Proposal Would Strip FAA of Air Traffic Control

The Clinton Administration unveiled a controversial plan Thursday to create a government-owned corporation to take over air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration, contending that it would speed modernization of equipment, improve safety and reduce aircraft delays.

Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, who announced the proposal, said that a quasi-private corporation could move more quickly than the FAA to buy the most up-to-date air traffic control equipment. Insufficient funding and alleged mismanagement have slowed down the acquisition of modern equipment, which air traffic controllers and airline officials claim would be safer and faster.

The initiative, which would require congressional approval, ran into immediate criticism from a leading House Democrat who argued that it could jeopardize air safety. Aviation industry officials generally supported the plan but acknowledged that it would face strong opposition on Capitol Hill.

Pena’s announcement came nearly a year after the government created a 15-member national airline commission, headed by former Virginia Gov. Gerald L. Baliles, to look into problems confronting the financially troubled airline industry. The commission made a series of far-ranging recommendations, many of which Pena endorsed Thursday.

He said that a government-owned corporation, similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority or Amtrak, could raise capital quickly by augmenting public funds with private money and through borrowing. It also could move faster to acquire equipment because it would not face the bureaucratic burdens of government.

Such an agency would have more freedom than the FAA, but would still be subject to some level of government oversight. Existing government-owned corporations are run by boards of directors appointed by elected officials.

Pena described the current air traffic control system as the safest and most efficient in the world. But, he added, “we can do better.”

A major issue not yet addressed, however, is the source of the money needed to operate a quasi-independent system. Pena said that he has set an April deadline for resolving that issue and others before the proposal is formally presented to Congress.

*

Even before the announcement, the idea drew a vow of opposition from Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the aviation subcommittee of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee that will consider the proposed legislation.

“In the final analysis, my deepest fear is that when profit margins start to influence air traffic control practices, the safety margins may be eroded, and that does not serve the public interest,” Oberstar said in a statement. “I believe the FAA can take the necessary steps to improve management and procurement within the existing system.”

Oberstar earlier expressed concern that airlines would try to get more planes into the air traffic system than safety considerations would allow, describing the proposed change as “fraught with danger.”

David Hinson, the new head of the FAA, said that stringent government regulations on buying equipment and federal hiring rules often prevented the agency from buying the most modern computers and advanced radar before they became obsolete.

“I’m reasonably convinced there is no adverse effect on safety from moving to a government corporation,” Hinson told reporters. Britain and Germany, he said, have had no adverse experience since they shifted their air traffic control systems away from direct government operation.

The proposed revamping of the FAA drew applause from a coalition of major airlines, the Air Line Pilots Assn. and the National Air Traffic Controllers Assn.

Chip Barclay, president of the American Assn. of Airport Executives, said that Pena’s initiative “is essential to the future economic growth and technical advancement of the air transportation system.” He estimated that air traffic delays now cost the industry more than $2 billion a year.

Other changes Pena outlined included:

* A new evaluation of flight limitations at four key airports--Washington National, Chicago O’Hare and New York’s La Guardia and Kennedy--to see if they can accommodate more planes.

* Faster adoption of a satellite-based navigation system known as the Global Positioning System that would provide far greater precision than existing systems in pinpointing the position of aircraft.

Times staff writer Jesus Sanchez in Los Angeles contributed to this story.