Bill Overview
Title: Aviation WORKS Act
Description: Aviation WORKS Act This bill extends through FY2028 and expands aviation workforce development programs of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Specifically, the bill directs DOT to establish an aviation manufacturing development grant program to develop the aviation manufacturing and supplier workforce. It also requires DOT to develop and support the education of workers who design or produce any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, or a component, part, or system thereof, that (1) is produced under a production approval issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), (2) has been issued a design approval by the FAA, or (3) has an active application for a design approval. Additionally, DOT must establish a program to provide grants for eligible projects to plan, establish, and expand workforce development partnership programs in the aviation and aerospace industry sector.
Sponsors: Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Aviation and aerospace industry workforce
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill aims to expand aviation workforce development programs which will primarily affect workers in the aviation manufacturing industry.
- The bill targets individuals involved in designing or producing aircraft and related components, which will include engineers and technical workers.
- Furthermore, it aims to create and expand partnerships in the aviation and aerospace sector, impacting companies and educational institutions involved in such partnerships.
Reasoning
- The Aviation WORKS Act focuses on enhancing workforce development in the aviation sector, which predominantly includes technical and engineering roles. It's important to include a variety of individuals who work directly in these roles, as well as those in peripheral roles such as education and administration.
- The target population primarily consists of professionals in the aviation manufacturing industry, including engineers, designers, and technical workers involved in both the design and production of aircraft and components.
- Educational institutions that partner with this industry may also see impact through expanded workforce development programs, so interviews with individuals from such institutions are relevant.
- Given the policy's budget constraints, not everyone in the target population will experience impact, and the level of impact will vary based on their role and involvement in the industry.
- This policy will largely benefit those who are poised to develop skills in aviation and those whose careers are linked with educational and partnership programs.
Simulated Interviews
Aerospace Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might open up more advanced training opportunities within my company.
- It could lead to more innovative projects thanks to better development resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Educational Program Director (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant program could allow us to expand our curriculum and partnerships.
- This policy is an opportunity to attract more students to the aviation sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Aircraft Manufacturing Worker (Wichita, KS)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping the policy brings job security and potentially better wages through enhanced skills.
- I'm concerned about implementation speed and union involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Technical Writer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I may benefit indirectly if this leads to more projects and demand for documentation.
- I'm not directly involved in production or design, so the impact might be limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Aviation Mechanics Student (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants could provide more internship and job placement opportunities.
- This is an exciting time to be entering the aviation field, thanks to such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Supplier Manager (Hartford, CT)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company could benefit from being part of the development partnerships encouraged by the act.
- It could help sustain small businesses in the supply chain amidst larger market dynamics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Aviation Safety Inspector (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act may provide more resources for safety training, indirectly affecting inspection quality.
- I do not expect dramatic changes to my work routine due to this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Aviation Parts Manufacturer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant program might support growth and innovation in small businesses.
- While beneficial, I'm concerned about the competitive nature of receiving grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Aerodynamics Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more funding, we might push forward more R&D projects, which excites me.
- This policy could establish a more robust pipeline of skilled professionals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Professor (Long Beach, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased industry partnerships will enhance our research and student's hands-on experiences.
- There might be an increased administrative burden to manage new programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $70000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $85000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $95000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The aviation industry is highly cyclical, and the success of workforce development can be affected by industry downturns.
- Coordination with educational institutions is crucial for the success of training programs.
- The impact of these programs must be monitored and evaluated to ensure they meet workforce development goals.