This file is a short single-author political-economic essay, later collected as a chapter in Rothbard’s broader critique of regulation and intervention. Its scope is narrow—the 1984 airport-delay controversy—but Rothbard uses that episode as a compact case study in how “market failure” stories are constructed and how, in his view, state ownership and regulation create the very shortages then blamed on markets.
The press touted it as yet another chapter in the unending success story of “government-business cooperation.”
Rothbard begins by reconstructing the official narrative: deregulation allegedly allowed profit-seeking airlines to over-schedule peak-hour flights, causing delays and forcing the FAA to threaten minute-by-minute controls. The airlines’ subsequent “voluntary” quota plan is presented as coerced compliance rather than spontaneous coordination.
Government-business cooperation had supposedly triumphed once more.
The essay’s central move is to reverse the usual causal account. Rothbard argues that the congestion episode was not a failure of deregulation but the reappearance of cartelizing regulation after the formal demise of the Civil Aeronautics Board. The CAB had long restricted routes and competition; after the Airline Deregulation Act and the CAB’s abolition, Rothbard contends, the FAA assumed a similar function under the language of safety and traffic management.
The real saga, however, is considerably less cheering.
His historical structure is simple but pointed: first the CAB cartelized airlines; then the FAA, after the PATCO strike and the firing of air-traffic controllers, imposed flight ceilings in the name of scarce control capacity; then, once controls were briefly lifted, congestion was used to justify restoring them. This gives the essay its public-choice edge: agencies do not merely correct private disorder, but preserve and reinvent regulatory power.
What has really happened is that the FAA, previously limited to safety regulation and the nationalization of air traffic control services, has since then moved in to take up the torch of cartelization lost by the CAB.
Rothbard also treats the distribution of quota burdens as evidence that regulation favors incumbents. He notes that Eastern Airlines, facing competition from People’s Express at Newark, supported controls; under the “voluntary” scheme, Newark’s peak-hour flights were sharply reduced while LaGuardia and Kennedy gained capacity. The point is not only that quotas restrict output, but that administrative rationing reallocates market opportunities through political channels.
The theoretical core arrives when Rothbard asks whether congestion is really a market failure. His answer relies on standard price theory: persistent shortage implies that access is underpriced. Because airports are government-owned, slot fees do not rise to clear the market, especially at peak times.
Whenever economists see a shortage, they are trained to look immediately for the maximum price control below the free-market price.
From this diagnosis follows the essay’s main thesis: airport congestion is caused by government ownership, politically determined pricing, and compulsory rationing—not by unregulated markets. If runway slots were privately owned and priced according to demand, peak-hour access would become more expensive, low-value uses such as some private corporate flights would be displaced, and scarce runway capacity would be allocated without FAA quotas.
The only genuine solution to airport congestion is to allow market-clearing pricing, with far higher slot fees at peak than at non-peak hours.
The closing section extends the same argument to air-traffic control. Rothbard rejects the assumption that air-control services must be a federal monopoly while aircraft, pilots, and airlines remain private. For him, privatization is not a peripheral reform but the conceptual completion of deregulation: without private ownership of airports and air-control services, political allocation will continue to masquerade as public-spirited correction.
Once again, the genuine solution is to privatize air-traffic control.
The essay’s relevance lies in its concise libertarian reframing of infrastructure congestion. Rothbard treats delay not as proof that markets need bureaucratic correction, but as evidence that government-controlled assets are being priced below their clearing level. Its core conceptual moves are inversion, de-cartelization, and privatization: invert the “market failure” story, identify regulation as cartel policy, and replace quotas with property rights and prices.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian