If you're having trouble viewing this email, you can view it in a browser here
(https://mailchi.mp/8471cbbb73e7/aviation-policy-news-237?e=cd4b5cfcaf) .
https://reason.org?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
Aviation Policy News
By Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy
August 2025
In this issue: ()
* NTSB hearing details FAA institutional failure (#A)
* Using commercial space for a return to the Moon (#B)
* Problems with U.S. remote air traffic towers (#C)
* Will a helicopter company be a winner for Joby? (#D)
* Will secondary cockpit barriers be delayed again? (#E)
* News notes (#F)
* Quotable quotes (#G)
NTSB Hearing Details FAA Institutional Failure ()
The three-day hearings of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on
the Ronald Reagan National Airport collision (July 30-Aug. 1) revealed more
than most people knew about how U.S. air traffic control works—and doesn’t
work. Former NTSB official Jeff Guzzetti called the hearing “the FAA’s day of
reckoning,” focusing on both more flights than Reagan National Airport (DCA)
can safely handle and the airport's inadequate air traffic controller staffing.
But much of the witness testimony revealed deeper Federal Aviation
Administration institutional problems.
The FAA makes use of a database, developed by MITRE, called the Aviation Risk
Identification and Assessment (ARIA) tool. During a three-year time period
prior to the fatal collision in January, ARIA flagged 874 incidents at Reagan
National for review via Preliminary Action Reports (PARs). Out of all those
PARs, the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) chief operating officer (Nick Fuller)
said, none were identified as near-mid-air collision risks (NMACs).
But that was not the only source of information about the hazard of helicopter
Route 4 crossing under the approach to Runway 33, where the collision occurred.
NTSB also pointed out a second source of data: the NASA-managed Aviation Safety
Action Program (ASAP), under which aviation participants can report hazards
anonymously—including pilots, controllers, and others. Between Feb. 2020 and
Oct. 2024, there were 85 ASAP reports from pilots about close calls between
helicopters and commercial aircraft near DCA. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
expressed amazement that none of those reports had led to any known concerns or
action by the FAA.
Other testimony reported that an ad-hoc group of air traffic controllers in the
D.C. metro area had surveyed the airspace around Reagan National and proposed
removing Route 4, but an FAA manager, they said, declared that such a change
was “too political” to take any action on. Controllers working at DCA had also
asked management to reduce the level of arrivals and departures at the airport,
but that recommendation likewise went nowhere. After the first day’s hearing,
Chair Homendy commented as follows:
“FAA is so bureaucratic that nobody can take what is clearly a safety issue and
get it up through the offices that should be making the decisions to ensure
safety in the airspace. Or, somebody is ignoring them, maybe. I also have
concerns that there’s a safety culture problem within the Air Traffic
Organization of FAA.”
As I wrote in the first paragraph, the problem is institutional, as Homendy
suggested. We all know that “FAA’s number one job is aviation safety.” But is
that how it actually operates?
FAA regulates airlines, general aviation, pilots, mechanics, aircraft
producers, engine producers, repair stations, airports, etc. It does this at
arm’s length, as any regulator should. Yet the Air Traffic Organization is
unlike all the other regulated aviation entities: it is housed within the FAA.
That means the ATO has never been regulated at arm's length, like Delta
Airlines, Boeing, LAX, and all the other players. Self-regulation has
dramatized its failure in the horrible tragedy that took 67 lives in the crash
near Reagan National.
This dangerous conflict of interest has been illustrated by the failures NTSB
is documenting. But this is hardly a new subject. FAA self-regulation has been
criticized for many years by former FAA administrators, ATO chief operating
officers, and numerous aviation safety experts. In their excellent book
Managing the Skies
(https://www.routledge.com/Managing-the-Skies-Public-Policy-Organization-and-Financing-of-Air-Traffic-Management/Oster-Strong/p/book/9781138247406?srsltid=AfmBOoqtnqsm3Yis1EJMvJ1AYhUSXYjejGUqmgo1uNvUGzAMix_4J6BJ&utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
(2007), Clinton Oster and John Strong explained the inevitable conflicts of
interest that arise in self-regulation at the FAA. They also noted that,
“Throughout the world, when air traffic organizations have been reorganized
along commercial principles, countries have consistently taken the step of
separating regulation of the air traffic control system from its operation.”
They also provided examples of ways in which “FAA has allowed itself to
short-change safety in ways it would not tolerate in air carrier, commuter, and
corporate flight operations.” Moreover, organizational separation of air
traffic control and aviation safety regulation has been ICAO policy since 2001.
The United States is one of the last holdouts.
If Congress were serious about reforms to the FAA in the wake of the Reagan
National tragedy, it would enact legislation to separate the Air Traffic
Organization from the FAA, making it a separate modal agency within the
transportation department. The much-smaller FAA (as safety regulator) would be
analogous to the Department of Transportation's other safety regulators, and
should be physically located at the DOT headquarters, not in the “FAA building.”
Yet during the same week these NTSB hearings were going on, the Senate
Appropriations Committee included in its FY2026 spending bill for DOT a
prohibition on using any DOT funding to “plan, design, or implement the
privatization or separation of FAA’s Air Traffic Organization functions.”
Needless to say, there is no pending legislation on “privatizing” the ATO. But
separating it from the FAA is precisely what NTSB’s findings indicate to
resolve long-standing problems that led to the DCA tragedy.
» return to top (#id__TOP)
Using Commercial Space for Returning to the Moon ()
According to a just-released Reason Foundation study
(https://reason.org/policy-study/commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-to-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
by aerospace engineer Rand Simberg, NASA’s return-humans-to-the-Moon program
is failing in its goal of returning Americans to the Moon this decade.
Conceived as a modernized version of the Apollo program of 50 years ago, NASA's
program is based on a massive launch vehicle (SLS), an adaptation of the Apollo
capsule, and uses “proven” components from the fatally flawed Space Shuttle
program—refurbished engines and modified solid rocket boosters. All are being
delivered under sole-source, cost-plus contracts, and all are years behind
schedule and hugely over budget. And all but one of the key components are not
reusable, a major innovation that this program largely ignores. The SLS program
has already consumed $90 billion and has thus far carried out only one SLS test
launch. If NASA proceeds with all six planned SLS launches through 2031, the
average total cost of each mission would be around $30 billion.
Instead of continuing this failed program, the study calls for cancelling it
and replacing it with competitive, fixed-price public-private partnerships like
those NASA is using to transport cargo and crew to the International Space
Station, procure lunar landers and lunar rovers, and even obtain new space
suits. Terminating the SLS program, including the Orion capsule, the Upper
Stage (EUS), the new launch tower (ML-2), and the Gateway lunar-orbit station,
would free up $5.25 billion a year for mostly reusable launch vehicles and
other components.
The Reason Foundation report
(https://reason.org/policy-study/commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-to-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
by Simberg identifies five potential launch vehicles for the revised program:
Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, Vulcan, and (soon) Starship. Multiple
launches would deliver components and fuel into Earth orbit for assembly into
Moon mission systems. Orbital assembly was used to build the International
Space Station over many years. Moon mission systems, aided by rapid launches of
reusable vehicles, would change that from many years to many months.
Reflecting increasing concerns by space technology experts on the huge cost and
delays of the SLS program, the White House mini-budget for NASA called for
terminating SLS after only two more launches. But study author Simberg argues
that this approach is still too costly and too risky, given the overall SLS
program track record. The study calls for “stopping the bleeding” by
terminating the program now and quickly refocusing on the commercial space
alternative.
Unfortunately, at the last minute in crafting its version of the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, the Senate added a little-noticed provision to give NASA
billions of dollars more for SLS Missions 4, 5, and 6, plus billions more for
over-budget components, including the lunar-orbit Gateway station. The
expedited House vote to approve the bill on President Donald Trump's timeline
before July 4 likely meant that most Republican House members may not have read
it or known that this provision was in the bill they voted for. Vice President
J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote for the bill, which only received
Republican votes in the Senate. It is unknown if Vance and President Trump,
when he signed the bill, were aware of this provision that countermanded the
declared White House policy on the SLS program.
Fortunately, those new outlays would be years in the future, and a new NASA
administrator who appreciates the potential of commercial space could make a
solid case for not spending those additional billions on what is increasingly
viewed as a colossal boondoggle.
The full study, "Why commercial space should lead the U.S. return to the moon
(https://reason.org/policy-study/commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-to-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
," is here
(https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/why-commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-moon.pdf?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
. And Simberg and I answer some frequently asked questions
(https://reason.org/commentary/partnering-with-the-commerical-space-industry-to-get-back-to-the-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
about this study here
(https://reason.org/commentary/partnering-with-the-commerical-space-industry-to-get-back-to-the-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.
» return to top (#id__TOP)
Problems Continue to Plague U.S. Remote Towers ()
By Marc Scribner
Remote/digital air traffic control towers are increasingly mainstream around
the world. As documented in a recent Reason Foundation report
(https://reason.org/policy-brief/advancing-remote-air-traffic-control-tower-deployment-united-states/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
, covered in the May issue
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/sean-duffy-plan-will-not-produce-a-new-atc-system/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776#b)
of this newsletter, dozens of remote/digital towers are currently in operation
around the world, providing superior air traffic services at a fraction of the
cost of conventional brick-and-mortar towers. What’s more, countries as varied
as Italy, Norway, and Thailand are planning to deploy remote/digital towers at
dozens of additional airports over the next five years.
Despite having developed the initial “virtual tower” concept two decades ago,
the FAA has not approved any to be deployed in the United States. This growing
air traffic technology gap has gained increasing attention on Capitol Hill,
although the political scrutiny has to date not spurred meaningful action at
the FAA.
On July 4, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
budget reconciliation bill into law that contained $50 million (at Sec.
40003(a)(13)) to fund the Sec. 621 Remote Tower Program that was established by
the May 2024 FAA reauthorization. In the following weeks, congressional
appropriations committees in the House and Senate each approved their annual
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (THUD) spending bills for FY
2026.
The House THUD appropriations bill was passed by that chamber’s Appropriations
Committee on July 17. It recommended $2 million in additional funding for the
FAA’s remote tower program, as discussed on page 37 of the accompanying bill
report
(https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20250717/118505/HMKP-119-AP00-20250717-SD002.PDF?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
. This was the same amount provided in the current FY 2025 appropriations law
and $1 million short of what FAA had requested for FY 2026 (see FY 2026 FAA
Budget Estimates – Facilities & Equipment page 56
(https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-05/FAA_FY_2026_Budget_Estimates_CJ.pdf?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
). The House THUD appropriations bill report also orders the FAA to brief the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 180 days of enactment on the
status of remote tower system design approval and deployment.
A week later, on July 24, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY
2026 THUD appropriations bill. The accompanying bill report’s language
(https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_thud_senate_report.pdf?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
on remote towers (page 44) recommended fully funding the FAA’s budget request
at $3 million. In addition, the Senate’s oversight provision was significantly
more aggressive than the House’s—ordering the FAA to report to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees on the agency’s remote tower program progress
within 30 days of enactment rather than 180 days.
While it is too early to tell exactly what will happen as both chambers of
Congress eventually negotiate FY 2026 THUD appropriations, the Senate appears
to have an advantage. The House’s bill was highly partisan, passing the
committee in a 35-28 vote with no Democratic support, due to a number of
controversial provisions unrelated to air traffic control. In contrast, the
Senate THUD appropriations bill was approved by the committee in a bipartisan
27-1 vote, which makes it a likely candidate to be fast-tracked to a floor vote
by the Senate Majority Leader. The 60-vote threshold in the Senate requires the
support of at least seven Democrats, so the odds do not favor the House’s
partisan bill.
While Senate appropriators were more enthusiastic about remote towers than
their House counterparts, it is good to see broad interest in Congress for this
technology. The challenge will be sustaining that interest over time and
ensuring the FAA follows through on what Congress has ordered it to do,
especially from congressional authorizers on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure and Senate Commerce Committees.
This is because, despite growing attention from Congress on the FAA’s remote
tower program activities in recent years, the FAA is still moving forward at a
glacial pace. Currently, a single vendor—a partnership between RTX (formerly
Raytheon) and Frequentis—is undergoing system design approval testing at the
FAA’s Technical Center in Atlantic City. RTX/Frequentis became the technology
vendor for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport remote tower project after
the original vendor, Searidge, quit in 2023 after five years of work due to the
FAA’s Kafkaesque regulatory process.
According to internal FAA documents obtained by Reason Foundation earlier this
year, the FAA’s sudden decision to publish new remote tower technical
requirements
(https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/non_federal/remote_tower_systems/technical_requirements?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
on its website in June 2024 delayed the system design approval timeline for
the RTX/Frequentis project by four months. While the RTX/Frequentis system is
now installed and being tested at Atlantic City International Airport, testing
is taking far longer than it should be due to a costly deviation from
international best practices in a Sept. 2022 FAA decision
(https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/Letter-on-Remote-Towers-to-Airport-Operators-2023-08-29.pdf?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.
FAA’s remote tower system design approval process requires vendors to install
their technology in Atlantic City for initial evaluation and approval, rather
than the standard global approach of testing candidate technology at the first
airport where it would be deployed, if approved. A close observer of the FAA’s
remote tower program tells me that one problem with the 2022 decision that all
vendors must install their technology at Atlantic City International for system
design approval testing is that the airport has a low volume of general
aviation operations. This means that the FAA must hire aircraft to fly required
test procedures—at substantial cost to the agency—rather than seeking
volunteers at an airport with robust general aviation activity at no cost.
It is unclear by how much FAA’s centralized Atlantic City system design
approval process is delaying remote tower progress, but best estimates for
approval dates of the RTX/Frequentis system have slipped over the last year
from Spring 2026, to Summer 2026, to sometime in 2027.
In Sec. 621 of the May 2024 FAA reauthorization, Congress ordered the FAA to
expand the system design approval testing process to no fewer than three
airports outside the Tech Center (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47124(h)(3)).
Unfortunately, the FAA has not begun implementing this directive. A Feb. 2025
video on the remote tower program produced by the FAA makes no mention of it.
But even if the FAA had complied with this provision, restarting system design
approval from intake likely would not save any time for RTX/Frequentis. And due
to the FAA’s poor reputation among remote/digital tower technology vendors, no
others are likely to enter the system design approval process unless
RTX/Frequentis can prove that it is possible to complete it.
It is critical for Congress to maintain robust oversight of the FAA’s remote
tower program, but it can only be expected to do so much. Secretary of
Transportation Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford are in an
excellent position to help and should closely examine the ongoing problems with
the FAA’s remote tower program. Secretary Duffy, with President Trump’s
support, has made modernization of air traffic control technology a top
priority of the Department of Transportation. But if the FAA cannot certify a
relatively basic new air traffic management technology that Romania
successfully deployed in 2023
(https://www.foxatm.com/blog/romania-joins-the-remote-digital-tower-revolution-at-bra%C8%99ov-ghimbav-airport?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
, it bodes poorly for the administration’s much more ambitious “Brand New Air
Traffic Control System
(https://sam.gov/opp/038090a05d3c46bfad22d699077b4123/view?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.”
» return to top (#id__TOP)
Will Buying a Helicopter Company Be a Winner for Joby? ()
Joby is respected as one of a handful of electric vertical take-off and landing
(eVTOL) startups that are likely to achieve FAA certification within a few
years and begin commercial operations. In a surprise move early this month,
Joby announced the acquisition of long-time commercial helicopter operator
Blade Air Mobility. Aviation Daily
(https://aviationweek.com/products/aviation-daily?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
’s Ben Goldstein greeted this news as a way to de-risk Joby’s market-entry
plans—and at first glance, that seems on-target.
First of all, Blade has operating certificates not only in the United States
but also in Canada and southern Europe. Blade carried 50,000 passengers last
year and has access to landing sites and terminals in key cities, saving Joby a
bundle of money and time as it begins eVTOL operations in several years. And
since it will own Blade from now on, it will have an additional source of
revenue during its early years of eVTOL operations. Blade has also agreed that
Joby will be its eVTOL partner for its profitable organ transport business
(which Blade is retaining). Goldstein also cites the positive impressions of
the deal from eVTOL analyst Sergio Cecutta, whom I have quoted several times in
this newsletter
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.
But here are a few cautions from an aviation observer whose knowledge I
appreciate, expressed Aug. 5 on an invitation-only online aviation discussion
group. Without elaborating on his statement, here are his initial impressions.
“Blade loses money on pax [passenger] trips and makes good money on medical, I
am told. They [Joby] are only buying the pax biz. They have sheds on wheels for
lounges in NY so they can be trucked away, if needed. They own virtually no
hard assets. Joby prides itself on its new app, but Blade already has one that
works. So, $125M ($95M if certain terms are met) for a company with no assets
[and] is loss-making seems like the deal of the century!”
I am in no position to vouch for either assessment, but am simply presenting
these two views for you to ponder.
» return to top (#id__TOP)
Will Secondary Cockpit Barriers Be Delayed Yet Again? ()
While the threat of armed takeover of commercial aircraft seems to have
decreased considerably over the past two decades, Congress (and pilots’ unions)
have continued to push the FAA to mandate secondary barriers. The idea is to
provide stronger protection for the cockpit when a crew member must exit to use
the forward lavatory. Today’s practice of positioning a flight attendant with a
service cart just aft of the lav is not much of a barrier.
Under pressure from Congress to enforce a 2018 statute mandating such barriers,
the FAA cited the need for it to follow procedural rules before setting a
deadline for retrofitting airliners. In 2022, the FAA issued a draft rule, but
Airlines for America argued that it should apply only to newly certified
aircraft, not including aircraft already in production but not yet completed or
delivered. Airline unions insisted that the barriers be required for all
airliners, including cargo planes.
In 2023, the FAA finalized its secondary barrier rule, which would apply to all
newly delivered aircraft, per previous legislation. This final rule called for
installations to begin within two years. But here we are in 2025, and major
airlines are calling for another two-year delay. They argue that the FAA has
not yet approved a design, and there are no manuals, procedures, or training
programs.
At this point, it’s worth pausing to consider whether this additional
protection against terrorist takeover of an airliner cockpit is still a
sufficient enough threat to warrant the cost of secondary barriers. This
subject has been addressed by aviation security researchers, and two of the
best are Mark Stewart and John Mueller, authors of technical papers and their
excellent 2018 book, Are We Safe Enough? Measuring and Assessing Aviation
Security. They also produced a 2019 report on this specific topic, “Security
Risk and Cost-Benefit Assessment of Secondary Flight Deck Barriers
(https://openresearch.newcastle.edu.au/articles/report/Security_risk_and_cost-benefit_assessment_of_secondary_flight_deck_barriers/28989728?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
,” Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, University of
Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
The results depend on the assumptions made about both costs and benefits. In
the book, they found the benefit/cost ratio to be 75. But their updated
analysis in 2019, based on feedback about the book chapter, led to a more
conservative benefit/cost ratio of 41. Both sets of calculations were made
without cost data from the FAA. In a 2022 email to me, Stewart used new cost
information from the FAA to yield a revised benefit/cost ratio of 10, meaning
the benefits of reduced/eliminated attacks were found to be worth 10 times the
cost of the program.
One of the questions worth asking about such analyses is “compared to what?”
Stewart and Mueller carried out a similar benefit/cost assessment for the
Federal Air Marshals (FAM) program. Unlike the secondary barrier, which has
only a one-time cost, the FAMs program has an ongoing annual cost of around $1
billion. Their resulting benefit/cost ratio for FAMs is a pathetic 0.03. So if
Congress wants to get more bang for its aviation security bucks, it should
abolish FAMs and require companies to retrofit secondary barriers to all
current and future airliners. Airlines should welcome the freeing up of two
front-cabin seats on all flights currently carrying FAMs.
» return to top (#id__TOP)
News Notes ()
FAA Supports ADS-B/In Mandate for All ADS-B/Out Aircraft
In a move long recommended by the NTSB, the FAA has announced that it will
mandate the installation of ADS-B/In for not only new aircraft but also for all
in-service aircraft that are required to be equipped with ADS-B/Out. Two bills
to this effect were already pending in Congress by the time the Air Traffic
Organization’s acting COO made the announcement on Aug. 1. With ADS-B/In, the
cockpit crew will be able to see nearby traffic, both in the air and on the
airfield. Had the regional jet that collided with the Army Black Hawk
helicopter at DCA been so equipped, its crew would likely have seen the
helicopter and aborted its landing (if the latter’s ADS-B/Out system had been
operational).
FAA Funding Bill May Stimulate Performance-Based Navigation
The $12.5 billion in general fund money that Congress recently included in the
One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, included $300 million to
“fully implement” Performance-Based Navigation (PBN). The language says PBN
should be implemented “for all terminal and en-route routes, including
approaches and departures at about 40 large and medium hub airports.” The aim
is for PBN to become a “primary means of navigation.” Aviation Week’s Sean
Broderick points out that this plan was already included in the 2024 FAA
reauthorization bill.
London Heathrow’s $65 Billion Modernization Plan
On July 31, privately owned London Heathrow Airport (LHR) submitted its plan
for a third runway and new terminals, aimed at increasing its annual passenger
capacity from 84 million annual passengers to 150 million, and flights from
480,000/year to 760,000. LHR announced that the project will be entirely
privately financed. The same day Arora Group submitted a rival proposal
including a shorter new runway that would not extend over the nearby M25
motorway, which might reduce some of the local opposition to the expansion. The
Arora Group proposal’s cost of £25 billion is about half the £49 billion LHR
proposal, but the terminal projects may be smaller than LHR’s. Arora also says
its plan will be privately financed.
Mexico Airports Undergoing Changes
July brought news via Infralogic
(https://infralogic.com/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
about two airport companies in Mexico. First, the government abandoned a plan
to purchase investment fund Aleatica’s 49% stake in Toluca International
Airport, because the price Aleatica wanted was too high. The State of Mexico
already owns a 26% stake in Toluca. And on July 25, airport operator GAP (Grupo
Aeroportuario del Pacifico) announced its interest in buying the airport assets
of CCR, a Brazilian company that has ownership in or operating relationships
with 20 airports across Latin America.
Boeing’s Wisk Aero Plans Autonomous Air Taxi Service by 2030
The only U.S. eVTOL startup that is planning for autonomous commercial
passenger flights has announced plans to begin commercial passenger flights in
Houston, Los Angeles, and Miami by 2030, according to an interview in
SmartCities Dive
(https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/boeing-wisk-aero-plans-autonomous-air-taxi/753236/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
. Reporter Dan Zukowski noted that the four-passenger eVTOLs will be both
produced and operated by Wisk, which is partly owned by Boeing. Zukowski
reported nothing about where Wisk Aero is in the FAA certification process. As
of Aug. 2025, no piloted eVTOL has received FAA certification. It seems likely
that this multi-year process will take longer for automated eVTOLs than for
their piloted counterparts from Archer and Joby.
Skykraft Launches Five Air Traffic Satellites
Via a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch from the Vandenberg launch site in California,
Australian company Skykraft in late July lofted five satellites into orbit for
its planned space-based ADS-B and voice communication system. The company plans
to compete with Aireon and several European startup companies in providing
satellite-based air traffic management services.
DOT Inspector General to Review Newark Control in Philadelphia
The DOT Office of Inspector General on July 29 announced an investigation into
the FAA’s shift of air traffic operations at Newark Airport (EWR) from the New
York TRACON on Long Island (N90) to the Philadelphia TRACON. The reason for the
move was a severe shortage of controllers (and other problems) at N90. Besides,
the transferred controllers had to learn a new facility, and the EWR data had
to be transmitted to Philadelphia by ancient copper wire cable rather than
modern fiber optic cable. These cables are now being replaced.
Ardian Becomes Heathrow’s Largest Shareholder
Infrastructure fund Ardian last month bought out Ferrovial’s remaining stake in
London Heathrow Airport, and now owns 32.6%, as the airport’s largest owner.
Ardian’s initial stake was 22.6%, acquired in Dec. 2024. Paris-based Ardian is
the 13th largest infrastructure investment fund according to a tally of the top
100 funds by Infrastructure Investor
(https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
, based on each fund’s most recent five-year total capital raised.
Helsinki Airport Introduces Double-Boarding Bridges
At Helsinki Airport’s west pier, dual passenger boarding bridges have recently
been introduced. For a large aircraft, one bridge can be used for the front
cabin and the other for the coach cabin. For smaller planes, the plan is to
accommodate two planes at the same boarding gate. New or recently upgraded
boarding areas in both the south pier and the west pier are equipped for dual
gates to be installed.
Air Force Testing F-35 Collision Avoidance
The Air Force Research Laboratory is testing a “collision avoidance manual
deconfliction” system on an F-35 fighter plane. The aim of the project is to
protect against collisions between military and civilian aircraft. Commercial
aircraft are equipped with TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System), but
“many” military fighters, bombers, and helicopters are not.
Breeze Replaces Avelo in Southern California
Within a week of Avelo announcing that it was leaving the Burbank, California
airport, Breeze Airways announced that it will offer service from Burbank to
five former Avelo routes: Bend, Eugene, Eureka, Pasco, and Provo. Breeze
already serves LAX and John Wayne Airport in Orange County.
New Video Interviews Air Traffic Control Reform Expert
ReasonTV’s Eric Boehm interviews Dorothy Robyn, who has supported air traffic
control reform since her days as a domestic policy advisor in the Bill Clinton
White House. The new video is “Why Does the Government Run Air Traffic Control?
(https://reason.com/video/2025/07/29/why-does-the-government-run-air-traffic-control/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
"
Aviation Week Editorial on Digital Tower Centers
A guest Viewpoint editorial
(https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/opinion-us-needs-digital-atc-now-colorado-ready-lead?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
in Aviation Week makes the case for bringing to the United States the
technology and productivity gains being realized in Europe by providing control
tower services to multiple airports from a digital tower center. Bill Payne and
David Hughes spotlight two proposed Colorado projects that would create such
digital tower centers. For context, they discuss some of the cutting-edge
examples in Europe. The Colorado projects would be models for what could be
done on a much larger scale to replace aging control towers and to provide
tower services to smaller airports that lack them. The piece is the full-page
Viewpoint piece in the July 14-27, 2025 issue of Aviation Week.
» return to top (#id__TOP)
Quotable Quotes ()
“We’re not in the aviation system of the 1960s or 1970s. And the proposed [EU]
legislation does not reflect a real analysis of what the traveling public
wants. Over the past two decades, as LCCs have grown, we have seen a drop in
ticket prices and a democratization of air travel, to the benefit of customers,
tourism, and economies. But airlines have only been able to set the headline
fare at a low price because they can break out other elements, such as faster
boarding, inflight food or drink or a cabin bag. [Airlines] are commercial
entities, and they have to make money, otherwise fares will go up, and that
will exclude some people from travel.”
—John Strickland, in Helen Massy-Beresford, “Europe’s Airlines Say Cabin
Baggage Changes Threaten Consumer Choice
(https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airlines-lessors/europes-airlines-say-cabin-baggage-changes-threaten-consumer-choice?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
,” Aviation Week, July 14-27, 2025
“One big picture piece that I left out is really the role of Congress. Refusing
year after year to grant budgets of long enough duration to implement
large-scale projects absolutely eliminates the possibility of even remotely
effective planning. Instead, every project decision FAA makes is reactive.
Especially when funding levels are inadequate to meet safety needs, let alone
pursue long-range innovation and development. All managers can do is respond to
immediate developments—most often, sifting budget allocations that occur as
managers attempt to balance competing project needs. I’ve seen these kinds of
budget-driven developments occur over and over. I do have sympathy for those
caught in this dilemma, [but] I lose patience when some of the short-term
workarounds prove less efficient in the long term. But there is no shortage of
contractors to provide FAA managers with seemingly attractive solutions.”
—A retired FAA systems engineer, email to Robert Poole, June 24, 2025
“As we all know, an airline seat that takes off empty can never be sold again.
And carrying a marginal passenger comes at extremely low cost to an airline.
Most of the expense of the trip is baked in—the plane, crew, fuel. Airlines
have gotten much better at filling seats. And they try to maximize revenue—yet
the real cost of a ticket has fallen over time, inclusive of fees. That’s no
accident. Airlines will sell that marginal seat for almost any amount they can
get for it. Except they don’t want to offer a lower fare to someone that would
buy a seat anyway, at a higher fare. And so airlines go to great length to
price discriminate, i.e., to segment customers. AI is a tool to get more
granular with price discrimination. And so it seems reasonably likely that it
will be used to figure out whom to offer those lower fares to, filling more
seats at even lower fares but only offering those prices to people who wouldn’t
buy at all at a higher price. This way, airlines can fill seats and generate
incremental revenue without cannibalizing existing higher-yield traffic. Our
best defense against AI pricing of the imagined parade of the horribles sort is
competition.”
—Gary Leff, post on online aviation discussion group, July 23, 2025 (Used with
his permission)
» return to top (#id__TOP)
This issue of Aviation Policy News is also available online here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/ntsb-hearing-details-faa-institutional-failure/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.
Previous editions of
this newsletter are archived here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
and all of Reason Foundation's aviation policy research and analysis is here
(https://reason.org/topics/transportation/air-traffic-control/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
.
Donate to Reason Foundation
(https://reason.com/donate/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776)
https://www.youtube.com/reasontv?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
https://x.com/ReasonFdn?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
https://www.instagram.com/reasonmagazine/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
https://www.facebook.com/ReasonFoundation?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonmagazine?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=b3ce061964-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2025_August&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-b3ce061964-589230776
Copyright (C) 2025 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
Reason Foundation
5737 Mesmer Ave
Los Angeles, CA 902306316
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
Update your preferences
(https://reason.us10.list-manage.com/profile?u=eeb19ce21180de2f45ab9ac5e&id=1a215e95f7&e=cd4b5cfcaf&c=b3ce061964)
and the emails you receive.
To stop receiving all emails from Reason, click unsubscribe
(https://reason.us10.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=eeb19ce21180de2f45ab9ac5e&id=1a215e95f7&t=b&e=cd4b5cfcaf&c=b3ce061964)
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised: 20250507
You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list.
The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly
cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please
know that it would be greatly appreciated:
https://wardell.us/url/mifbit
All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies:
1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a
right.
2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author.
3) The tone of discussions is collegial.
4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste.
5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other
Mifnet members.
* The Mifnet WEB SITE is:
https://www.mifnet.com/
* To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=leave
* Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to:
[email protected]
* You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at:
[email protected]
* Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list
traffic into 1-3
messages daily. See instructions at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
* Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
* For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email:
[email protected]?subject=help
* View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at:
https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies
* View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at:
https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems
* View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/
