Modernizing air traffic control long overdue.

When President Trump announced his support in June for a bill in Congress to transfer responsibility for air traffic control from the federal government to a nonprofit corporation, he promised “cheaper, faster and safer travel.” Presumably those are benefits that would interest a majority of members in both political parties, whether or not they’re inclined to agree with the president on much else. Yet with time running short, the bill’s chances for passage appear slim. It’s been effectively mischaracterized by opponents as unnecessary, partisan and risky.

Florida’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, dismissed the bill as “a classic case of a costly solution looking for a problem.” Actually, the problem isn’t hard to find. The U.S. airtraffic control system, the world’s largest, is a dinosaur. It still relies on ground-based radar rather than the satellitebased GPS technology. Because GPS is more precise, it allows more-direct routes for planes and reduces delays on take-offs and landings. It saves flight time, fuel and emissions.

The bill, sponsored in the House by Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, would transfer air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration to a federally chartered and self-supporting nonprofit corporation funded through user fees. It’s not the takeover of the system by major airlines that critics claim. The corporations’s board members would be named by broad group of stakeholders — not just national airlines, but also regional and cargo carriers, airports, air traffic controllers and private pilots — and no member could be on the payroll of any aviation organization while serving.

A steady revenue stream from user fees would allow the corporation to issue bonds to finance the necessary investments in modernizing the air traffic control system. The FAA, hindered by uncertain annual appropriations from Congress — along with all the strings lawmakers routinely attach to funding bills — is still at least 10 years away from completing the transition to 21st century technology. Meanwhile, air traffic is increasing, which will compound flight delays as long as the current system isn’t upgraded.

Some opponents of the plan have tried to portray it as the latest push from conservatives intent on privatizing government. In fact, more than 20 years ago the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton proposed transferring responsibility for the U.S. air traffic control system to a quasi-private corporation. Shuster’s current bill is supported by major airlines, which expect lower costs, but it’s also backed by the lead union for air traffic controllers, which anticipates better working conditions.

In the past 30 years, more than 60 other countries have transferred their air traffic control systems from government agencies to user-fee funded corporations. Canada, with the world’s second biggest system, made the switch 20 years ago. Its air traffic control corporation has long since adopted the technology that the FAA still lacks. NavCanada is handling more traffic using fewer employees than it did in 1996. Its costs are lower than the FAA’s.

And while Nelson and other critics of the bill are quick to point out that the current U.S. system has a strong safety record — the last fatal crash of a domestic commercial airliner came eight years ago — there are at least a couple of good reasons to believe that transferring responsibility for air traffic control would create an even safer system. The FAA would keep its role as safety regulator, but it would no longer face the conflict of overseeing itself on air traffic control. And the upgraded technology in the system made possible by stable funding would lead to better monitoring and safer flying.

With America lagging behind the rest of the world on air traffic control, change is overdue.