Not yet for NextGen

On Wednesday 28 January, the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package was passed by the House, freeing up over US$3 billion for aviation projects. James Gordon asks whether the administration has got its priorities right.

Put simply, yesterday was ‘a good day for airports and a bad one for airport technology infrastructure’.

President Obama’s economic recovery stimulus package bill allocated over US$3 billion to airports to carry out terminal infrastructure projects, and a further US$500 million to install explosive detection systems in airports, but none of the budget is to be spent on installing satellite-based air traffic control systems at in US airports.

But, many aviation experts says that Congress is wrong to ignore NextGen technology.

Opportunity lost

They claim that by installing the system, US airports would reduce flight delays, cut fuel emissions and would drastically lower operating costs.

ATA president James May, a strong supporter of NextGen technology, says, “We are disappointed that the House missed a real opportunity to make the necessary investments in air and ground infrastructure to create jobs and better serve our passengers. We will continue to encourage Congress to make the investment in the modernisation of our nation’s air traffic control system to jump start these significantly important programmes and their benefits.”

And the FAA says that if the US government were prepared to invest US$4 billion in NextGen technology, it would generate nearly 80,000 jobs.

But the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), while agreeing that NextGen technology is fundamental to the future development of US airports, has urged Congress to allocate funding to key infrastructure projects, which it claims can make a more immediate impact.

Charles Barclay, president of the AAAE, has called on Congress to allocate funding ‘to ready to go projects’ – ‘projects, he says ‘that can be bid and under contract within 180 days.’

He also stresses that the government should provide funding for aviation security. “Many airports have submitted plans to the Transportation Security Administration that can be acted upon in the short-term, which will produce security enhancements and create jobs immediately.”

Of course, the new US administration has a responsibility to create jobs – and create them as soon as possible, but many believe that in doing so it is putting the future of US aviation at risk.

Take La Guardia, America’s most congested airport. Port Authority aviation director, William DeCota says the airport is likely to benefit hugely from Next Gen technology, and at a very small cost – US$2.5 million to be precise.

“Satellite navigation has tremendous accuracy and integrity for civil navigation, creating far more efficiency than radar in processing planes. The system will help reduce delays when it is fully operational. It is extremely cost-effective if it allows us to even handle a handful of extra flights each year.”

But it is small-scale projects, which could lose out to bigger, much more ambitious airport infrastructure construction schemes. A prime candidate for a government hand-out is the Chicago O’Hare Modernisation Project. The project has already received over US$20 billion from the US taxpayer and needs the money so that the city of Chicago can recoup a US$400 million debt.

So if the government gives this ‘shovel-ready’ project an injection of cash, who will it actually benefit – the aviation industry or the people of Chicago?

The economic stimulus might have been passed by the House, but the new Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood will face a raft of questions in the next 180 days when money is expected to be allocated to aviation projects across the country.

Where will the benefit be felt?

Question is, can airport infrastructure funding really help regional airports, such as San Jose Mineta in California, where passenger traffic fell by over one million last year and managers are planning to cut 130 jobs in the next 18 months?

As Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will have to balance the need for immediate infrastructure spending to create construction jobs and boost confidence, against the need for long-term strategic investments that keep US aviation competitive.

It would be a shame if the new administration’s admirable urge to reinvigorate the US economy with infrastructure spending is made at the cost of an investment that will ease so many of the country’s aviation problems.

Long-term, if the USA is to compete effectively internationally, then it is going to have to ensure that it retains the ability to develop and implement new technologies such as NextGen. It can only do this, if it has a home market for such systems.

Ray LaHood should keep this firmly in mind as he maps out the way forward for his department.

There are currently no comments.