4 ms·

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

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.

bobthepanda 1y ago
It kind of is https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf The problem is that tax collection also happens with congressional approval.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  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.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Are you certain maintaining those technical standards would be much more efficient than the current system?
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      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.
      - estearum 1y ago
        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.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Considering the FAA has been fucking around for decades attempting to recapitalize and modernize the ATC network -- yes. See: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108162 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108162 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.
  - throwaway173738 1y ago
    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?
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      A common fund?
      - bobthepanda 1y ago
        That's what we have today. 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.
    - philipwhiuk 1y ago
      You could do airspace overflight fees similar to how it works when you overfly other countries. It would make routing a tonne more complex tho
      - inglor_cz 1y ago
        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.
        ryandrake 1y ago
        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.
      - 1y ago
  - themafia 1y ago
    > no absolute need to consider aviation fees to be taxes and collect them through a federal agency. What if you collect too much? The fund is subject to appropriations. > financing their local ATC as they see fit We already use mileage based overflight fees: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overf...
    - throw0101a 1y ago
      > What if you collect too much? You lower fees the next year.
      - themafia 1y ago
        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?"
        throw0101a 1y ago
        Nav Canada, the non-profit which runs Canada's ATC, charges user fees which they adjust every so often, but they also have buffer/contingency funds. Quarterly/annual financial reports are available at their site: * https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/investor-relations/financial-information.aspx https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/investor-relations/fin... * https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/service-charges.aspx https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/service-charges.aspx
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        It is worth noting that Nav Canada also has controller shortages. Privatization is not really correlated with with better outcomes for ATC. https://globalnews.ca/news/11354998/air-traffic-controller-shortages-airport-delays/ https://globalnews.ca/news/11354998/air-traffic-controller-s...
  - cameldrv 1y ago
    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.
pwthornton 1y ago
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?
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  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.
crooked-v 1y ago
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.
- alemanek 1y ago
  I think the argument is more that ATC, people and equipment needed, should be funded via use fees. This ensures that the system is self sustaining. Also as demand increases then revenue to run the system would also increase.
  - amypetrik8 1y ago
    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.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  How do you determine which party is refusing to capitulate at any particular moment in time. Doesn’t it take two to have a disagreement?
  - _DeadFred_ 1y 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.
dylan604 1y ago
> 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.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  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?
  - djoldman 1y ago
    > It's already a very profitable activity... US airlines made approximately zero total profit from 1990-2023. > ...it's much more efficient than the alternatives I guess this depends on the definition of efficient and for what measurement.
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      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.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        There have been plenty of airlines that have gone out of business, so it's not just a money making machine that you seem to think it is.
        Leherenn 1y ago
dessimus 1y ago
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.
piva00 1y ago
It's wild that from the many developed countries in the world this issue only happens in the USA, the richest one. Fucking bonkers actually...
danaris 1y ago
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.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
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.

bobthepanda 1y ago

It kind of is https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf https://www.faa.gov/about/budget/aatf The problem is that tax collection also happens with congressional approval.

inglor_cz 1y ago
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.
- estearum 1y ago
  Are you certain maintaining those technical standards would be much more efficient than the current system?
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    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.
    - estearum 1y ago
      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.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Considering the FAA has been fucking around for decades attempting to recapitalize and modernize the ATC network -- yes. See: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108162 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108162 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.
- throwaway173738 1y ago
  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?
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    A common fund?
    - bobthepanda 1y ago
      That's what we have today. 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.
  - philipwhiuk 1y ago
    You could do airspace overflight fees similar to how it works when you overfly other countries. It would make routing a tonne more complex tho
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      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.
      - ryandrake 1y ago
        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.
    - 1y ago
- themafia 1y ago
  > no absolute need to consider aviation fees to be taxes and collect them through a federal agency. What if you collect too much? The fund is subject to appropriations. > financing their local ATC as they see fit We already use mileage based overflight fees: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/international_aviation/overf...
  - throw0101a 1y ago
    > What if you collect too much? You lower fees the next year.
    - themafia 1y ago
      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?"
      - throw0101a 1y ago
        Nav Canada, the non-profit which runs Canada's ATC, charges user fees which they adjust every so often, but they also have buffer/contingency funds. Quarterly/annual financial reports are available at their site: * https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/investor-relations/financial-information.aspx https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/investor-relations/fin... * https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/service-charges.aspx https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/service-charges.aspx
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        It is worth noting that Nav Canada also has controller shortages. Privatization is not really correlated with with better outcomes for ATC. https://globalnews.ca/news/11354998/air-traffic-controller-shortages-airport-delays/ https://globalnews.ca/news/11354998/air-traffic-controller-s...
- cameldrv 1y ago
  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.

pwthornton 1y ago

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?

nandomrumber 1y ago
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.

crooked-v 1y ago

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.

alemanek 1y ago
I think the argument is more that ATC, people and equipment needed, should be funded via use fees. This ensures that the system is self sustaining. Also as demand increases then revenue to run the system would also increase.
- amypetrik8 1y ago
  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.
nandomrumber 1y ago
How do you determine which party is refusing to capitulate at any particular moment in time. Doesn’t it take two to have a disagreement?
- _DeadFred_ 1y 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.

dylan604 1y ago

> 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.

HPsquared 1y ago
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?
- djoldman 1y ago
  > It's already a very profitable activity... US airlines made approximately zero total profit from 1990-2023. > ...it's much more efficient than the alternatives I guess this depends on the definition of efficient and for what measurement.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    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.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      There have been plenty of airlines that have gone out of business, so it's not just a money making machine that you seem to think it is.
      - Leherenn 1y ago

dessimus 1y ago

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.

piva00 1y ago

It's wild that from the many developed countries in the world this issue only happens in the USA, the richest one. Fucking bonkers actually...

danaris 1y ago

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.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

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.