FAA reauthorisation

ON FRIDAY afternoon, National Journal reported that congressional negotiators were nearing a deal to reauthorise funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), America's airline regulator. A day later, the Hill added the news that Congress will probably still have to pass a short-term funding bill while negotiators hammer out the details of the larger, four-year bill. But the biggest fight in the bill—over rules governing airline and railway workers' ability to form unions—seems to be over. If you're a business traveller, it's time to rejoice. Congress certainly is: "Congressional leaders were happy to have agreed on something at last," wrote the National Journal. 

The biggest news for business travellers is that there won't be another FAA shutdown; the last time that happened, the airlines' taxes went down but fares went up. Airlines and other big businesses are so desperate to see the FAA bill and the associated air-traffic-control reforms pass that even the US Chamber of Commerce, America's top big-business lobby, has urged Republicans to give ground on the union issue. (The matter is this: the Obama administration had changed the second part of the two-step process whereby a union gets recognised as the legal representative of a group of workers. It said that a majority of those voting, not a majority of all workers, would suffice. Republicans unhappy at this development were mollified by a change to the first part of the process, which raised the percentage of workers required to express interest in forming a union from 35% to 50%, and by a tweak to the run-off election rules.) 

Though the major point of contention in the struggle over the FAA bill related to labour issues, there were also other battles—including several that could dramatically impact business travellers. Will the government continue to subsidise rural air service to the tune of $200m per year? (If not, flights to small towns and remote areas could get a lot pricier or cease altogether.) Will new rules make it harder to ship lithium batteries by air? (If Congress makes it harder to ship batteries in bulk, your gadgets and their batteries could cost more.)

Even individual airports are directly affected by the rules in these sorts of bills. One of the last remaining controversies in the bill, according to a Bloomberg report, is over take-off and landing slots at Ronald Reagan National (DCA), Washington's most convenient airport. Will lawmakers relax restrictions on how far flights can travel after taking off from DCA, or offer more slots for long-haul flights? If so, which airlines will benefit? If Reagan offered more than one flight to Los Angeles, it might cut into Dulles airport's long-haul business. You can imagine how Virginia politicians and Dulles-dependent airlines would feel about that—which is probably why it's still a controversy. And that's how the sausage is made, folks.