U.S. Struggles to Revamp Air Traffic Control System

NEW YORK — Hordes of U.S. business and leisure travelers are taking to the skies again, but experts say their flights will be more expensive, less safe and more likely to be delayed without an overhaul of the nation’s air traffic system.

Such a move faces major obstacles, including union opposition, a price tag as high as $30 billion and a history of missteps at the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees the system.

The air traffic system, which relies on technology that is more than 30 years old, is straining to handle the near-record number of flights as traffic rebounds from the plunge following the September 11, 2001, attacks.

A proliferation of regional and business jets is pushing up traffic and presenting other challenges to the air traffic control system, which has seen a series of near-collisions at top airports this summer.

The United States also risks falling behind Europe, which is making a coordinated push to move to a system that allows planes to choose their own routes, liberating them from the "skyways" to which they are now confined.

The European model would use global positioning system technology, better communications and more automation, experts and manufacturers say. Planes would be able to fly closer together, paving the way for air traffic to triple over the next 20 years.

A consortium of European companies and governments pledged in June to spend at least $300 million a year to develop such a system, in what experts say is a sign of superior coordination there.

"We need a big shake-up in the way this is done because the skies are getting more crowded," said David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers’ Association, a consumer advocacy group.

Stempler said a failure to modernize could mean substantially higher fares since airlines would be unable to boost capacity in line with demand.

U.S airlines, including commuter and regional carriers, will carry 1 billion passengers in 2016, up from 688.5 million in 2004, the FAA has forecast.

MAKING A BUCK

Safety is another reason the current system needs an overhaul, said George Donahue, a former FAA official who is now a professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

"The FAA is trading off safety for capacity by not doing any modernization," he said. "The airlines schedule too many flights for what the runways can safely handle."

A sweeping upgrade would benefit Honeywell International Inc., Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Raytheon Co. and other companies that make air traffic control and navigation equipment.

"There’s no doubt the equipment manufacturers want to make a buck out of the upgrade," said Ian Wilson, a research associate at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida.

"But, yes, the systems need upgrading," he added. "The way we’re currently doing it wouldn’t really surprise someone from the 1960s."

Boeing and other planemakers also stand to benefit, as higher capacity could potentially translate into more sales.

"The market is telling us the demand will be there," said Mike Romanowski, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Association trade group.

But the kind of upgrade the manufacturers favor, which would shift responsibility for crash avoidance into the cockpit and away from the control tower, would mean fewer jobs for air traffic controllers and therefore faces strong opposition from their powerful union.

PAST STUMBLES

"The system is not broken," said Doug Fralick, director of safety and technology at the National Air Traffic Controller Association. He argued that the modernization Honeywell and other companies advocate would do nothing to boost flights. "We don’t need major surgery to remove a wart."

He said the FAA should concentrate on adding gates and runways at overtaxed airports like New York’s LaGuardia and Chicago’s O’Hare and modernizing components of the existing system, like radios that get blocked by static and noise.

Price is also an obstacle. The FAA faces a $4 billion deficit by 2010 if it fails to slash costs or raise revenue, the General Accounting Office has reported.

Advocates say the upgrade would pay for itself because it would save fuel by allowing for more direct flights. But with two U.S. carriers in Chapter 11 and others on the brink, getting them to pay more for anything will be a challenge.

The FAA, which is mostly financed by passenger fees, has stumbled in implementing past upgrades. Cost overruns forced it to scrap an effort to replace controllers’ hardware and software in the early 1990s, after it had spent $2.6 billion.

Other big-ticket contracts have come under close scrutiny in recent months for quality and cost excesses. The FAA has reorganized its air traffic division to run more like a business and squeeze more efficiency out of the system.

The agency insists it is up to the latest goal it has set for itself.

"Overall there’s a picture of a very aggressive movement to not only improve capacity and efficiency immediately but certainly build the framework for a new aviation system … that will triple capacity," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

But if he’s wrong, this summer’s long security lines, increased delays and packed planes could be just the beginning of U.S. air travelers’ suffering.