Acting FAA Administrator Pro User Fees

Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator



Reactions to Bobby Sturgell at FAA Admin

GROUPS AVOID "U" WORD IN STURGELL REACTION
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196452)
The White House announcement that Robert Sturgell will be
nominated as the next FAA administrator drew quick reaction from
the GA alphabet groups. Sturgell has been with the agency long
enough that the players are familiar with him and his stand on the
issues. None of the major groups mentioned the user fee issue,
which Sturgell has presumably played a major role in developing.
Sturgell demonstrated his support for user fees under oath at a
Congressional committee hearing last month
(http://www.faa.gov/news/testimony/ne...fm?newsId=9572)
saying that the way the FAA is funded needs to change. "A
cost-based funding structure is essential to transforming the
aviation system," he said. With that thorn conveniently buried for
the moment, the groups found plenty to like about Sturgell's
appointment.

AOPA and EAA said they welcomed the nomination. "Bobby Sturgell
understands the issues that face EAA members and has been engaged
in those issues as deputy administrator," said Tom Poberezny
(http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...sturgell.html),
EAA president. "Bobby has had the opportunity to join us at EAA
AirVenture Oshkosh over the past several years, so he is very
familiar with EAA and our members' enthusiasm for flight." AOPA
President Phil Boyer also said he is okay with the choice. "We've
worked closely with Bobby for more than five years and have found
that he understands aviation from the pilot's perspective," Boyer
said
(http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...sturgell.html).
"He was particularly helpful in pushing through some of the latest
changes that made the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification
Zone a little easier for pilots to negotiate." The National
Business Aviation Association said: "Bobby Sturgell is a
distinguished aviator with a strong government background ... NBAA
looks forward to working with him."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#196452
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.faa.gov/news/testimony/ne...ewsId=9572With
Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator:
Controller “time on position” (the time a controller actually
spends controlling air traffic) system-wide is running about 4
hours and 30 minutes for an 8-hour workday. System overtime is at
1.1 percent, which is below previous years, and total operations
per controller are roughly the same as 1999 and 2000. ...

Also worth noting is that general aviation and business aviation
use is up. While new users and business models are critical to the
growth of the system, the air traffic control system cannot
accommodate every new proposed use without a system that matches
our costs with the revenues being produced to pay for the system.
On a system-wide basis, our cost allocation found that general
aviation drives about 16% of the costs of the air traffic control
system, while only paying about 3% of the taxes, a situation that
is unsustainable given the growth in GA flight time that we
expect. We believe that a fairer allocation of costs is necessary
to sustain the system and allow it to grow.

Reauthorization
This brings us to our final point, that Congress plays an enormous
role in shaping a solution. The Subcommittee has heard this
before, but it bears repeating as we move to the final stages of
this year’s reauthorization debate: a cost-based funding
structure is essential to transforming the aviation system.
Numerous bipartisan commissions have recommended cost-based
funding for the FAA over the last two decades, and air traffic
control providers in every other developed country have cost-based
funding. Failure to adopt a cost-based system here is unfair to
our air travelers and will hinder the implementation of NextGen,
and, for the first time in history, put the United States behind
other countries that are moving towards the future of aviation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Sturgell's final comment seems to contradict Congress's finding
that NextGen could proceed (and is proceeding) under current FAA
funding methods.