NextGen

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is a new way to control traffic in our national airspace.  This plan will control air traffic with satellite based equipment instead of radar based equipment.  According to the FAA, "new, satellite-based technologies will significantly improve safety, capacity and efficiency on runways and in the nation’s skies while providing environmentally friendly procedures and technologies that reduce fuel burn, carbon emissions and noise."  NextGen will take many years to implement, and a hybrid system will most likely be used for a long time.

The FAA has built the NextGen system on four major pillars:  economic impact, sustainability, flexibility, and safety.  I feel safety is the most important pillar, as does the FAA.  It seems obvious that a change this large should make our system safer, or not take place at all.  I feel safety during the change is also important, and users must be educated well during the process.  The new technology promises many advantages, some of which include less spacing between traffic.  Well educated pilots are mandatory to keep the skies safe.  Closer spacing of traffic will offer less room for pilot error.

Sustainability of NextGen would be the next important pillar, in a close tie with economic impact.  I feel the two are somewhat tied together.  The system will be very expensive, both for the government, and the users.  If the economic impact is not great enough, it will not be sustainable.  The economic impact is hard to predict at this point.  There are many statistics and predictions about how beneficial NextGen will be, but it will be nice to see the results as it is implemented.  The FAA predicts the NextGen will help sustain the growth of aviation.  This will happen if the FAA's promises come true.

Flexibility is important to continue the growth of aviation.  The NextGen system is supposed to increase the flexibility of routes, and provide better alternatives for routing around airspace disruptions.  This also contributes to the economic impact.  If the flexibility can help bring down costs of aviation, more people and businesses will find uses for aviation.

The topic of user fees to help fund air traffic control and NextGen is a very difficult topic.  Our systems needs a way of raising funds, but I do not feel implementing user fees is the best way to do it.  I think fuel taxes provide a better way of spreading the cost more fairly.  I also think the general public should help fund the system.  People who never fly still benefit from aviation, and could help with the expenses.

NextGen could potentially affect me in a few ways.  I look forward to being able to use some of its advantages, and experience the benefits the FAA describes.  It will add more technology and automation to the cockpit.  It will make flying safer for those who are properly trained.  It will also create more jobs, some of which are with FAA.  Maybe it would be fun to work on the NextGen system with the FAA......

Business Aviation

It is difficult for me to form an opinion about the financial benefits of business aviation departments.  Joe Moore had discussed a Forbes article about business aviation, and it drew a comparison between share holder returns for companies with and without flight departments.  The article didn't really explain why AVIATION helped produce more profit for the shareholders, it only mentioned why having a flight program could be convenient.

While reading the National Business Aviation Association's website, I was able to find even more conveniences for a company having a flight department.  It really seems like any organization doing research to figure out if an aviation department is beneficial for a company develops an opinion first (either for it or against it) and then finds ways of supporting their opinion by any means necessary.  There are some facts that cannot be argued.  Business aviation can save a TON of time.  Businesses can travel whenever they want, and often to airports closer to their final destination.  Their is also opportunity for companies to lease their aircraft, providing an additional source of income.  However, it is difficult to find a source that outlines the exact costs, side by side, for a company's expenses if they were to use commercial aviation versus having their own airplane.


My personal opinion is a mixture of viewpoints.  I am in support of a company spending money on a flight department for any reason at all (to increase efficiency, cut down on travel time, or just have fun) if the company can support it financially, even if it costs the company MORE than traveling on commercial aviation.  However, I feel it was very irresponsible for the auto company's executives to fly to Washington when they asked for taxpayer bailout money.  There were other means of transportation that would have cost less, and any company asking for a bailout should be saving money in any way necessary.  This doesn't necessarily mean their flight programs should be shut down, but they should only be used when it saves the company money.

Aviation User Fees

Aviation is an expensive industry.  The FAA is responsible for regulating and promoting aviation, and this is an expensive task.  The FAA is funded by tax payers, and this has been a recent source of controversy.  Dana Hyde, associate director for general government programs, Office of Management and Budget, feels that an aviation user fee is the best way to make sure everyone pays their "fair share," according to a recent AVWeb article.  Her proposal is to assess a $100 per flight fee for using the air traffic control system.  The current proposal would exclude piston aircraft.

The public seems to have many different ideas on who will have to pay what if user fees are ever established.  User fees will definitely have an impact on an industry that relies on very slim profit margins.  Many people involved in the industry, including AOPA, feel that a fuel based tax (in addition to the taxes already on fuel) is a better answer.  Their argument is that a longer flight that uses the air traffic control system for an extended time should have to pay more than a flight making a shorter trip.  They feel that the fuel used during a flight is more representative of how long that specific flight used air traffic control services.  The airlines are opposed to that argument.  They don't feel like they should have to pay more for a flight because they operate larger aircraft.  They would use an equal amount of air traffic control services as a business jet flying the same route, but would use a much greater amount of fuel.  

There isn't a good prediction about what will happen in the future, especially 5 years out.  There have been talks about adding aviation user fees in past years, but it seems to be materializing more.  The impact user fees could have on aviation will depend on if they are ever added in the first place.  If user fees become a reality, some fear that piston aircraft will not be excluded forever.  This would greatly affect flight training, especially for those training for an instrument rating.  Currently, there is no talk about that happening.