If you're having trouble viewing this email, you can view it in a browser here
(https://mailchi.mp/54c8fe1dde48/aviation-policy-news-242?e=cd4b5cfcaf) .
https://reason.org?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
Aviation Policy News
By Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy
January 2026
In this issue: ()
* Brand New Air Traffic Control System? (#a)
* Is air travel less safe in Canada? (#b)
* THUD bill would prevent needed ATC reform (#c)
* FAA controller shortage getting worse (#d)
* Revitalizing Dulles Airport (#e)
* Commercial Moon launchers? (#f)
* News Notes (#g)
Brand New Air Traffic Control System? ()
The so-called Brand New Air Traffic Control System (BNATCS
(https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/brand-new-air-traffic-control-system-bnatcs-fact-sheet?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
) is officially underway, with a brand-new system integrator tasked with
awarding what will amount to scores of contracts for hardware, software, and
facilities. The integrator is a firm named Peraton. If your reaction to that
is, 'Who?' Join the club.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy acknowledges that Peraton has no previous
Federal Aviation Administration or air traffic control experience. It was
chosen over Parsons Corp., which has extensive FAA contract experience. Peraton
has done work for military and intelligence agencies, the U.S. Special
Operations Command, and the National Park Service. But nothing in aviation. It
is owned by Veritas Capital, a private equity firm. It has no shareholders, but
its advisory board includes many former military and intelligence officials.
Parsons' political action committee donated a quarter-million dollars to
politicians last year, of both parties, per www.opensecrets.org.
The FAA, as of this writing, has not disclosed how or how much Peraton will be
paid, though it has said that the contract includes both rewards for good
performance and penalties for shortcomings. I am told there is no evidence of
any FAA contractor having been penalized for poor performance.
To some extent, it’s understandable that Department of Transportation (DOT)
officials want someone other than FAA procurement staff to be in charge of
numerous contracts to replace obsolete technology and potentially to manage two
large projects to consolidate facilities (one TRACON project and one Air Route
Traffic Control Center consolidation). As I have reported in recent years, the
FAA no longer has systems engineers able to define requirements for new systems
or project managers who can keep contractors from translating vague
“requirements” into costly projects with all kinds of bells and whistles that
cost several times what a basic, functional system would.
The FAA has long had the authority to purchase and use existing off-the-shelf
technology that has been proven at other Air Navigation Service Providers
(ANSPs). But the FAA’s internal processes undermine using that flexibility, due
to the FAA adding numerous MILSPEC provisions and archaic FAA orders that any
supplier must adhere to, and there is no sign of that changing.
One of Peraton’s first procurements (actually awarded by FAA contracting
officers) is for replacement radars. One is with RTX’s Collins Aerospace for
$438 million under the FAA’s Radar System Replacement program. Another was
awarded to Indra for a $342 million contract for next-generation surveillance
radars.
Both contracts are for the installation of commercially available radars at 612
sites by June 2028. RTX Collins is a long-time FAA contractor, while Indra has
previously supplied the FAA with air-ground voice radios, distance-measuring
equipment (DME), and surface awareness initiative (SAI) technology, but not
radars. Radar systems are perhaps the single most complex equipment that the
FAA procures, combining mechanical and electronic systems that must operate
24/7, 365 days per year. Most existing FAA radars are more than 30 years old
and worn out.
A former FAA engineer emailed me about the FAA/Peraton briefing on the first
radar system replacement contract. He wrote that there were “60 FAA
participants on the telephone and in-person meeting, including current FAA
contractors, union members, radar suppliers and their subcontractors, and a few
people from Peraton who seemed to understand near-zero about the FAA’s radar
infrastructure or even radar operations. Couple that with the lack of a
requirements document for the plan that would be contractually enforceable.
This amounts to throwing money at Peraton and hiring people who are even less
capable than the government. But de facto, at this point, FAA people seem to
still be running the procurements."
A former FAA radar expert tells me that it appears the FAA does not plan to fix
or replace the aged equipment outside the 40-year-old radar buildings with
worn-out HVAC and telecommunications. A full radar replacement would include
antenna reflectors, pedestals, gearboxes, rotary joints, and wave guides.
This does not strike me as a promising start to the Brand New Air Traffic
Control System.
» return to top (#top)
Is Air Travel Less Safe in Canada than in the United States? ()
Over the past year or so, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles
bad-mouthing Nav Canada, the non-profit, user-supported air navigation service
provider that took over the provision of air traffic management from the
Canadian government in 1996. One repeated complaint is that, like the United
States, Canada currently has a shortage of air traffic controllers. Making an
air traffic provider self-supporting does provide a reliable revenue stream,
but it can’t change the basic nature of controller jobs—high-stress, sometimes
awful shift schedules, etc. This is a global problem.
Far more disturbing are allegations that aviation safety is worse in Canada
than in the United States. I’ve seen this asserted many times over the past few
years, generally by private pilots who cite misleading sources. Let’s look into
this in detail. A claim that I’ve seen several times is that 'per the most
recent ICAO safety audit, Canadian air traffic control ranks below average.'
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does produce documents
called Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) audits. These are
assessments of the quality of aviation safety oversight by each country’s civil
aviation authority (i.e., the air safety regulator). That means the performance
of Transport Canada’s safety regulations, the FAA’s safety regulations, etc. It
is not a measurement of the performance of a country’s air traffic control
(ATC) provider.
Several aviation experts I asked about these allegations also pointed me to a
2024 report
(https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/publications/ann/2024/2023-2024.html?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Figure 4 in the report
(https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/publications/ann/2024/2023-2024.html?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
shows that accidents per 100,000 aircraft movements in Canada decreased from
3.7 in 2013 to 2.8 in 2023, a 25% reduction.
In terms of ensuring that air traffic control is properly regulated for
safety—i.e., at arm’s length from the regulator—ICAO has long recommended
separation between a country’s aviation safety regulator and the country’s
airport and air traffic control provider(s). At least 100 countries follow this
policy by having air navigation service providers (ANSPs) that are
organizationally separate from the aviation safety regulator.
Canada has followed this rule since Nav Canada was launched. The United States
would have done likewise if the Clinton administration’s U.S. Air Traffic
Services Corporation (USATS) plan (a self-funded ANSP) had been implemented.
Another missed chance was the pair of congressional bills put forward by
then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. Bill
Shuster in 2017 and 2018. The bills got further than USATS, but never made it
to the House floor, despite both having been approved by the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Another key difference is the robust funding provided by the user-fee revenue
stream of the self-funded ANSPs that serve 95 countries. In many cases, the
revenues are strong enough to be bondable, which enables entities, including
Nav Canada, Airservices Australia, and NATS in the United Kingdom, to use
long-term finance for projects such as large-scale facility consolidation and
replacing paper flight strips with electronic flight strips.
Nav Canada differs from most of the air traffic control utilities now serving
95 countries; it is a nonprofit corporation with a stakeholder board, whereas
most of the 95 are self-funded government corporations. A key advantage for all
95 cases is that they are not dependent on politicians for their budgets. This
may be the most important difference of all. Among other things, it insulates
the ANSP’s budget from the vicissitudes of legislative bodies. Had such a
system been in place in the United States, our Air Traffic Organization would
have been unaffected by the 43-day federal government shutdown in 2025.
» return to top (#top)
THUD Bill Would Prevent Needed ATC Reform ()
Politico reported (Jan. 21) that the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Act contains a poison
pill for air traffic control reform. If passed and signed by President Donald
Trump, the bill would block funds from being used to “plan, design, or
implement” the privatization of air traffic control and even the separation of
the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) from the FAA itself.
While nobody is advocating “privatization” of the ATC system (as opposed to
converting it to a self-funded ANSP like those serving 95 other countries), the
ban on separating the ATO from the FAA is also foolish.
Since 2001, it has been ICAO policy that air traffic control should be
organizationally separate from the national aviation safety regulator.
Self-regulation is also a foolish policy, as we can learn from the FAA doing
nothing in response to hundreds of pilot reports about the hazard of helicopter
flights regularly taking place beneath the approach to Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport's (DCA) runway 15/33. The National Transportation Safety Board
has criticized the FAA for not doing anything about this situation, and I’m
hoping their final report on that deadly collision will recommend
organizational separation of the ATO from the FAA.
And as I have pointed out recently, there is now a window of opportunity to
implement such a change. Due to the transportation department’s policy of
moving FAA out of its two current office buildings and into DOT’s own building
(nicknamed Navy Yard), it would be easy to move ATO’s D.C.-based staff to a
separate location, either elsewhere in Washington, D.C., or perhaps adjacent to
the FAA command center in Warrenton, VA.
» return to top (#top)
FAA Air Traffic Controller Shortage Getting Worse ()
Last month, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said that during the 43-day federal
government shutdown, the FAA lost between 4,000 and 5,000 controller trainees.
Even though the FAA Academy remained open, many trainees dropped out. “Even
though we kept the school open, I think the thought of not being paid was
enough to frighten them away,” Bedford told
(https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/faa-air-traffic-control-trainees-shutdown-00695827?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
Politico.
Also, last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a new
report on controller staffing: “FAA Should Establish Goals and Better Assess
Its Hiring.” (GAO-26-107320) It points out that despite the agency having
increased hiring of trainees, “Nevertheless, at the end of fiscal year 2025,
FAA employed 13,164 controllers, about 6 percent fewer than in 2015,” while
total flights using the air traffic control system increased by about 10% over
that same time period.
While the GAO report did not explicitly state that the FAA’s staffing model is
broken, it certainly provided the information to support such a conclusion.
Right on the up-front summary page of GAO-26-107320 is a graphic showing the
attrition rates for hiring trainees with no prior ATC experience (the large
majority of those hired). Here are the numbers for fiscal years 2017-2022:
Not included in that graphic is the number who washed out of on-the-job
training; actually controlling air traffic is far more stressful than any
training, and some people cannot handle that level of stress.
The FAA needs two things to remedy this chronic problem.
First, they need a realistic staffing model that accounts for attrition at each
stage of the process, using regularly updated washout data at every stage of
the process.
Second, it needs to ask Congress for enough funding to recruit and train the
numbers actually needed to match the resulting workforce to controller staffing
needs.
I’ve been told by people who have studied air traffic controller recruitment
and training that the FAA has never asked for what it really needs for
controller recruitment and training, taking into account all the washouts along
the way from recruitment to fully certified. What appears to happen is that if
the FAA makes that part of its budget request, DOT says no, because they
believe that the Office of Management & Budget will veto this larger amount.
This is what happens when an ANSP is dependent on appropriations by a
legislative body, rather than being self-supporting from its own ATC user fees.
The 95 countries whose ANSPs are self-funded answer to their aviation customers
and to arm’s-length aviation safety regulators, not to bureaucracies and
politicians.
» return to top (#top)
Revitalizing Dulles International Airport ()
When I lived in Los Angeles and had to fly nonstop to Washington, D.C., those
trips always meant using Dulles Airport (IAD). With its horrible
standing-room-only “mobile lounges” to get from remote terminals to the main
terminal, limited shops and food sources, and waits for infrequent bus service
to either a Metro station or all the way into the District, it was a miserable
experience every time. Now that I live in Florida, I’m usually spared that
experience, except for rare occasions when the best way to get from Florida to
a northern location with limited airline service (e.g., Ithaca, NY, home of
Cornell University), I have no choice but to connect via Dulles.
But there is now hope for a large-scale makeover of Dulles. Last month,
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy released a request for information (RFI)
for “revitalizing Dulles airport into the international gateway our nation’s
capital deserves.” The RFI refers to completely new terminals and concourses
and suggests public-private partnerships (P3s) as a way to proceed. It also
dismisses the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority's plans for Dulles,
pointing out only modest terminal improvements, and planning to retain the
“mobile lounges” for the next 15 to 20 years!
Long-term airport public-private partnership leases are common
(https://reason.org/policy-brief/annual-aviation-infrastructure-report-2025/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Asia-Pacific region. They
are hardly used at all in the United States, with San Juan, Puerto Rico, being
a highly successful exception. Most U.S. airport owners resist long-term
airport P3 leases due to their fear of losing control. That fear misunderstands
that a long-term P3 is a partnership, with the current owner as the public
partner and the P3 consortium as the private partner. They likely
under-estimate how much their airport may be worth to airport investors, in
cases where the airport could use better management—as opposed to a
multi-billion-dollar make-over as proposed by DOT.
Also, as I pointed out in a 2025 policy paper
(https://reason.org/policy-study/incentivizing-us-airport-privatization/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
sponsored by America Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, there
are two legal obstacles that make whole-airport P3 leases more difficult in the
USA than in the rest of the world. The first is the federal requirement that
outstanding airport tax-exempt bonds must be paid off or defeased if there is a
significant change of control. The second is that, in contrast to surface
transportation infrastructure, where tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs)
are available for long-term P3 projects, there is no comparable PAB
availability for airport P3s.
There is promising news on the first of these constraints. As discussed in an
article in the December issue of Public Works Financing, DOT’s Transportation
Advisory Board has recommended that DOT implement an infrastructure “asset
recycling” program comparable to the successful one in Australia over the last
decade. As part of its proposal, the Advisory Board proposed “to remove the
requirement to defease tax-exempt muni bonds on assets that are leased in an
asset recycling deal.” Perhaps this could be done via an executive order?
Making that change would make it more feasible for DOT to undertake a long-term
P3 lease of IAD. In this case, it would not be “asset recycling” because the
aim of the project would be for the private-sector partner to invest billions
of debt and equity to make over and expand this mediocre airport.
IAD would be well-suited to this kind of large-scale makeover. It has a huge
amount of land, which few other U.S. airports (except DEN) have. Whether there
would be enough air traffic to warrant such expansion remains to be seen, but
here is some food for thought. A major study of airport P3s worldwide,
sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), found that
airport P3s that included an infrastructure investment fund performed much
better than those carried out by a private-sector airport company. Among the
notable benefits are:
* More airlines, serving a larger number of destinations;
* Lower average air fares, due to increased competition, including from
low-cost-carriers (LCCs);
* Increased airport productivity; and,
* Greater passenger satisfaction, as measured by ACI’s annual Airport Service
Quality survey.
Everyone interested in long-term airport P3s should read this important
empirical study
(https://www.nber.org/papers/w30544?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
.
» return to top (#top)
Commercial Moon Launches? ()
Politico’s Pro Space newsletter for Dec. 19 included a lead article
(https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pro-space-preview/2025/12/19/inside-the-lunar-lobbying-war-00698971?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
on a proposal from the Commercial Space Federation (CSF) calling for
commercial launchers to be included in U.S. Moon exploration missions. Since
the proposal is not on the CSF website, I’m relying on the Politico article for
these few details.
CSF is seeking to get its idea added to the current House NASA reauthorization
bill. The new provision, if added to the bill, “would give NASA the ability to
move away from the Space Launch System.” (NASA’s $4 billion per launch monument
to cost-plus contracts and ancient technology that’s not re-usable). CSF’s
proposal “would allow the agency to use commercial alternatives such as
SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s New Glenn. Long-term, there’s consensus in
the space industry that NASA needs cheaper, re-usable commercial rockets to
achieve a sustainable presence on the Moon . . . but there’s no clear agreement
on when exactly that shift should happen.”
A more-detailed case
(https://reason.org/policy-study/commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-to-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
for terminating SLS and shifting to commercial space was researched and
written by aerospace engineer Rand Simberg and published last July.
Politico obtained a comment from CSF’s president, Dave Cavossa, saying, “We see
this language as an ‘and’ not an ‘or.’ Congress has already ensured continuity
on the program of record through Artemis V with the One Big Beautiful Bill.
[New NASA Administrator] Isaacman committed to following that law, so there
shouldn’t be concern that this effort threatens SLS.”
Politico adds that “Even if the committee includes their version of the NASA
reauthorization bill, it will need to be reconciled with the Senate’s version
of the bill."
» return to top (#top)
News Notes ()
Government Admits Army and FAA Failures in DCA Collision
In court documents filed by the Department of Justice, the government admits
failures by both the pilots of the Army Black Hawk helicopter and a controller
in the Reagan National control tower, CNN reported
(https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/american-airlines-flight-5342-us-army-helicopter-crash?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
on Dec. 17. The filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. says
“The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, which
it breached.” A total of 67 people were killed in the collision between the
Army helicopter and AA Flight 5342 at Reagan National Airport on Jan. 29, 2025.
First Digital Control Tower Certified in Spain
On Dec. 10, 2025, Searidge Technologies announced the certification of the
first remote/digital tower in Spain, located at Vigo Airport. Initial
operations will take place during low-traffic periods, with a conventional
tower controller on standby. The digital tower is located in a building
adjacent to the airport, at ground level. The airport is operated by AENA, the
world’s second-largest investor-owned airport company.
Electra Seeks FAA Certification for EL9 Ultra-Short Aircraft
Electra.aero Inc. on Dec. 10 submitted an application to the FAA for Part 23
type certification of its EL9 ultra-short takeoff and landing aircraft. The
hybrid-electric EL9 can take off and land in as little as 150 feet, thanks to
its ultra-lift blown wing design. Its capacity is nine passengers. The company
envisions a new air travel mode, which it calls Direct Aviation—point-to-point
mobility that can bypass large hub airports.
Some U.S. Controllers Are Moving to Australia
A Dec. 20 Wall Street Journal article
(https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/these-air-traffic-controllers-are-leaving-their-jobsand-heading-to-australia-13935de6?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
explained where some overstressed FAA controllers are going: to Airservices
Australia. Compared with low staffing levels and aging equipment at FAA
facilities, Airservices’ facilities are fully staffed and well-equipped with
state-of-the-art equipment, such as electronic flight strips. Moreover, its
high-altitude centers were consolidated 25 years ago from six to two brand new
ones, compared with the FAA’s aging and far too many high-altitude centers. The
former FAA controllers’ new work schedules are nothing like the 60-hour week
and “rattler” FAA schedules. And the Airservices work schedules guarantee some
off-duty weekends each year. Needless to say, Airservices is not part of the
Australian government’s budget. It is a self-supporting ATC utility, of which
there are around 95 worldwide.
SpaceX Plans IPO This Year
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger reported
(https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/after-years-of-resisting-it-spacex-now-plans-to-go-public-why/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
on Dec. 10 that SpaceX is planning an initial public offering of shares this
year and is hoping to reach a valuation of $1.5 trillion. Among the reasons
cited for this move is the company’s ambitious plans to develop and launch data
centers in Earth orbit, evidently to be solar-powered. Musk is increasingly
interested in artificial intelligence (AI), which will require huge numbers of
data centers. Prior to the development of reusable launch systems, the cost of
putting data centers in orbit would likely have been prohibitive. But
especially when the SpaceX Starship is operational, putting large amounts of
mass in Earth orbit will be increasingly affordable.
FAA Headquarters Move Will Take Three Years
Politico reported (Dec. 16) that the relocation of the FAA’s D.C.-based staff
to the U.S. DOT headquarters will take three years to accomplish. That extended
period will provide time for debating the separation of the Air Traffic
Organization staff from the FAA’s safety regulation and airport-grants staff.
Since 2001, ICAO policy has called for organizational separation of aviation
safety regulation from airport and ATC operations. Most of the civilized world
over the past 25 years has followed this sensible policy. It has long been
advocated by noted aviation safety experts such as the late Clinton Oster,
co-author of the 2007 book Managing the Skies. Oster and co-author John Strong
wrote that “Self-regulation of air traffic control creates long-recognized
potential trade-off between safety and capacity.” And they added, that “Of the
major countries of the world, only the United States continues to have the
organization operating the air traffic control system also regulate it.”
$4 Billion Modernization Planned for Damascus Airport
ENR reported
(https://www.enr.com/articles/62264-qatar-led-consortium-signs-on-for-4b-rebuild-and-expansion-of-damascus-airport?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
that Syria’s General Authority of Civil Aviation has signed a $4 billion
contract with a Qatar-led consortium to expand and modernize the Damascus
International Airport. The deal is structured as a long-term build-own-operate
P3 concession, under which existing terminals will be upgraded and expanded for
a long-term goal of 32 million annual passengers. Several Turkish construction
firms are part of the consortium. The article reports that work on Terminal 2
and a five-star airport hotel is already underway, aiming for completion by
mid-2026.
PNT Expert Wins New Defense Department Position
Mark J. Berkowitz has been appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space
Policy. He is known as an expert on GPS vulnerability and related position,
navigation, and timing, the critical functions performed by GPS and related
orbital systems. His 2024 paper, “America’s Asymmetric Vulnerability to
Navigation Warfare
(https://nssaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NAVWAR-FINAL.pdf?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
” called for establishing one or more or more complementary and backup systems
for GPS.
Malaysia Signs Up for Aireon Space-Based ADS-B Surveillance
The Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM) last month announced an
agreement with Aireon to provide its space-based ADS-B surveillance in
Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur West Flight Information Region (FIR). This will provide
real-time surveillance of flights in that oceanic airspace where there is no
radar surveillance. This may permit increased capacity due to reduced
separation of flight tracks and increased safety due to controllers having
real-time information about flight tracks, altitude, etc. The airspace involved
includes a substantial portion of the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea.
Beta Technologies Lists on New York Stock Exchange
One of the clear survivors in the competition for advanced aerial mobility
(AAM)—Beta Technologies—last month raised $1 billion on the New York Stock
Exchange. Investors evidently appreciated the company’s approach, which relies
on both conventional and vertical take-off modes for its Alia aircraft. It is
also developing a hybrid power train, rather than relying solely on battery
electric propulsion. Its planned product stages begin with cargo and logistics
prior to passengers, with CTOL prior to VTOL, small aircraft before larger
ones, and manned, followed by autonomous aircraft. Investors evidently consider
this a wise strategy.
London Stansted Airport OK’d for Increased Capacity
Aviation Daily reported
(https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/airports-networks/london-stansted-gets-capacity-boost-approval?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
that London Stansted Airport has received local government approval for a
large increase in planned capacity: 51 million annual passengers. Its current
annual traffic is 30 million, and its previously approved limit was 43 million.
Located 32 miles northeast of central London, Stansted is currently the
country’s fourth-busiest airport. Most of its airline traffic is from low-cost
carriers (LCCs) and charter operators.
Air Taxi Company Plans South Florida Commuter Network
Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) start-up Archer Aviation is
teaming up with developer Related Ross and investment firm Dragon Global to
develop and operate an air taxi network serving Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Boca
Raton, and West Palm Beach. The network would include the three major airports
(MIA, FTL, and PBI), several general aviation airports and heliports, and
destinations such as the Hard Rock Stadium. Among the questions not yet
answered is whether a four-passenger eVTOL is the best fit for such a network
and the business model—what passenger volume would be needed and at what price
per mile to operate at a profit.
Adani Group Plans $15 Billion Airport Investment in India
India’s Adani Group plans to invest $15 billion in its Indian airport
concessions over the next five years, per a Dec. 3 Infralogic article. That
total is estimated to be 70% debt and the rest equity investment. Adani is also
preparing to take its airport group public. The largest investment is likely to
be for Navi Mumbai airport, including a new runway, taxiways, and more terminal
capacity.
Infrastructure Fund Hopes to Buy Atlantic Aviation
Fixed base operator (FBO) Atlantic Aviation is being pursued by infrastructure
fund Apollo. Four sources told Infralogic reporters (Dec. 23) that Apollo is in
exclusive talks to buy the FBO from investment fund KKR, which acquired it from
Macquarie in 2021. The article estimated that the sale price would be in the
vicinity of $10 billion, a significant increase from the $4.5 billion that KKR
paid in 2021.
InfraBridge Selling UK Airport Interests to AENA
Investment fund InfraBridge has agreed to sell its 51% stake in Leeds Bradford
Airport and 49% stake in Newcastle Airport to Spanish airport company AENA for
£270 million. AENA currently owns 51% of London Luton Airport. The deal is
expected to close in the second quarter of 2026, according to Infralogic (Dec.
18).
Teams Shortlisted for Saudi Arabia Airport Project
Four consortia and one stand-alone company have been shortlisted for the
planned Taif Airport public-private partnership. Infralogic (Jan. 7) reports
that India’s GMR Airports is a stand-alone entity competing with four
consortia. The planned airport is to be built east of Mecca and is intended to
be operational by 2030.
» return to top (#top)
This issue of Aviation Policy News is also available online here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/brand-new-air-traffic-control-system/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
.
Previous editions of
this newsletter are archived here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
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=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
.
Donate to Reason Foundation
(https://reason.com/donate/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776)
https://www.youtube.com/reasontv?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
https://x.com/ReasonFdn?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
https://www.instagram.com/reasonmagazine/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
https://www.facebook.com/ReasonFoundation?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonmagazine?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=0c12f928b3-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_Jan&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-0c12f928b3-589230776
Copyright (C) 2026 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=0c12f928b3)
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=0c12f928b3)
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]/
