Cover: Cost Comparisons of Advanced Air Traffic Management Systems.

Cost Comparisons of Advanced Air Traffic Management Systems.

Published 1973

by Dave J. Dreyfuss, H. E. Boren, F. S. Kontrovich, Jennifer Lind, P. A. Conine, Nathaniel E. Feldman

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback163 pages $30.00

A cost evaluation of alternative air traffic control (ATC) concepts for the 1980-2000 time period that differ in the basing of the signal receiver (space or ground), date of initial operational capability, level of automation, structure (centralized or disbursed), and total system cost. A centralized, satellite-oriented system, a decentralized, radar-oriented system, and the FAA Ten-Year Plan (1973-1982) are compared in detail to determine areas of greatest cost uncertainty and cost impact. Using a cost model to examine research and development, facilities and equipment, and operation and maintenance time-phased costs, it is found that the greatest cost uncertainty and impact come from air traffic controller productivity levels, with or without automation. It is concluded that an automated ATC system should be introduced as soon as is technologically possible. (See also R-1320.)

This report is part of the RAND report series. The report was a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.