Before I begin, I should say that the upgrades to the Air Traffic Control system (aka. "NextGen") that the FAA wants to implement are a good thing. This will increase safety and, in some ways, efficiency. My only problem with the system is that the airlines are trying to push legislation through congress that would require general aviation aircraft to foot the bill for a system that will get minimal use from 95% of general aviation aircraft. The airlines have convinced the FAA that this is both necessary and ethical, even though the FAA itself has stated that we can fund NextGen using our current tax system. The AOPA website has a great deal of information on the subject.

The big idea of NextGen is that it will give ATC tighter controls, allowing them to safely reduce separation between aircraft. That would be great! Before you decide this will solve all our problems though, let me tell you a story about trying to get lots of jets out of an airport at the same time:

I happened to connect through George Bush Intercontinental Airport last week. As we taxied to the runway, I noticed that my aircraft was about 10th in line for the the runway (probably 15L.) Looking over to 15R, I saw a similarly long line. Checking my watch, I noticed that our takeoff time had already passed. Thankfully, I wasn't in a rush so I just watched while several more aircraft were added to each queue before we even got up to the hold short line.

We finally took off about an hour late. Since it was a short flight, we spent nearly as much time from pushback to takeoff as we did in the air. I hope that doesn't sound satisfactory to you.

As far as the FAA is concerned, NextGen equipment would have "solved" this problem by allowing ATC to reduce spacing between takeoffs and get all those jets off the ground in half the time. Only half an hour late...is the kind of service that the airlines hope will revive a struggling industry?

The surprising thing about this is, with a couple exceptions, all of these aircraft belonged to the same carrier. This means that a single carrier scheduled over two dozen aircraft to take off at effectively the same time and actually expected it to happen.

I recently spoke to an airline pilot who told me about a similar problem already happening with aircraft arrivals. This pilot told me that on more than one occasion he has spent hours waiting on the taxiway after he landed because there wasn't a gate available to unload the passengers. If this is already a problem, how is the situation going to get better when NextGen increases traffic density at our busiest airports?

I see a few possible solutions:
1. Build a lot more gates. (This assumes that you have the millions of dollars to fund this, the real estate to put the buildings on, the resources and equipment to staff the counters and ground handling personnel for each gate, and the infrastructure to transport passengers to the gate from the parking lot.)
2. Get the hubs our of air carrier operations. (I think that air taxis will help with this in the future.)
3. Charge money for take off and landing times.

I think that #3 needs to be realistically explored. Airports could schedule specific departure and arrival times that will keep their gates and ATC facilities at full capacity without over tasking them. They would generate revenue for the airport by auctioning off those spots to the airlines. Arriving before or after an assigned spot would result in a fine. This system brings in extra money for the most sought-after time spots and rewards the airlines (and customers) who have more flexible schedules. This would make money for the airport, ensure that resources aren't over tasked, force the airlines to ensure service without multi-hour delays induced by ill conceived scheduling, and reduce the urgency of the need for NextGen equipment until the FAA realizes it can afford it.

Unless some type of strict scheduling control is implemented, NextGen will provide almost no benefit to commercial air travel.