The White House released its preliminary federal budget proposal on Thursday. It includes significant cuts to government spending in many areas, and increases in others. Funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Agriculture are slashed, while funding for the border wall and a school voucher program are among the additions.
Whether you view the proposed budget as positive or negative is beside the point. It is not my goal in this post is to politicize the budget. Instead, I simply want to discuss a few of the items contained in the budget proposal that are directly related to the travel industry. Here are 4 potential impacts the current Trump administration budget could have on travelers:
Increase to TSA fees
The current budget does not outline an exact increase, but some media outlets are reporting a $1 hike. This would take the current 9/11 passenger security fee from $5.60 to $6.60. Personally, I find this a really modest increase. Back in 2014 the fee more than doubled from $2.50 to $5.60.
If the change proposed in the budget is as modest as is being reported, I don’t find this much to worry about. The TSA passenger security fee is the only one passed on to travelers on award tickets. Thus, U.S. travelers enjoy some of the lowest fees in the industry, especially when compared to obscene rates like the U.K. air passenger duty.
Amtrak funding slashed
Funding for Amtrak’s long distance train routes would be eliminated under the current proposed budget. Long distance train routes incur some of Amtrak’s greatest losses. Between October and March 2015, the Empire Builder service lost $34.8 million. Even with ticket prices that are often cheaper than flying, Amtrak still can’t seem to fill seats. I guess there is this thing about taking 2 days to reach your destination rather than 4 hours…
Amtrak operates at a loss every year. Recently, however, the train service has seen improvements to its operations, breaking ridership records in 2016 and reducing losses to the lowest they have been for decades. That being said, the long-distance routes are still big money losers, and are the primary reason Amtrak is in the red year after year. Revenues from the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor and smaller regional services help offset the losses from the long-distance routes. They still aren’t enough to make Amtrak profitable under current operations, however.
[4 reasons my Amtrak trip was a blast…]
This proposal saddens me because the long-distance routes are some of the most scenic and enjoyable for travelers. My wife and I spent part of our honeymoon taking Amtrak from New York all the way back to California. It was an unforgettable experience. Dan and his family have taken the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle as well. Â It is unfortunate that we may see a loss or reduction to this service under the proposed budget.
Amtrak’s Empire Builder
Elimination of “Essential Air Service” funding
The current budget eliminates $175 million in funding for Essential Air Service, a program that subsidizes flights to rural airports. Flights that are part of the Essential Air Service program are typically operated at low load factors and high per passenger costs. Without subsidization by the government, many of these routes would not be viable for commercial airlines.
The Essential Air Service program was put into place in 1978 as part of airline deregulation. Roughly 175 communities are subsidized by the program, including about 60 in Alaska. A competitive bidding process keeps the amount of subsidization in check, but it still costs taxpayers money every year to support air service to these communities. Without the EAS program, airlines will likely pull out of these otherwise unprofitable markets.
Privatization of air traffic control
The proposed budget calls for air traffic control to be moved away from the Federal Aviation Administration. Some airlines have previously pushed to privatize air traffic control functions. Their main reasoning for the change includes government inefficiency and behind-the-times technology. The current proposal calls for ATC function to be moved to an “an independent, non-governmental organization.”
Full privatization of air traffic control could be both positive and negative. If the airlines are correct, the move to a privatized system could be cheaper for taxpayers and the flying public. Conversely, moving ATC function away from direct government purview might not bode well from a labor concern. There is a delicate balance between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NACTA) and the government because air traffic control is such a vital function. Controllers are essential to safety and commerce, and they are forbidden from striking. Thus, NACTA has had to accept less-than-desired contract terms from the FAA in the past.
If privatized, there will be little executive power to prevent air traffic control strikes from severely disrupting the nation’s air system, unless safeguards are explicitly spelled out as part of creating this new, non-profit corporation. We’ve seen the disruption caused by numerous ATC strikes in Europe. The NACTA itself supports the move to a private, non-profit corporation.
Additionally, air passenger safety has been one of the core transportation safety functions of the federal government. The move to privatize air traffic control will be met with skepticism by many people. This will likely be the most heated transportation-related issue in the budget.
Conclusion
Remember that this is just a preliminary budget proposal and much could change before the actual budget is approved. Again, I don’t want to politicize the budget itself, or hear your rants on the current administration, either for or against. Please keep the comments respectful and related to the potential travel impacts included as part of the budget.
Empire builder photo courtesy of Loco Steve under CC 2.0 license.Â
This site is part of an affiliate sales network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites, such as thepointsguy.com. This may impact how and where links appear on this site. Responses are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Some or all of the card offers that appear on the website are from advertisers and that compensation may impact on how and where card products appear on the site. Any opinions expressed in this post are my own, and have not been reviewed, approved, or endorsed by my advertising partners and I do not include all card companies, or all available card offers. Terms apply to American Express benefits and offers and other offers and benefits listed on this page. Enrollment may be required for select American Express benefits and offers. Visit americanexpress.com to learn more. Other links on this page may also pay me a commission - as always, thanks for your support if you use them
User Generated Content Disclosure: Points With a Crew encourages constructive discussions, comments, and questions. Responses are not provided by or commissioned by any bank advertisers. These responses have not been reviewed, approved, or endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the responsibility of the bank advertiser to respond to comments.
Dan Miller travels with his wife and 6 (SIX!) children. He loves to help families travel for free / cheap, especially larger families. If you are looking for help, drop him an email at 
Just part of what is wrong with these cuts. Funding for Amtrak should be increased. No one mentions that roads and more road building is very subsidized and any money going into transportation funding should be spent on ALL forms of transit, not just roads.
Lobbyists for Defense, Energy, Wall Street, Bankers etc. are in control of this Administration and the budget and the common people are losing this battle (it’s going to be worse and worse within next 4 years). President Bannon filled the “swamp” to the brim with Lobbyists, Billionaires, Bankers and Russian money.
Train travel in the US has long been a joke, and @Ian hit the proverbial nail on the head: “I guess there is this thing about taking 2 days to reach your destination rather than 4 hours…”
The mistake people make is to look at Europe, or Japan, and think that because the train(s) work there, they should work here. But in this case, SIZE in an issue, and no one but a very small few will travel across country from NYC to LA, or from LA up the Pacific Coast to Seattle, or from Chicago to New Orleans, etc., etc. for days on end when you can fly in a couple of hours.
The *only* part of the US that makes any sense to me, as a Californian, is that “heavily trafficked Eastern Corridor.” People *do* take commuter trains into Manhattan, for example, and will travel from NYC down to Washington DC, etc., etc. Also, there are smaller, shorter, commuter routes like CalTrain (which was managed by Amtrak for California for years until they lost the contract to TransitAmerica in 2012), or the Capitol Corridor between the SF Bay area and the state capital of Sacramento — distances which are too short to fly between — that continue to make sense. But otherwise . . .
I have sadly come to the conclusion that Amtrak should be abolished and train travel privatized a la the UK, which various regions “auctioned off.” BUT it needs to be done in such a way that certain minimum safety, communication, and “traffic control” standards must be maintained by and linked in between the different railway companies — or not done at all.
Every time I’ve tried to find train travel between Florida and the north east (from Virginia and up) it has always been much more expensive than a similar air ticket. I would love to ride the trains, but we need to find a way to make them cheaper, safer, and more efficient. And whatever happened to the Amtrak route from Orlando to New Orleans. I know that would be very popular.