Introduction
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) combines two vitally important functions. It is the nationwide aviation safety regulator. It is also the operator of the country’s air traffic control system. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), aviation safety regulation should be at arm’s length from airports, airlines, private planes, and all other aspects of aviation, including air traffic control. I
n its current form, FAA violates that widely followed principle. According to data from the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO), 70 countries have separated their air traffic control (ATC) provider from the government’s transport ministry, and another 26 countries receive ATC service from multi-country air navigation service providers (ANSPs).
Self-regulation is poor public policy, in addition to violating ICAO principles. Hence, the first step in fixing what is wrong with FAA is to organizationally separate the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) from the FAA itself. The ATO could become a separate modal agency as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or could become an ATC utility, funded by the same kinds of aviation user fees put in place worldwide by ANSPs. A change that large would require Congress to enact enabling legislation.
In its current form, embedded within FAA, the Air Traffic Organization is plagued by antiquated facilities, a chronic shortfall of fully qualified air traffic controllers, and aging technology that is mostly far behind the state of the art. A principal reason for those major shortcomings is that FAA depends on Congress for its funding.
The majority of this funding is generated by a tax on airline tickets, which yields far less annual revenue than needed to properly fund the Air Traffic Organization. The current ticket tax structure was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was not indexed to inflation. It was intended to be dedicated to airport and air traffic control capital investment, but Congress diverts most of that revenue to pay FAA’s operating costs.
In short, the U.S. air traffic control system is embedded in a tax-funded bureaucracy that is unable to replace ancient facilities and obsolete technology. As noted previously, 96 other countries receive air traffic services from self-funded air navigation service providers (ANSPs) that are separate from government transport ministries and regulated for safety by a national government safety regulator. How could the United States draw from this worldwide experience?
FAA is facing increasing scrutiny for its outdated facilities and equipment, management practices, and workforce challenges, but remains dependent on uncertain and insufficient annual appropriations by Congress.
Canada provides a working model of a successful transition from a tax-funded air traffic control system chronically short of adequate revenue and long-term financing to a sustainable, adaptable non-profit commercial structure capable of continuous modernization. A similar transition in the United States could leverage a proven model for a safe and cost-effective air traffic control system.
Full policy brief — Changing America’s air traffic control model: Learning from Canada