It’s crazy that there’s been a national conversation around air traffic control staffing levels, and very little questioning of our air traffic control model. There hasn’t been enough talking around how the agency is managed or how it acquires technology. In many cases we’re still using 50 year old tech, but that raises an even larger question: why is it that airlines give up control of their aircraft to the government from the moment it pushes back to the moment it arrives at its destination?

We’ve Talked About Reforming The Structure Of Air Traffic Control For Decades And Done Nothing

The first Trump administration tried to reform air traffic control, along the lines of Canada’s non-profit model. The FAA would remain the regulator, but wouldn’t also be the service provider, which creates a conflict of interest and lack of accountability. They shouldn’t be supervising themselves!

Instead, a stakeholder nonprofit charges airlines (instead of taxpayers!) for their service. They issue bonds when they need to invest in technology, rather than relying on congressional appropriations. That’s one reason why they’re two to three decades ahead of the U.S. Of course, we could just license the same software as many other nations have done, but the FAA’s culture takes every wish list into account and puts the most cumbersome specs out to bid, the stuff often doesn’t work or takes decades to roll out – piece by piece.

President Bush (43) favored air traffic control privatization, but Congress explicitly banned the idea in its 2003 FAA Reauthorization.

But Shouldn’t We Move Away From Government As Central Planner In The Skies?

We couldn’t get real reforms done over the last 20 years, so I’m going to really be tilting at windmills for a moment by suggesting we should be thinking about a fundamentally different model of the future – where airlines and pilots decide how planes fly instead of controlling this centrally. Technology has allowed this for 30 years, yet instead we tinker with the current one.

• Politics will prevent this
  
• Current airlines will fight it – they won’t want to change their systems, they won’t want to make their own new technology investments, and they won’t want to invest in greater pilot training and responsibility

In 2004 I wrote that we didn’t have enough air traffic control capacity. Here we are, more than 20 years later! At the time I proposed something radical:

Allowing planes and pilots to operate in the skies much like cars, with technology and communications that allow them to direct themselves while coordinating with each other (as a replacement for the current command and control model) offers some of the best hope for increasing the total capacity of the skies for air travel.

We had the tech to do this in the 90s. With the advances we’ve achieved since then it would be a cinch. I’m not suggesting we just tell airlines to start flying wherever they wish – pushing a button and everything changes. There would need to be real work on procedures and resolving conflicts and on technology, and which planes and pilots became certified to do this.

How A Decentralized Air Traffic Control Would Work

Airlines and pilots controlling their own flight operations, selecting the most efficient routes, altitudes, and schedules would work very differently than the current model where air traffic control dictates aircraft routing and separation. Airlines would optimize flights for fuel efficiency, crew costs, weather conditions, and passenger connections​.

Airlines file a four-dimensional flight plan (including time) directly with the air traffic management system for notification, not approval. This plan is integrated into the aircraft’s flight management system, allowing real-time optimization during the flight​. A flight from Los Angeles to Chicago could dynamically adjust speed or altitude en route to avoid congestion or weather while maintaining an optimized arrival time​ by minimizing unnecessary detours. And that means huge fuel and labor saving, and lower cost per mile means airlines compete down fares.

Then you do dynamic conflict management, using global data to identify potential conflicts in advance, allowing for adjustments. Pilots retain the ability to modify their flight paths, provided they remain within safety constraints validated by a separation manager​. Radar, VHF communication, and standard navigation equipment would have made this possible 30 years ago without even GPS or wifi. Today’s technology makes it highly desirable.

By reducing bottlenecks from fixed routes, you also reduce the likelihood of loss of separation of aircraft in the same airspace.

And you don’t need as many air traffic controllers (solving the shortfall) because their role is no longer to micromanage flights. They become separation managers, monitoring and resolving potential conflicts.

Since this could work on 30-year old technology, the challenge of older aircraft can be managed. Although airlines would fight the proposal to avoid technological upgrades that would be desirable. The upgrades would be desirable because that’s what’s needed to get more throughput out of congested airspace in the Northeast.

You’d also get pushback from residents living near airports, fearing increased noise – given free reign to fly, planes would use more direct takeoff and landing paths. There would still be political compromises limiting allowable routes, but I’d note that more direct routes, though, are also better for emissions.

Obviously none of this would be immediate. But we should be rethinking the model. Separating out regulation from service provision, so the FAA isn’t its own regulator, would be a start. It’s necessary for accountability and safety, but it’s not enough. Technology and airspace needs have evolved dramatically since the early days of air traffic control, but our thinking about the function largely has not.