing for airport development, airway modernization, research and development and a portion of the FAA operations has been discussed for over two decades. Revenues from the taxes on aviation fuel and the transportation of passengers and cargo are estimated to result in an uncommitted balance in the Aviation Trust Fund of $52 billion by fiscal year 2008.
The reason for this is well known; the aviation taxes are not linked in the federal budgetary process to the spending for aviation purposes. Each year as the Congressional committees responsible for allocating federal spending go through the appropriations process, there is absolutely no incentive to spend the money. In fact, the process actually discourages using the tax revenues at all, because money not spent can be used elsewhere. It is exciting that this could end soon under the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st century (H.R. 1000) referred to as AIR-21.
We strongly support the leadership of this subcommittee to eliminate this budgetary charade. Tomorrow, nearly 50 representatives from NATA member companies will be in Washington participating in an intensive lobbying effort to advocate for passage of AIR-21. This last push is supported by grass roots lobbying that has been underway for several years.
Recently, President Clinton announced that the government is anticipated to have the largest ever budget surplus. At seven months into the fiscal year, the cumulative surplus is $64.7 billion. The individuals or companies paying the aviation taxes deserve to get what they paid for -- safe airports with maintained runways, needed navigational aids and a modern air traffic control system.
If there ever was a time to bring truth into the budget process, it is now!
BENEFITS OF A NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
In its testimony before the Subcommittee in February, NATA explained that access to the air transportation network for a community translates directly to good jobs, affordable housing, quality modern medical care, and a clean environment. The individuals who live in towns and cities where the value of the airport is recognized clearly benefit in a better quality of life. For many communities, general aviation airports are the only readily accessible link to the national and international air transportation system and are a valuable economic resource.
The consequences of inadequate airport facilities or the lack of an airport are significant. According to a study by the State of Oregon, communities without an airport are less likely to bring in new jobs from outside the region. The State of New Jersey found that general aviation airports are a major factor in relocation decisions for both small and large businesses.
As the U.S. population and economy grow, there is a corresponding increase in the use of general aviation aircraft. This is especially true in the use of turbine-powered business aircraft. Whether operated by individual companies, air charter companies or the growing use of fractional ownership, the FAA anticipates significant increases in the use of turbine-powered aircraft. A nearly 60 percent growth is being projected between now and the year 2010 for these operations. There are others in the aviation industry that expect an even more optimistic future. Clearly, the demand for access by turbine aircraft is going to increase. The Association applauds the inclusion of a special funding provision in AIR-21 addressing this need.
Signs indicate that the smaller aircraft marketplace is also improving with flight training student starts growing by 10 percent over the last two years and revitalized and new manufacturers committed to the future of small aircraft production.
Unfortunately, the ability for communities to participate in the benefits of the national transportation system is being jeopardized by attempts to restrict or limit airport development.

TIME TO PROTECT & PRESERVE AMERICA'S RESOURCES
At the NATA Convention earlier this spring, NATA members learned that there are two kinds of airports, "those with an organized effort to close them and those that will have one." While business has never been better, with growing demand for the benefits of general aviation, how can the aviation industry possibly meet public expectations to improve aviation service when small groups of anti-airport activists try to block airport expansion plans?
The pressures to close or limit airport use are growing and threaten the fundamental access to the national transportation system and the associated benefits to many communities across the country. In essence, the few are taking away from the many. The NATA staff is receiving calls on an increasingly frequent basis from members facing attempts by local groups opposed to the airport. This is not surprising considering that at 655 of 3,300 airports that serve the turbine aircraft community there are organized groups attempting to impose restrictions or close the airport. Some of these are very familiar to this Subcommittee and include:
Van Nuys Airport - Los Angeles, CA Centennial Airport - Denver, CO Boeing Field - Seattle, WA Flying Cloud Airport - Minneapolis, MN White Plains Airport - Westchester County, NY Meigs Field - Chicago, IL Palwaukee Airport - Wheeling, IL
Spreading fear among the citizenry, these anti-airport groups attack neighbors with falsehoods and dreadful predictions. If they yell loud enough, they think they can defy those who want airport development issues decided on the basis of scientific fact, economic analysis, and careful consideration of the long-term benefits that aviation provides. My own experience at Palwaukee Airport has shown that a once airport-friendly community can turn quickly as a result of a local election.
The aviation industry is doing its part but is unable to do it alone. A broader effort is vital to present the facts in each case and persuade the press and regional policy-makers to base public decisions on an informed analysis by all elements of the community rather than on the emotional frenzy of a small group of opponents. It is important to discuss these since they are influencing so many local political leaders in communities across the country.
Many anti-airport groups argue against general aviation airport development by claiming that commercial airline service is coming. Airport opponents assert that since commercial airplanes need long runways, it is therefore true that if the runway is lengthened, then airliners will follow. There is a surprisingly common misunderstanding in suburban areas where some citizens assume that airports are economically dependent on airline activity.
The facts are otherwise because general aviation airports thrive without the airlines. In fact, airline executives are the first to admit that to the extent they increase flight operations over the next decade, 99% of the increased activity will occur at airports that currently support such service. And when they do add service to a new community, in almost every case it would be at an airport that has an existing terminal, appropriate crash, fire, and rescue equipment, and the support of the community -- in other words, not a general aviation airport.
In most cases general aviation airports need improvements, especially longer runways, simply to meet the demands of the general aviation fleet in the years ahead -- not for commercial aircraft. Yet airport opponents carelessly associate the local general aviation airport with virtually every overflying aircraft.
Another attack is through claims that noise will go up, property values will go down, safety will be imperiled, and the quality of life will be impaired if an airport is improved. All of these assertions are false.
Noise is the most emotional of all these fears but deserves the most careful scientific rebuttal. As anyone who has watched planes take off for a few hours can explain, aircraft noise varies tremendously, but usually it's the older airplanes that are the noisiest. Newer airplanes, especially the latest turbine-powered aircraft like the Citation CJ2, are much quieter than earlier models, and their successors will be even quieter. Thus, just because an airport is improved to meet the needs of tomorrow's general aviation fleet doesn't mean that aircraft noise will increase.
General aviation airports also usually have low levels of activity, far less than most opponents allege. Furthermore, with longer runways it is physically demonstrable that departing planes fly over adjoining property at a higher, and thus quieter, altitude. In addition, noise studies around general aviation airports reveal that other noise generators, like trucks, motorcycles, or even leaf blowers and chainsaws, have a greater measurable impact on ambient sound levels than overflying aircraft.
Contrary to anti-airport propaganda, real estate in communities with a general aviation airport is more likely to appreciate than property that is far-removed from an airport. The old axiom about location, location, location means that a property's value is determined by how close it is to things that enhance value. Being close to an airport, and therefore close to the timesaving transportation benefits it can provide, means accessibility, appreciation, and affluence. General aviation airports attract successful men and women who want to live in a community with convenient access to a 21st century transportation system. These are often the same people who improve their properties and make substantial contributions to their communities and neighborhoods.
Concerning safety, the case for improving airports is airtight. Longer, wider, more capable runways are safer -- period. In addition, the newer aircraft that need a modern airport have a much better safety record than the older planes they replace. Turbine aircraft operations, for example, are more than ten times safer than those with piston aircraft of the same size.
Anti-airport activists use a quality of life argument against airport improvements. However, most people understand that most of the quality in our lives comes at considerable cost. It takes tax money to build and buy parks and open space. It takes money for top-notch schools, museums, and all the other public institutions that mean quality. It takes lots of money to build our communities the way we want them -- or even to keep them the way they used to be. For any community to have the wherewithal to produce and support such quality, it needs to meet a modern standard of economic viability, through a growing tax base, supported by either economic activity or local wealth. Simply put, a modern general aviation airport helps provide such an economic foundation with minimal social or environmental hardship.
CONCLUSION
America's airports are under attack -- with an urgent need for help. The time is now to protect access to air transportation and its benefits in communities across the Nation.
The Association recently had the opportunity of participating in several events sponsored by the Department of Transportation that feature the vital role transportation plays in our nation's economy. However, these do not replace the need for a comprehensive national effort to preserve airports and promote the aviation industry. The FAA must take a more aggressive stance on attempts to restrict operations at airports. While the airports are typically locally owned, they are part of a national transportation system. If this country is serious about moving into the 21st century and continuing America's leadership role in the world's economy, effective, efficient and responsive air transportation is essential.
The FAA's recent release of the Land Planning Initiative is an important step in fighting increased encroachment of residential communities around airports. We strongly believe the FAA must implement better land use and community relations requirements in the Airport Sponsor Assurances. In this way, communities would be committed to ensure the availability of the airport and its future uses.
For many NATA members, defending the airport on which they conduct business is fast becoming as important to running a successful aviation business as meeting FAA requirements or having a good relationship with the airport manager. The Association's Board of Directors is convinced that NATA must take the same type of aggressive effort to protect and preserve America's forgotten national resource -- America's airports.
NATA appreciates the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee and would be pleased to address any questions. We look forward to the opportunity to work with this Subcommittee to preserve and protect the Nation's general aviation airports.
END

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 1999