Please Urge Your Lawmakers to Reject Transient Parking Amendment
July 13, 2023
We need your help! When the House of Representatives considers the FAA reauthorization bill next week, lawmakers are expected to consider an amendment that would require all airports to provide transient parking to general aviation pilots at little to no cost. Please contact your representatives as soon as possible and urge them to reject this amendment, which raises significant economic, regulatory, policy, and security concerns.
Obernolte/Cartwright Amendment
Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA) have filed an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill (H.R. 3935) that would require all public use airports to provide transient aircraft parking for general aviation pilots who don't want to use FBO services. The proposal - known as the General Aviation Airport Access Act - would require that any fees for transient parking be 'fair, reasonable, transparent, publicly available (including on the covered airport's website) and exclude any extraneous or hidden costs.'
In setting this fee, proponents have made clear that an airport could only recoup direct costs of the parking apron rather than the broader indirect costs of running the airport. The measure would also prohibit airports and FBOs from charging pilots or passengers a fee to transit between their aircraft and a place outside the airport's perimeter fence even if the transit requires passing through a building.
The sweeping transient ramp proposal is being backed by AOPA, and the group is aggressively pushing for its inclusion in both the Senate and House version of the FAA reauthorization bill. As we have previously reported, Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) is planning to offer a similar amendment when the Senate Commerce Committee marks up its version of the bill, which may occur as early as next week. We urge you to continue to weigh in with your Senators on that amendment, too.
Lawmakers have filed more than 300 amendments to the House FAA reauthorization bill. We will be sending out more information on airport-related amendments shortly. We will also discuss the upcoming consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill in the House and provide an update on a possible breakthrough in the Senate during our call on Monday.
Quick Timing
The House Rules Committee is expected to meet on Monday to consider the bill and determine which amendments will be made in order. And the House of Representatives is expected to begin considering the bill on Tuesday with final passage likely on Thursday. With the bill coming up soon, it is critical that you weigh in with your elected officials as soon as possible.
Urgent Request: Please contact your representatives as soon as possible - including those who serve on the House Rules Committee -- and urge them to oppose the Obernolte/Cartwright amendment. Talking points are below, and a one-pager you can share with lawmakers and their staff may be viewed here.
Talking Points
• I urge Rep. (last name) to oppose the Obernolte/Cartwright amendment to the House FAA reauthorization bill (H.R. 3935) that would require all airports to accommodate transient private pilots, at little to no cost to the pilot, with special parking areas if they don't want to use certain airport service providers (FBOs).
• The so-called General Aviation Airports Access Act raises serious economic, regulatory, policy, and security concerns and should be rejected.
• Requiring airports to accommodate transient private pilots, at little to no cost to the pilot, with special parking areas if they don't want to use certain airport service providers (FBOs) would be a significant policy and change and inject new economic regulations on airport operators.
• To set a parking fee, proponents argue that airports should only be allowed to recover the direct costs associated with the pavement in question. This ignores the significant indirect costs that airports incur to ensure they are providing a safe operating environment for users, including the itinerant users.
• These indirect costs are substantial and include keeping insurance, providing fire and police response, retaining access control systems, maintaining staff, ensuring maintenance occurs, and paying for general services (e.g., legal, accounting, janitorial) that any organization incurs.
• When an aircraft operator visits an airport, they benefit from all the services and investments made to ensure the parking ramp is available for safe use.
• If adopted, airports would have to increase their fees on other users of the airport, effectively forcing one group of users to subsidize the use of the airport by transient private pilots.
• Some airports may not be able to increase fees on those other users and may violate longstanding grant obligations requiring them to be as self-sustaining as possible.
• Airports could be forced to increase existing fees on other users and possibly even create new fees (i.e., landing fees at GA airports) that don't currently exist.
• Private pilots, like other users, should be required to pay their fair share of the airport's operating costs.
• The FAA would be required to allocate valuable resources to evaluating complaints from pilots as to whether a fee meets the vague standard of 'fair and reasonable.'
• From an operational standpoint, how is an airport to determine which aircraft/pilot wants FBO services and which don't? This would need to occur in advance to ensure available space.
• Many airports are space constrained. What if space isn't available to accommodate all users who want to avail themselves of special parking areas?
• With little to no fees, there will be significantly more demand for very limited ramp space at some of the busiest airports in the country. This could cause congestion in the airspace and on the ground and have safety implications.
• Airport security is imperative. The current model is built on knowing exactly who is in sensitive areas of the airport, including aircraft operating areas.
• Who is required to meet the aircraft and ensure that individuals on the aircraft are properly escorted as is required under current security regulations?
• Airports do not have adequate personnel to accommodate arrivals and provide necessary escorts during all operating hours.
• Many FBOs currently fulfil this role, but their services are considered unnecessary by this proposal.
• For these reasons, I urge you to reject the Obernolte/Cartwright amendment and adoption of the General Aviation Airport Access Act.
