Aviation Policy News: FAA needs more than funding to fix aging systems

In this issue:

• FAA needs more than funding to fix aging systems
• Aviation’s climate change dilemma
• South Suburban Airport RFQ issued
• Addressing U.S. airports’ infrastructure needs
• Are Canada’s airports private? Should they be?
• Starlink vs. broadband fiber, revisited
• News Notes
• Quotable Quote

FAA Needs More Than Funding to Fix Aging Systems

Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a blistering report titled “FAA Actions Are Urgently Needed to Modernize Aging Systems.” (GAO-24-107001) At the request of leading members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, GAO looked into the problem of aging, outdated systems still being used in the air traffic control system. GAO researchers identified 138 air traffic control (ATC) systems, and its assessment found that 37% are unsustainable (i.e., need to be replaced) and 39% are potentially unsustainable. And 58 of those systems “have critical operational impacts on the safety and efficiency of the national airspace.”

That’s bad news, but it gets worse. GAO found that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has 64 ongoing efforts aimed at modernizing 90 of the unsustainable and potentially unsustainable systems. But current FAA plans show that many of these systems will still be in operation for between 6 and 13 more years before being either replaced or modernized. And four of these critical systems don’t even have a plan for replacement or upgrading.

Table 1 in the report lists 17 of the “most-critical and at-risk systems,” all of which are “unsustainable” and shows that 13 of them are not projected to be replaced until some time between 2030 and 2035—and that four of them don’t even have the beginning of a planned investment. They are not identified by name, “due to sensitivity concerns.”

Appendix III, Table 8 lists all air traffic control systems for which FAA believes new investments are required, and insiders will likely to be able to figure out which of these are the “most-critical and at-risk systems” listed in Table 1.

GAO’s report makes reference to last year’s scathing review by the independent National Airspace Safety Review Team, which highlighted some of the critically important aging systems, which hints that these are some of the unidentified systems GAO highlighted:

• ASDE-X, deployed in the early 2000s to track surface movements and alert controllers to potential conflicts. It’s no longer in production and spare parts are “extremely limited.”
• Beacons used for en-route surveillance, with 20-year-old transponders and no available replacement antennas.
• Instrument landing systems (ILSs), most of which are at least 25 years old and for which manufacturer support is no longer available.

GAO also reports that FAA budget requests for facilities and equipment “have remained relatively constant at about $1 billion annually.” What this omits is that FAA cannot request what proper analysis suggests because (1) its budget request must be approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT) secretary, and (2) that the Office of Management and Budget has the last word on how much DOT (and hence FAA) can request. That’s not how critically important public utilities operate, whether government-owned or investor-owned. Their modus operandi is to plan their capital spending needs and request/obtain approval to increase their rates to provide the needed revenue streams to pay off bonds used to finance large facility and equipment investments. That is true of federal government utilities like the Tennessee Valley Authority, but nothing like that process exists for FAA’s air traffic control system. It has no bonding authority and depends solely on inadequate annual appropriations from Congress.

Rather than suggesting that kind of change, GAO focuses on FAA’s “Acquisition Management System” and the six phases that any proposed capital expenditure must go through. GAO is very big on proper bureaucratic processes and goes into great detail on how each of these steps should be carried out. It notes that the reason four at-risk systems have no modernization plans is because the 2023 operational risk assessment was not completed in time for those four to be included. And the report notes comments from the Safety Review Team and from both controllers’ union NATCA and technicians’ union PASS that FAA should be timelier in identifying unsustainable systems “given the length of time it takes to move through the [six-phase] acquisition process.” And once a system has been identified as a candidate, Table 4 shows that it can take between two and nearly nine years “to establish an acquisition program baseline.” And that means the time frame to get from the start of program planning for a modernized or replacement system can range from 5.5 years to as much as 19.5 years (by which time many technology improvements will be obsolete).

Instead of concluding that this whole process is a bureaucratic nightmare, GAO critiques various aspects of the process, according to its principles for how federal bureaucracies should operate. Its well-meaning but toothless recommendations strike me as unlikely to address the real problem.

For that I turned to an aviation expert I’ve known for several decades. Gary Church is a long-time aviation consultant who began his career as a private pilot and air traffic controller. After working for the Air Transport Association, he launched an aviation consulting firm in 1984, and did many aviation studies, including for FAA, on air traffic modernization. Gary wrote me the following assessment:

“The problem with FAA procurement is that initial failures lead to more and more convoluted processes that contribute nothing but add layers of procurement complexity. A big one is a cost-benefit analysis that wants not an 80% solution but a 99% solution, which takes more and more time to acquire data and analyze. While doing this, your 18 months to make a relevant decision becomes three, four, or five years. In that time, all the technology and assumptions change. If you can’t make a cost/benefit procurement decision within 18 months, you have lost the window and any opportunity of making a good decision. Second, based on analyzing FAA’s process, I conclude that you will never get to a successful procurement following the details prescribed in the FAA documentation…Every notable FAA procurement failure over the years has just added complexity and delay to cost analysis and systems engineering processes, until today they are virtually unworkable: you just can’t get a product out the door.”

I’ll close with a suggestion for GAO, the DOT Inspector General, and FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker: Why not investigate how existing air traffic control utilities such as DFS, NATS, and Nav Canada analyze and develop improved ATC technology? I think that would be more productive than trying to perfect the current FAA Acquisition Management System.

 » return to top

Aviation’s Climate Change Dilemma

European policymakers are at the leading edge of generating greenhouse gas mandates aimed at aviation. The newly re-elected European Commission in July made clear that Destination 2050 net-zero remains a top priority across the board, including for aviation. Shifting short-haul travel from planes to trains (France and others), imposing new taxes on airline passengers (Denmark), and “demand reduction” such as caps on airport movements (Netherlands) are all in the picture. And environmental groups are far more aggressively anti-aviation in Europe than anywhere else in the world.

That said, there are signs that the aviation industry is having second thoughts about the viability of Destination 2050. Graham Warwick, in his Leading Edge column in Aviation Week (Aug. 12-Sept. 1), wrote, “More industry insiders are questioning the viability of aviation’s long-term aspirational goal to be net-zero by 2050.”

Warwick notes large backlogs of orders for current jetliners, and bleak production projections for sustainable aviation fuel (and at three to five times the price of kerosene!). An earlier article by Warwick was headlined “Aircraft Delivery Plans Do Not Match Net-Zero Goal, Report Says” (Aviation Week, July 29-Aug. 11). Of course, the answer to that from environmental groups such as the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) is that “if manufacturers don’t develop a zero-emission airplane, that’s the number of airplanes that they have to not deliver.”

But I detect a considerable degree of hubris in European Union policymakers and groups like ICCT. They seem to have influence in Europe and (to some degree) in the United States, but how do they propose to control aviation’s growth in China, India, and the Middle East, where air travel is booming? Take India, for example. Market leader Indigo ordered 30 Airbus A350-900s in April and has almost 1,000 Airbus narrowbodies on order. Air India last year ordered 470 aircraft. The Economist reported that altogether Indian carriers have 1,500 planes on order. These are all new airliners with an operating life of perhaps 25 years once they are delivered over the next 5-10 years, so most will be still flying in 2050. Dubai is expanding its Al Maktoum International Airport into a major hub. Airlines like Emirates are engaged in a buying spree of mostly long-haul wide-bodies. Even in Europe some airports are announcing expansion plans, including London Stansted and Copenhagen.

We are starting to hear concerns raised about the feasibility of aviation achieving Net-Zero 2050. In response to a letter to the editor in Aviation Week (July 1-14), columnist Kevin Michaels posted a lengthy reply. After acknowledging that the “challenges for sustainable aviation are mind-bending,” he went on to write:

“Your point is that the goal is misguided and that we should slow down and let the technology develop. This is a different argument, and a topic worthy for further exploration. Personally, I don’t believe we can get to zero emissions by 2050, and governments must move away from a ‘peanut butter’ approach where they apply the same goal to every industry, regardless of cost-benefit or physics.”

I second the motion, and I would like to suggest how aviation might proceed.

First, it’s important to increase policymakers’ and opinion leaders’ knowledge about how dramatically airliner emissions have declined since 1960. Fuel use per passenger has decreased by about 85% since the start of the jet age.

Second, it’s important to debunk misleading claims about aviation’s contribution to greenhouse gases. The best estimate today is about 4.1%, according to Oxford Economics.

A few other points from Geoffrey Thomas, editor of Airline Ratings:

• Wasted food is a huge source; if it were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest CO2 producer, after China and the USA.
• The fashion industry produces about 10% of annual carbon emissions.
• When the Environmental Defense Fund CEO says aviation is the world’s 6th largest source of “climate pollution,” we should know that the five worst carbon producing countries generate 97% of all CO2 emissions.

So don’t be intimidated.

Next, let’s take a serious look at the cost of decarbonizing aviation with today’s technology. A report last month from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) puts the cost at $4.7 trillion (between 2024 and 2050). Here is where benefit/cost analysis must play a role.

Suppose you were in charge of climate policy for a large country and wanted to get the most bang for the buck in dealing with carbon emissions. In other words, achieve as much benefit as possible without bankrupting the country. One approach to analyzing this problem is to estimate, for each sector of the economy, the cost per ton of CO2 equivalent removed over the next 25 years. To get the most reduction for the least amount of resources used, the priority would be to start with the sector with the most bang for the buck, and go on from there to the next-best, and the next one after that, etc. That’s the way to minimize the danger of bankrupting the public and private sectors in what might be an impossible quest if the focus were instead on targeting each and every sector for something like net-zero by 2050. (By the way, I used a process similar to this in my mechanical engineering master’s thesis at MIT, to figure out the most cost-effective investments in auto safety.)

I can’t imagine that spending $4.7 trillion over the next 25 years to decarbonize aviation would pass this kind of benefit/cost test. There are likely huge amounts of low-hanging fruit that would offer far more value per billion spent. But we won’t know unless somebody or various bodies carry out this kind of analysis.

 » return to top

South Suburban Airport RFQ Issued

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) on Aug. 16 issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) for what would become the long-anticipated third Chicago airport. Long known as the South Suburban Airport, its location is in fast-growing Will County, southeast of Chicago. IDOT has spent years acquiring 4,550 acres adjacent to Bult Field, a small general aviation airport. For many years, the proposed new airport was considered a political boondoggle, but last year the Illinois legislature enacted a law allowing IDOT to begin a public-private partnership (P3) project to develop the first phase of the new airport. Whether serious investors respond will be an initial test of this premise.

With long-established Chicago O’Hare (ORD) and Midway (MDW) still adequately handling Chicagoland passenger traffic, many aviation pundits consider the airport’s best prospects to be air cargo. The airport site is in proximity to I-57, I-80, and I-355, all of which are significant trucking corridors. Both BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad serve the region, as well. IDOT has plans for a new interchange on I-57 that would serve the airport. Illinois does have one cargo-focused airport, Rockford, northwest of Chicago, but it is further from the metro area than the South Suburban Airport site.

What IDOT is now focused on is the Inaugural Airport Program (IAP), to be procured as a design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) P3. The IAP includes providing a new 9,500-foot runway with a full-length taxiway, a passenger terminal, cargo facilities, and additional general aviation infrastructure. The existing general aviation runway will remain in place and in operation during construction.

As Public Works Financing reported in its September issue, the RFQ considers two main public-private partnership models. The first is what is known as a revenue-risk model, in which the primary funding comes from airport revenues and there is no guarantee of state support beyond what would be included in the long-term P3 agreement. The other would be a hybrid model that included “availability payments” to the developer/operator as the primary revenue source. Both methods have been used in this country for surface transportation projects and a handful of airport terminal and other on-airport P3 projects. IDOT is open to either one.

IDOT is offering to hold meetings with individual teams while they are preparing their responses to the RFQ. The full qualifications submissions will be due on July 24, 2025, and the request for proposals (RFP) will be issued later in 2025 to those teams judged as best-qualified.

IDOT has already completed an airport master plan and an Environmental Impact Statement, working with FAA on both documents. But further environmental assessments will likely be needed as the project gets more thoroughly defined.

 » return to top

Addressing U.S. Airports’ Infrastructure Needs

Last month, FAA announced the release of $1.9 billion in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. Just in time for the November elections, the 519 grants support projects in 48 states plus Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. There was also another $269 million in supplemental discretionary grants for 62 projects at 56 airports. As you may also know, the privilege of announcing each grant is reserved for the member of Congress in whose district each of the airports resides. ‘Here I am—see how much new money I got for you!’ (And don’t forget to vote.)

Despite the hoopla, these grants are pretty small change. The $1.9 billion spread over 519 grants makes the average grant just $3.66 million. So what is the point, besides a photo-op for numerous House members prior to next month’s election day?

Kevin Burke, CEO of Airports Council International-North America told Aviation Week’s Aaron Karp that what airports really need is $151 billion in major capital improvements over the five-year period ending in 2028. The airports’ first choice to raise such funding is an increase in the passenger facility charge (PFC), which is routinely lobbied against by U.S. airlines. The airlines refer to the PFC as a “federal tax,” but it is not. It is neither charged by the federal government nor imposed by that government. Instead, federal legislation permits individual airports to charge passengers a per-departure user fee that is dedicated to funding improvements at the airport that charges the PFC. It’s an important self-help measure that nearly all U.S. commercial airports use as a vital tool to finance long-term projects, such as a new terminal or a new parking structure. PFC revenue is widely accepted by purchasers of airport revenue bonds. But unfortunately, due to airline lobbying, the federal limit on PFCs has remained at $4.50 for 20 years, losing nearly half its purchasing power over that span of time.

Since Congress generally deals with aviation funding only in FAA reauthorization bills every fifth year, and the last one was enacted this year, ACI-NA sees little hope of a PFC increase for at least five years. But Burke told Aviation Week’s Karp that the most likely Plan B for airports to be able to deal with their large-scale infrastructure funding needs would be to “move toward the airport financing model prevalent in Europe and other parts of the world where private companies (often consortiums) take over development and management of airports under decades-long leases with governments.”

He noted that these public-private partnerships (P3s) have more flexibility in capital markets. “Most airports and terminals in the U.S. are publicly owned, which constrains how funds can be raised. and that can lead to a degree of underinvestment and aging in airport infrastructure,” Simon Gandy of the P3 New Terminal One project at John F. Kennedy International Airport told Aviation Week’s Window Seat Podcast.

Without a PFC increase, Burke continued, “You’re going to more than likely see, over the course of many years, more public-private partnerships to fund the multiple billions of dollars it takes to build airports. I would not be surprised to see that.”

 » return to top

Are Canada’s Airports Privatized? Should They Be?

On Aug. 28, the Financial Post in Canada published an op-ed by Monette Pasher. Its title was “Canada’s Airports Are Already Private—Selling Them to For-Profit Owners Will Just Mean Higher Fees.” Reading the piece led me to conclude that Ms. Pasher knows very little about airport privatization. But when I googled her name, I learned that she is president of the Canadian Airports Council. Hmmmm.

When she claims Canada’s airports “are already private,” she’s referring to local nonprofit public corporations that have no equity. These airports are still owned by Canada’s federal government, and as Pasher admits, they must pay an average of 12% of their annual revenue in lease payments to that government. Until recently, Canadian airport leaders were adamant that these lease payments deprive them of needed funds for capital improvements. Yet in her recommendations at the end of the op-ed, Pasher recommends “extending federal leases for 50 years.”

What triggered her commentary was federal government officials discussing the potential of Canadian public pension funds being able to invest in Canadian airports. But you can’t invest equity in enterprises that have no equity, so those discussions obviously led to considering a change from non-equity government airport corporations to actual businesses with shareholders, some of which could well be public pension funds with a need to invest equity into revenue-generating businesses.

Someone should remind Ms. Pasher that, according to Airports Council International (ACI), real airport privatization is widespread. ACI data show that in Europe, 75% of passengers are served by privatized airports, as are 66% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 47% in the Asia-Pacific region. North America lags tremendously at a mere 1%. Pasher implies that privatization means outright sale, but that is far from the case. Yes, some of the early airport privatizations in Europe (London, Copenhagen, Frankfurt) were sales of all or a portion of the ownership. But since 2000 and Australia’s landmark privatizations, the large majority of airport privatizations have been via long-term P3 leases. In these cases, the public sector entity remains the owner and becomes the de-facto regulator of the private-sector investors (including the pension funds). That is clearly the model Canada should be considering. It’s also the only privatization option available in the United States.

The evidence that airport privatization leads to improved performance is growing stronger all the time. ACI itself commissioned a 2022 study by ICF and Oxford Economics which explored the growth of “airport groups”—global companies that manage multiple airports, yielding economies of scale and cost savings. And a 2023 working paper from the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research documented significant performance improvements at privatized airports, benefitting airlines and passengers alike. Those benefits were larger at airports where infrastructure investment funds were part of the P3 team.

Pension funds worldwide are seeking to invest equity in infrastructure entities that have equity, unlike Canada’s non-share airport entities. Canada’s pension funds were pioneers in investing equity in privatized transportation entities (airports, toll roads, seaports, etc.) worldwide. But unless or until Canada’s airports are converted to corporations with shareholders, those airports will be unable to get any investments from pension funds.

 » return to top

Starlink vs. Fiber Broadband, Revisited

Several years ago, when the Starlink broadband infrastructure was still in its initial demonstration phase, I suggested that the 2021 infrastructure law to extend broadband service to small, mostly rural communities, was misguided for focusing on very costly fiber broadband, rather than using satellite-based broadband such as SpaceX’s Starlink. Today, that assessment is being validated.

That 2021 federal program gave the Commerce Department $42.5 billion to expand broadband to underserved rural locations. In its Oct. 5 editorial, “The Broadband Rollout Fiasco,” The Wall Street Journal noted that, “Three years later, ground hasn’t been broken on a single project,” and it noted that the White House says construction won’t begin until next year at the earliest. The reasons include the heavy mandates (such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), union labor, and a preference for government-run networks) that are imposed on prospective project providers, as well as state regulators requiring that they charge subsidized prices. Very few companies are signing up. But the ultimate tragedy is the insistence on using very costly fiber broadband in low-density rural areas.

Starlink terminals cost about $600 per home. As The Wall Street Journal noted, extending 5G service to urban areas costs a couple of thousand dollars per home. Building out broadband fiber can be as costly as tens of thousands per home in very low-density rural areas.

Earlier, SpaceX’s Starlink bid for and won a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) contract to provide satellite-based broadband in rural areas. But the Journal now reports, “FCC’s Democratic majority revoked Starlink’s funding last year, claiming it wasn’t making fast-enough progress…despite other FCC funding recipients [not] doing any better.”

In a subsequent editorial, the Journal pointed out that FEMA is now using Starlink in North Carolina hurricane disaster areas, including “some of the same rural areas that Biden officials earlier wouldn’t let Starlink serve.” The piece added that Starlink’s original FCC contract would have covered all or parts of 17 of the 21 North Carolina hardest-hit counties.

This is truly government at its worst.

 » return to top

News Notes

Argentina Embraces Open Skies Policy
The reformist government of Argentina on Sept. 23 announced a new Open Skies policy. Decree No. 844/2024 allows foreign airlines to provide domestic services within Argentina. It will come into force 60 days after the date of issuance. The announcement fulfills a campaign promise from President Javier Milei, and will put additional pressure on poorly-run government-owned Aerolineas Argentinas, which Milei is seeking to privatize.

Gary/Chicago Airport to Get New Control Tower
Gary, Indiana’s “third Chicago Airport” has won FAA approval for a new conventional control tower, to replace its 1972-vintage tower. Why not a remote/digital tower? The global remote tower database maintained by IFATCA lists 28 such towers in use or under way in 11 counties, 10 remote tower centers in 10 countries, and contingency RTs in four countries. The USA is sadly behind the curve on remote towers.

American Airlines Adding ADS-B/In features to A321 Fleet
The airline has outfitted its A321 fleet with ADS-B/In equipment that will enable a following aircraft on approach to a runway to manage precise spacing behind a lead aircraft, thereby increasing runway throughput. To operationalize this process, the A321s will be equipped with an ADS-B Guidance Display (AGD) from ACSS; the AGD works with an ADS-B capable TCAS computer. American is awaiting FAA approval to equip its entire A321 fleet with this capability, after successful tests at DFW Airport earlier this year.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin Consider Sale of Rocket Business
Heard in the Hangar has reported that United Launch Alliance (ULA), the joint rocket launch company owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is in discussions about selling ULA to Sierra Space Corporation. Sierra Space is developing its Dream Chaser spaceplane, which relies on a rocket launcher such as those produced by ULA.

Air Force Seeks Commercial Rocket Cargo Delivery
Aviation Week (Aug. 12/Sept. 1) reports that the U.S. Air Force is investigating whether commercial launch companies could quickly deliver supplies to far-flung locations. In 2021 the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) identified “rocket cargo” a one of its high-priority initiatives. In 2022, AFRL contracted with SpaceX to research point-to-point delivery (P2PD), with a focus on data from flight tests of the company’s huge Starship. The separate U.S. Transportation Command is also researching P2PD with industry.

New Airports Company Launched in Canada
Infralogic reported (July 17) that Vancouver-based Centerline Airport Partners is entering the market for airport development and operation. It already has a contract to manage Parma Airport in Italy and is seeking to raise $100 million from investors. Centerline has contracted with Atlantico Capital to help it raise funds in the USA, Europe, Latin America, and Europe. Centerline is also looking into airports in the Dominican Republic, western Canada, California, and Denmark, though the article did not identify those airports.

Virgin Islands Airports to Become “Sky Cities”
The U.S. Virgin Islands has selected VIports for a 40-year P3 concession to modernize and operate the King and Rohlson Airports. The concession company is a 50/50 joint venture of Aecon as developer and Tikehau Star Infra as equity partner. Financial close and the start of construction are expected next year. At this stage, VIports and the Virgin Islands Port Authority are working out the design and planning for the construction and permitting. The total investment has not yet been determined.

FAA Announces First Two Colleges to Fully Train Controllers
Implementing a new policy to ensure that students in approved Collegiate Training Initiative (CTI) courses, FAA announced on Oct. 2 that Tulsa Community College and the University of Oklahoma are the first CTI programs that meet the requirement to provide training equivalent to that at the FAA Academy. Those graduates, after passing the required testing, will be assigned directly to an FAA facility for on-the-job training. This is a long overdue reform.

Queensland Gets Three Bids for Its Four Airports
Three teams have submitted final bids for the 74.25% in Queensland Airports Limited (QAL) currently owned by two Australian public pension funds and The Infrastructure Fund. The teams are Australian Super, Dexus/Gold Coast Council, and KKR/Skip Capital. QAL owns the Gold Coast, Townsville, Mount Isa, and Longreach Airports.

Europe’s ATC System Still Needs Major Reform
The Performance Review Body of the EU Single European Sky program has issued a new report on increasing delays in European airspace. As air traffic has recovered from the pandemic, between June and Aug. of 2024 capacity-related delays increased by over 80%, with the average delay reaching 13 minutes. The report highlighted a 430% increase in annual delays between 2021 and 2023. Airlines for Europe stated that “It is simply unacceptable that nearly half of all flights in Europe face some form of delay at the busiest time of the year.”

EasyJet Joins Airline Focus Group for JetZero BWB
The blended wing body aircraft under development by U.S. startup JetZero has added EasyJet to its 12-airline customer focus group. Due to its unique aeronautical design, the 250-seat aircraft is projected to deliver up to 50% less fuel consumption than a 250-passenger tube-and-wing airliner. Alaska Airlines was the first to join the focus group. JetZero also has contracts with the Air Force, FAA, and NASA, with the Air Force funding a full-scale demonstrator.

Avports Gets Reprieve on Building New Haven Airport Terminal
Because of lengthy delays in the permitting process for the planned 80,000 sq. ft. new terminal at Tweed New Haven Airport, the City Planning Commission granted Avports a 36-month extension to continue using temporary buildings until the permits can be issued. The new terminal is part of Avports’ plan to bring the airport up to the standards needed for expanding air service by Avelo Airlines.

California Abandons Plan to Regulate Jet Fuel
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) in August dropped a previously announced plan to regulate the jet fuel used in 220,000 in-state flights. Airlines for America (A4A) had questioned CARB’s authority to regulate jet fuel, and it was expected to file suit against the agency had it continued with the plan.

China Completes National eLORAN Network
Dana Goward of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation reported on Oct. 3 that the Chinese government announced completion of a nationwide network broadcasting eLORAN signals that serve as a backup to GPS and other GNNS systems. China also now has a 20,000km fiber timing network, in addition to its own GNNS constellation.

Australia OKs Third Runway for Melbourne Airport
Passenger and cargo carriers cheered the Sept. 13 decision of Australia’s transport minister to allow a third runway at the airport, Australia’s second-busiest. The new 9,800 ft. runway will be parallel to the airport’s existing north-south runway, and it’s expected to begin serving aircraft by 2031. A condition of the approval is that the airport lengthen its east-west runway to reduce the impact of airport noise on residential areas. Cargo airlines, freight forwarders, and shippers cheered the development. The national government estimates that Melbourne will become the country’s largest metro area within the next decade.

Auckland Airport Plans NZ$1.4 Billion Share Offering
In a stock exchange filing on Sept. 16, Auckland International Airport announced plans to issue 172 million ordinary shares, representing 11.7% of currently issued capital. The additional funds will go toward the airport’s planned capital investment program.

London City Gains Passenger Cap Increase
Aviation Daily (Aug. 22) reported that London City Airport received government approval to increase from 6.5 million annual passengers to 9 million. London City appealed a previous rejection of the increase, which has now been approved by the new Labor government. The airport served 3.4 million passengers in 2023 and is projected to reach 6.5 million by the mid-2020s, reaching 9 million by 2031. The airport’s request to operate flights on Saturday afternoons was rejected, so it will continue to close at 12:30 PM on Saturdays.

FAA Certifies Garmin Runway Occupancy Awareness System
Runway Occupancy Awareness (ROA) uses an equipped aircraft’s GPS position and ADS-B/In traffic information to determine if other aircraft might present a collision hazard. If so, it provides a visual warning on the aircraft’s primary flight display. The first approved installations will be in Cessna Caravans, with approval also being sought for other Cessna business jets.

Recommended Reading
A 2023 book that I recently read is How Big Things Get Done, by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner. The most aviation-focused story appears in Chapter 8, about the project to build London Heathrow’s Terminal 5. It’s an excellent case study in how the massive project was managed so that it was completed on time and on budget. Flyvbjerg has studied numerous major projects during his career and has consulted on some. I’ve read a number of his reports over the years. With so many megaproject failures (far exceeding budgets, opening years late), this success story is a heartening example of a megaproject done right.

 » return to top

Quotable Quotes

“I happen to agree that there are several elements of the most-recent DOT fee regulation, currently in litigation, that are ill-advised. I don’t think selecting specific fees and requiring their display along with schedule and price wherever those are offered is a great idea. For the most part, customers know there are fees and can easily find them. They hate checked bag fees, for instance, because they are aware of checked bag fees, not because they’re a surprise. Meanwhile, it’s more information to sort through in an already complicated billing process, and it sets in stone the specific information everyone must see to buy a ticket—even as fees and services evolve.”
—Gary Leff, post on invitation-only aviation discussion board, used with his permission.

“[Open Skies in Argentina] is a very interesting development. South America is leading the way in chipping away at the archaic 70-year-old airline ownership and control rules, not to mention cabotage restrictions. Meanwhile, the US and EU go backwards. We won’t have a ‘normal’ global airline industry, including a truly profitable one, until we have true deregulation/liberalization.”
—Barry Humphreys, aviation consultant, post on invitation-only aviation discussion board, used with his permission.

“The [PFC] issue with the airlines has not been about the economics of it. It’s been about control of the airports, and what I mean by control is if an airport enhances itself and creates more gates, it does so for two reasons. One, if the dominant carrier needs more gates, usually the dominant carrier helps pay for that. But, two, if it’s [via a financing mechanism] that brings more airlines, maybe non-hub carriers, then that’s competition to the large carriers. They don’t like that. It’s been amazing that airlines have been able to hold this off for years, but they’ve had supporters in Congress who think it’s a [federal] tax, which it is not. It’s a user fee.”
—Kevin Burke, Airports Council International-North America, in “U.S. Airports Face Significant Infrastructure Funding Shortfall, Says ACI-NA CEO,” Aaron Karp, Aviation Week, Sept. 13, 2024 

 » return to top

The post Aviation Policy News: FAA needs more than funding to fix aging systems appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/faa-needs-more-than-funding-to-fix-aging-systems/