Good afternoon Chairman Wolf, Congressman Sabo, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Mike McNally, President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), the exclusive representative of over 15,000 federal air traffic controllers and engineers within the Federal Aviation Administration. I want to first thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and also to thank you for your past support of our issues.

NATCA’s mission is to guarantee and improve aviation and air traffic safety, serve as an advocate for air traffic controllers and engineers, and promote competence and pride within our profession. We are also responsible for promoting technological advances, providing reliable and accurate information for air traffic controllers and engineers, and serving as a credible source of information for this Committee, the traveling public, and the news media. Our goals include protecting the lives of aviation travelers, preserving expensive equipment, and reducing mishap frequency and severity.

The United States air traffic control system is the not only the largest, most complex and most demanding in the world, but it is also the safest. In 1998, approximately 630 million passengers traveled on commercial airlines without a single domestic fatality. This is, no doubt, due primarily to the dedication and professionalism of the nearly 15,000 FAA air traffic controllers. Today, controllers are under an extreme pressure to squeeze more planes into an already congested airspace. In the past 5 years, air traffic has increased by 27 percent to 655 million commercial passengers annually. And, the number of passengers is expected to exceed 1 billion annually by 2010. However, the sole function of FAA air traffic controllers is to ensure the safety of the flying public, and this must not be compromised to accommodate more passengers, more flights, or more profits for the airlines.

Continued dissatisfaction with the progress of national air system (NAS) modernization and the mounting problem of aviation gridlock has led to many industry and government officials calling for restructuring of the FAA. Proponents argue that alternative organizational structures for air traffic control operations and/or the entire agency would improve modernization efforts and solve the problem of delays. I am here today to tell you that privatization of air traffic control operations is not the answer.

FY2001 FAA BUDGET

NATCA supports full funding of the Administration’s FY2001 budget request for the FAA. Increased investment in aviation is essential. After millions spent and unprecedented progress, modernization of the air traffic control (ATC) system is in danger of being stopped mid-stream. Congress must commit to stable, guaranteed funding in order to implement the best, most cost-effective air traffic control equipment and meet the demands of the 21^st century. Major infrastructure improvements are needed to increase capacity and efficiency to handle our crowded skies and airports. As lawmakers tackle the issues of taking aviation trust funds off budget or implementing a user fee system, the need for a multi-year, multi-step commitment to ATC modernization with continuous funding must remain a top priority.

MODERNIZATION

The FAA modernization effort consists of over 100 projects. Admittedly, there have been a number of past problems and obstacles but the FAA has turned the corner. And, we would like to commend Administrator Jane Garvey on her efforts in getting many of the ATC modernization projects, specifically DSR and STARS, back on track. NATCA has long believed that adequate and sustained funding is essential to the modernization of the national air system (NAS). We are firm supporters of Administrator Garvey’s "build a little, test a little, deploy a little" strategy, and NATCA will remain an advocate of this throughout the modernization effort.

Collaboration and teamwork have been instrumental in ensuring the success of the Display System Replacement (DSR) and Standard Terminal Automated Replacement System (STARS) modernization projects. Working together, FAA officials, staff, air traffic controllers, and engineers, were able to identify feasible and affordable solutions and make the necessary fixes for STARS and DSR suitability in the air traffic controller environment.

Installation of DSR at the 20 air route traffic control centers (ARTCCs) is almost complete. DSR modernizes the computer equipment and provides the platform for future air traffic control system upgrades. With DSR in place, controllers have the necessary tools to more efficiently handle today’s traffic volume and to accommodate the projected increases in air traffic. Thus, adequate resources must be provided not only to complete DSR installation in all ARTCCs, but also to allow DSR to evolve to accomplish a seamless integration of each new system that will be designed to achieve controller productivity, efficiency, and above all safety.

As for STARS, the FAA has revamped the budget and deployment schedule. STARS will replace aging computer and radar scopes at 172 terminal air traffic control (TRACON) facilities and 362 airport control towers. Installation of STARS is already complete in Syracuse, NY and El Paso, TX.

The current system can be improved, but improvements will take time to develop, test and implement. As an industry, we need to work together to address those factors which have and will continue to plague the system. The keys to NAS modernization are strong leadership, industry consensus, and adequate funding. Without them, the result will be restricted aviation growth. 

PRIVATIZATION

NATCA believes that air traffic control is an inherently governmental function and that the entire system must remain under the jurisdiction and control of the FAA. Ensuring the safety of the flying public is the foremost concern of air traffic controllers and the FAA. This should not be compromised - especially at a time when air traffic is soaring.

Privatization is not the solution to aviation delays, NAS modernization, or the other problems plaguing the air traffic control system. Privatization will not increase airport capacity, or build more runways or airports. It is simply a business-oriented solution being offered by — surprise — the airlines and others who stand to make a profit. Proponents argue that competition in the private sector allows companies to provide services more efficiently while reducing costs. Yet, private companies will constantly balance the bottom line against safety. Some things should not be reduced to dollars and cents.

Given the nature of the air traffic control system, privatization is foolish and unfounded. The safety of the flying public should never be in competition with corporate profits. The most sophisticated, top-of-the-line computer system can not guarantee a safe and efficient air traffic control system. Only a highly trained, adequately compensated and well-managed workforce can do this. With or without working technology, the human element is the last line of defense in maintaining the safety of the flying public. For FAA controllers, safety is the number one priority. Private companies, however, have little accountability to the public — only to their stockholders. Moreover, profits are achieved at the expense of the employee. All one has to do is look at the current Federal Contract Tower (FCT) Program which is characterized by inadequate training and staffing, lower salaries and fewer benefits, communication lapses and poor working conditions.

Privatization of air traffic control operations would further erode the homogenous management structure and the seamless nature of our air traffic control system. The air traffic control system operates through teams of highly skilled and well-trained controllers linked together with highly sophisticated communication and radar systems. A smooth, safe and efficient system depends on the seamless transition of aircraft from control towers to Terminal Radar Approach Controls (TRACON) to Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC). A breakdown in communication between controllers at these facilities reduces safety, capacity and overall system performance. When one link in the chain is broken, communication breaks down and safety is compromised. FAA controllers share common language, background and management. Piecemeal privatization of air traffic control operations eliminates standard phraseology and procedures. Contract controllers do not receive the same training as FAA controllers and are not required to follow the same work rules and agreements.

LEVEL II AND III TOWERS

NATCA strongly opposes expansion of the Federal Contract Tower (FCT) Program to include Level II and III visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control towers. To do so would not only be unwise, but it would be a radical departure from the confines of the existing program. Currently, the FCT program consists of low traffic volume towers with an hourly traffic density of less than 35 operations (arrivals and departures) per hour. The number and complexity of operations increases significantly from Level I facilities to Level II (approximately 50 to 60 aircraft per hour) and Level III (over 100 per hour) towers. In addition, most of these higher level facilities use radar equipment to separate aircraft, and some are among the busiest airports in the country. For this reason, the FAA is also opposed to contracting out Level II and III towers.

Proponents of the FCT program point to the cost savings associated with the current program. However, any reported savings are questionable. And, everyone agrees that these reported savings are at the expense of employee salaries, benefits, training, working conditions and equipment. The FAA estimates cost savings from contracting out Level I towers to be $250,000 per facility annually. Projected cost savings from expanding the FCT program to include Level II and III towers are $15 million. However, these figures fail to account for a number of indirect and hidden costs such as contract oversight, increased insurance premiums, controller relocations, and promotions (salaries increase as a result of moving controllers to higher level facilities). In addition, these figures only show short-term savings, ignoring the long-term costs of potential lawsuits and contract cost growth.

Justification for expanding the FCT program takes a giant leap of faith by precariously balancing the cost of human life against the costs of ensuring safety. This fallacy of logic in this economic strategy puts the American public’s lives at risk.

OCEANIC OPERATIONS

Privatization of oceanic air traffic control operations would be impractical, raise serious national defense implications, and hamper the oceanic modernization program. To do so runs contrary to FAA’s stated goals and would place high profile air traffic control operations in the hands of an untested and potentially unsafe private entity. We are not talking about small, rural airports with little or no traffic. Oceanic controllers are at the top of their field. They handle Boeing 747s, complex and busy international traffic flows, and classified military missions.

NATCA strongly supports modernization of oceanic operations through the use of existing automation systems. In fact, NATCA and the FAA have agreed to a modernization plan whereby the FAA will purchase an existing automation system being used successfully in other parts of the world. Currently, oceanic controllers work without surveillance equipment, navigational aids and direct pilot communication. Automation will integrate the different operations at oceanic and en route centers, and provide the framework for future interfacing with Data Link systems and other automated air traffic controller operations. This plan, which has been endorsed by the Air Transport Association (ATA), provides the necessary solutions while preserving the integrity of the air traffic control system and the seamless operations between domestic and oceanic control at New York, Oakland, and Anchorage centers.

The FAA controls over 18 million square miles of international airspace at three en route centers in New York, Oakland and Anchorage. Air traffic controllers stationed at these facilities receive a minimum of three to five years training in order to reach journeyman status. The length of time itself points to the complexities of functions and separation services that controllers at these centers must be able to handle. Controllers at these three en route centers are responsible, daily, for the safety of thousands of domestic and international passengers. Contracting out oceanic air traffic control services would draw tremendous international scrutiny, and would be subject to harsh criticism in the event of an accident or incident.

To state that oceanic operations are "discreet and operationally discernible from other FAA air traffic services and facilities" and therefore candidates for contracting out, ignores a number of key interdependencies. All oceanic operations are part of larger en route facilities. Oceanic air traffic controllers also perform indispensable domestic operations, and work in very close coordination with surrounding domestic radar sectors. In fact, at the Anchorage en route center, the nature of the airspace makes it virtually impossible to clearly isolate oceanic non-radar airspace from domestic non-radar and domestic/offshore radar airspace.

Oceanic controllers are trained in both domestic and oceanic control techniques. This cross training is crucial to the efficient operations at these en route centers as oceanic controllers work side-by-side with domestic controllers. Coordination between domestic and oceanic controllers is continuous as international flights transition in and out of domestic radar sectors. This high level of coordination is supported by a common and homogenous management and staff structure within the FAA. Isolation and/or removal of oceanic operations from FAA’s jurisdiction would seriously impair communication and operations as aircrafts transition from domestic to offshore to oceanic airspace.

To remove oceanic operations would cause irreparable damage to remaining operations at the New York, Oakland and Anchorage centers, and would place a major operational burden on these already hard to staff facilities. These facilities would also face downgrades, adversely impacting the pay of hundreds of controllers, supervisors, managers, and staff specialists.

The FAA’s oceanic operations are also responsible for the control of military operations vital to national defense. On a daily basis, oceanic controllers handle a significant number of military flights and missions across the Atlantic and Pacific. Oceanic controllers work closely with FAA military operations specialists to ensure that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) costly and vital missions are conducted with the highest level of safety and efficiency. In fact, due to the sensitive nature of some of these operations, oceanic controllers are required maintain security clearances. It is not hard to see how the contracting out oceanic air traffic controllers could negatively impact military operations in the area of national defense.

OTHER COUNTRIES

Proponents of privatization often point to restructured aviation departments by governments abroad. NATCA believes, however, that any comparison is illogical. In countries that have partially or totally privatized air traffic control systems, the airspace is relatively confined and compact, with fewer number of employees, planes, air traffic control facilities, and smaller budget requirements. The United States, on the other hand, maintains the largest, most complex and most demanding air traffic control system in the world. Most of the FAA’s nine regions handle airspace and operations that far exceed that of any single country that has privatized. Together, all nine FAA regions are responsible for moving at least half of the world’s aviation passengers and cargo.

While the same type of air traffic control (ATC) problems may arise in many countries, it would be foolish to assume that a blanket solution would effectively correct the problem(s) and operate the same in each country. This is because the magnitude of airspace and the number of flights daily differ drastically from country to country. The U.S. ATC system is funded through a combination of general and aviation specific taxes, where most nations have a user fee system. In the U.S., commercial passengers pay a large portion of the air traffic control system, and general and business aviation (the U.S. has the largest general aviation community in the world) receive substantial benefits at little cost. Yet, each entity is treated as an equal with services conducted on a first-come, first-serve basis.

NATCA CONTRACT

In October 1996, Congress granted FAA’s exclusive bargaining representative full negotiating rights on changes to Title V, U.S.C. personnel provisions. In July 1998, the FAA and NATCA reached a historical agreement, the first in the federal sector, on contract (work rules), reclassification, pay rules and compensation package. This also marked the first time an agreement was reached between the FAA and controllers that did not result in severe labor-management consequences. And, since the agreement was reached without impasse, Congress was not needed as a final arbiter. In June 1998, the collective bargaining agreement was ratified by the air traffic controller workforce.

As stated recently by both FAA Administrator Jane Garvey and DOT Inspector General Ken Mead, labor-management relations at the FAA have never been better — a direct result of the union contract. Continued attempts to privatization of air traffic control operations will only lead to the deterioration of that relationship. Such efforts will create a negative and contentious atmosphere between controllers and FAA managers in the workplace. NATCA can not allow any further encroachment on our occupation, the jobs we perform or the agreement we negotiated in good faith with the agency.