[00:00] Bryan Hyde: Welcome to the Powering America Podcast. I'm Brian Hyde, and today I'm joined by Mark Scribner. He's a senior transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation. Mark, thanks for joining us today. Tell us a little bit about your background, a little bit about your story. [00:14] Marc Scribner: Well, great to be here with you, Brian. Yeah, sure. My background, I've been working on transportation policy from a free market perspective for going on 2 decades now. I've done a lot of work mainly at the federal level, but also on state transportation policy issues. And, you know, the general theme has been— if there's 2 themes to pick out of sort of my career, it's been regulation and technology. So always looking for, you know, the new transportation technologies that may be emerging and what kind of regulatory threats may exist, incumbents, especially if the incumbent is the government, often does not like these innovative technologies and approaches. So try to clear a path for that. And yeah, so I'm excited to be here and to talk air traffic control, which is a very— [01:18] Bryan Hyde: Where do you even start on a topic like this? I mean, anyone who's traveled by air takes it for granted that there's an orderly way to get them to and from where they're going, but there That doesn't mean it's not without challenges. Talk to me, first of all, about where is the US in terms of its air traffic control? Is it working like it's supposed to? Are there some deficiencies? [01:41] Marc Scribner: There are a number of deficiencies. And, you know, I think it's worth keeping in mind, though, that the current US model that is breaking down, that was initially the global model. And at the time when it was adopted, that was the state of the art. And the reason it was adopted Was you know as is in many cases in in response to tragedy there was a a midair collision catastrophe over the Grand Canyon in the late 1950s and then FAA spun up the the modern air traffic control system and countries around the world followed suit having experienced the the these you know catastrophic incidents with midair collisions and that's you know ultimately that's the central purpose of air traffic control is to ensure safe separation. between aircraft so they don't crash into one another. And the model, the basic model is we have an air navigation service provider function. That's the air traffic control system embedded in an aviation safety regulator. And that was the, you know, which is housed currently within the Department of Transportation. And that was the traditional model. And it worked well until it didn't. And a lot of what we saw, you know, around the world, um, we're experiencing here in the United States today, but other countries experienced it too. And we saw chronic underfunding because you were basically, uh, uh, becoming reliant on politicians for the, uh, appropriation of funds to, you know, purchase facilities and equipment to operate the system. And sometimes politicians you know, they have competing priorities, to, you know, be as nice as possible about it. But it's— it turned out that, you know, it was in the 1980s, people started to realize that having a regulator also operate a service that it is tasked with regulating was also a fundamental conflict of interest. So we started seeing, beginning with Airways New Zealand in 1987, the separation of the service provision of air traffic control from the safety regulation. And that is how, you know, we've seen that, you know, kind of take place around the world. And, you know, whereas here in the United States, it's still the old-style 1950s model of aviation safety regulator, FAA, also operating this core function that it is tasked with regulating. [04:28] Bryan Hyde: I'm just trying to imagine, you know, when, when they created the system, it sounds like it did a marvelous job of addressing the needs at that time. But man, the world has sure changed. So I guess it would stand to reason that there are some things that would, would likewise need to be updated or addressed. Talk to me about Canada. My understanding is that where the US is right now, This is actually familiar territory for Canada. What did they do when they faced a similar situation? [04:54] Marc Scribner: Yeah, so like the US today, Canada in the early 1990s was, you know, facing inadequate funding from their parliament. They weren't able to modernize their facilities and equipment. So they were dealing with a lot of obsolete infrastructure. And then they weren't able to hire and retain the number of air traffic controls at the skill level that they wanted to do to, you know, ensure that the system was both safe and efficient. And I think it's worth pointing out, the United States, for all its faults, is a very safe system. But where we are really falling behind is on the efficiency, you know, side of things. And there is a way, you know, we've learned we can do things Both safely and more efficiently. And when you do things more efficiently, that benefits the traveling public directly in ways that, you know, just saying that, you know, having your plane not crash into another plane, we kind of assume that sort of thing. [06:00] Bryan Hyde: Right. [06:01] Marc Scribner: But what if you want to get to your destination on time? We generally want both of those things when we're traveling by air. we're traveling at, by any mode. And so there's a way to do it both. And what Canada did, they adopted the separate model. So they separated air traffic control from the safety regulator, which is housed within Transport Canada, which is their transport ministry, transport department, similar to what the FAA is in the US. And they spun off air traffic control into an independent nonprofit user cooperative called Nav Canada. Now, Nav Canada doesn't depend on annual appropriations from legislators. It charges cost-based user fees to the aircraft that use the system. And that revenue stream, that predictable revenue stream, allows it to issue bonds to then finance improvements in one fell swoop. So a major problem with the FAA today is, you know, they were— and we're experiencing it right now with the current latest modernization effort. They say they have big plans. We have all these technologies and all these new facilities that we want to procure, but there just isn't the money to do it. So they start procuring it. And rather than, you know, completing that acquisition or construction within a couple of years, which is what Nav Canada is able to do and what many systems around the world are able to do that have modernize their institutions. FAA can take 10 years, 15 years, or more to replace a system. And the problem with that pacing is that by the time you're finished completing that acquisition of a given technology, they'll say a new radar system, it's already obsolete. So you're already starting from behind. And then you deal with practical problems like Well, that original vendor that sold you the system goes out of business. And then where are you finding spare parts? Well, you can't. So you're kind of— you have very skilled technicians, fortunately, that are able to hold the system together over time with kind of, you know, rubber bands and chewing gum. But it's not ideal, and it's certainly not what we'd expect for such a, you know, a 24/7 vital service, which is what air traffic control is. And I think, you know, the proof is in the pudding. What we've observed from Nav Canada, we've seen not only the maintenance of their high safety record, we've seen improvements in safety, and they're doing it at a fraction of the cost that they used to do things. So I think we can— Nav Canada, I think their reforms are now the kind of the gold standard globally. And we can see that you can both operate a very safe system while also improving efficiency that is getting at both of the things that air travelers care about. [09:13] Bryan Hyde: And Mark, as someone who also loves free market economics, I have to ask, by splitting the safety as well as the, you know, air traffic responsibilities, Did Canada end up with less bureaucracy than before, or did it just distribute it? I'm just trying to get a feel for, did it actually cut bureaucracy on their part? [09:35] Marc Scribner: Yes. So there were concerns, and there are always concerns. This is one of the main reasons why, you know, the United States hasn't gone down the path to reform is there's concerns about, you know, loss of government jobs. And You know, it's true, they did cut the workforce at Nav Canada, but it wasn't the controllers. It was the middle management. And that's where you saw when the United States had most recently about a decade ago were considering Nav Canada style reforms. One of the main opposition groups was the FAA Managers Association, which represents those middle managers at the agency. So Yeah. And, you know, I think out of self-interest, I understand that, but I don't think that's in the traveling public's interest. [10:26] Bryan Hyde: You had mentioned that, you know, Canada has done this. Are there other countries likewise that are kind of leading out on how to upgrade and stay, you know, ahead of the curve with their air traffic control? [10:40] Marc Scribner: Yeah. You know, the United States is actually, you know, increasingly an outlier in maintaining this, the kind of the post-World War II era model. To date, 96 countries currently have air traffic control provided by an air navigation service provider that is independent of the safety regulator. So there's a, you know, the most common model that we see is a government corporation. So the, you know, how you do it here is you'd have the air traffic organization with within FAA spun off into an independent company that is wholly owned by the government. And we see that, you know, that was the Airways New Zealand model that kind of kickstarted a lot of these reforms back in the '80s. And we see that's a common model in Europe with the exception of Italy and the United Kingdom, which actually have for-profit companies, private companies. The government does own some shares, of course, but that is a different institutional model than both Nav Canada and the government corporation model. But the basic idea to separate the provision of air traffic control from its regulation, that is now the most common model that we see around the world. And it's worked well. you know, everywhere. And I think the objections that we've heard, you know, in the United States, principally from the private jet lobby, don't really bear out when you look at the global experience. [12:27] Bryan Hyde: Yeah, I, you know, I tend to think of these things in terms of commercial flight. But when you bring up the private jets, I can see, you know, people want to look out for their own interests. Is someone leading out in terms of US Congress and this kind of reform, or is this just waiting for someone to pick it up? [12:46] Marc Scribner: Yeah, right now there really doesn't seem to be the political appetite. Like I mentioned, the last time it was, they were trying to push these reforms, you did have a champion in then chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, who's no longer in office. And while there are some members of Congress who've expressed interest in fundamental governance reform to air traffic control, right now, the Trump administration has embarked on its modernization effort where they're trying to basically get a bunch of congressional appropriations all at once and modernize as much as they can. And I think they're going to end up with some, some new systems, new facilities that will, that will benefit the traveling public. But we're already hearing, you know, warnings from both the FAA and Transportation Secretary Duffy that they don't have enough money to proceed. And that is the, the, the story that is, is sort of motivated everyone else around the world to move away from the US model and toward something where you can charge user fees that flow directly to the agency or the nonprofit, the government corporation, whatever, and then put them in the driver's seat of acquisition so they don't have to be dependent on the whims of of government appropriators, of congressional appropriators, of, you know, legislators. [14:30] Bryan Hyde: Mark, this is kind of an out-of-left-field kind of question, but I'm curious, with AI finding its way into so many different aspects of, you know, the workforce and so much industry, is it likely that we're going to see AI taking a bigger role in air traffic control, or are there some things that can only be, you know, effectively done with, with human minds and human accountability? [14:56] Marc Scribner: Yeah, I think you will see increased automation. And we do have, you know, we have been seeing increasing automation, especially outside the United States, where, you know, technology, the latest technologies have been adopted. With respect to AI specifically, though, I think a near-term application and one that the FAA is looking at right now is what they call a digital twin. So you basically— it would simulate the airspace system and traffic flows and all that and try to let them do some predictive planning. So what if we adopt this procedure at this time with this level of traffic? What might happen in the real world? That is a near-term function that the FAA is currently trying to acquire. They recently announced a a contract for that. That's something that Nav Canada completed a nationwide rollout 2 years ago. So they're already, you know, well ahead of the United States there. And yeah, I think that there are some near-term applications. Now, whether we're going to fully automate the air traffic control system, I don't see that happening anytime soon. But long run, I mean, I think the technology will evolve. That, yeah, to reduce the human role, or rather redirect the human role to something that's more purely supervisory rather than hands-on. I think that that is something that's likely. And in fact, that's sort of what we've seen with the acquisition, the uptake of automation technologies to date. is you're not necessarily replacing that controller. What you are doing though is improving their workflows so they can handle more movements efficiently and safely. So we're moving in that direction, but I think full automation is still, you know, not a near-term prospect. [17:07] Bryan Hyde: I appreciate you answering that. That would've kept me up tonight wondering what's next. But again, talking with Mark Scribner. Mark is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation. And Mark, thank you for, uh, for spelling out some of the things going on with air traffic control. And thanks again for joining us on the Powering America podcast. [17:25] Marc Scribner: Thank you, Brian. It's my pleasure.