Aviation Policy News: Who should pay for air traffic control?

In this issue:

• Who should pay for air traffic control modernization?
• The need for leadership at NASA
• Disturbing findings on the controller workforce
• Surprising Senate additions to the One Big Beautiful Bill
• TSA shoe removal finally abolished
• News Notes
• Quotable Quotes

Who Should Pay for Air Traffic Control Modernization?

In the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Congress provided $12.5 billion for much-needed upgrades to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) facilities and equipment. The Modern Skies Coalition of airlines and other aviation interest groups is calling for another $18.5 billion to cover all the items in Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s plan for a “Brand New Air Traffic Control System.” Such spending would be a dramatic departure from more than 50 years of air traffic control being paid for by aviation users, rather than American taxpayers.

In 1970, the Airport and Airway Revenue Act established the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, based on an array of aviation user taxes (airline ticket tax, some aviation fuel taxes, and several others). For the last 55 years, receipts from users have paid for air traffic control (ATC) operations, facilities, and equipment. Compared with having all taxpayers cover those costs, the users-pay principle is far more sustainable than relying on general federal revenues. To be sure, our air traffic control system is seriously underfunded. This is partly because the FAA has been unwilling to ask Congress for significant increases in the user tax rates (in part because the Office of Management & Budget limits what FAA can even ask for).

Given how far behind the FAA is in modernizing its technology and replacing and consolidating its aging facilities, it’s understandable that aviation organizations would turn to general support to supplement what the FAA gets from current user taxes, but this is an unwise move for at least two reasons.

First, once a function becomes dependent on federal “general revenue,” it competes with every other priority of Congress, including education, the environment, social welfare, national defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs. The U.S. highway sector has done far better than (non-tolled) highways in most of Europe, because the latter highways are paid for out of general revenues; gas taxes in Europe are general revenue, not dedicated to highways as in this country. So transport ministers have to compete with all other agencies for their funding.

Second, and of far greater concern, the federal government is on a fast track to insolvency. The largest items in the federal budget are Social Security and Medicare. Their actuaries project that both programs will exhaust their trust funds in less than a decade. When this happens, Congress will be under severe pressure to make up for its huge annual shortfalls and will have only a few alternatives. Either significantly increase taxes and already out-of-control federal borrowing or slash that very large annual amount from the rest of the federal budget (meaning cuts for most other spending categories).

This looming fiscal debacle has led all three major credit rating issuers to downgrade their ratings on federal bonds in recent years. A growing number of books by knowledgeable finance professionals discuss the potential for our federal government to essentially go bankrupt (e.g., financier Ray Dalio’s new book, How Countries Go Broke). The national debt, which exceeds $36 trillion, is at an all-time high as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, a level typically seen only during a major war or a severe economic depression.

Yet this is peacetime with a productive economy. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told ABC News earlier this month, “I can’t tell you whether the financial crisis is going to come this year or whether it will come five years from now. But we’ve never had deficits remotely like this at a moment when the economy was strong and we were at peace.” 

The Economist cites Goldman Sachs’ finding that if Congress postpones fiscal tightening for another decade, it may need to cut spending or raise taxes by another 5.5% of GDP to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio.  

In other words, shifting air traffic control from user-tax funding to general funding would be very unwise, especially at this juncture. A far wiser course would be to significantly increase user taxes (or better yet, convert them into bondable user charges, like those used by ATC utilities all over the world).

The $12.5 billion already provided by the Big Beautiful Bill is a done deal and will pay for some much-needed technology upgrades. But proceeding with further chunks of “general funds” that add even more to annual budget deficits and hence the unsustainable national debt would be unwise and unsustainable. Aviation interest groups should propose and support significant increases in aviation user taxes instead.

» return to top

The Need for Leadership at NASA

Jared Isaacman is among the best-qualified people ever nominated to be NASA administrator. He’s a long-time private pilot, an experienced astronaut, and a technology entrepreneur. He was nominated by President Donald Trump last December and, in April, was easily approved for the position by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Isaacman was considered a shoo-in for approval by the full Senate. However, on May 30, Trump abruptly withdrew his nomination, around the time the president and Elon Musk had their stormy parting.

Everyone concerned about the future of NASA should read Irene Klotz’s two-page interview with Isaacman in the June 30-July 12 issue of Aviation Week. Isaacman told Klotz that while he’s had business relationships with Musk, they have not been personal friends. While obviously disappointed at having been dropped, he told Klotz that it’s important for a NASA administrator to have strong support from the president, so that the administrator can push back against unjustified political demands.

What is especially dismaying is that Isaacman spent nearly six months giving serious thought to what NASA needs going forward. He expressed comfort with the White House decision to terminate, after two more launches, the hugely over-budget SLS/Orion return-to-the-Moon program in favor of competitive contracts with commercial space companies. Isaacman also addressed concerns that the various NASA centers deeply involved in that program were unwilling to shift gears. He told Klotz of conversations he had with legislators from Alabama, home of the Marshall Space Flight Center, which manages the SLS program, saying that they are not, per se, opposed to change but “need something to pivot to.”

Isaacman also expressed concern about NASA bureaucracy. “Departments with four people have a chief and a deputy chief. A lot of people show up to work every day at NASA because they want to change the world, but there are lots of people that enjoy the system of moving from deputy chief to chief to associate deputy principal and up,” Isaacman told Aviation Week. “To me, we need to rebalance to a lot more doers and a lot fewer of those who are feeding the bureaucracy.”

He also discussed bureaucratic limitations that limit research carried out on the International Space Station (while it remains in orbit). “There are still way too many steps in the process to clear science and research experiments to fly on the ISS. A lot of pharmaceutical companies—and industry in general—will tell you NASA is too difficult to work with, and they move on.”

Klotz recounts that during Isaacman’s confirmation hearing, he floated the idea of NASA possibly becoming more financially self-sufficient via user-generated revenue programs similar to the FAA’s Airport & Airway Trust Fund, with customers paying to fly their experiments, as customers of NASA.

Isaacman also expressed concerns about the proposed NASA budget for science, technology, and aeronautics being cut in half. He agreed that in a tight budgetary environment, “we’ve got to look at all spending.” But that is “a good forcing function to figure out what’s broken so you can concentrate resources where it really matters.” He singled out the Nancy Grace Space Telescope (almost finished) as foolish to terminate, and also voiced support for rebuilding the aeronautics program to focus on truly important breakthroughs, rather than funding 5% engine improvements or minor changes such as Boeing’s truss-braced wing. “Unless something flies really fast or it’s a radical design, NASA shouldn’t be doing it.”

Finally, Isaacman summed up as follows: “What are the two or three most important things we must get done, for the good of the American people who are funding $20-25 billion a year? There’s not a lot of talk like that. There’s talk of 100 things to do, and we don’t have enough money to do them all.”

His priorities would be returning to the Moon before China with technology that can be parlayed for Mars exploration; using the ISS to expand the orbital economy, and revamping how the agency manages and funds science missions.”

I cannot imagine any other potential candidate for this administrator position who possesses both the technology background and the knowledge of how to transform NASA into something significantly better. It’s extremely disappointing that the administration withdrew Isaacman’s nomination, and it is unlikely that President Trump would change his mind on this nomination, but it would be a very smart thing to do. I have no idea if there is anyone in the White House who could successfully make this case to Trump, but I sure hope someone does.

» return to top

Disturbing Findings on the Air Traffic Controller Workforce

Last year, the National Academies took on a major study of the FAA’s air traffic controller workforce. This article is based on a summary of its report, which is available here. The main tasks assigned to the 13-member study committee (two of whose members I know) were to:

• Look into the factors affecting controller staffing at FAA’s  313 air traffic control facilities;
• Compare FAA’s staffing model with an alternative developed by controllers’ union NATCA; and,
• Assess FAA’s adoption of recommendations from a 2014 National Academies study.

Rather than covering everything in this brief review, my focus is on some rather startling findings that everyone in aviation should be aware of.

One of these findings is that despite continued growth in air travel, the full-time equivalent (FTE) air traffic controller workforce has declined by 13% from 2010 to 2024. How or why did this happen?

The report notes sequestration and government shutdown in 2013, another shutdown in 2018-19, the COVID-19 pandemic (which interrupted controller training), and the “constrained hiring plan of 2023.” This is obviously no way to manage a safety-critical function. Please note that in the now more than 90 countries worldwide served by user-funded ATC utilities, no “government shutdown” would affect controller hiring and training, because their funding comes directly from ATC user fees, rather than from a legislative body.

Also disturbing is that since 2019, 30% of FAA air traffic control facilities have at least 10% fewer controllers than they need, and another 30% have at least 10% more than they need. This is not the simplistic “controller shortage” often discussed in aviation (and other) media. This imbalance suggests that FAA does not have the tools to shift controllers from over-staffed to under-staffed facilities.

Another revelation is that the numbers we read about the length of time it takes an academy graduate to achieve certification (CPC) status are misleading. This averages 0.5 to 1.6 years at low-level facilities (about what people expect), but 2 to 2.8 years at intermediate (levels 7-9) facilities, and 3.9 to 4.3 years at level 10-12 facilities. The report also finds that training success rates are falling for both academy graduates and CPC on-the-job training; this latter category declined from 81% success in Fiscal Year 2010 to just 61% in FY 2019.

Overtime use has grown from an average of 2% in 2013 to 9% today. Perhaps related is that time on position has declined significantly between 2010 and 2024. Another way of stating this is that regular hours worked per FTE have decreased 4% over this period, while overtime per FTE has quadrupled.

The report also documents that 19 large facilities serving the “core 30 airports” are staffed at less than 85% of modeled staffing targets as of 2024. These understaffed facilities account for 27% of commercial flight activity, 40% of all delays, and 45% of non-weather delays.

One solid recommendation is that the FAA should devise incentives to shift controllers from over-staffed to under-staffed facilities, especially the above 19 understaffed large ones. FAA should also determine the causes of the “perplexing trends in overtime, regular hours worked, and time on position” and rectify them.

Perhaps the most troubling finding is that the FAA should request enough funding in its annual budget request to acquire the number of additional controllers its model says are needed. What the researchers appear to be saying is that FAA does not do that, which strikes me as dereliction of duty. The study group put this first in the report, apparently to give it a prominent position. I hope the new FAA administrator takes all these findings and recommendations seriously, especially this one.

The air traffic controller workforce problem is not simply attracting enough applicants. There are also serious problems in how the FAA manages the controllers it has.  

» return to top

Surprising Senate Additions to the One Big Beautiful Bill

The Senate Commerce Committee added a number of aviation and space provisions to the House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Due to pressure from the White House to finalize the bill for the president’s signature by July 4, the House did not debate any of these additions and simply voted to approve the Senate version. This leads to mostly good news for aviation policy and bad news for space policy.

The biggest news for air traffic control is a push for facility consolidation, which has historically been very difficult to get support from Congress, even though with today’s technology, there is no need for 22 high-altitude centers (ARTCCs), there are opportunities for more TRACON/tower consolidation, and there is tremendous potential for remote/digital tower centers (as discussed in last month’s issue).

So here is what the bill provides for air traffic control. First, it allocates $1.9 billion to consolidate at least three existing ARTCCs into a single new one (leaving it up to FAA and Congress to decide on the specifics).

Second, it allocates $100 million to plan closure/modernization of at least 10 ARTCCs. As I have pointed out in previous issues, de-politicized ATC utilities in Australia, Germany, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have all done this successfully, but they did not have to deal with a legislative body fiercely opposed to “closing a vital facility in my state/district.” Back in 2013, Reason Foundation commissioned a detailed study on potential U.S. ATC facility consolidation.

Third, the bill provides $1 billion for TRACON modernization and consolidation. Finally, it also pushes FAA to actually implement the digital/remote tower provisions in Section 621 of the 2024 FAA reauthorization.

Unfortunately, the Senate provisions for NASA are major steps in the wrong direction. NASA’s current return-to-the-Moon program (Artemis) relies on ancient technology from the troubled Space Shuttle program and attempts to repeat the 1960s Apollo program with a massive new (non-reusable) booster rocket dubbed SLS and an astronaut capsule dubbed Orion. This program has already consumed $90 billion and has carried out only one unmanned SLS launch. Nearly every major component in this program is being developed under sole-source, cost-plus contracts, and they are all years late and far over budget. The White House mini-budget for NASA, released several months ago, called for NASA to do only two more SLS launches, after which the focus would shift to using commercial launch vehicles under competitively contracted public-private partnerships, like NASA is using successfully for transporting people and cargo to the space station and planning to use for lunar landers, lunar rovers, and even space suits.

Alas, Senate Commerce rejected the White House plan and authorized continuing the SLS program for Missions 4 and 5 ($4.1 billion), and spending more on late, over-budget components ($2.6 billion for the Lunar Gateway station, $20 million more for Orion crew vehicles). I wonder if the White House even knew the bill included this departure from the White House’s wiser approach to the Moon landing project. And of course, U.S. presidents do not have a line-item veto.

This bill is now law, but perhaps Congress will look more critically at these changes when it comes time to actually appropriate funds for these NASA boondoggles.

» return to top 

TSA Shoe Removal Regulation Finally Abolished

Passengers nationwide (except those already exempted as PreCheck fliers) rejoiced earlier this month after the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced, effective immediately, that passengers would no longer have to remove their shoes in airport screening lanes.

TSA mandated shoe removals in response to the Dec. 2001 capture of passenger Richard Reid, who had concealed explosives in his shoes. He paid the price with a prison term, but air travelers have been inconvenienced ever since.

The policy never made sense. First, it was not enacted until six years after Reid’s arrest. If there were a real threat, why did TSA wait that long?

Second, just about every other country with significant air travel never implemented shoe removal; not even Israel, which is generally recognized as having the world’s most stringent airline security policies.

Third, even in getting rid of the mandate, TSA failed to speak the truth. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem greeted the policy change by stating, “Thanks to our cutting-edge technological advancements and multi-layered security approach, we are confident that we can implement this change while maintaining the highest security standards.” But of various new checkpoint security technology touted in recent years, none have actually been introduced. In 2021, Axios reported that electronic shoe scanners developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory had been licensed to Liberty Defense Holdings, which was planning demonstrations in the third quarter of FY 2026 and to start testing them at some airports in FY 2027. In other words, no such technology is in use at any U.S. airport.

In a July 8 op-ed piece titled “America’s Most Successful Terrorist?”, George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan estimated the time-cost to U.S. air travelers during the years this inane policy was in place. He made estimates of the time required for each person to take off and put back on their shoes, delays that forgetful people impose on everyone waiting in line, and delays TSA itself adds when it has to stop the line to instruct a non-compliant person to remove shoes at the last minute. While I think his numbers are exaggerated (e.g., he ignores that PreCheck members are exempt when estimating the total minutes lost), his total of wasted minutes since the policy was implemented is 15 billion minutes. I think it’s more like eight billion, but still a staggering number.

Coincidentally, during our 2025 spring cleaning, my wife and I discovered a DVD from 2010, titled “Please Remove Your Shoes.” It’s a critique of the token security provided when the FAA was in charge (prior to the creation of the TSA) and the new agency’s first decade, when the TSA was beset by performance failures and increasing bureaucracy. It includes critiques from informed people who were involved in airport security both before and after TSA’s creation. Based on my research and writing on airport security during that period, I found it to be credible and well-done.

» return to top

News Notes

Macquarie Buys Pension Fund Stakes in Three UK Airports
Infrastructure fund Macquarie Asset Management paid $1.84 billion to acquire stakes in three British airports from Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (OTTP). It acquired a 25% stake in London City Airport, a 55% stake in Bristol Airport, and a 26.5% stake in Birmingham Airport. The London City Airport investment valued that airport at 20 times its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). The average multiple for Birmingham and Bristol was 16X EBITDA. These multiples suggest that UK airports are returning to pre-pandemic business levels.

American Adopting ADS-B/In for A-321 Fleet
After several years of operational trials, using ADS-B/In to provide in-cockpit data on other aircraft positions in real time, the airline is adding this system to its entire A-321 fleet. Developed by ACSS (a joint venture of Acron and Thales), the Saferoute+ system adds a cockpit display of traffic information; it is also paired with an ADS-B/In collision-avoidance (TCAS) computer. American’s flight trials have shown improvements in runway arrival rates at DFW of up to five aircraft per hour. Because of its safety benefits, the NTSB has long argued for the addition of ADS-B/In to all commercial aircraft.

More Airports Getting Runway Safety System Similar to ASDE-X
The last of 35 U.S. airports to get runway-surveillance systems known as ASDE-X was Memphis, 14 years ago, and the system has long been out of production. But Saab, its developer, has produced a successor called Aerobahn Runway and Surface Safety service. Under FAA’s new Surface Awareness Initiative, Saab has won a contract to equip 26 more airports with this technology. Alas, instead of buying them all at once, FAA will pay for them to be installed in dribs and drabs over the next decade (FAA business as usual).

Hard Facts About Rail vs Air Travel in Europe
Green groups in Europe keep insisting that governments ban short-haul airline service in favor of people taking trains between European cities. But one of the advocates of this policy—Climatboostse Action Network-France—has released a report comparing the cost of air and rail trips within Europe. It finds that only a limited subset of trips cost passengers less by rail than by plane. A report on this subject by Greenpeace compared ticket prices for 21 routes between France and cities elsewhere in Europe. Weighted by number of passengers, the train averages 2.5 times as costly as the plane. These results lead these groups to call for large-scale taxation and/or subsidies.

NATS Boosts London Gatwick Runway Productivity
London Gatwick Airport (LGW) is the world’s busiest single-runway airport—at least until it completes converting a parallel taxiway to its second runway. Meanwhile, however, it now has the benefit of a Departure Manager system from Frequentis. Paired with the same company’s Arrival Manager system, it aims to increase the single runway’s daily throughput. These systems are operated by NATS, the UK’s ANSP. The system is also linked with Eurocontrol’s Network Manager so that arrivals and departures are coordinated with other air traffic.

New Mumbai Airport to Get $6.6 Billion Investment
Mumbai’s second airport is set to open this August, having been developed from scratch by infrastructure developer/operator Adani Group. Infralogic (June 24) reported that by 2030, Adani Group will have invested $6.6 billion in this new airport. That total covers the first three of five planned phases for this airport, in one of India’s largest cities.

Forbes Details the Case for a U.S. ATC Corporation
If the United States is ever to join the global move toward air traffic control utilities, the case must be made to opinion leaders far beyond the aviation community. An important example of such efforts is a long article in Forbes by reporter Jeremy Bogaisky. Its headline conveys its basic message: “Why the U.S. Should Copy Canada to Fix Its Broken Air Traffic Control System.” It offers a good overview of how Canada’s ATC system has improved considerably since the former government entity was converted into a nonprofit user-funded utility.

FAA Testing New NOTAM System This Month
Aviation Daily reported that FAA plans to test a new aeronautical notification system in July, aimed at eventually replacing the current antiquated NOTAM system, which is reverting to its original name, Notice to Airmen Management System (NMS). The new system will be cloud-hosted. It is being developed by CGI Federal, along with Google Public Sector, NG Aviation, and Mosaic ATM. FAA’s Thomas Draffen said NMS is intended to be turned on for real in Feb. 2026, with the old system turned off at that point.

Sweden’s “Flight Shaming” Backfires
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg popularized the idea of “flight shaming,” which led to that country’s government imposing a $45 tax on all departing flights (which was later emulated by a number of other countries). But UK newspaper The Telegraph reported that this tax has been abolished, as of July 1, because international departures from Sweden had declined by one third since the tax was imposed. Ryanair has already returned to Sweden, re-introducing 10 routes.

EHang Licensed to Carry Passengers via eVTOL
China has licensed eVTOL startup EHang to carry passengers (in what is apparently the first such license anywhere in the world). An article in The Economist reported that EHang plans to start commercial flights soon in Guangzhou and Hefei, and it also reports that drone deliveries are becoming widespread in China.

Honda Launched Its First Reusable Rocket
It may be small, but Honda’s new reusable rocket had its first launch and landing in mid-June, as Andrew Liszewski reported June 18 in The Verge. The 21-foot-tall rocket ascended to 890 feet and then landed within 37 cm (about 1.2 ft.) of its target. Honda has released few development plans, but The Verge reported that Honda has a development goal of having the capability for suborbital launches by 2029.

Another University Adopts FAA Controller Training Curriculum
DOT Secretary Sean Duffy announced on July 2 that Middle Georgia State University has become the seventh university or college to qualify for teaching the same curriculum as FAA provides at its Controller Academy in Oklahoma City. The program is called the Controller Training Initiative CTI). Besides completing the CTI coursework, would-be controllers must pass the Air Traffic Skills Assessment and physical exams. They can then be assigned to an ATC facility to begin on-the-job training.

Horizon Aero to Buy UK’s Gloucestershire Airport
The city and borough governments have selected Horizon Aero as their preferred bidder to buy Gloucestershire Airport. The company is a joint venture of Vayu Aviation Services (UK) and Vensa Infrastructure Ltd (India). The reason for the sale is to bring about investment in the airport and its two business parks. The Infralogic article (July 9) made no mention of a proposed price, which is presumably to be negotiated.

Maldives Developing Billion-Dollar Airport
The Maldives consist of 1,190 islands in the Indian Ocean. With tourism as a major industry, the government is now carrying out a $1 billion expansion of Velana International Airport, its largest by far. As ENR reports, a Saudi company is the design-build contractor for a new 78,000 square meter terminal designed for up to 7 million annual passengers. Beijing Urban Construction Group built a new 11,000 ft. runway recently.

Article Explains What the Brand New ATC System Is—and Isn’t
Long-time aviation reporter David Hughes has an article in the July issue of Avionics News titled, “What the ATC Overhaul Is and Isn’t.” It quotes several aviation researchers (including the editor of this newsletter) on what the plan may actually be able to accomplish and what is well beyond its scope. This is a good overview in five very readable pages.

Montenegro Evaluating Two Bids for Airport P3
The government is seeking a well-qualified firm or team to manage and improve its Podgorica and Tivat Airports. In May, the government opened bids from two qualified bidders: Incheon International Airport Corporation (South Korea) and Corporacion America Airports.  The Montenegro Tender Commission will review the bids and submit its assessment for the planned 30-year public-private partnership concession. Meanwhile, Infralogic reported (July 7) that the government of Jamaica is considering an early extension of the 30-year concession for Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, which is held by MBJ Airports.

» return to top

Quotable Quotes

“We elect people to Congress to represent not the people they directly benefit. We ask them to use their best judgement and common sense to do the things that benefit the country. And for more than 30 years they have resisted creating an air traffic control system that they know perfectly well must be redone. But they refuse to do it, because there are control towers in virtually every district, and they’re just horrified that one of their constituents might have to move or lose their job. . . . And the second thing is they cannot resist the private pilots in this country who enjoy enormous political pressure because there are so many of them. I’m ashamed of those private pilots. They know perfectly well that they don’t pay their fair share of the cost of a system that needs to pay for itself by allocating the resources that we have among the users that demand service. . . . We need to create a private enterprise or something organized and operated like a private enterprise, but run with shared governance, including the government and commercial airlines and private aviation. We need a better system and we need it very quickly.”
—Robert Crandall, former president and chairman, American Airlines, “Bob Crandall Slams Private Pilots and Congress for Blocking Vital Air Traffic Control Reform,” View from the Wing, June 14, 2025

“FAA is coping with the same issues in 2025 as it was when I worked at Newark tower in the 1960s and ’70s. . . . Troubles abounded, with shortages of qualified controllers, demanding work rules, and traffic volumes that caused stress on individuals and the safety of flight. The current FAA air traffic control system was designed in the mid-1950s and remains the foundation of today’s operational environment. The unrecognized, fundamental failure is the management system supporting and operating the ATC system, which still reflects the 1950s era paradigm. . . . In 1995 Rep. Norm Mineta (D, CA) introduced HR 1441 [USATS Corporation], a bill intended to address the continued FAA structural problems, create a new and efficient management structure, and meet the demands of a growing aviation community. The legislation aimed to transfer the air traffic service from the FAA to a [government] corporation that would charge fees for its service and provide for efficient research and planning. Congress, industry, and public agencies should consider this fundamental change without delay.”
—Maurice F. Connor, Letter to the Editors, Aviation Week, June 16-29, 2025

» return to top

The post Aviation Policy News: Who should pay for air traffic control? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/who-should-pay-for-air-traffic-control-modernization/