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.
The problem is that tax collection also happens with congressional approval.
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.
See: 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.
In the US system, any revenue collection needs to be authorized by Congress. In fact, it is one of the arguments currently being argued in front of the Supreme Court about the tariffs.
It would make routing a tonne more complex tho
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.
This is a silly decision because transportation networks are important for the rest of the country to be able to be economically viable.
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/overf...
You lower fees the next year.
Is there some reason you _don't_ want this system to have slightly more funding than it "needs?"
Quarterly/annual financial reports are available at their site:
* https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/investor-relations/fin...
* https://www.navcanada.ca/en/corporate/service-charges.aspx
https://globalnews.ca/news/11354998/air-traffic-controller-s...
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.
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.
And if you add the value to the customers, then it's through the roof.
Maybe the reverse is more clear: if air travel didn't exist, it would have a huge economic impact; a clear proof of the value creation. Airlines just happen to capture essentially 0% of it.
Trains carry much more weight, are more fuel efficient, are safer, generally experience fewer delays and cancelations, and door-to-door are faster for shorter trips (<450 miles).
Safety: since 1964, the Shinkansen has carried over 10 billion passengers without a single passenger fatality from a crash or derailment.
Speed: for trips < 450 miles, trains win because of security, ATC, taxiing, etc.
The majority of travel is not over water. It may be that trains' other advantages are preferable even for longer trips where a train would be slower.
For whom? Historically, aviation has not been a profitable industry over its lifetime[0]. The companies that still fly are basically just a combination of "survivorship bias" and "newbies still somehow subsidized".
We're looking at today's companies like you'd look at the half-season cast of Squid Game and thinking "this group seems to be thriving, I guess". That only works if you disregard everything that's happened before now and what will likely happen for the rest of the season.
[0]: https://aviationstrategy.aero/newsletter/Jun-2015/1/Airline-...
Efficiency by what metric? Energy per distance travelled? Energy per kilogram moved (per kilometer?)? Time? CO2 emissions?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
* https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
For distances <120 km, cars are often quicker than trains, and for >900km planes are, but in between trains are often quickest (assuming infrastructure is actually present).
Well they are the ones flying why do I have to subsidize them?
I'm obviously borderline joking, but you get the point.
This ensures that the system is self sustaining. Also as demand increases then revenue to run the system would also increase.
Doesn’t it take two to have a disagreement?
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?
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.