\u2018green\u2019 regulations were more of a concern for the private jet<\/a> sector, with laws that appeared to impact business negatively repealed during Trump\u2019s first term.<\/p>\n\u201cThe biggest fear private aircraft operators and airlines have is the environmental regulations\u2026 Most EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations and water and air clean acts were rolled back during Trump\u2019s first term, and they did not seem to impact aviation positively,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While the private jet and charter sector may enjoy domestic growth in such a scenario, Loranger described a more difficult international picture for US airlines and aviators if Trump again dismantles climate change reduction initiatives.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWith global aviation increasingly focusing on carbon reduction, diverging from those goals could isolate US interests, potentially impacting our international partnerships and reputation in aviation,\u201d he explained.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Federal Funding Fiasco?<\/h2>\n
Although Trump and his direct team have not (publicly) opined on the level of federal funding the Department of Transport may receive over the next four years, but we can look back to understand what is likely.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Although Trump has talked of the need to rebuild US infrastructure, more has actually been done to that effect during Biden\u2019s time in office than the 2016 term. While there is no direct answer, yet, to the question of future funding, there are possible hints in the Heritage Foundation\u2019s Project 2025 document.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Writing on the subject of the DoT, economist and George Washington University professor Diana Furchtgott-Roth decried the evolution of the government arm from a policy maker, to \u201cto believe that its role is \u2018to deliver the world\u2019s leading transportation system\u2019\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The FAA, which is identified by Furchtgott-Roth as \u201coverly bureaucratic, legalistic, byzantine, and\u2026 hyperpoliticized\u201d, is also the most visible agency within the DoT.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Under her plan, Furchtgott-Roth would separate the key aviation body from the Department, and \u201ccompletely restructure the FAA\u2019s funding system so that the nation\u2019s aviation system is not held prisoner to annual appropriations or used as a political football to solve nonaviation problems.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Going into more granular detail, and reaching further into business operations than some US conservatives might naturally aim for, Furchtgott-Roth also recommended publicly supporting mergers of smaller airlines to help bolster nationwide and international competition.\u00a0<\/p>\n
She recommended: \u201cPublicly indicat[ing] that a new Administration would support joint venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, this policy is not openly supported by Trump and his team. We will simply have to wait and see if it is adopted or ignored.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yet some stakeholders have already formed opinions and made predictions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kevin Singh of Icarus Jet told Airport Technology<\/em> he expected the positive results of \u201cBiden\u2019s infrastructure improvements\u201d to end as soon as Trump sets foot in the Oval Office.\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cThe first two years of the Trump administration will be a Biden economy and policy phase-out, as Trump\u2019s cabinet will shape its agenda,\u201d he predicted.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Loranger agreed with Singh, but approached the issue of funding from another angle: taxes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the tax front, corporate cuts could give financial relief to airlines and aviation manufacturers, allowing them to lower costs. While that\u2019s attractive on the surface, it could reduce federal revenue, indirectly affecting agencies like the FAA,\u201d he advised.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Even with a fully Republican government, in the White House, on the Hill, and in the Supreme Court, the Administration might find full-throated cuts to large departments and agencies problematic. In which case, indirect cuts through tax breaks could well be the tool of choice. And that will still likely result in dangerous outcomes, the lawyer said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cLess funding could mean less oversight, and the potential trickle-down effect here on safety, certification, and regulatory standards could be far-reaching.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
But it will more than likely be possible for Trump to push through divisive legislation, or even enact change through Executive Order. As Loranger pointed out, this would be a faster and perhaps more attractive option for Trump and his voracious supporters.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cFederal funding could also be impacted. We may see budget priorities shift away from long-term safety and infrastructure advancements toward projects with more immediate economic appeal,\u201d he proffered.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The result?<\/p>\n
\u201cThat could mean fewer grants for airport improvements, reduced investment in environmental technologies, and even slowed momentum for safety initiatives critical to passenger welfare.\u201d<\/p>\n
AAM and all that\u00a0<\/h2>\n
So far we have discussed the more traditional side of the aviation market, but the sector has been changing rapidly in the past three years.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, electronic vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and Advanced Air Mobility have all burst into our lexicon and (to some extent) into our skies.\u00a0<\/p>\n
James McDanolds is program chair at the School of Uncrewed Technology at Sonoran Desert Institute (a higher education institute that awards associate-level degrees, and has a military focus).\u00a0<\/p>\n
McDanolds said he thought the Trump administration would help the emerging industry, through its economic and fiscal programme.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI believe the upcoming presidency will have a positive effect on the United States UAS (unmanned aviation systems) industry as in his previous term in office, he approved the start of the Innovative Drone Integrated Pilot Program (IPP) which allowed organizations to expand their research and usability of UAS in different types of commercial applications,\u201d he told Airport Technology<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cI can see there is some potential incentives for being a U.S.-based drone manufacturer. I don\u2019t know if this will come in the form of tax breaks or what those incentives will be.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
He also predicted a change in the way the federal government supports airports (rather than an end to the funding support).\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI believe that in the focus on airports and the coming age of autonomous air taxi services and even larger scale system drone delivery, airport infrastructure may need to undergo some changes which would require additional funding in order to achieve and support the addition of medium to larger scale UAS into the existing national airspace system,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
![\"Email](\"https:\/\/www.airport-technology.com\/wp-content\/themes\/goodlife-wp-B2B\/assets\/images\/newsletter-new.svg\")
\n <\/div>\n
Sign up for our daily news round-up!<\/h3>\nGive your business an edge with our leading industry insights.<\/h3>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.airport-technology.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2024\/11\/GettyImages-2183214472-430x241.jpg\")
\n <\/picture>