While the debate over reauthorization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has focused on a House of Representatives plan to turn the country’s air traffic control (ATC) services over to a standalone, nonprofit corporation, the bills under consideration in the House and Senate contain many more provisions that could affect airlines. 

Among the most notable centers on a push to expand training methods that will help pilots reach the 1,500-hour minimum required of all U.S. airline pilots. Part of a Senate bill that moved out of committee on June 29, an amendment sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) would give pilots alternative “pathways...to obtain or receive credit for 1,500 hours through training protocols” that FAA would review and approve to verify safety.

"The pathways in question are proven to enhance safety and they also restore opportunities for aspiring pilots who have been priced out of the career path otherwise—meeting two critical objectives,” Faye Malarkey Black, president of the Regional Airline Association (RAA), told AIN. "Given this, and because everyone is starting from the common agreement that safety comes first, I expect that the provision in the FAA bill will evolve in a way that is not controversial."

Others backing the measure include the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Regional Air Cargo Airline Association. Both cite the long-term ramifications on small communities, which they say continue to lose air service as small carriers cut flights in response to pilot-staffing challenges, as a primary concern. Meanwhile, the Air Line Pilots Association maintains economics lie at the root of air-service decisions and pilot staffing trends.

Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) and AAAE have offered tepid support for the bills, largely because neither piece of legislation includes an increase in the passenger facility charge (PFC) cap, which has remained at $4.50 since 2000. Airlines see PFCs—levied on passengers using specific airports and applied to pre-approved capital improvement projects—as taxes, while airports view them as the most efficient way to help offset needed upgrades, such as new terminals and airfield enhancements, required to meet rising demand.

“As the FAA reauthorization process moves forward, AAAE and ACI-NA will continue to urge Congress and the Trump Administration to remove the federal cap on local PFCs so that airports can undertake their critical infrastructure needs for the benefit of air travelers and communities throughout the nation,” the groups said in a joint statement.

Among positives for airports, the Senate bill would streamline the PFC application process for many airports, expanding benefits now available only to larger facilities. The four-year Senate bill would push Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding from $3.35 billion—the level at which it has stood for more than a decade—to $3.75 billion. The six-year house bill would push AIP funding to almost $4 billion by 2023.

One subject on which the House and Senate agree involves regulations that ban supersonic flight over land. Both bills call for FAA to re-examine the ban, in place since 1973, in light of technological advancements, and report back within a year.

The studies could help pave the way for several supersonic aircraft in development, including the proposed Boom passenger airliner, to fly much-coveted intra-continental routes. Boom CEO Blake Scholl expressed confidence that technology has advanced enough to limit the sonic-boom issue that triggered the regulations. “We think the sonic boom issues are overblown,” he said at last month’s Paris Air Show.

Amendments rejected include a Senate proposal to study the impact of checked-baggage fees on checkpoint volumes, and a call to crack down on airline ancillary fees that would have required airlines to match charges with the costs of providing services.