“Special interests may have hijacked” the FAA’s “mandate” of making the skies safe over Disney World, according to a post at FOX News.
“Major corporations should not get unreasonable privileges just because they have the ability to bankroll Congress, especially when they are trying to force their ideology on our children,” Representative Nehls told Fox News Digital via a statement on Monday.
In his letters, the Texas congressman wrote that “special interests may have hijacked” the Federal Aviation Administration’s “mandate” of trying to make the skies safer “in the sheep’s clothing of national security, for commercial gain.”
“The FAA has authority to prohibit or limit aircraft from operating in certain airspace. These flight restrictions add complexity and restrict freedom – and they should be reserved for compelling national security and safety needs,” the letters read, pointing out that no-fly zones “reside over places of high security” like “military bases” or natural hazards.
“Yet, because aircraft can be noisy or disruptive, interest groups may lobby Congress to enact restrictions for their benefit,” the letter continues. “The principle of fairness requires that the federal government does not favor one organization over another, or thereover, enact flight restrictions to benefit one favored organization.”
“No other theme parks have restrictions on airspace, including neighboring competitors like Universal Studios.”
Congressman Nehls also noted that the Federal Aviation Administration’s “official Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) references ‘Special Security Reasons’ as a justification for the restrictions” and that “safety regulators at FAA have questioned the need for these restrictions.”
In his letter, Representative Nehls quoted a former FAA administrator’s testimony before Congress in 2013.
“Disney’s ‘no-fly zones’ do not meet standard requirements and would not be in place had Congress not enacted specific legislation,” the letter quotes Michael Huerta.
“Other independent observers have long questioned the security rationale for these ‘no-fly zones,’” Nehls continued. “In 2003, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the decision ‘angered pilots across the country who accuse Disney of manipulating the nation’s terrorism fear for one clear commercial aim: to close public airspace over its parks as a way to ban competitors’ aerial advertising planes and sightseeing helicopters.’”
Nehls continued his letter by saying that the Orlando Sentinel reported that The Walt Disney Company “used its well-connected lobbyists to influence members to carry out its task.” Nehls says it’s not clear what makes the Walt Disney World Resort and Disneyland Resort “unique security” risks, but says that “the financial benefits are clear.”
“This may be why in 2003, Disney’s spokesperson acknowledged that the flight restrictions would promote the ‘enjoyment’ of their Guests by eliminating ‘banner ads from trial lawyers’ and aircraft ‘buzzing the parks,'” Nehls writes.
In his letter, Representative Nehls provides the summation of his correspondence by imploring Speaker Pelosi to “reconsider” Disney’s no-fly zones and their appropriateness, pointing out that the restrictions have been in place for nearly two decades. Nehls says that such measures “designed for protecting our national security and public safety must not be co-opted by companies looking to gain.”
Nehls penned a similar letter to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and asked him if the Biden Administration supports such no-fly restrictions.
