FREE E-Newsletter
Wings Magazine
Subscribe
  ABOUT US   |   CONTACT US   |   SUBSCRIPTION CENTRE   |   ADVERTISE   |   SITEMAP
MAGAZINE
Current Issue
Past Issues
News Archives
Web Exclusives
Video
Photo Gallery
 
MARKETPLACE
Aviation Books
Job Board
Classifieds
New Products
COMMUNITY
Events
AME Hall of Fame
100th Anniversary
Aviation Quiz
Association News
 
RESOURCES
A-List
E-Newsletter
Links
Sitemap
Careers in Aviation
Publications
Helicopters Magazine Careers in Aviation
Rob Seaman Seaman: Let’s Hear a Strong Voice for Aviation

Let's Hear a Strong voice for aviation

Written by Rob Seaman   
 
 
 
 
 
I was chatting with a colleague recently who works for an aviation association (I call them the “alphabet orgs”). He told me that during a meeting involving several other alphabet orgs, one of them made a proposal that, had it been passed and acted on, would have had a negative impact on others in the industry. In my friend’s opinion, the impact would not have been intentional, instead, the group making the proposal had simply not taken everything into consideration. In the end, the group was convinced to withdraw its suggestion. While this was something of a victory, it does serve to highlight a growing problem in the aviation community, one that can and will work against us all in the end if we do not do something about it.

For starters, the number of alphabet orgs in Canada is staggering – and growing. So while there is no lack of people talking about aviation, the concern is that some are speaking without a view to the common good. The problem is that unless aviation speaks with a collective voice, there could be omissions, wrong directions, and losses in jobs, industry rights and services, and ultimately in aircraft rights. It is far too easy to sit in isolation and plead a selfish point of interest and ignore the greater impact.

Airports, for example, need to find ways to work with the communities that grow around them, but they must also ensure that the decisions they make do not set precedents that can be used to harm others when applied in different circumstances. If you want examples of this short-term thinking, just look south of our border. There are many cases of airports allowing or disallowing certain aircraft activities that then mushroom when a lawyer later calls such rules into play as a precedent to impose something similar on a larger hub airport. Restrictions on (or all-out bans of) phase-two aircraft is one such example – and one that is raging currently in the U.S. The famed Meigs Field destruction in Chicago is another.

Look at just some of the issues that aviation as a whole in Canada is and will be facing. There are revisions to air Regs and legislation. As governments come and go at an electoral whim, so do many policies. Communities continue to expand and encroach on previously established airports – and then complain about just about everything to do with them. Some municipalities that bought airports from the feds under the National Airports Policy are having trouble funding their operation now, and in some cases are considering closing their fields. Then there are user fees, environmental issues and studies to cope with. And of course funding – for airports and the industry – it means jobs, service, support and health to aviation.

We also need to consider aviation security at all levels – the costs, the needs, implementation and levels of enforcement. And while these are just a few examples, it all amounts to the same thing – aviation is facing some tough times. And while special-interest “alphabet orgs” are good for the interests of their members, they do not and cannot always look at the entire industry. If we are to preserve what we have – let alone press for change and move things forward into a new and enlightened realm – we need some solidarity and commonality of thought, along with a realistic approach and voice.

Should we do away with the individual alphabet orgs? Not in the opinion of many of whom I have spoken with recently. But there is, nevertheless, a common agreement that perhaps we – the aviation community – should seek regular and frequent communication and exchange among all of these groups. This could be achieved by gathering for face-to-face meetings, or through electronic exchanges and white paper sharing. It could be the source for developing sound and common strategies or plans of attack on common – and in some cases unique – issues our industry and community are or will be facing.

Other benefits from this would include sharing goals, data and information or maybe even saving the other guy from duplicating work that is already being done by others. By making certain that all of the alphabet orgs focus on a collective voice on key issues that can and will affect the health and welfare of Canadian aviation – who knows? We might actually be able to get more done, for individual interests as well as the entire aviation community.