This year, we have chosen “How should Airport and Commercial Airline Green-House Gas and other pollution be managed?” Our answer is "Quickly! But certainly not increasing safety risks or reducing the economic benefits of air transportation. 

That topic clearly raises a variety of issues: Local, State, and Federal policies and budgets define revenue sources separately. Management depends on the class (Private, Commercial, or Military) Airports: Enroute air traffic control, communications, and flight schedules and security). Federal Aviation Laws and Rules define all of these by Agreements with Airport Sponsors, Aircraft suppliers and leasers, flight operations, and safety, security, environmental, and economic planning. The biennial FAA, EPA, NTSB, State Department, TSA and other Re-Authorizations are complex, political, and related –and begin as Bills in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

The Forum Committee and the Board of Directors hoped to get House attention and cooperation to reduce Aviation Risks. The Forum might involve House Transportation Committee Members. The senior Democrat, Rick Larson, publishes informative reports. Environmental impacts be dealt with in FAA, National Airspace System and Airport policy Bills are scarce.

1. Changes that divert attention to environmental impacts (or public health and safety)? Are you familiar with the Federal Rules being discussed? A common metric --ground noise --as the threshold for reducing pollution was introduced in 2017-18 and revived last year. For the second time, Federal Rcord comments were collected and debated that could lead to a Rule excusing pollution from overflights unless they were extremely noisily!  
2. Expanding major airport routes and schedules, supposedly for economically helpful air travel, increased greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution. In your neighborhood, were more connecting passengers and freight passing through MSP helpful? 
3. Busier air routes and schedules increase safety risks at airports and enroute. Do you understand that lower, closer routes per hour increase public health and safety risks? 
4. Bills were introduced in the U.S. House that allowed the risks but delayed technology upgrades and staff level increases for aircraft inspectors, air traffic controllers, and other Federal agencies. What will your Representative do?

The Forum Committee asked ten candidates for U.S. Representative how they would reauthorize and fund FAA. Getting no response, we looked at websites, ads, and for incumbents supported bills. Except for Rep. McCollum, CD3, there was little depth. 

The current funding is mostly by airfares and shipping via airlines, Airlines pay landing fees which fund FAA and Airport operations. Other Federal agencies (NTSB, DOD, DOT, EPA) receive appropriations from taxes. Airports get revenue from leases, rents, fees, grants, and State taxes. Municipalities often provide services to airports. Those Reps that focus on economic growth seldom consider airline regulations or taxes beneficial, some Reps expect technology to reduce costs; some Reps enjoy benefits from airlines. The internal debate majority is shaky --deals to vote for other bills are common.

As air transportation grew and provided economic benefits, airports were expanded or built and planned to accommodate neighborhood impacts. These plans were made in part through local land use (expansion or relocation of the airport) since more land was usually needed. The cost of Commercial Airports is funded by landing fees and gate leases. Airlines and cities (or other airport sponsors) plan airports and their uses, trading off costs and benefits. Most large airports were

2024 Forum: Re-Authorization Issues in Congress?

1. Pollution per flight was increased by expanding MSP Airport routes and schedules, supposedly for economically helpful air travel in Minnesota. In your neighborhood, were more connecting passengers and freight passing through MSP helpful?
2. What about the MAC Charter changes that no longer require attention to environmental impacts (or public health and safety) near our Metro airports? Should that be a federal responsibility now? Or of Airlines?
3. Federal Rules discussed in Congress since 2015 apply, but they are incomplete. FAA in 2016 proposed that 65 decibel Gound Noise Intensity be used as a "Common Metric" requiring pollution attention. Testing aircraft and modeling routes would be very expensive.
4. Enroute air traffic control, communications and the security of flights and Airport Operations --routes and schedules --are broad. Federal Aviation Laws and Rules refine all of these by Agreements with Airport Sponsors, Aircraft suppliers and leasers; plus flight operation, safety, security, environmental, and economic plans. The biennial FAA, EPA, NTSB, State Department, TSA and other Re-Authorizations are complex, political, and related –and begin as Bills in the U.S. House of Representatives