Fighting Over Labor
Last Friday, House and Senate leaders announced an agreement on a long-awaited bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. Republicans withdrew a controversial labor provision that had drawn a veto threat from the White House in exchange for other changes to unionization rules. The deal paves the way for an FAA bill that has been years in the making. Lawmakers were facing a Jan. 31 deadline when the current FAA extension would expire. Lawmakers will pass one last extension this week, and they expect the final bill to be completed in February.
News of the breakthrough caused the aviation community to breathe a sigh of relief. But the deal also could impact future transportation negotiations; labor fights might now be fair game. Republicans backed off of their demand to rescind an administration rule that makes it easier for rail and aviation workers to unionize only after Democrats agreed to tweak how unionization elections are conducted and overseen. The biggest change is that the threshold to trigger a union election would be raised from 35 percent to 50 percent of covered workers. Labor officials say that change would have almost no practical impact on unionization because virtually all organizing campaigns are supported by more than half of the covered workforce.
Nonetheless, Republicans consider the Democrats' concessions a huge win because this is the first time that changes to union rules have been included in an FAA reauthorization bill. AFL-CIO Transportation and Trades Department President Edward Wytkind said the FAA bill is wrong place to be talking about complex union rules. "We don't believe amendments to the Railway Labor Act belong in an air-safety bill," he told me before the deal was finalized.
Did Democratic leaders do the right thing in granting unionization changes in order to jump-start an otherwise popular and noncontroversial transportation bill? Did Republicans do the right thing raising the union issue, knowing that the FAA bill would be the only place they would get any traction? Does this deal set a precedent for labor negotiations in future transportation bills? When is it appropriate to address union rules in transportation policy?
January 26, 2012 9:20 AM
Reform the Essential Air Service
By Peter J. Pantuso
The American Bus Association supports the efforts by members of the House and Senate to reach a funding bill for the Federal Aviation Administration. We feel a strong national air system is vital to our nation’s economy and transportation network. As Congress finalizes the next FAA reauthorization, members should consider reforming the Essential Air Service (EAS) program so we can keep rural communities connected while expanding service and reducing cost.
A report commissioned late last year by the American Bus Association Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Reason Foundation found that the federal government could save nearly $100 million dollars annually by using scheduled inter-city motorcoach service to maintain rural air links now subsidized under the EAS program.
The EAS program may have made sense when it was enacted during the Carter Administration, but like many well-meaning government programs it has expanded to markets where it’s not needed.
Consider the following routes currently subsi...
The American Bus Association supports the efforts by members of the House and Senate to reach a funding bill for the Federal Aviation Administration. We feel a strong national air system is vital to our nation’s economy and transportation network. As Congress finalizes the next FAA reauthorization, members should consider reforming the Essential Air Service (EAS) program so we can keep rural communities connected while expanding service and reducing cost.
A report commissioned late last year by the American Bus Association Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Reason Foundation found that the federal government could save nearly $100 million dollars annually by using scheduled inter-city motorcoach service to maintain rural air links now subsidized under the EAS program.
The EAS program may have made sense when it was enacted during the Carter Administration, but like many well-meaning government programs it has expanded to markets where it’s not needed.
Consider the following routes currently subsidized under EAS:
· Athens, Georgia to Atlanta’s Hartsfield/Jackson International Airport. It’s all of 75 miles from the two cities and hundreds of people make the trip each day by car and scheduled motorcoach.
· Hagerstown, Maryland to BWI/Thurgood Marshall Airport.
o EAS per passenger subsidy and average fare from Hagerstown, Maryland to BWI/Thurgood Marshall Airport is $115.41
o Potential bus alternative per passenger fare from Hagerstown, Maryland to BWI/Thurgood Marshall Airport without subsidy is estimated at $38.41.
· Another rural connection that is more efficient by bus is Lebanon/WRJ, VT to Boston, Mass.
o EAS per passenger subsidy and average fare from Lebanon to Boston is $219.48
o Bus alternative per passenger fare from Lebanon to Boston without subsidy is $66.78.
The examples above are for alternative service on existing EAS routes. In reality there are many ground transportation options to alternative airports that make far more sense than EAS corridors.
One example is the EAS flight from Prescott Arizona to Denver Colorado. This flight costs the tax payer and the passenger an average of $244.83. The bus alternative would be Prescott Arizona to Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix which would cost the passenger $51.00, save them hours in travel time and would not cost the American taxpayer a dollar.
The use of scheduled bus service to link 38 rural communities to the national air transport system – instead of current EAS-subsidized air service - could save tax payers and passengers while expanding the rural transportation network. Essential Air Service should be changed to Essential Transportation Service which would allow communities to choose how best to use their transportation dollars. In many instances motorcoaches can offer more frequent, cost effective and environmentally responsible transportation.
The real question for Congress is whether or not we can break the modal stove pipes that are stymying our system.
The full report about the Essential Air Service and why motorcoach
travel is a better bargain is on our website at http://www.buses.org/ABA-Foundation/Research
Read More