Plane Conversations

In an attempt to regulate the airlines on the issue of leaving passengers sitting on aircraft on the tarmac for extended periods of time it appears that the DOT may end up making things worse.

Michael Fabey of the Travel Weekly online magazine says in a recent article:

As a result of new federal rules limiting tarmac delays, airline officials and analysts predicted that in coming months, airlines are certain to cancel an increasing number of flights for bad weather or for a host of other reasons, rather than face heavy new federal fines for holding passengers too long on a tarmac.

The new Transportation Department regulations, which take effect April 29, subject U.S. airlines to fines of up to $27,500 per passenger in instances where the airlines fail to allow passengers to deplane after three hours on the tarmac or fail to provide those aboard with food, drink and other comforts.

“For us, that could be as much as $4.4 million for one flight,” said American spokesman Tim Smith. “No one’s going to play with that. There will be many more cancellations as a result. Everyone is gearing up for this.”

So did the “experts” in congress and the DOT solve the problem or create a new one that is worse than the old one?

Being more of a free-market capitalist, it seems to me that this is one they could have left alone. I mean, if the airlines mess things up badly enough, often enough for long enough, it costs them money and customers. They don’t want that with or without any intervention from the federal government.

A veteran airline dispatcher commented to the article by stating:

“The new regulations will demonstrate the Law of Unintended Consequences, and I say this as a 35+ year airline dispatcher. There have been a few past irregular ops events (NWA/DTW, JBU/JFK, CoEx/RST, and AAL/AUS) that generated huge delays (7+ hours) and were all admittedly intolerable and handled poorly. The lunacy of the new regs is that in the effort to preclude such rare 7+ hour delay events (apples), an “all delays are equally evil” tact has been taken, with the “solution” to now apply with more common 2-4 hr. delays (oranges) one sees when weather, and airport/airspace constraints occur. Pre-emptive cancellation for snow are one thing, but thunderstorm season is another, and no airline is going to let a flight blow the 3-hour limit and incur a $3M+ fine for each flight. Cancellations? Count on them, but don’t blame the airlines–all the non-airline “experts” drove them.”

I wonder if anyone at the DOT or in Congress asked any of the dispatchers and operations people at the airlines what they thought about the solution(s) to the problem prior to making a new rule. Probably not! What?  Go ask the people who deal with this every day? Heaven forbid! They probably had a hearing and heard from the senior management of the airlines (whom they don’t trust), then from a panel of experts (whom they do trust in spite of the fact that the experts may have no practical operational experience).  After hearing from both groups, but without talking to the people who make it happen day after day, Congress drafted and enacted a new rule.  

It was a parade-inducing headline for proponents of the measure, but the people in the operational trenches don’t see any parades in the practical applications.

All of this was done in an effort to appease the public who is fed up with the broken air mass-transit system.  So, instead of actually fixing the problem in cases of the rare, extreme delay, they’ve created the problem of cancelled flights in the case of the common delay.

Highlight any portion you want:

It looks like Congress may finally get back around to figuring out how to pass a bill that will fund the Next Generation Air Traffic System (NexGen). Hopefully, I will see this happen in my career, I still have 15 years left if all goes good.

It is frustrating to me that the lawmakers want to wrap up controversial provisions into a bill thats primary purpose is not controversial. Everyone in aviation agrees that the traffic control system needs to be modernized. It will save fuel and time in the air which is both green and more productive for our economy. It will also increase the margins of safety with better traffic management. Both general aviation and the airline industry support the development of NexGen.

So, what is the hold up?

Somehow congress can not seem to simplify things and get something done.

They have to add in provisions that we can’t all agree on so things get stalled and nothing happens. What can we not agree on?

• Who pays for it? GA versus Airlines
• Should we be auditing European Repair Stations? A Union Protectionist Issue
• Should we make it easier for FedEx employees to unionize? Another union issue. Big company against the union
• Passenger Rights? The People versus the Airlines
• Pilot Work Rules and the Oversight of the Airlines: Pilots versus the Airline Management and additional regulations 

In that list that I just mentioned, which of those issues, if any,has the first thing or, for that matter, anything at all to do with modernizing our air transportation system through the deployment of new technology? With the exception of who pays for it, none! And I will bet you that we can come to some solution on who pays for it.

Maybe I am simple-minded, but why can’t these guys in D.C. simplify this and pass a clean bill that funds what we all agree needs to happen and fight it out over the rest in separate bills? Is there some legislative rule against simplicity? If there is, then we need to change the rules.  Or maybe we just need to fire the rule-makers and vote in some new ones who understand how to get things done.

Highlight any portion you want:

It is a little too early to tell how this situation, involving the use of a small single engine aircraft by a suicidal man who wanted to get back at the IRS, will affect general aviation.

Every time something happens with an aircraft the media jumps on the hype wagon and starts sensationalizing the event. The politicians soon follow with the idea they can create a new law or rule that will prevent what just happened from ever happening again. Let’s hold another congressional hearing and turn the TSA loose to solve the problem!

An Associated Press article headline says, ” Texas Plane Crash Exposes Gaps in Air Security.” Give me a break here! You could just as easily say, “Texas Car Crash Exposes Gaps in Ground Security.”

Some of the recommendations coming in from “the experts “say that we should not be able to fly small aircraft without filing a flight plan. In this case, that would have made no difference. If you understand the flight plan system, as  many in the press do not, you would know that.

This event is a sad and tragic for the families of those who have been affected but it does not deserve some new law or rule change that will affect general aviation.

General aviation and a small single engine Piper Cherokee (not a private jet as reported by many media sources) are not the cause.

The aircraft was the tool of the day that this man chose, sadly enough, to use to get revenge and kill. He was the owner of the aircraft and in that case no different than anyone who owns cars and trucks. No rule and no amount of security can get inside a man’s head to determine the day he will decide to use a personal means of transportation (or any other device or piece of machinery, for that matter)  as an instrument of destruction.  

This deranged man could have just as easily walked into the building with weapons or explosives and done more damage in terms of lives and property damage. It happened that way in Huntsville, Alabama, two weeks ago when a college professor shot and killed three colleagues and wounded three more. All it took was a pistol. It happens that way more times than we want to think about.  Mr. Stacks could have also used his car, a motorcycle, or a truck like Timothy McVeigh and caused massive damage.

So, as a society, we cannot say that the aircraft was the problem and that we can prevent this from happening again if we change all the rules to keep people from freely flying their aircraft. What next? I can no longer drive my car down the road because it might be used as a weapon by some crazy person bent on seeking revenge in a suicide attack?

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the ambulance-chasing media and “experts” with an opinion about the dangers of aviation will not take over the conversation.

As a society, we have to acknowledge that we are vulnerable and that we cannot totally protect ourselves from every possible danger.  We do the best we can do without destroying our liberties and freedom, and then go on with living our lives.  As Benjamin Franklin counseled over 200 years ago, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”

In the meantime, those of us in the industry need to be prepared to defend ourselves and our freedom to fly in this country.

Thanks to AOPA for jumping in there to defend our industry. http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100218crash.html

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?category=latestcontainer&watch=A0YnY3MTrDq8rUrycPqf1GLG7LjUMpPC

Highlight any portion you want:

Our company sells refurbished turboprop regional airlines all over the world. In the last 18 months, in the middle of the worst aviation recession in memory, we have sold and delivered aircraft to Nepal, Canada, Columbia, Venezuela, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Australia,and Zambia to name a few.  All of this in a time when used aircraft sales in the United States came to a screeching halt and have yet to recover.  And the sales could have been higher.  Had small airlines who are looking to expand their fleets been able to get financing, we would have sold twice again what we were able to sell around the world. Albeit there is risk associated in financing aircraft for small airlines in other countries, most of the businesses we deal with are well run and not as highly leveraged as the big airlines in Europe and the United States. These small businesses have not had the luxury of obtaining financing for new aircraft and so they typically pay cash,after saving for years, or finance a very small portion of the purchase.

A December 10 article in The Wall Street Journaldiscusses ExIm bank’s effect on Boeing Commercial Airliner sales. The number quoted is that one in four of Boeing’s sales are funded though the ExIm Bank guaranties. Without this government-backed financing Boeing would not be where they are today.

Recently our company was introduced to the process of working through the  ExIm program as an opportunity to get backing on the sale of aircraft to a small airline in Central America.  ExIm works much like other US programs that guarantee loans for loan underwriters to induce the underwriter to make a loan they might not otherwise make.

In a theoretical sense I believe in the free market economy, but a free market economy needs a level playing field, with rule sets that apply to everyone in the market. In the case of most international trade, and especially in aviation, governments across the world intervene to the benefit of their national industries. So if Airbus gets help from the European Union and its home country of France, but Boeing gets no help in any form from the United States is that fair trade in a freemarket economy?

Let me take this back down to the small business level where most of the jobs in this country are created. In the case of our company a big percentage of the payroll is tied to buying, refurbishing and reselling these used regional airline turboprop aircraft. We have yet to receive any handouts from the government for anything. We haven’t asked for any handouts. We pay our taxes (hard to count how many different ones) like everyone else. So, is it wrong to go to ExIm and ask them to back loans to sell small aircraft to airlines in developing countries who will use these aircraft to develop their own transportation infrastructure?

I don’t know the default rate of the ExIm program’s backed loans. I am not sure it is published and I’m certainly not suggesting a  process that encourages bad loans. I am simply suggesting a process that provides capital for transactions that are sound in business principle but outside the realm of traditional banking sources.   

Without capital it is hard to grow the economy, both here in the US and abroad. For the case of our small business, when other small airlines around the world can obtain the capital to grow, jobs and profits are created here in the US.

Not a  bad proposition?

Highlight any portion you want:

A February 1 press release issued by the National Business Aviation Association says: “When it comes to the long-standing battle over user fees, it appears that today, we have reached an important and welcome milestone,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “The fact that user fees are not part of the President’s 2011 budget proposal shows the tremendous progress we have made over the past year.”

It looks like we won the battle! But, have we won the war? Can we go home now?

The press release goes on to say: 

Despite the removal of user fees from the Administration’s FY2011 budget, Bolen said that ongoing vigilance and grassroots mobilization by NBAA’s Members would be needed to ensure that Washington policymakers continue to understand the industry’s support for helping to fund aviation modernization through fuel taxes. “Whether or not this is an indication of a permanent policy shift on user fees, or a one-time development remains to be determined,” Bolen said. “What we do know for certain is that our industry must continue to make its voice heard on this and other issues.”

Knowing how Washington, D.C. works and understanding the power of lobbyists, I would say that we can breathe a sigh of relief but we cannot let up. Mr. Bolen says that we must continue to make our voices heard and I agree. In some ways, the fight will never be over because we as an industry must communicate our value to the politicians and media, but more importantly, to those people who write our paychecks every week – the travelers.

How do we do make our voices heard?  The power of social media, where millions can speak for themselves, can drown out the voice of the lobbyist and the campaign contributions that buy that voice. It is a new day and the message is no longer bought, sold or owned by any one person or organization.

I commend the NBAA, AOPA, NATA, and EAA, who represent over a million aviators in this country, for mobilizing their constituents to speak out and be heard by both their representatives in Congress and by the media.

This quote recently posted on AOPA’s site really captures the essence of the battle:

So often we think we have got to make a difference and be a big dog. Let us just try to be little fleas biting. Enough fleas biting strategically can make a big dog very uncomfortable.
– Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund

As USA Today and other mainstream media covered the issues of aviation with a serious bias in favor of the Airline Industry and the Air Transport Association, the voices of individuals who disagreed with the bias were raised and heard.  As I viewed the comments on these articles, they were most always overwhelmingly in favor of general aviation. Mainstream media has come to the realization that they must allow the people to speak or be rendered irrelevant.

The airlines need to go back to the sidelines and figure out how they are going to create value in this economy versus trying to blame their problems on everyone else, including General Aviation.

General Aviation, as a way of travel, is part of what makes this country great. The freedom to go by air to meet for business, see family, or just have fun is social and creates value in this economy by connecting people in a time-saving and stress free manner.

So, if the “Big Dogs” in D.C. start acting up again, let’s be prepared to bite strategically again.

Highlight any portion you want:

 In a USA Today Article on How to Fix Air Travel, Bill McGee writes:

“You’ve been asked to provide your five very best ideas on how to address the many, many problems and challenges facing commercial air travel in America. What kind of a list would you compile? What would you include? What would you leave off? In November, the U.S. Department of Transportation held a forum on the future of the nation’s aviation industry, and invited experts to provide insights and observations. Those who spoke included representatives from the airlines, airport authorities, organized labor, general aviation, aircraft manufacturers, the financial community and the business travel sector. I participated in the forum on behalf of Consumers Union, and was asked to help express the consumer perspective.

 At the end of the session, Raymond (Ray) LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, announced the formation of an advisory committee that will be charged with examining the industry, specifically “its competitiveness, and its ability to address evolving transportation needs, challenges, and opportunities of the global economy.” Perhaps in response to previous commissions that issued recommendations that were never implemented, LaHood later stated, “This committee WILL make a difference.” He also issued a challenge to those in the room and beyond: Summarize the five most important issues the U.S. aviation industry must address.”

So, the guys in DC think by getting a bunch of “experts” together and having a meeting where you take all of the problems facing commercial air travel and put them into five neat little bullet points, and form a committee to solve those five problems “will make a difference.”

Now I usually try to be nice about the guys in DC and what they have to say – heaven forbid I should be rude or antagonistic – but you’ve got to be kidding me! Another committee of experts in DC are going to make a difference? How many times have you heard that one? I have served on committees for church and volunteer organizations and every once in awhile something actually gets done in a committee meeting but usually it is a frustrating experience of a collected group of people who have been asked to solve problems.  The collection of people is usually someone’s idea of the right combination of people to effect a solution as opposed to a natural affinity of problem solvers.  

The article goes on to tell us that James May with the Air Transport Association (that would be the guy who represents the airlines) comes up with his five great ideas. Maybe they are not such bad ideas but Mr. May is just another guy who lives inside the beltway. A good friend who worked in DC for many years commented to me one time that there is not one ounce of creativity or innovation that comes out of DC. Washington DC is like a big sponge that sucks in money (mine and yours) and spews back out useless rhetoric, and nothing really changes, other than more money being sucked in to support all of these people who are clueless about what is takes to actually produce something of value in this economy.

What if these people started listening to the market of consumerss to see what the market is saying about solutions to air transportation? Do they even know how to listen or are they too hung up on listening to the “experts”.

The definition of experts: “X is a has been and spurt is a drip under pressure.”

Give me a break. These experts are so far removed from the average consumer in this country they don’t have a clue.

If we really want solutions we need to listen to the conversations of the market and, in those conversations, we will find the solutions. Real innovation has never come from the government, trade associations or  committees of experts.

After going through the list offered by James May, Bill McGee closes with the following comment, “Now this list may make perfect sense to airline executives, but how many of those considerations reign supreme in the minds of airline passengers? Obviously the job of rethinking U.S. aviation is no small task.”

 Okay, now he is on to something! Do the airline passengers out there really care what James May or anyone else in DC thinks? I don’t think so. What do they care about? Maybe they just want to travel in a way that is not such a waste of time.

What do you think?

Highlight any portion you want:

You know that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you just know something bad is about to happen?  You don’t know when, you don’t know where - you just know it’s coming.  I call that the “wet sneaker” feeling.  Recent airport security breaches have resulted in some serious wet sneaker feelings for me.

I blogged about air mass-transit security issues on 27 December and 2 January.  I no longer work in air mass-transit.  However, their reality affects mine; so, I pay attention.  Airline security failures have resulted in enormous losses for private aviation in the past and I am concerned that they will again.

We all remember the September 11 attacks with sickening clarity.  Even typing the words, I find myself feeling nauseated.  At 9:30 AM that morning, the FAA issued a nationwide ground stop followed by instructions to airborne aircraft to land at the nearest airport.  On September 12, the ground stop was slowly lifted, allowing air carriers, both scheduled and unscheduled, back in the sky.  That same day, aviation insurance underwriters began canceling all War Risk coverage.  At 4:00 PM on September 14, the ground stop was lifted for general aviation flights operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).  Although no general aviation aircraft were involved in the attacks, they were grounded for 78.5 hours.   War Risk coverage was eventually offered again at an increased rate.  In the case some of our aircraft, the rate increased by about 100%.  Many small operators closed their doors.

I’m sure I’m not the only person who saw a causal relationship there.  To be honest, I started this article with the angle of “air mass-transit security failure = loss of life and property = higher insurance premiums = business closures.” Recently, I spoke with our insurance agent, Tom Chappell of CS&A Insurance, who destroyed my theory with facts.  With 35 years of experience, Tom has forgotten more about aviation insurance than I’ll ever know.  Even before the attacks, he noted an aviation underwriting trend towards a hardening market.  The market was already moving towards to higher premiums.  The attacks just accelerated the process which was, in Tom’s words, “like hitting a slice into the wind – it just exacerbates the slice.”    But, insurance premiums weren’t the only costs that went through the roof- fuel prices also soared.  Adequately capitalized operators with good business plans had a tough time of it; but, under capitalized operators and those with poor business plans shut down.  It’s industrial evolution, I suppose: The survival of the fittest.  (Somehow this process doesn’t apply to air mass-transit, but Allen Howell addressed that on Friday.)  Time passed.  Fuel costs decreased to near pre-attack rates.  Aviation insurance  underwriters calmed down and reversed some of the drastic rate increases that were knee-jerk reactions to the attacks.  The market softened.  

The last 18 months have been very difficult for private aviation.  Charter operations and corporate flight departments have disappeared.  Many previously strong operations are foundering.  Extremists are exploiting gaps in security for air mass-transit and, according to Tom Chappell, the insurance market is beginning to harden again.  Enter the wet sneaker feeling.

Aviation as a whole is a fluid and volatile industry.  There are cycles of highs and lows that sometimes change with little warning.  The industry is vulnerable to outside changes over which it has little or no control – things like fuel costs, insurance, employee benefits, government policy and regulation.  Private aviation accidents and incidents have an inconsequential effect on air mass-transit.  However, in stark contrast, air mass-transit accidents and incidents can have catastrophic effects on private aviation.

I seriously doubt that any general aviation contingent will be invited to participate in the decision-making process concerning new airport security procedures, even though our livelihoods may depend on it.  So, until we effectively band together, we eat our Tums, write our legislators and live with wet sneakers.

Highlight any portion you want:

 Part 2 in a Series on Safety Management Systems for Business Aviation Operators

In a previous post on this subject, I suggested that Safety Management Systems (SMS) are good for business aircraft operators. I believe that business aviation as an industry does have a prevailing culture promoting safety but that having systems in place to document and measure safety takes it to the next level. I also suggested that one of the problems with the implementation of an SMS is the lack of consistent interpretation and enforcement by the worldwide governmental aviation regulatory agencies. If the International Standard for Business Aviation Operations (IS-BAO) is the standard that adopts the best practices to promote safety, as suggested by Aviation Research Group US (ARGUS) and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), then let’s embrace it.  

Further thoughts on this subject related to the adoption of safety management systems by operators, both aircraft charter (commercial) and business aviation  (company flight departments):

Buying an SMS manual from a consultant and putting it on the shelf to collect dust does nothing to further safety in any operation. All flight departments, no matter how small or large, can learn from documenting problems and analyzing them to identify their root causes. It doesn’t have to be an accident or major event to reveal hidden risks. Those who understand workers compensation insurance risks know that frequency of small events can be an indicator of an increased risk for a big event. How many times does a guy have to slip and fall on a slippery floor before he sustains a major debilitating injury? Can it be prevented by analyzing the minor incidents for cause and fixing the slippery floor before the major event happens? You bet  it can!

In a small operation without a lot of daily flight activity, the issues requiring documentation and analysis may be few and far between. In a large operation with a lot of varying activity both on the ground and in the air, the small issues happen more frequently.  Trends and risk concerns will become more apparent as these events are put into the system.

A good SMS also involves the senior management of the company whether that person is the head of an aircraft charter company or the CEO of a non-aviation company that owns a corporate aircraft. In our company’s case, I meet with our Director of Safety monthly for a briefing on all activities and concerns that have arisen since our last meeting. We also discuss causes and make decisions on changes in our operations to prevent future incidents. Our Director of Safety has direct access to me anytime without any fear of reprisal from other management. Senior Management must be bought into the idea and fully support it. 

Establishing a well thought-out SMS is music to the ears of the insurance underwriters. I believe that, over time, they will offer better rates to the insured risks (the operator) who have a good SMS in place. Some already do take this into consideration at annual renewal.  

Overall, our industry has an excellent safety record. It was better in 2009 than it was in 2008.  It improves with better aircraft, better training, and better systems for managing flight operations. The old saying that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” does not work for us. By the time you find out it is broken it may be too late to fix and the cost of being too late is simply too high.

Bottom line: Maintaining the highest levels of safety by putting into place the best business practices on safety management is good for our clients, our jobs, our businesss and our economy.  

Highlight any portion you want:

Part 1 in a Series on Safety Management Systems for Business Aviation Operators

There has been a lot of discussion among business aviation operators and support organizations about Safety Management Systems. Much of the discussion laments the additional regulatory requirements that are coming down the pike for already highly regulated business aircraft operators. The question being asked is: do more regulations and formal safety management system requirements make an operation safer?

Many posit that there is already a strong safety culture among operators of business aircraft and requiring a manual system to formalize the culture of safety adds no value and only creates expense and more work.

A recent article in AIN Online by Chad Trautvetter says the following:

ARG/US Endorses IS-BAO as Charter Audit Standard
Aviation Research Group/US (ARG/US) is endorsing the International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) as the one standard that all operators of business jets around the world would be measured by and audited against. According to ARG/US CEO Joe Moeggenberg, The charter community has endured multiple standards and audits for many years, translating into significant time and expense. With one universally accepted standard, the burden of time and money would be reduced and charter customers would be provided with one standard of safety assurance covering all operators. He said that if the industry does not take this opportunity to make IS-BAO along with its safety management system (SMS) component the world standard, then each governmental aviation body could offer myriad alternatives or options for demonstrating SMS compliance. Under ICAO requirements, an SMS will be required for all operators of jet aircraft with an mtow of more than 12,500 pounds by November 10 next year. ICAO, IBAC, NBAA and its sister organizations are all behind IS-BAO, and some countries have already recognized IS-BAO as a means of compliance for various registration or operational related requirements such as SMS. ARG/US said it has modified the standards contained in its Platinum audit to be consistent with IS-BAO.

Over the years our business has seen an increasing burden of compliance with FAA regulatory requirements. It would be easy to become frustrated with this burden and to conclude that more regulation only leads to increased paperwork and the increased human resource costs that go along with it - all without any real benefit. I can understand how operators can think in this direction.

However I will say this: It has come increasingly clear to me that the problem may not be the regulations and requirements for implementation of SMS, but the lack of consistent interpretation and enforcement. Ask more than two FAA officials or industry audit groups to tell you how to comply with a regulation or required program and you will get as many differing answers as the number of experts you ask.  If Joe Moeggenberg’s statements are correct and IS-BAO could be the one standard by which all safety systems are measured, then I am for it.

It would be great if the FAA and its counterparts around the world could agree to standard safety practices and a uniform system of measuring and documenting that safety standard.  Let’s not look at the rest of the world, it would be great if United States governmental organizations could agree amongst themselves! Most days we can’t even get the FAA to agree with itself over the standard. What should be standardized and produce a standard level of safety among all charter operators is not working. The Department of Defense (DoD) recognized this over 20 years ago and created their own audit teams to inspect airlines and charter operators interested in flying DoD personnel. Being FAA certified was not good enough for the DoD because they recognized that two operators certified under the same rules could have vastly different standards when it comes to safe operations!

The lack of agreement between the powers that regulate business and commercial aviation both in the US and around the world does not serve as an excuse for everyone who operates business jet aircraft to operate at less than the highest level of safety. As frustrating as it is, the need is there to have a Safety Management System for operators of business aircraft in our industry. Everyone has an opinion about what constitutes safe operational practices and not all opinions are created equal. Operating at the highest level of safety by employing “best practices” can bring only good to all the stakeholders in our industry.

Highlight any portion you want:

So our President and other world leaders and environmental scientists met in Copenhagen trying to figure out how to keep the world from melting down from all of this carbon we are emitting that warms the planet up.

In a Fox News story on this issue Brian Wilson reports the following:

If the U.S. fulfills its pledge to shrink greenhouse gas emission, the carbon dioxide reductions will force a host of unintended consequences on a major sector of the U.S. economy — the travel and tourism industries.

The Environmental Protection Agency underscored the threat of greenhouse gases when it released its so-called “endangerment finding” on Monday, outlining public health risks associated with carbon emission. And the Obama administration has pledged to work closely with Congress as its looks to pass clean energy reform legislation that will eventually lower carbon gas emission by more than 80 percent. But the sweeping effort to curtail greenhouse gases may come at a high price to the U.S. economy — including big cuts to the travel and tourism industry, higher airline prices and a potential increase in taxes on air travel.

“The European diplomats who all who flew over to Copenhagen are the excepted class, as is Al Gore,” Ken Green, an environmental scientist with the American Enterprise Institute, told Fox News. “But the rest of us are not supposed to fly, and so they’ll be raising your ticket prices and putting restrictions on flying that make it more difficult.”

Green said airplanes face a particular challenge when it comes to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. “The impact on passengers is going to be higher ticket prices. If you try to cap carbon, and the airlines have to buy emission permits from other sources that could reduce their emissions, they’re going to pass that cost along to consumers.

I understand the need to innovate transportation forms and reduce the carbon emissions. If not for the planet, at least for the sake of energy independence. I don’t like the idea of having to buy jet fuel for our aircraft knowing that a big percentage of it came from countries in the world who sponsor terrorism with the dollars we send them for their oil. Energy independence for this country would be a great accomplishment.

I do, however, find it slightly hypocritical that all these leaders and environmentalists show up to the meeting in their private jets. Aren’t these the same leaders who criticized the CEOs from America’s Big Three automakers showing up in Washington, D.C., looking for government bail-out money?  Isn’t it the same kind of thinking?  As Ken Green says in the article above, I guess they are all excepted from the new order since they are better than the rest of us?

In a report from the Pew Research Center and the Department of Energy, the research indicates that transportation accounts for 27% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States. Aviation accounts for 10% of the 27% which tells  me that aviation is 2.7% of the entire problem. Highway vehicles account for 72% of the problem in the transportation segment. So why is aviation at the top of the list of targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? What do they know that we don’t know?

Eventually aviation will have to pay its fair share on this issue but these leaders needed to understand that innovation in aviation, due to the complexity of the flying machine and the high costs of developing new propulsion technologies, will happen slowly, in small increments and at a high price.

In the mean time, we all have to make a living, and people need to travel, including these elitists who have to travel around the world to meet and talk about how they are  going to save the planet. In a country with 10% unemployment, they need to think long and hard about how they regulate the rest of us so that they don’t put us all out of work while saving the planet.

Highlight any portion you want: