The House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration for the next five years, making several changes that affect passengers amid growing dysfunction and chaos in the system.
The bill would require airlines to provide refunds and reimbursements to passengers, strengthen protections for passengers with disabilities, boost hiring of air traffic controllers, improve aviation safety, free up funds to modernize airport infrastructure and invest in technology upgrades for the Department of Aviation. The House passed the bill by a vote of 351-69 and sent it to the Senate.
“Today, the House of Representatives voted to strengthen America’s global aviation leadership,” Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Transportation Committee, said in a statement. “This good faith process has resulted in bipartisan legislation that will create a safer, cleaner, greener and more accessible U.S. aviation system. This legislation will uphold America’s highest standards in safety and innovation, enable a more sustainable and resilient aviation sector, and improve accessibility and consumer protections for all passengers.”
Several sticking points had threatened to delay a final agreement, including disputes over proposed changes to pilot training rules and raising the retirement age. Republicans and the airline industry have largely opposed new Democratic regulations aimed at better protecting consumers, and Washington-area representatives have said they would block the bill if it allowed more long-haul flights to and from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport outside the nation’s capital.
But the House cleared some roadblocks Wednesday night before passing the bill on Thursday: The House voted 229-205 to reject a bipartisan proposal to add seven flights to and from Reagan National Airport.
The House also approved a bipartisan amendment to maintain current standards for pilot training, blocking a proposal sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that had faced opposition in the Senate.
The fights could have undermined Congress’ opportunities to improve air travel, with thousands of delayed and canceled flights, an increase in near-misses on runways, understaffed air traffic controllers and a surge in travel caused by the coronavirus pandemic — disruptions expected to get worse as climate change causes more extreme weather and grounds flights.
The Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to take up the committee’s version later this month, after which the two sides must reconcile their competing proposals before the current authorization expires at the end of September.The Democratic-led Senate bill contains many consumer protection provisions that airlines have criticized as overly burdensome and making air travel more expensive and less accessible.
The measures are also likely to face resistance from the Republican-led House of Representatives, which argues that airline deregulation has increased competition among airlines and improved the customer experience, while new regulations would stifle competition.
“This bill addresses many of the concerns we hear every day from people who fly,” Rep. Garrett Graves, a Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Transportation Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee, said on the House floor Wednesday.
But in an interview, he expressed concern that the consumer protections proposed by the Senate were too broad and unclear. “We have to make sure that the solutions are put in place, which means you can’t blame the airlines for air traffic control, and you can’t blame the Transportation Security Administration for the airlines,” he said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.
Democrats accuse the airline industry of trying to eliminate necessary regulations.
“Frankly, the biggest obstacle to improving service is airline lobbying,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who along with Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts led a caucus of Democrats this year to introduce a Passenger Bill of Rights.
Among other measures, the bill would prohibit airlines from charging “unfair or disproportionate” fees for services such as checked baggage or seat assignments, and would require airlines to compensate passengers who are denied boarding due to overbooked flights and refund baggage fees if baggage is lost.
Blumenthal said the airline industry has “the money, the lawyers and the lobbyists to block effective reforms, including a Passenger Bill of Rights.”
“It is in the interest of all U.S. airlines to provide a good flying experience for all passengers,” Marley Collier, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, which represents major airlines, said in a statement. She said her group’s members “adhere to” and “often go beyond” Department of Transportation regulations that protect consumers.
The FAA bill has also triggered dozens of smaller fights, including local ones that bypass the usual political coalitions in Congress, including a battle over decades-old federal rules governing the number of long-haul round-trip flights from Reagan National Airport, across the Potomac River from the Capitol and used by many members of Congress.
Dozens of lawmakers, including some who would benefit from a change to the so-called slot boundary rules that would make it easier to commute to Washington, are pushing for more long-haul flights from the airport, arguing the changes would increase competition and lower prices. Lawmakers from the Washington area, whose constituents would be most affected by the changes, counter that the airport is already over capacity.
Republican Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah, who proposed the provision to increase the number of flights, said Wednesday that the rule would “limit access and increase costs” for people trying to visit Washington.
But Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine warned that changing the rules would “certainly cause delays” to the bill.
Congress is also at odds over raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 65 to 67. The change has been pushed by Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls, whose brother is an airline pilot who will turn 65, and is supported by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Nehls and McCarthy’s offices did not respond to requests for comment.
Proponents say the increase would stem a wave of retirements that are further depleting an already overstretched pilot workforce. Opponents from both parties, including labor unions and the Biden administration, argue that rather than bolstering the workforce, the changes would affect safety, raise legal questions and create logistical challenges because pilots over 65 would be barred from international flights.
The Senate bill has also been stalled for weeks because Sens. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent, wanted to change the rules governing the amount and type of flight hours pilots must accumulate to fly commercially.
The House voted Wednesday to maintain the current standards, removing a provision from the bill that would have allowed certain pilots to add additional simulated flight hours toward meeting the standards.
“Our job as elected leaders is to protect public safety and prevent other families from experiencing the heartbreak of losing a loved one in an avoidable aviation accident,” Rep. Nick Langworthy, a New York Republican who introduced the amendment, said on the House floor Wednesday. The pilot training rules were enacted after a plane crashed near Buffalo in 2009, killing everyone on board.
Sam Graves, chairman of the Transportation Committee and a licensed commercial pilot himself, argued that simulators offer future pilots more opportunities to train in scenarios that can’t easily be replicated in real life.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who chairs the aviation subcommittee, has advocated for maintaining training standards and introduced legislation on Tuesday to strengthen and protect the rules.
“That’s my absolute red line: I can’t put public safety at risk by reducing my flight hours,” Duckworth, a former Army helicopter pilot, told reporters. “In the midst of an aviation safety crisis, I’m not going to be part of any effort to lower the actual flight hour requirements to protect the aviation public. And I’m not going to budge on that.”