Modern Skies Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
This bill provides $30.1 billion in supplemental appropriations for FAA and airport infrastructure, focusing on modernizing air traffic control systems and upgrading aging airport terminals.
What it actually does
This bill authorizes significant supplemental funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in fiscal year 2027, totaling $30.1 billion. It establishes a pilot program for modernizing aging flagship terminals at up to three transitional hub airports, allocates substantial funds for air traffic control improvements including consolidation, common automation platforms, cloud infrastructure, and strategic flow management technologies, and provides discretionary grants for general airport improvement projects and airport terminal development.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is critical for ensuring the safety, efficiency, and global competitiveness of the national airspace system and airport infrastructure. They would highlight the urgent need to address aging facilities, implement cutting-edge technologies, and enhance passenger experience and cargo capacity, thereby supporting economic growth, job creation, and national security.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the significant increase in federal spending, potentially questioning the necessity or efficiency of such large appropriations outside of the regular budget process. They might also argue that some projects could be funded through existing mechanisms or private investment, or that the specific allocations might not address the most critical needs or could lead to fiscal irresponsibility.
The bill is relatively concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core objectives and funding allocations within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3
Transitional Hub Airport Modernization Pilot Program
This section establishes a pilot program to provide grants to the sponsors of not more than three 'transitional hub airports' for the rehabilitation and modernization of their primary terminal buildings. A transitional hub airport is defined as a medium hub airport with a principal commercial passenger terminal constructed before January 1, 1990, that has not undergone comprehensive redevelopment since then, and has a modernization project in the final design stage with environmental review complete. The federal share for these projects can be up to 90 percent, and the program is appropriated $10 billion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program addresses a critical need to modernize aging airport infrastructure that has been overlooked, particularly at medium hub airports that serve as vital links but may lack the resources of larger hubs. It enhances competition and supports regional connectivity by improving facilities for both existing and new air carriers.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that targeting only three airports is too narrow, potentially creating inequities or that the specific criteria might be too tailored, favoring certain airports. Concerns about the high federal share (90%) might also be raised, suggesting a lack of sufficient local investment or fiscal responsibility.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for targeted, impactful investment in specific aging infrastructure against broader, more distributed airport funding. It also weighs the benefits of modernization and enhanced competition against the significant federal expenditure and the potential for perceived favoritism in the selection process.
Section 4
Air Traffic Control System Modernization Funding
This section appropriates a total of $10.1 billion for various Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control (ATC) improvements for fiscal year 2027, to remain available until expended. Specific allocations include $300 million for consolidating terminal ATC facilities, $7.2 billion for implementing a common automation platform and controller workstation, $2 billion for cloud computing infrastructure supporting the national airspace system, and $600 million for strategic air traffic flow management technologies. The Administrator is granted authority to transfer amounts between these categories and is required to submit quarterly reports on expenditures.
Section 5
Enhanced Transfer Authority for Existing ATC System Funding
This section grants the Administrator of the FAA the authority to transfer amounts made available under different paragraphs of section 40003(a) of Public Law 119-21 to any other paragraph within that same section. This provides the FAA with greater flexibility in managing funds previously appropriated for the 'Brand-New Air Traffic Control System' program, allowing for adaptive resource allocation. The Administrator is required to report on any such transfers.
Section 6
Airport Infrastructure and Terminal Development Grants
This section appropriates an additional $10 billion for fiscal year 2027, to remain available until expended, for airport-related improvements. This includes $2 billion for constructing, replacing, and improving terminal air traffic control facilities (including digital tower technologies), $3 billion for discretionary grants for general airport improvement projects (not subject to existing apportionment formulas), and $5 billion for discretionary grants specifically for airport terminal development projects that address aging infrastructure. For terminal development grants, the federal share is 80 percent for large and medium hub airports, and 95 percent for small hub, nonhub, and non-primary airports.
This provision allows a transitional hub airport sponsor, selected for the pilot program, to use either applicable Federal procurement requirements or their own established non-Federal procurement policies and procedures for projects funded under the pilot program.
Section 3(f)(1)
Why it matters:This provision is likely included to streamline project delivery and reduce administrative burdens for airport sponsors, allowing them to utilize familiar local procurement processes. It could be seen as a practical measure to accelerate project execution, rather than an attempt to hide a controversial policy.
Case for: Proponents would argue this flexibility is crucial for efficient project delivery, enabling airports to leverage existing, proven local procurement systems. This can accelerate modernization efforts by avoiding the complexities and potential delays associated with unfamiliar federal procurement rules.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing non-Federal procurement rules could reduce oversight and accountability for federal funds, potentially leading to less competitive bidding, increased costs, or reduced transparency compared to strict federal procurement standards.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the speed, cost-effectiveness, and transparency of procurement for projects totaling up to $10 billion at the three selected airports.
This provision allows the Secretary to determine that project costs incurred by a transitional hub airport sponsor before the grant agreement is formally executed are allowable. These costs specifically include those necessarily incurred in formulating or preparing for a project, such as field surveys, plans, specifications, property interests, utility relocation, site preparation, and administration, as well as costs for developing the work scope.
Section 3(f)(2)
Why it matters:This is a standard and practical provision in federal grant programs designed to prevent delays. It ensures that airports are not penalized for undertaking necessary preparatory work (which can be extensive and costly) while awaiting the finalization of federal grant agreements, thereby accelerating project readiness.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision is crucial for project readiness and continuity, enabling airports to undertake necessary preliminary work without waiting for formal grant execution. This accelerates overall project timelines and ensures that projects are shovel-ready when funding becomes available.
Case against: Opponents might argue it could lead to less rigorous initial planning or commitment if costs are incurred before a firm federal commitment, potentially increasing risk for federal funds or encouraging premature spending.
Estimated impact: Could cover millions of dollars in planning, design, and preparatory costs for each of the three pilot projects, ensuring these initial investments are reimbursed.
This provision explicitly states that no portion of the funds made available under section 48103 of title 49, United States Code, shall be made available for the implementation of the pilot program established in Section 3.
Section 3(h)
Why it matters:This clause clarifies that the $10 billion appropriated for the pilot program is supplemental funding from the general Treasury, rather than being drawn from the existing Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is typically authorized under 49 U.S.C. 48103. This is important for budget accounting and ensuring that new programs do not inadvertently divert or reduce existing dedicated aviation funds.
Case for: Proponents would highlight that this ensures the pilot program is truly additional funding and does not cannibalize or reduce existing, ongoing airport improvement programs that are funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, thereby maximizing overall investment in aviation infrastructure.
Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against this specific exclusion, as it is a technical clarification. However, it underscores that the $10 billion is new general fund spending, which some fiscal conservatives might oppose in principle as contributing to the national debt.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the source of the $10 billion for the pilot program, ensuring it is new general fund money rather than a reallocation from dedicated aviation user fees.