This column originally appeared in USA Today.

As we head home to see loved ones, today promises to be one of the busiest days for air travel. We all know the headaches such a day can bring, especially if a storm or snow hits one or more of our major airports.

But air travel doesn't have to be a headache. The congestion in the skies and at America's airports could be greatly reduced if we implement a next generation air traffic system, often called NextGen.

NextGen is a high-tech way to manage our airspace, and most of the technology is already available. For example, air-traffic control systems based on satellite-based GPS would be far more reliable and precise than the current ground-based radar systems. Most communication between air traffic controllers and pilots is still done by voice, but much of it could be done by data transmission -- akin to texting.

Upgrading our air traffic control system is like switching from a landline to a smartphone. The improved level of information and communication in turn would allow planes to take shorter, more direct approaches to airports. Instead of the common step-down procedure employed near most airports today, planes could descend on one continual glide path, reducing noise and fuel consumption and shortening approaches to 10 minutes.

Pilots could plot more direct routes to destinations rather than following the zig-zag highways in the sky system they generally use today. More efficient movement of planes on the ground would cut wait times on airport tarmacs.The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) began work on this upgraded system in 2004, but it isn't going very well.

Of course, such an upgrade is not free, and in this time of fiscal constraint, Congress has kept budgets tight for NextGen. The program is behind schedule, and the year-end "fiscal cliff" threatens drastic cuts. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General recently testified to Congress that the FAA has had difficulty "in shifting from planning to actual implementation and delivering benefits to airspace users."

The Government Accountability Office also reports that aircraft operators "have expressed concerns that FAA has not produced the navigational procedures needed to achieve benefits (even) from existing avionics, such as reduced fuel burn and flight time."

It is hard to persuade airlines and other aircraft operators to invest in new technology if the FAA will not update procedures and regulations to reflect new technology. Many regulations -- such as the mandatory distances between aircraft -- date from the 1950s.

How do we get NextGen back on track? One way would be to grant more operational independence to FAA in air-traffic control. Updating from radar to GPS will create greater efficiency and save costs, and we do not need every member of Congress fighting to keep a radar station or navigation aid in his or her home district.

Another way would be to reform the way we fund a major capital project like NextGen. Rather than rely on annual and uncertain appropriations from Congress, a revamped FAA Air Traffic Organization needs to be able to raise funds through revenue bonds, the way most airports already do. It also needs to be able to charge fees for using the air traffic control system, which would provide a reliable revenue stream for the bonds. And it should have the authority to consolidate and sell-off unneeded facilities.

FAA also needs to look at its regulations and start modernizing them to fit the new technology. It makes no sense to apply the same rules to a new Boeing 787 Dreamliner that we applied to a DC-3 in the 1940s. Today's aircraft are far safer and more efficient, and with NextGen technologies that give pilots and air traffic controllers greater real-time information, they can fly closer together and on more direct routes.

We have the technology today to make flying -- even on the busiest of days like today -- faster and more efficient, if Congress and the FAA give wings to the NextGen system.