Amid a steady climb in tourist arrivals, United Airlines, the dominant carrier flying to Hawaii, last year announced plans to invest $200 million to upgrade airports here through the next several years.

Oscar Munoz, United’s CEO, met with Gov. David Ige, tourism officials and local airline employees in August to discuss the mapping of plans for modernizing tools and resources used at state airports to make the experience better for travelers.

Munoz also expressed support for creation of an independent airport authority, in part, to ease the path for completing ongoing infrastructure upgrades and other improvements. With the exception of Maryland, Alaska and Hawaii, states typically task government-appointed fiscally autonomous entities with operation and oversight of airports.

Given Hawaii’s track record as slow-moving, a nimble airport authority is an increasingly sensible idea. It holds potential to tackle construction and other projects at a much faster pace, and with greater efficiency than the status quo.

Further, establishing an authority would allow funds generated by airport operations to be reinvested in operations and facilities without the need to first seek state approval. Currently, responsibilities tied to airports are divvied among several state agencies, resulting in unnecessary holdups in funding and decision-making.

The upshots include frustrated efforts to keep up with top-notch standards in place in other travel destinations. Hawaii’s airport system is widely viewed as outdated.

In addition, as state Sen. Glenn Wakai noted in the aftermath of last week’s false-alarm security threat at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, centralized management overseeing safety concerns could produce a smoother emergency response than the current multi-agency coordination.

Despite such benefits, airport authority bills have stalled in the last three legislative sessions.

The snag appears to be a tug-of-war over the reach of state procurement rules. The proposed legislation has envisioned an airport authority as exempt from procurement procedures that control how its budget is implemented.

Supporters want the flexibility that would come with exemption, but some labor groups have worried that without state-imposed procedures, their interests would be less protected by the profit-oriented authority. Also, it seems, some state lawmakers are simply reluctant to let go of purse strings.

Hawaii’s procurement code was put in place, in part, to ensure that businesses that do work with the government have a fair and orderly path for pursuing their contracted services. The intent is sound, but in practice the rules are cumbersome.

Earlier this month, when United’s Munoz toured Honolulu airport operations, he told news reporters: “I hate to be over dramatic but we’ve got to fix this. This is the jewel of this island. People love coming here and we’ve got to have an airport that represents it.” He’s right, of course. The airport’s condition is not enhancing the traveler’s experience.

Also among the supporters of the move toward fiscal autonomy is the state Department of Transportation, which is overseeing a multi-year, $3 billion renovation of the 15-airport system.

In a statement issued after proposed legislation failed last year, Ford Fuchigami, the governor’s then-administrative director, said under the current state structure, “airport management does not have control over the decision-making that would deliver first-class airports. Without systematic changes the public should not expect significant changes at our airports.”

Hawaii’s is overdue for a shift in expectations. State lawmakers should again pick up the proposal for an airport authority, as significant changes are much needed.