Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4387

Bill Overview

Title: Improving Military Aviation Readiness Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy to include Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified airworthy used, overhauled, reconditioned, and remanufactured commercial common/dual use parts, except for life limited parts, in supply chain solutions to provide for replacement or increased inventories for all Department of Defense commercial derivative aircraft and engines and aircraft that are based on commercial design. Additionally, the Air Force and the Navy must ensure acquisition of all such parts is conducted on a competitive basis, based on price and quality, and procured only from suppliers who provide FAA-certified parts that possess an FAA Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3 Airworthy Approval Tag from certified repair stations.

Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

Target Audience

Population: individuals in the military aviation sector and related supply chains

Estimated Size: 300000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Supply Chain Manager (Pensacola, Florida)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is promising as it provides clear guidelines for parts acquisition, which should streamline many current bottlenecks.
  • We currently face issues with parts availability, and standardizing the procurement process is likely to reduce downtime.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Having a more consistent supply chain will definitely make my job easier.
  • Often, aircraft are grounded due to parts unavailability, so I hope this policy changes that.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

FAA Certified Parts Supplier (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy should increase demand for my business, considering the stringent certification requirements.
  • I'm hopeful for growth opportunities as my parts align with the policy specifications.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Logistics Coordinator (San Diego, California)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A more competitive and standardized market for parts will likely enhance our logistical planning and reduce costs.
  • With clear procurement guidelines, we can potentially minimize delays.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Active Duty Airman (Columbus, Ohio)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This might improve the aircraft turnaround time, which is crucial for flights.
  • I'm skeptical about how quickly changes might take effect at the operational level.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Procurement Officer (San Antonio, Texas)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clarified competition based on price and quality should streamline procurement processes.
  • Parties involved in supply chains should experience fewer complications.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Junior Logistics Officer (Baltimore, Maryland)

Age: 25 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This move might pave the way for a clearer career trajectory in logistics, especially with revamped supply chains.
  • Excited about potential career developments, albeit cautious about immediate implications.

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 7 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 4

Retired Navy Pilot (Norfolk, Virginia)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I recall numerous issues with waiting for parts when I was active.
  • This policy might greatly benefit current operators if implemented effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Aircraft Parts Manufacturer (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Excited for possible growth and expansion but concerned about maintaining quality with increased production demands.
  • Regulations align well with our current practices; however, we will need to scale production timelines.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Military Logistics Analyst (Miami, Florida)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Standardizing parts supply could offer significant data points for logistical modeling and forecasting.
  • Expecting smoother operations within a few years; short-term challenges seen as growth phase.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)

Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)

Key Considerations