Why Does the Government Run Air Traffic Control?

Air traffic control is probably something you don't spend much time thinking about—but when you board an airplane, you really want it to work.

Unfortunately, the American air traffic control system is kind of a mess right now. It relies on outdated technology and is beset by staffing shortages. Fixing those problems is essential, but politics keeps getting in the way.

And even though flying is still the safest way to travel, the air traffic control system is now under more scrutiny after 67 people were killed in a midair collision near Washington, D.C., earlier this year. The full investigation of that incident is still ongoing, but the Trump administration wasted little time in promising to improve air traffic control. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump promised to "modernize this decrepit relic and give America the best, most advanced air traffic control system on Earth."

Dorothy Robyn, a senior fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation* and a former White House staffer, says the administration must do more than simply throw money at the problems. She tells Reason that air traffic control needs a complete overhaul, and that the system should be spun off from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has run air traffic control since the 1930s.

"Air traffic control is a 24/7 operation," says Robyn. She says trying to run what amounts to a business out of a "regulatory agency" is a "fundamental clash."

The federal government runs air traffic control because that was the easiest way to do things in the early days of flying. Today, the entire system remains federally managed—even as commercial aviation has become far more complex.

Because the federal government runs (and funds) air traffic control, the people running the system effectively have Congress as their sole customer. That creates more problems than it solves. For example, look at what happened when lawmakers proposed opening a second academy to train new air traffic controllers—a sensible reform, given the ongoing shortage. The congressional delegation from Oklahoma, home to the country's sole air traffic controller training center, killed that bill last year.

Robyn says air traffic control should operate more like a utility company. It should be funded by the people that use it—that is, airlines and operators of private jets—rather than by congressional appropriation. Then it could be regulated at arms' length by the FAA, the way every other aspect of the aviation industry is. We don't ask the FAA to build commercial jets or run airports, so why should it be in charge of air traffic control?

Such a big change is understandably a somewhat scary proposition, but about 90 countries have already enacted similar reforms. That includes Canada, where the air traffic control system handles more planes with fewer people because it has been properly funded and upgraded by the people who use it. Pilots prefer that system too.

Meanwhile, American efforts at improving air traffic control have been underwhelming. A Bush administration initiative that began in 2007 aimed to triple air traffic capacity by 2025. Last year, the Department of Transportation reported that the effort had been "less transformational than originally promised."

As well-intentioned as the Trump administration's modernization efforts might be, air traffic control is simply too important to leave up to the politicians. The FAA should free air traffic control so Americans can trust that every flight will get where it needs to go—and safely.

*CORRECTION: The original version of this piece misidentified Robyn's affiliation.

• Camera: Cody Huff
• Camera: César Báez
• Video Editor and Audio Production: James Swanepoel