|
Airport security? Hah! It's all for show. X-raying checked
luggage, reinforcing cockpit doors (except on freighters), and
arming pilots have been the only meaningful improvements since
September 2001. Unfortunately, the relatively small portion of
pilots who have been armed are shackled in their role. They can only
wear the gun inside a locked cockpit of an airplane flown only
within the US. The program must immediately be enhanced to allow (or
even require) pilots to wear (and use, if necessary) their guns at
all times when in uniform throughout the world. I'd even go as far
as saying that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training
should be welcome to carry a loaded gun on the airplane. Being a
very-frequent flyer and having been in Israel a few times, I've seen
what real airport security is. It begins with screeners having an IQ
above room temperature (something lacking everywhere else --
especially the US). A reasonably intelligent screener can be trained
to look for people with evil intent. The best we can expect from the
intelligence of TSA personnel all the way up to the TSA
Administrator is to train them to look for fingernail clippers and
toothpaste. They can't even spot a .45-caliber pistol 25% of the
time! Since September, 2001, only one of the hundreds of TSA
civil "servants" checking my ID has looked at me to see if my face
matches the photo in my passport! I was sitting at the gate in
Seattle one day, looked at my boarding pass and saw a woman's
name that bore absolutely no resemblance to my own! I can't fathom
how I could possibly have gotten through an ID check with it, but I
did. The lady with my boarding pass accomplished the same feat!
Don't get me started on how many times I've been infected with
athlete's foot walking in stocking-feet on paths trod by millions of
other stocking-feet while gloved hands poke at my shoes! (I never
had a single case of athlete's foot before the shoe bomber
incident.) And, we haven't even begun to talk about the danger posed by
an 835,000 pound 747 freighter commandeered by a handful of
stowaways (yes, we have stowaways) coming out of those boxes of
"cargo" that rarely get inspected! (29 Dec 2007)
Over the past several months, there has been some concern over a
worldwide pilot shortage. Lie the weather, everybody talks about
it, but nobody seems to be doing anything about it. When I learned
to fly back in the mid 70s, one could rent an airplane for $7 with
fuel. Add $5 and you get an instructor too! Nowadays, it costs
upwards of $100 plus fuel and instructor. It is just too expensive
to learn to fly only to get a job that generally requires a 4-year
degree, yet starting pay is a mere $2,000 a month. Airline managers
simply don't understand what's going on. Nor do they understand (or
even want) a market economy. In fact, the airlines want to make
things worse by shoving off much of the cost of running the FAA on
those poor student pilots, further increasing the cost of a career
in aviation through "user fees" similar to those that have destroyed
general aviation in Europe. (26 Dec 2007)
HR-1125/S-65 will modify the age-60 retirement standard for certain
pilots. This would end a restriction that should never have been
made. Standards have long been in place to ensure pilots are
mentally and physically fit for the job. Congress must act promptly
to require the FAA to immediately terminate any arbitrary age limit
on pilots. (13 Jun 2007)
For almost four-decades, the FAA has had a system of efficiently collecting aviation taxes
and paying for the management of the safest skies in the world. Under
pressure from airlines, the guys with the deep pockets, the FAA
wants to change this successful financial structure to one of user
fees. As an airline pilot and former military pilot who is concerned
about the future of aviation in general, not just the short-term
profitability of airlines and bonuses for their executives and
lobbyists, Congress must:
• Continue to fund the FAA and
the air traffic control system through efficiently collected excise taxes.
• Reject the
Senate Commerce Committee scheme of a “surcharge” – the start of User Fees to fund aviation,
• Reject user fees for any segment of the aviation industry,
• Reject any movement toward privatizing the air traffic control system,
and
• Reject any attempt to cut the only tax the airlines pay themselves
by eliminating their 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax. (If money is
truly needed to modernize the aviation system, then why give the
airlines another huge tax break?)
The Congressional Budget Office, General Accountability Office, and the Department of Transportation Inspector General have all said the tested and proven system of aviation taxes can provide the needed financing for the aviation improvements. The current and proven manner
of funding FAA services through the Aviation Trust Fund supported by taxes on aviation users under
the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, not new funds under other Committees, is the best way to pay for aviation improvements.
Congress reject any form of
"surcharges" or user fees as found in S-1600. They will degrade safety and discourage new pilots from entering the airline employment system. (30 May 2007)
I have been a pilot for over 34 years. My logbook includes 23 years
as a military pilot overlapping 21 years as an airline pilot. As an
aviator, I am deeply concerned for my safety by the the FAA's desire
to fund its operations through user fees. I was an active-duty Air
Force pilot when President Reagan fired thousands of air traffic
controllers when they went on strike in 1981. As a result of the
strike, the capacity of the ATC system was severely impacted. Until
capacity was restored, ATC services were provided based on the
priority of the flight. Many flights were denied ATC clearances and
handling because they were given low priority. I recall that many of
those flights often took off anyway, flying into controlled airspace
without an ATC clearance. This clearly was a serious safety problem
that persisted until full ATC capacity was restored. I predict that
exactly the same thing will happen if Congress agrees to impose user
fees on aviation. Pilots will avoid paying fees by avoiding the
services of the FAA and safety will be the victim. Europe funds its
aviation services through imposition of user fees (Why must we copy
the worst features of Europe?). Their fees have driven up the cost
of flight training to the point that private flying now is the
domain only of the very wealthy. Those who are not wealthy must come
to the United States to learn to fly. If we copy Europe's user fee
scheme in any way, the cost of learning to fly will skyrocket here
as well. If Congress approves the FAA's user fee plan, where will
our nation's airlines get future replacement airline pilots --
outsource to India? I also have my own single-engine aircraft and am
a member of
Angel Flight. As an Angel Flight pilot, I donate my time and pay
all my own aircraft and fuel expenses to transport people who need
medical care, but can't afford the cost of transportation. If
Congress imposes user fees, I predict that Angel Flight will be
history. Congress must reject any form of user fees in US aviation.
The current funding process has given us the safest airspace in the
world. Don't try to fix that which isn't broken. (23 May 2007)
Today's Daily News report on
Alaska Airlines confirms what I have observed about their
performance in recent years. As a frequent flyer between Anchorage
and points "outside", I avoid Alaska Airlines as much as possible. I
am willing to pay more to fly on other airlines where transportation
is more reliable and where the employees are more courteous and
respectful. Alaska Airlines was once the the best, or at least very
near the top. It's decline is a perfect example of what happens when
management treats its employees like crap. Alaska Airlines will not
get better until management learns that their number one customer is
their own employees. (9 Feb 2007)
The airline industry is leading the fight for user fees for services
provided by the FAA such as air traffic control. The Air Transport
Association, made up primarily of airlines, supports "a new
'cost-based' mechanism for generating revenues necessary to
maintain, operate and enhance the national airspace system."
Aviation services users already are paying fees -- through taxes on
airline tickets and aviation fuel, as examples -- to cover the
government's costs. The airlines, however, merely serve as
collection agents for the government, eventually passing on the
ticket taxes they collect from passengers and paying next to nothing
to use a government system in conducting their business. Meanwhile,
general aviation (virtually all flying that is not military, other
government, or airline), according to a 1997 study by the U.S.
General Accounting Office, is responsible for about 6% of FAA's ATC
costs while paying -- conveniently -- about 6% of those costs
through existing taxes. The sought change in the way the FAA is
funded would severely impact General Aviation. To avoid paying new
fees, General Aviation operators will avoid using the FAA services
that are essential to flight safety. Examples include: obtaining
weather briefings, filing flight plans, and using ATC services.
Since general aviation pilots and operators will avoid paying fees
by avoiding FAA services, the risk of weather-related accidents will
increase. The rate of mid-air collisions because of the presence of
unidentified aircraft will mushroom. Because General Aviation
operators will avoid using the ATC services, I predict that mid-air
collisions will even occur at jet cruising altitudes and in the
busiest airport areas, such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles
where radar contact and ATC control are mandatory simply. As an
airline Captain (Boeing 747) I urge you to vigorously oppose any
change in the manner of funding of the FAA and its services to
pilots. My personal safety, and that of the people who ride in my
airplane, depends on retaining the current means of funding the FAA
and its services. (3 Jan 2007)
I am deeply concerned by reports of new or increased user fees for
general aviation. These include the possibility of fees for general
aviation aircraft using Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Flight Service
Station (FSS) services and for landing at the larger hub airports;
increased fees to issue pilot, medical and aircraft registration
certificates; and a huge increase in the aviation gasoline taxes. My
concern is that each of these fees will severely affect flight
safety. If new fees are imposed, pilots and operators will bend to
simple economics and take unsafe shortcuts to minimize or eliminate
the financial impact of these fees. Those shortcuts will include
using fuel that is not approved for aviation use; flying in
instrument conditions without the benefit of contacting ATC; flying
without filing a flight plan with an FSS; flying high-performance
into and out of airports with short runways, minimal or no
navigation aids, and no fire/crash service. Congress must ensure
that no legislation is passed which includes or authorizes new or
increased fees on general aviation. Likewise, the Whitehouse must
immediately warn the FAA and the DOT that new or increased or new
fees will not be tolerated. (1 Dec 2006)
I strongly support an upper age limit of 65, or no age limit at all,
for airline pilots. Many nations already safely allow airline pilots
to fly beyond age 60. Some even have NO age limit! The current
mandatory retirement age of 60 is arbitrary and has no basis in
science or pilot performance. It forces most pilots to leave their
career when they are still healthy and alert. (How many Congressmen
and bureaucrats are over 60?) I believe that adequate safeguards are
already in place to ensure pilots are mentally and physically fit to
fly. They have a medical exam twice a year. Their proficiency is
tested in simulators twice a year. In addition, they are evaluated
on at least one actual flight each year. (How many physicians who
are over 60 receive this level of scrutiny?) Current law terminates
a pilot's career years before he becomes eligible for Social
Security and Medicare benefits. In cases where a pilot's career has
been adversely affected by airline bankruptcies, age 60 often
interrupts his ability to put aside sufficient resources for
retirement. The forced retirement of healthy pilots at age 60
needlessly eliminates the vast wealth of experience that is the core
of aviation safety. Congress, the Whitehouse, and the FAA must
ensure that the law is promptly updated to eliminate this unfair and
unscientific limitation on airline pilot careers. (4 Nov 2006)
HR-65 (and its companion S-65) is a bill that would amend the unfair
and unjustified age restrictions for airline pilots. On Thursday 28
Sep, the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Committee met for the first time
to discuss the issues of Age 60 retirement and implementation issues
should the regulation change. The meeting was co-chaired by Air
Transport Association President James May and ALPA (Air Line Pilots
Association) President Duane Woerth. Duane Woerth had been an
outspoken advocate of keeping the age-60 retirement in place. A
substantial portion of his retirement will be from his work as a
union officer and relatively little from his role as a pilot for his
airline (Northwest, whose pilots recently took severe losses in
retirement benefits). ironically, it appears very likely that Woerth
will continue to work beyond age 60 as the president of ALPA, even
though he advocates the mandatory age 60 retirement for his pilots.
He is out of touch with the needs of the pilots he claims to
represent. Woerth should not be on the FAA's committee, even as a
member. That is no place for anyone whose mind is already made up.
He is not capable of listening to evidence and making an unbiased
decision on the issue. He must be removed immediately if he does not
recuse himself. Please take immediate steps to remove Duane Woerth
from this FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee. I also urge you to
cosponsor this legislation and work aggressively to ensure its
immediate passage. (29 Sep 2006)
I read and hear CEO's of
ALPA carriers stating that executive bonus programs are needed
to retain the talent. Companies will be left with inferior
executives without such programs. This clearly is one of the biggest
scams in the business world. And it's not just in aviation, but in
every category of business in the US. It perpetuates because the
members of the boards of directors as well as major stockholders are
in on the scam. Congress won't do anything about it because many of
them also profit from the scam. You don't see that same phenomenon
in foreign-owned businesses of the same size. Their execs seem to be
compensated at a much more reasonable level. It has long been my
observation that few senior execs stay with one company or even one
industry for more than a few years. They quit and move on before
anyone recognizes their utter incompetence. Most senior execs look
at their positions merely as a way to add to their stock portfolio
with discounted stock. They almost never look for the opportunity to
make a positive difference for the company's bottom line or for the
employees. I was watching the well-orchestrated ballet of activity
around my airplane after my arrival the other day. That impressive
display of organization is put together by people earning perhaps
$50k or less. I doubt any senior exec of any US carrier has the
organizational skills to accomplish the same feat. Why aren't
ALPA and other labor unions publishing CEO total compensation
figures, campaigning against abuse, and focusing union members and
public attention on the problem? Because that'd be the pot calling
the kettle black. Sadly, most union execs, in
ALPA and in other unions, are compensated far in excess of their
ability and responsibility. (3 Jun 2006)
Congress is considering legislation that will establish an upper age
limit of 65 for airline pilots within thirty days after the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this
standard in November of 2006. Many nations already safely allow
airline pilots to fly beyond age 60. Some even have NO age limit!
The current mandatory retirement age of 60 is arbitrary and has no
basis in science. It forces most pilots to leave their career when
they are still healthy and alert. (How many Congressmen are over
60?) I believe that adequate safeguards are already in place to
ensure pilots are fit to fly. We have a medical exam twice a year.
Our proficiency is tested in simulators twice a year. In addition,
we are evaluated on at least one actual flight each year. (How many
physicians who are over 60 receive this level of scrutiny?) Congress
must ensure that the law is promptly updated to eliminate this
unfair and unscientific limitation on airline pilot careers. (15 Nov
2005)
S.65 is a bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots. It would
amend Federal aviation law to prohibit the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, solely by reason of a person's age
if the person has not attained his or her Social Security retirement
age, from: (1) denying, deferring as to, or failing to renew for any
such person an airman or medical certificate for the operation of a
commercial aircraft; (2) imposing restrictions or limitations on an
airman or medical certificate following initial or periodic
competency or medical testing which has the same age discriminatory
effect on the person; or (3) requiring an air carrier to terminate
the employment of, or not to employ, or to take any other action
having the same age discriminatory effect on, such person as a pilot
of an aircraft. The current retirement age is arbitrary and has no
basis in pilot performance. It terminates a pilot's career years
before he becomes eligible for Social Security and Medicare
benefits. In cases where a pilot's career has been adversely
affected by airline bankruptcies, age 60 often interrupts his
ability to put aside sufficient resources for retirement. The forced
retirement of healthy pilots at age 60 needlessly eliminates the
vast wealth of experience that is the core of aviation safety. (8
Nov 2005)
Return to Top |
