Last week, I was in Boston listening to the students in MIT’s Airline Industry class make group presentations on six US airlines. It is always refreshing to hear the analysis, reflection on strategies and recommendations from really smart kids who aren’t burdened, like me, by three decades of taint or cynicism.
Do We Have a National Aviation Policy?
The student presentations got me thinking about the role of national policy on the U.S. airlines. Michael E. Levine, now a Distinguished Research Scholar and Senior Lecturer at the New York University School of Law, wrote an op-ed in the December 1, 2009 Aviation Daily titled: “We Have a National Aviation Policy.” Many will remember Levine as one of the minds behind and framers of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Levine went on to serve in numerous senior management positions at a number of airlines along the way. To the serious industry observer, Levine is a must-read. You may not always agree with his viewpoints, but you always know that the work will be well researched, thoughtful and provocative.
Levine’s Aviation Daily piece has its roots in the recent comments by former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall and Business Travel Coalition President Kevin Mitchell suggesting that the U.S. lacks an effective aviation policy.
Levine disagrees: “Our government has an excellent aviation policy: continuously improve safety, promote environmental goals, maintain consumer choice, and allow the general public access to a system not run specially for the benefit of stockholders, banks, elite purchasers, aircraft manufacturers and workers more privileged than they are,” he writes. “We even have a mechanism in place to make sure that service is provided where social policy demands it and the market won’t pay for it.”
In Levine’s view:
- Profit is the job of managements and shareholders, not government
- Air transportation must be safe
- Government’s job is to ensure that aircraft are safe, not new
- Airline wages and career options should be no more or less a government concern than they are for workers in general
- US airlines should compete in world markets, and our government should eliminate impediments put in their way by other governments
- The terrible accident in Buffalo raises issues about pilot experience, fatigue and past performance that underscore the need to revisit negotiated seniority rules and pay scales that pay pilots more to fly bigger aircraft, leaving some of the least experienced pilots to do some of the most demanding flying
- Pilot fatigue comes not only from duty assignments but also from lifestyle choices that have pilots commuting to work from homes that may be thousands of miles from their jobs.
I encourage readers to find a copy and read Levine’s piece in its entirety. It is good. And of course many of the ideas are those espoused here at swelblog.com. If I have a quibble at all with Levine’s piece, I would say that the US government and the narrow-minded thinkers in Washington who are in power positions on committees overseeing US commercial aviation produce at least as many impediments as do other governments.
Levine’s analysis is also well timed to the formation of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s Blue Ribbon panel to study the industry. A mind like Levine’s would serve the industry well because unlike Crandall and Mitchell, he does not have a dog in the fight. Furthermore, his writing reflects the need to cut to core issues that govern US aviation today and fix the things don’t work – even if those things include some sacred cow(s).
Last week, FAA Administrator Babbitt testified before the Senate Commerce Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee on a variety of safety issues including pilot fatigue. As I have written here many times, there can be no productive discussion on pilot fatigue until the issue of commuting is included in that discussion.
Until last week, any Congressional testimony fatigue or flight time/duty time regulation changes centered on the work of an FAA Advisory panel that met during July and August to recommend changes to existing rules. But that committee -- comprised of labor, management and other stakeholder groups -- decided that commuting was “outside the boundaries” of their mission. So it is left to Babbitt and the FAA to seek comment on commuting with respect to the proposed rule changes.
Commuting, of course is among the industry’s most sacred cows. I don’t know how many airlines would be willing to go first in telling a pilot, or a flight attendant, that they cannot commute or that they have to live within X miles of their assigned domicile. Clearly, Babbitt is not convinced that commuting is the only major factor in the fatigue question. So for now, Babbitt’s mantra is the right one: Show up fit to work.
But commuting is a management issue as well. Back in the day when I was flying, pilots were paid moving expenses and had the company buy their house (in the event it could not be sold) if they were displaced to another domicile. As the industry began to grow and merge and create new hubs and thus new crew domiciles, the moving expense issue was a big one for companies to consider. Lo and behold, it was one of the early concessions airlines sought from pilot contracts in their efforts to cut costs and the industry structure began transforming itself.
I am glad that we are looking at fatigue and flight time/duty time regulations with a learned eye to make fixes where science suggests fixes need to be made. What doesn’t make sense is this hue and cry that fatigue is an issue because airlines have worked to improve productivity by getting their pilots to fly an additional eight hours a month.