It's wild ATC isn't funded by use fees instead of being appropriated by congress. Seems like a good opportunity to provide some mechanism so the government has to shit or get off the pot, because if the government won't do the job the airlines would surely be glad to pay for the service themselves.
The problem isn't that ATC is funded by the government; it's that the government has been taken over by people who don't believe government should exist.
This is a fundamental failure state that it is impossible for any realistic governmental structure to protect against. The best we can do is put in place safeguards to make it harder.
And...we did. It's just that over the past 40 years or so (and increasingly so over the past 15ish), those safeguards have been systematically eroded by the Republican Party, both socially and legally.
This seems to be a somewhat inefficient system. There is no absolute need to consider aviation fees to be taxes and collect them through a federal agency.
Individual airports should be capable of financing their local ATC as they see fit, be it their own airport fees or, IDK, a surcharge on hamburgers sold in the local McD or a gift from a wealthy sponsor; and they should only have a duty to maintain certain technical standards.
There’s a whole network of radars and communication centers that are not part of any specific airport. How would you fund that through use fees at an airport?
On the other hand, if the fees corresponded to actual use, that would mean that the infrastructure along the most frequented corridors would automatically be the best funded one, which would probably be overall positive.
For VFR flights, communication with ATC is optional until/unless you get into busy Class D or better airspace.
If the fees are paid by any pilot passing through the ARTCC's zone, regardless of whether they use ATC, then it wouldn't be fair for the single engine piper putzing around over his backyard.
If the fees are paid by only pilots who use ATC, then pilots will stop voluntarily using ATC, leading to decreased overall safety.
In the US system, any revenue collection needs to be authorized by Congress. In fact, it is one of the arguments currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court about the tariffs.
It's a perfectly fine system. It just relies on our elected representatives not playing a game of chicken to get what they want, and act in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately, for a whole lot of reasons, they haven't been able to do this intermittently since the mid nineties.
Then if you collect too little? Where does the excess come from? Do you keep the fees high and pay that back next year? Do you account for inflation or charge points?
Is there some reason you _don't_ want this system to have slightly more funding than it "needs?"
And I do not use "fucking around" lightly. The FAA's repeatedly delayed and ineffective upgrade effort makes even the original healthcare.gov look like the Apollo program.
Certain is a strong word, but in many other contexts, this is the actually used system, even in aviation. The FAA requires certain standards of maintenance for aircraft, for example, but individual mechanics aren't FAA employees.
Yeah, maintenance seems extremely different from ATC though. Defining and enforcing maintenance standards is trivial and happens well outside the second-to-second operational loop of aircraft actually coordinating.
> the airlines would surely be glad to pay for the service themselves.
No, they would be glad to increase fares so that the flying customers pay for the service themselves. Currently, ATC is subsidized by all tax payers. Your method moves the burden to only those that pay for fares. I'm just pointing it out not saying it is good/bad.
That's probably better anyway. Air fares should cover the costs of flying. It's already a very profitable activity: it's much more efficient than the alternatives, and flying provides much value to passengers. So why can't the industry fund itself?
Ok sure the airlines themselves aren't managing to capture the profit from the overall activity (I assume because of intense competition in that part of the value chain) but what about the gains of everyone else involved? For instance the value to passengers is greater than the cost of the airfare, or they wouldn't buy a ticket in the first place. And all the others who make money from it.
I think the argument is that if you take the airline industry as whole (so not just airlines, but aircraft manufacturers, travel agencies, airports, all the concessions there, ...) it's still very profitable.
And if you add the value to the customers, then it's through the roof.
Maybe the reverse is more clear: if air travel didn't exist, it would have a huge economic impact; a clear proof of the value creation. Airlines just happen to capture essentially 0% of it.
That's a false dichotomy. If airlines didn't exist, we would have found some other way to move things. Maybe trains, which would have been the better future by far.
What timeline are you in that we skipped trains and went to airplanes instead? We went to planes because trains were slow, and have a problem going across large bodies of water.
The reasonably best examples of commuter trains are far superior to those of commuter airplanes as long as we are not talking about travel over or around significant bodies of water or long distances.
Trains carry much more weight, are more fuel efficient, are safer, generally experience fewer delays and cancelations, and door-to-door are faster for shorter trips (<450 miles).
Safety: since 1964, the Shinkansen has carried over 10 billion passengers without a single passenger fatality from a crash or derailment.
Speed: for trips < 450 miles, trains win because of security, ATC, taxiing, etc.
The majority of travel is not over water. It may be that trains' other advantages are preferable even for longer trips where a train would be slower.
For whom? Historically, aviation has not been a profitable industry over its lifetime[0]. The companies that still fly are basically just a combination of "survivorship bias" and "newbies still somehow subsidized".
We're looking at today's companies like you'd look at the half-season cast of Squid Game and thinking "this group seems to be thriving, I guess". That only works if you disregard everything that's happened before now and what will likely happen for the rest of the season.
For distances <120 km, cars are often quicker than trains, and for >900km planes are, but in between trains are often quickest (assuming infrastructure is actually present).
From what I understand, ATC also covers military flights in the US, which gives a pretty good national security reason to have central control over it... at least when a particular party isn't intentionally trying to destroy it along with various other government functions.
I agree - a good example is bridges and bridge tolls. Maybe a lot of people in NYC have crossed the verrazano bridge. "see, most of us have crossed it, I don't see why taxes shouldn't pay for it". The counterexample would be the trucking company, that once taxes pay for it and not tolls, runs convoys of tractor trailers up and down the bridge, rapidly accelerating wear & tear - had they paid on a toll basis they'd be paying their fare share vs someone who crossed in one time 8 years ago.
Well since the Republicans closed shop and went home instead of staying and trying to figure out a working solution, while also having the majority and the presidency, in this case it's easy to determine.
It is kind of wild that airports themselves don't straight up pay for this. I can understand not wanting to privatize it, as they'll be liable to half-ass it, but surely a usage fee on flights would cover it?
I wonder if this is because bigger airports near major cities and businesses would basically be subsidizing tons of airports in the middle of nowhere, and some people don't want to admit that?
Most airports in the middle of nowhere aren’t controlled.
There are something like 530 ATC towers in the USA out of 5000 or so public airports. 20,000 if we include anything that can be described as an airstrip.
Your wider point still stands though, probably something like 20% of the airports handle 80% of the traffic.
It seems logical that the government should have a lot of control over preventing air disasters. If we allow air traffic control to be turned over to the lowest bidder, then we can expect a lot more incidents, especially at smaller airports that don't attract a lot of traffic.
Commercial airline passengers are not the only users of ATC. If you include mail and parcel carriers and other use cases like med-evac, tourist, and other private flights, you are probably close to 100% coverage of US taxpayers in the country.
