Perhaps because efficiency of communication with the FAA is degrading while the emphasis on the Hill is increasing?
Chairman Shuster should be commended for making passage of the 2015 FAA Reauthorization Act (now designated Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act (AIRR)). He began teeing up the issues over a year ago and called for ideas which would be “transformational.”
Imagine a New York Times headline which announces “FAA decides location of the NY/NJ/CT Airport for the future.” A national commission made the strategic decision of where the UK’s future airport capacity will be built. [Other countries prefer to follow the English view of centralized planning.] Is such a process better or worse than the US’ locally initiated/sponsored policy?