Editing Air traffic control (section)

==Proposed changes==
In the United States, some alterations to traffic control procedures are being examined:
* [[Free flight (air traffic control)|Free flight]] is a developing air traffic control method that uses no centralised control (e.g. air traffic controllers).  Instead, parts of airspace are reserved dynamically and automatically in a distributed way using computer communication to ensure the required separation between aircraft.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Leslie|first=Jacques|date=|url=https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.04/es.faa.html|title=Wired 4.04: Free Flight|magazine=Wired|access-date=3 July 2015}}</ref>

<!--EU-->
In Europe, the [[Single European Sky ATM Research]] (SESAR)<ref name=SESARref/> programme plans to develop new methods, technologies, procedures, and systems to accommodate future (2020 and beyond) air traffic needs.  In October 2018, European controller unions dismissed setting targets to improve ATC as "a waste of time and effort", as new technology could cut costs for users but threaten their jobs.<!--ref name=Economist15jun2019-->  In April 2019, the EU called for a 'Digital European Sky', focusing on cutting costs by including a common digitisation standard, and allowing controllers to move to where they are needed instead of merging national ATCs, as it would not solve all problems.<!--ref name=Economist15jun2019-->  Single air-traffic control services in continent-sized America and China does not alleviate congestion.<!--ref name=Economist15jun2019-->  Eurocontrol tries to reduce delays by diverting flights to less busy routes: flight paths across Europe were redesigned to accommodate the new airport in Istanbul, which opened in April, but the extra capacity will be absorbed by rising demand for air travel.<ref name=Economist15jun2019/>

<!--salary-->
Well-paid jobs in western Europe could move east with cheaper labour.<!--ref name=Economist15jun2019-->  The average Spanish controller earn over €200,000 a year, over seven times the country average salary, more than pilots, and at least ten controllers were paid over €810,000 ($1.1m) a year in 2010.<!--ref name=Economist15jun2019-->  French controllers spent a cumulative nine months on strike between 2004 and 2016.<ref name=Economist15jun2019/>

===Privatisation===
Many countries have also privatised or corporatised their air navigation service providers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McDougall|first1=Glen|last2=Roberts|first2=Alasdair S|date=15 August 2007|title=Commercialising Air Traffic Control: Have the reforms worked?|journal=Canadian Public Administration|page=Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 45–69, 2009|ssrn=1317450}}</ref>  There are several models that can be used for ATC service providers.  The first is to have the ATC services be part of a government agency as is currently the case in the United States.  The problem with this model is that funding can be inconsistent, and can disrupt the development and operation of services.  Sometimes funding can disappear when lawmakers cannot approve budgets in time.  Both proponents and opponents of privatisation recognise that stable funding is one of the major factors for successful upgrades of ATC infrastructure.  Some of the funding issues include sequestration and politicisation of projects.<ref>{{Cite web|author=American Federation of Government Employees|display-authors=et al|url=https://www.passmember.org/images/congressional_letters/FAA%20Labor%20Unions%20Oppose%20ATC%20Privatization.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221231102311/https://www.passmember.org/images/congressional_letters/FAA%20Labor%20Unions%20Oppose%20ATC%20Privatization.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=31 December 2022|title=FAA Labor Unions Oppose ATC Privatization|website=Professional Aviation Safety Specialists|access-date=25 November 2016}}</ref>  Proponents argue that moving ATC services to a private corporation could stabilise funding over the long term which will result in more predictable planning and rollout of new technology as well as training of personnel. As of November 2024, The United States had 265 contractor towers that are staffed by private companies but administered by FAA through its FAA Contract Tower Program, which was established in 1982. These contract control towers cover 51% of all the Federal air traffic control towers in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web |title=FAA Contract Tower Program |url=https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/mission_support/faa_contract_tower_program |publisher=[[Federal Aviation Administration]] |access-date=4 January 2025 |date=25 November 2024 }}</ref>

Another model is to have ATC services provided by a government corporation.  This model is used in Germany, where funding is obtained through user fees.  Yet another model is to have a for-profit corporation operate ATC services.  This is the model used in the United Kingdom, but there have been several issues with the system there, including a large-scale failure in December 2014 which caused delays and cancellations and has been attributed to cost-cutting measures put in place by this corporation.  In fact, earlier that year, the corporation owned by the German government won the bid to provide ATC services for Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom.  The last model, which is often the suggested model for the United States to transition to is to have a non-profit organisation that would handle ATC services as is used in Canada.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rinaldi |first=Paul |date=2015 |title=Safety and Efficiency Must Remain the Main Mission |journal=The Journal of Air Traffic Control |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=21–23 }}</ref>

The Canadian system is the one most often used as a model by proponents of privatisation.  Air traffic control privatisation has been successful in Canada with the creation of Nav Canada, a private non-profit organisation which has reduced costs, and has allowed new technologies to be deployed faster due to the elimination of much of the bureaucratic [[red tape]].  This has resulted in shorter flights and less fuel usage.  It has also resulted in flights being safer due to new technology.  Nav Canada is funded from fees that are collected from the airlines based on the weight of the aircraft and the distance flown.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Crichton |first=John |date=2015 |title=The NAV CANADA Model |journal=The Journal of Air Traffic Control |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=33–35 }}</ref>

<!--privatisation-->
Air traffic control is operated by national governments with few exceptions: in the [[European Union]], only Italy has private shareholders.<ref name="Economist15jun2019" />  Privatisation does not guarantee lower prices: the profit margin of MUAC was 70% in 2017, as there is no competition, but governments could offer fixed terms [[Concession (contract)|concession]]s.<ref name="Economist15jun2019" />