[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER SERVICE
=======================================================================
(110-73)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-169 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas
Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Brown, Steve, Senior Vice President for Operations, National
Business Aviation Association.................................. 42
Cohen, Roger, President, Regional Airline Association............ 42
Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 42
Gribbin, D.J., General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation, accompanied by Mr. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant
General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings......... 6
Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for an Airline
Passengers' Bill of Rights..................................... 42
May, Jim, President and CEO, Air Transport Association........... 42
Mitchell, Kevin, Chairman, Business Travel Coalition............. 42
Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International
North America.................................................. 42
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 6
Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center
for Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre................ 6
Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 6
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Braley, Hon. Bruce L., of Iowa................................... 68
Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee.................................. 72
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 73
Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 83
Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 86
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 89
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 93
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Brown, Steve..................................................... 99
Cohen, Roger..................................................... 105
Forrey, Patrick.................................................. 123
Hanni, Kate...................................................... 140
May, James C..................................................... 145
Mitchell, Kevin P................................................ 164
Principato, Greg................................................. 169
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L....................................... 179
Sinha, Agam N.................................................... 244
Sturgell, Robert A............................................... 264
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, a statement from Pamela Foley of
Scottsdale, Arizona............................................ 96
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation, ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board
Flight Delays,'' report for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation from the Inspector General...................... 200
Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center
for Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre, responses to
questions from the Subcommittee................................ 257
Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration:
Response to question from Rep. Coble........................... 29
Responses to questions from the Subcommittee, and subsequent
information for clarification................................ 275
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Air Carrier Association of America, Edward P. Faberman, Executive
Director, written statement.................................... 278
House of Tutors, Anjum Malik, written statement.................. 282
Travelers Aid International, Raymond M. Flynt, President and CEO,
written statement.............................................. 283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.011
AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER SERVICE
----------
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in
Room 2367, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F.
Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn all
electronic devices to off or vibrate. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on airline delays and consumer
issues. Before we begin, I would ask unanimous consent to allow
our new Member of our Committee, Ms. Laura Richardson from
California, to participant in the Subcommittee hearing today.
Without objection, so ordered. I will give an opening
statement, and we will recognize the Ranking Member, who I just
passed on the floor a minute ago, and he is on his way over
here. But I will begin with my opening statement. I will
recognize Mr. Petri for an opening statement, and then we'll
begin with our first panel. I welcome our witnesses here today
and everyone here today to this Subcommittee hearing on airline
delays and consumer issues.
The first half of 2007 has been the worst for airline
delays since the Bureau of Transportation Statistics started
keeping comprehensive statistics 13 years ago. Through July,
almost one in every four flights were delayed. Long, on-board
tarmac delays have increased by almost 49 percent from 2006 and
delays of five hours or more have increased 200 percent. The
delays and the increasing number of consumer complaints that
passengers experienced this summer are unacceptable.
Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings that
this Subcommittee will hold. We will hold at least one hearing
every quarter, every 3 months to determine what the airlines
and the FAA are doing to address this problem. The public needs
to know what this administration has done and what it plans to
do in the near term to address delays and consumer complaints.
No doubt, the reasons for delays are many, and clearly weather,
particularly summer storms, are a major factor. But there is
also evidence to suggest that operational, technological and
economic trends and choices within the airline industry are
factors.
Oddly enough, while delays have increased, systemwide total
airport operations have actually decreased by about 11 percent
since the year 2000. The decline in total operations has been
driven largely by a 17 percent decline in general aviation
operations, contrary to what the airlines would have us
believe. However, while commercial operations remain flat, they
have also become more highly concentrated in certain areas,
increasing in some of the Nation's largest and busiest
airports. For example, according to the FAA, operations at New
York's JFK airport have increased 27 percent from 2000 and 44
percent from 2004.
Today we will hear additional analysis from MITRE, that
operations at seven large hub airports that account for 72
percent of the delays have increased 10 percent since the
summer of 2000, while operations at 38 other airports have
decreased. Two weeks ago, the former FAA administrator, Marion
Blakey, acknowledged that airline scheduling was a problem when
she stated, and I quote, "the airlines need to take a step back
on the scheduling practices that are at times out of line with
reality...And if the airlines won't address this voluntarily,
don't be surprised when the government steps in."
Last week I was pleased that the FAA notified the airlines
that it wanted advance schedule information on JFK and Newark
for the summer of 2008 because of increasing operations and
deteriorating on-time performances at those airports. But the
question is, why didn't the FAA take action on this long ago,
as to requesting scheduling information, when they acknowledge
that overscheduling was a serious problem and many acknowledge
that, including the FAA? The FAA in fact predicted that the
summer of 2007 was going to be the worst on record.
Administrator Blakely stated in May of 2007 that 2006 was, "a
record year for delays with more than 490,000 flights that
didn't make it on time. The truth is 2007 isn't looking any
better."
The fact is that, in February, this administration put
forward a very controversial financing proposal for which there
was absolutely no agreement or consensus. The FAA's plan
generated intense opposition from both sides of the aisle in
Congress and within the industry. Its only real support came
from the airlines. Throughout the summer months, the FAA failed
in its responsibility to hold airlines responsible for what we
are now being told are, "scheduling practices that are at times
out of line with reality."
Looking forward, Congress, the FAA and the industry must
take a hard look at airline scheduling practices. Where
overscheduling is resulting in serious delays, the government
must step in and take action. We should also have a frank
discussion about what near-term relief realistically can be
provided by new technology.
For the last year, this administration has aggressively
promoted the Next Generation Air Transportation system plan to
justify its financing proposal. While everyone agrees that we
must modernize our air traffic control system and supports
NextGen, I caution the administration not to continue to build
false expectations by holding the Next Generation system out as
a solution for delays in the near future. NextGen is a long-
term solution. We will not see full benefits from core NextGen
technologies like automatic dependent surveillance broadcast
for several years.
The traveling public should not be given the false
impression that NextGen will be here soon or will address
problems in the short term. And the public should not be
expected to wait several years for results. The airlines and
the FAA must take action to address the problem now. I think it
is important to point out, over the last 4 years, this
administration has underfunded the FAA's capital account, the
primary vehicle for modernizing the National Airspace System,
roughly $2 billion below the congressional authorized level. As
a result, a number of ATC modernization initiatives were
cancelled and deferred, including some NextGen capabilities.
There has been definitely a serious disconnect between the
administration's rhetoric and reality. HR 2881, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2007, provides about $1 billion more for
FAA's capital account than the FAA said it would need for the
next 4 years. This additional funding will help accelerate Next
Generation related activities.
Finally, the DOT IG, who will be testifying on our first
panel here this afternoon, released a report yesterday. The
IG's report has many important recommendations stemming from
its investigation into an American Airlines incident in
December of 2006 and a JetBlue incident in February of 2007. I
am interested in hearing more from the Inspector General on his
report. While I believe DOT is making a good faith effort in
dealing with consumer issues, it is not moving fast enough. For
this reason, I am pleased that HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2007, which passed the House last Thursday, addressed
many of the IG's recommendations. We have a serious problem
with congestion and delays in our aviation system which in turn
affects passengers and the quality of air carrier service. We
must look at all options for reducing delays and improving the
aviation experience. With that, I want to again welcome our
witnesses today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of
both this panel and the second panel.
Before I recognize Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, for his opening statement, I ask unanimous
consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to revise and extend
their remarks and to permit the submission of additional
statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without
objection, so ordered. With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Petri for his opening statement.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Well, as expected, it was a long, hot summer. We had a
record number of passengers and a record number of flight
delays in the United States. This year has been a particularly
difficult one for air travelers. It was not all doom and gloom.
If you flew out of Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Atlanta,
Las Vegas or Houston, you enjoyed an improved on-time
performance rate from 2006. Unfortunately, every other major
airport suffered worse on-time performance rates this year.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
through July 2007, 27.8 percent of flights were delayed. Most
of these delays were out of control. In fact--out of our
control. In fact, so far this year, weather has accounted for
41 percent of the delays and cancellations. While we can't
control the weather, we can develop and put in place improved
technology, approaches and processes to better deal with severe
weather events.
As we discussed during the Subcommittee hearing in April,
high profile incidents in New York and Dallas and others since
then have also brought attention to long flight delays on the
tarmac and how airline passengers are treated during these
delays. These incidents, while extremely rare, raise important
concerns about how the industry and the FAA can safely and
efficiently operate our National Airspace System.
The first responsibility of government and industry clearly
is the safety of the passenger. Because most of these causes of
long delays, such as weather, are out of human control, it is
important to consider the steps that the industry has and can
take to mitigate the effect of delays on their customers. Over
the last 8 years or so, the Department of Transportation's
Office of the Inspector General has been active in
investigating and evaluating major delay events. As a result of
these efforts, the airline industry has voluntarily adopted
recommendations made by the Inspector General, however in
varying degrees of effectiveness.
Additionally, shortly after the February ice storm incident
in New York, Secretary Peters asked the office of the Inspector
General to review and evaluate the most recent major delays and
report its findings. That report was issued yesterday, and I
look forward to hearing from the Inspector General about both
the findings and recommendations included in the report. The
FAA reauthorization bill passed by the House does include
various airline consumer rights provisions, and I look forward
to working with my colleagues in both the house and in the
Senate to address the issues as we move toward conferencing the
bill.
At the end of the day, major delay events painfully
demonstrate the ever more critical need to modernize the
Nation's Air Traffic Control System. The unfortunate reality is
that long tarmac delays are really just a tip of the iceberg.
With the anticipated growth in operations over the next 10 to
15 years, these type of delays will not be limited to days
where there is severe weather. They might become the norm
rather than the anomaly. Therefore, I believe Congress must
focus its attention on ensuring the transformation of the Air
Traffic Control System. I thank all the witnesses for the
effort that went into their testimony and for appearing here
before the Subcommittee today to share your concerns and your
points of view. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
And at this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member of
the Full Committee and then we'll come to our first panel.
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And I
appreciate your holding this hearing. I Chaired the
Subcommittee for some 6 years, and we faced some of the same
issues that we continue to face with delays. And it is our
responsibility to make certain that people that are trapped on
some of these flights and in fact, I am not sure, can I request
this study? The Secretary did. But I know we requested reports
back, and I have also asked FAA to come up with some sort of a
standard for taking care of passengers who do get stranded for
an inordinate period of time. That is part of our
responsibility.
Let me just make a couple of quick points. We have heard
the Ranking Member mention--we have heard that weather accounts
for 41 percent of the delays. And then I have seen in some of
the air traffic control holds that are placed, about 78 percent
of those are due to weather. So weather plays an important part
in causing these delays. And we don't want a situation like, I
guess, a crash in Thailand during a storm. We want to make
certain that every caution is taken to deal with weather, which
can have a devastating and tragic effect. And we have an
incredible record of safety with the measures that we put in
place.
Sometimes folks are delayed in our system, but we pay close
attention to one of the primary causes of aviation
catastrophes. We do have--we have identified some of the
problems. Some of the problem is Congress and also the
administration in acting. Even with NGATS, the Next Generation
airspace, the highest, best technical equipment, aircraft still
can only be spaced so closely. You can only land so many planes
per hour. And most of the schedules that are developed today in
our high congestion airports and hubs are absolutely maxed out
during maxed times, and stretching some of that out might be
part of the answer. We have given some relief for DOT to act as
an arbiter. In some areas, it has worked well. In Chicago and--
so again, Congress and DOT have the responsibility to deal with
overscheduling.
Let me just say a couple of commonsense things that we can
do. Another one is, I sat on a plane not too long ago for 2
hours in Orlando due to thunderstorms and a storm coming over.
And you learn something new, Mr. Costello, in this business
every day, even with all the information we have. I saw workers
looking out the plane. And the ramp workers were all working,
but the plane that I was on--it happened to be US Air--was not
being serviced. And we sat there and sat there. Then I saw
other planes being loaded, and we sat there.
And I said, well, is this some sort of a work rule for
folks to check in on? I thought maybe this was some labor
negotiated thing that they don't work during this. I found out
that is not the case, that every airline has their own policy.
And that is something else, a commonsense approach that we
could take. Now, what was instituted I am told is because some
ramp workers were killed that work for a particular airline,
each has put in their own rules. But because of liability, in
fact, we have concerns, and they should be addressed. We don't
want anyone in danger. But the lack of some standardization in
this or some backup protection for those who move forward,
keeps planes on the ground and further exacerbates the
situation.
And finally, I was surprised to learn that the Chairman of
the Committee has asked for a holdup on the airspace redesign
in the greater New York area that we have been working on for
10 years. A redesign can result in 20 percent better on time,
particularly with weather. We have waited 10 years, and now we
find that that is being, in fact, delayed again for an
additional look-see at this GAO report. So there are just some
sensible commonsense approaches I think that we can take to
speed up this process and stop the delays. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments.
And at this time, I will introduce our witnesses today on
the first panel. We welcome all of you: Mr. Robert Sturgell,
Bobby Sturgell, who is here, who has been here many times
before, he is the acting administrator, one of many hats that
he has worn over the past few years for the FAA; Mr. D.J.
Gribbin, who is the general counsel for the U.S. Department of
Transportation; the Honorable Calvin Scovel, who is the
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Dr.
Agam Sinha, who is the senior vice president and general
manager for the Center of Advanced Aviation System Development,
MITRE. And I understand that you are here to answer any
questions, Mr. Samuel Podberesky, who is the assistant general
counsel for aviation enforcement. How did I do there on your
name?
Mr. Mr. Podberesky. Close.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MR. D.J.
GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY MR. SAMUEL PODBERESKY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
FOR AVIATION ENFORCEMENT & PROCEEDINGS; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L.
SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; AND AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT, MITRE
Mr. Costello. Close? Okay. Well, the Chair would now
recognize the Honorable Robert Sturgell, the acting
administrator under the 5-minute rule. We would ask--inform all
witnesses that your entire testimony will be submitted for the
record. We would ask you to summarize it so we can have plenty
of time for Members to ask questions.
Mr. Sturgell.
Mr. Sturgell. Good afternoon. And thank you, Chairman
Costello, for the privilege of addressing you, Mr. Petri, and
other Members of the Subcommittee, regarding delays and how
they affect the consumer.
I can understand the frustration of the flying public,
having experienced delays this summer myself. But first and
foremost, the National Airspace System is as safe as it has
ever been. Over the past 20 years, general aviation accidents
have dropped by one-third and commercial aviation itself is in
the golden age of safety. Inefficiencies, delays in particular,
is another matter. More people are flying more than ever and
more smaller planes are carrying them.
Compounding this, the FAA's current system of taxes and
fees provides little incentive to use the airspace efficiently.
Aviation today is a deregulated system where the government
does not create or control airline schedules. The passenger
wants choices, and choices fill up schedules. Competition
created by deregulation has also resulted in lower ticket
prices for the traveling public. But when passengers arrive at
the airport and see that a dozen flights are supposed to leave
all at the same time, they know it is not going to happen.
Commercial traffic has returned in different ways after 9/
11. Delays are up 20 percent since last year and almost 30
percent since the summer of 2000. We have seen dramatic
increases in traffic in several major markets. High performance
business jet traffic has grown rapidly as well, up 43 percent
between 2000 and 2006.
The system is busy. And regrettably, the bad news here is
that delays will likely only get worse. Take-offs and landings
will grow by 1.4 million per year through 2020. And JFK alone,
as the Chairman pointed out, had a 44 percent increase in
activity since 2004. In the summer of 2000, the big delays came
from seven big airports: Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark,
Philadelphia and then Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. These seven
airports at the time accounted for 55 percent of the delays.
Since 2000, operations of these airports have grown an
additional 10 percent, and they now account for 72 percent of
delays systemwide.
With respect to delays, our policy is always to try to grow
capacity and improve efficiency, to reduce delays through
pavement procedures and technology first. And we do that before
interfering in the market. And I want to emphasize that we do
not endorse deregulation. We will do, however, what is
appropriate to make the system operate safely and efficiently.
So, we are taking this issue head on.
For example, airspace delays have become a bigger and
bigger problem in the New York area. And, as you know and
pointed out, we just issued a direct record of decision, a
culmination of more than a decade's worth of work for airspace
redesign in that area. It will reduce delays by 20 percent, and
it is also environmentally friendly, cutting CO-2 emissions by
430,000 pounds per year. We have got a dozen short-term
operational initiatives underway in New York since the
beginning of the year.
I am pleased to say we are installing the ASDE-X system at
JFK by July of 2008. That is a full year ahead of the planned
deployment. And that is going to help us improve safety and
surface traffic management at that airport. Complementing the
airspace redesign is the runway work at Philadelphia. A new
runway in 1999 and a current extension project underway now is
going to cut delays again by another 3 million minutes per
year. I think everyone knows last May we opened a new runway in
Atlanta, the world's busiest airport. The runway commissioning
coincided with airspace redesign that resulted in a 30 percent
increase in capacity. We have a redesign of the airspace effort
underway in Houston. And of course, you know we have imposed
temporary short-term caps at Chicago's O'Hare, which we plan to
lift as they bring on additional capacity.
As we move to the Next Generation, satellite based system,
we are also changing navigation procedures in Atlanta and
around the country to increase efficiency and reduce delays.
Nationally, we have implemented 180 area navigation (RNAV)
procedures for arrivals and departures with 42 more by the end
of the year. It has enabled us to add another 10 arrivals per
day at Hartsfield, Atlanta. That is a big increase, a savings
of $34 million in time and fuel.
The third way to address delays and increase efficiency is
with technology. The problems we see in New York and other
parts of the system are a reflection of the limitation of
today's system of air traffic control. They will only get worse
with time. So, in the longer term, alleviating delays does
require the technological transformation that will come with
NextGen, and it is happening now with things like these RNAV
and RNP procedures.
The larger issue, how it gets paid for, is still in the
balance. With our authorization set to expire shortly, the
forward momentum is in jeopardy, and that is a short-term
issue. In the longer term, I think the failure to link our
revenue with the operating cost may likely put our major
capital programs at risk and perhaps slow down the
implementation. And I am hopeful that we can continue to work
together in the reauthorization process to address these
concerns. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gribbin.
Mr. Gribbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually the
department had a joint statement which actually Mr. Sturgell
delivered.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scovel for his testimony.
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify this afternoon. This hearing is both timely and
important given the record-breaking flight delays,
cancellations and on-board tarmac delays that air travelers
have experienced this year. Based on the first 7 months of the
year, nearly 28 percent of flights were delayed, cancelled or
diverted with airlines' on-time performance at the lowest
percentage, 72 percent, recorded in the last 10 years.
Not only are there more delays, but also longer delay
periods. Of those flights arriving late, passengers experienced
a record-breaking average flight arrival delay of nearly 1
hour. More than 54,000 flights affecting nearly 3.7 million
passengers experienced taxi-in and taxi-out times of 1 to 5
hours or more compared to 45,000 flights for all of peak year
2000. Reduced capacity and increased demand have led to higher
load factors; 71.1 percent in 2000 to 79.7 percent in 2007.
With more seats filled, airlines have fewer options to
accommodate passengers from cancelled flights.
As you know, Secretary Peters has serious concerns about
the airlines' treatment of passengers during extended ground
delays and requested that we examine incidents in which
passengers were stranded on aircraft for extended periods of
time. We issued our report yesterday, which includes a series
of recommendations that the Department, airlines and airports
can take to improve airline customer service.
Today I would like to discuss four key points that would
help to improve airline customer service and minimize long, on-
board delays. First, the airlines should detail their policies
and plans to minimize long, on-board delays and off-load
passengers within certain periods of times and adhere to such
policies.
The American Airlines and JetBlue events of December 29,
2006, and February 14, 2007, respectively, underscored the
importance of improving customer service for passengers who are
stranded on board aircraft for extended periods of time. On
those dates, thousands of passengers experienced long, on-board
delays and, in some cases, for over 9 hours. Although severe
weather was the primary cause of the delays, it was not the
only reason those passengers suffered the experience that they
did. Neither airline had systemwide procedures in place to
mitigate long, on-board delays and off-load passengers within a
certain period of time. In fact, prior to the American Airlines
and JetBlue incidents, only a few airlines had established time
limits on the duration of tarmac delays. Since these incidents,
eight airlines have now set a time limit for delays before
deplaning passengers, but five still have not.
Second, airport operators should become more involved in
contingency planning for extraordinary flight disruptions. Our
examination of 13 airports' contingency plans found that only
two airports have a process for monitoring and mitigating long,
on-board delays. This involves contacting the airline after an
aircraft has remained for 2 hours on the tarmac to request a
plan of action. All airports intervene only upon an airline's
request primarily because they do not have authority to
interfere with a carrier's operations during long, on-board
delays. In our opinion, airport operators need to be become
more involved in contingency planning for extraordinary flight
disruptions.
Third, there are best practices and ongoing initiatives
that, if properly executed, should help to mitigate long, on-
board delays in the short term. During our audit, we found
several practices that airlines and airports are taking to
mitigate the effects of these occurrences. Among others, these
include setting the maximum amount of time that passengers will
remain on board aircraft before deplaning. Also, keeping gate
space available for off-loading passengers in times of
irregular operations. FAA has also taken action to minimize
delays through initiatives such as the Airspace Flow Program.
This initiative gives FAA and the airlines the capability to
maximize the overall use of the NAS while minimizing delays and
congestion. These efforts do not create additional capacity but
rather limit the negative effects of bad weather.
Fourth, DOT, FAA, airlines and airports should complete
actions immediately to improve airline customer service and
minimize long, on-board delays. DOT should take a more active
role in overseeing customer service issues involving long, on-
board delays, and there are actions that the Department, the
airlines, airports and FAA can undertake immediately.
Specifically, first, all airlines should specify the
efforts that will be made to get passengers off aircraft that
are delayed for long periods and incorporate these policies in
their contracts of carriage and post them on their Internet
sites.
Second, airlines should establish specific targets for
reducing chronically delayed or cancelled flights and disclose
on-time flight performance.
Third, large- and medium-hub airport operators should
establish a process for monitoring and mitigating long, on-
board delays that involves contacting the airline to request a
plan of action after an aircraft has remained on the tarmac for
2 hours.
Four, DOT should investigate incidents involving long, on-
board delays and oversee the airlines' policies for dealing
with them.
And five, the airlines, airports and FAA should establish a
task force to develop and coordinate contingency plans to deal
with lengthy delays.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be glad
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
Dr. Sinha.
Mr. Sinha. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Congressman Mica and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
participate in today's hearings on the airline delays and
consumer issues.
Today airlines are transporting more passengers than at any
time in history but operating fewer flights than in 2000. Yet
delays in the system are at an all-time high, up 11 percent as
compared to 2000. This raises the natural question, if
operations are down across the NAS, why are delays up? The
answer to this question is location specific. Operations are
not down everywhere, nor are delays up everywhere.
I think it was mentioned earlier that, in the summer of
2000, of the 45 airports, seven airports, Atlanta, Chicago
O'Hare, Philadelphia, Newark, La Guardia, Houston and Kennedy,
accounted for 55 percent of the delays. Today they account for
72 percent of the delays. If you look at the operations at the
45 airports, operations have decreased by 8 percent while at
these seven airports they have increased by 10 percent. The
biggest bottle necks this summer have been at the three major
New York/New Jersey airports as well as the surrounding
airspace. I think again it was mentioned earlier, Kennedy's
scheduled operations have increased by 44 percent. At JFK, more
efficient procedures have been put in place to make better use
of multiple runway operations thereby increasing the overall
traffic at the airport. If not for these procedural
improvements, delays would have been much worse.
Many improvements have been made in the system since 2000,
which provide significant capacity increases and user benefits
but have not kept pace with the demand at key locations.
Looking to the future, the FAA's report on capacity needs in
the National Airspace Systems takes a systematic look at
current and projected demand and capacity across all airports
and metropolitan areas. The results show that if all planned
improvements are implemented by 2015, six airports and four
metro areas will still have insufficient capacity to meet
projected demand. By 2025, the situation is worse--even with
planned improvements, there are projected to be 14 airports and
eight metro areas that will have capacity constraints.
Looking at potential solutions, NextGen will provide better
navigation, surveillance and information sharing and decision
making than today. Together these capabilities will allow the
separations between aircraft to be reduced safely. This will
allow more aircraft to land and depart per hour, reducing
delays at the majority of the busiest 35 airports in the U.S,
including Atlanta, Kennedy and Newark. Better surveillance and
more automation in the cockpit can reduce the dependencies
between operations on different runways. More precise
navigation will help to reduce the dependencies between
operations at different airports in busy metropolitan areas
such as JFK and La Guardia. NextGen does allow more uses of
existing runways at more than half of the top 35 airports and
might create new opportunities for construction of additional
runways at existing airports because of reduced separation
requirements between runways.
More efficient use of the airspace would also facilitate
greater use of secondary airports in the major metropolitan
areas that might address a lot of the metropolitan area
constraints that are identified in the FAA report. Better
weather data together with cockpit display of traffic
information will reduce traffic disruption due to poor weather
conditions, leading to what are termed equivalent visual
operations in the NextGen concept. We know for example that
today in visual conditions we do not have as much of a problem
as we do in the instrument conditions. So this will allow us to
operate more like visual conditions most of the time.
Movement on the airport surface will be improved through
ASDE-X, ADS-B and cockpit display of traffic information.
Around two-thirds of the top 35 airports are likely to benefit
from improved surface traffic management in terms of improved
safety and reduced fuel consumptions. Further analysis of the
potential benefit of these and other NextGen capabilities at
the Nation's airports is underway. As a step towards NextGen, a
number of technologies and procedures have been demonstrated to
be technically and operationally feasible in both enroute
airspace and in busy terminal areas. These, called performance-
based ATM or PATM capabilities, are currently being
incorporated into FAA's operational evolution partnership for
implementation. Human in the loop validation conducted over the
past 2 years have shown that these concepts are feasible and
provide significant benefits in the controller's capability to
safely handle the expected increase in traffic probably up to
2016 and beyond.
In summary, the answer to the question of why operations
are down and delays are up, is that traffic levels have
increased at the already congested hubs which have little spare
capacity and have decreased at other locations which have more
spare capacity. Local and regional solutions will continue to
be needed to address capacity problems as they emerge; however,
a systemwide approach to solving the Nation's capacity needs is
imperative.
Finally, successful implementation of all the planned
improvements at the airports and in the airspace through
enhanced automation and procedures for both ground systems and
avionics are critical in meeting the demand in the near term
and for 2025 and beyond. This will require full participation
from all stakeholders, the FAA, the customers and the
manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I
would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Doctor. Let me ask--I will begin
with asking a few questions. First, before I do, I think we all
agree that NextGen is needed. Is there any disagreement on the
panel? I think we all agree that NextGen is several years away
and provides no relief or no help in the shortterm. Would we
agree with that? Everyone on the panel? Mr. Sturgell.
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Chairman, I would say that there are
pieces of what will be, you know, the endgame of NextGen that
are already being implemented. I mean, the move to a satellite-
based navigation system, RNAV procedures, area navigation and
RNP procedures are all about satellite-based navigation and
taking advantage of what is in the airplane. So I think there
are some things that are being implemented now that are not
necessarily several years down the road.
Mr. Costello. And I understand that. But for clarification
for those who are here and those who may be listening, give us
an example of what is happening now. ADS-B, whatever it may be,
that will provide relief in the short term. We have gone
through the worst summer of delays we have experienced since
BTS has been keeping statistics. We are about to get the summer
behind us, but we are going to move into the holiday season
now. So my question--what I am trying to establish, number one,
is we all agree that the technology needs to be updated and
changed. We all agree that NextGen needs to happen. That is the
reason why, in the House bill that we passed, we provide over 1
billion more than the administration requested over a 4-year
period to accelerate NextGen. But we are talking about short-
term solutions here, addressing the problem at hand, and you
know, I don't want to build false expectations out there with
the traveling public that, hey, the FAA is going to go out and
buy something that is on a shelf someplace, implement it and it
is going to help us by September--the end of September or when
we get into the holiday season, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Isn't it a fact that what we are doing with NextGen will not
provide relief between now and the end of the year?
Mr. Sturgell. Probably not to the level we would like,
given the delays and particularly for the New York area. I
mean, we do have RNP procedures in New York in those 3
airports. We are implementing more of those during the coming
year, and I do think that they are very important. At Atlanta,
we are getting 10 to 11 more arrivals per hour, more departures
per hour, and in Dallas, depending on the configuration. That
is a huge capacity increase at some of these airports.
Mr. Costello. There is no question that there is relief
coming in the long term, but that does not help the people who
will be traveling over the holiday season. What I am trying to
communicate to them and get everyone to understand is, what are
we doing short term, and then what are we doing long term? We
understand what the long-term benefits are of NextGen, and we
understand that there are steps in between from where we are
today and when we complete NextGen. And those--all of those
steps are progress in the right direction. But I would ask Mr.
Scovel the same question. Do you see anything that the FAA is
doing in moving toward NextGen that will provide short-term
relief to the delays in the congestion that we have short-term,
meaning between now and between the end of the holiday,
December 31st of this year?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Sturgell
was correct when he cites RNAV and RNP as very short-term
initiatives that are in place in specific locations that can
help the delay problem in those locations. I think when you
mention the need to set realistic expectations, you are
absolutely correct. And I think it is also important to note
that those expectations need to be framed in terms of
systemwide improvements. While local geographic improvements
can certainly be obtained. Systemwide improvements are what
is--makes long-term NextGen most important, certainly to the
Congress, to the Department and to the traveling public. A
moment ago, sir, you mentioned ADS-B; it is probably a good
case in point. It is common knowledge that FAA recently let a
contract for $1.8 billion for ADS-B. The infrastructure will be
put in place between now and 2013. At that point, users will
equip their aircraft with the technology that is required to
take advantage of that, and they have until 2020 to make that
change, and it will be at the cost of billions of dollars for
the airlines. So it is a huge investment.
Even when we get to 2020, only a part of the full capacity
enhancements of ADS-B will be available because, at that point,
it is ADS-B Out rather than ADS-B In. I am not a technician,
but I can explain in layman's terms what those mean. But the
bottom-line is, that even in 2020, not all of the full
capabilities of ADS-B will be realized.
Mr. Costello. Dr. Sinha, let me ask you. You say in your
written testimony--and I quote--scheduled demand at Kennedy has
increased rapidly since June of 2006 as Delta and JetBlue have
developed their hub operations. Would you please elaborate on
that and talk precisely about what Delta and JetBlue have done
at JFK in the last few years?
Mr. Sinha. I think what we have been seeing when we look at
the data is, it is not so much over the long run, but it is,
like, starting from maybe early part of 2006 through 2007.
JetBlue had operations, something in the order of 265, 247,
262, in that range daily. But now, today, if you look at this
July, August, September, it is 358, 364, 336. That is a
significant increase in the daily operations.
If you look at Delta, they were going through some
restructuring of the routes in the January through May or June
of 2006, and their operations were in the range of 180 to 190
operations per day. Today they are at 368, 372, 373, 349. That
is what we mean by what has happened in terms of them
increasing their operations. Now, how much of it is free-market
competition? You can judge for yourself.
Mr. Costello. And it is called competition, right? Okay.
Mr. Sturgell, and again, this will be my last question. I have
other Members, and then I will come back.
Mr. Sturgell, I applauded the administrator for her
comments concerning scheduling. It is a concern that I have had
for sometime. We have looked at scheduling. We have sat down
with some of your people in the FAA, some of the air traffic
controllers. And there is no question in my mind that there is
evidence that scheduling during peak periods at certain
airports, JFK being one, that there are more flights scheduled
at certain time periods than the system can possibly handle. So
I was pleased when the administrator acknowledged that. I only
wish that we would have focused on that back in January or
February so we could have done something about the travel
season this summer as opposed to concentrating on next summer.
However, I am pleased that that action is being taken, and I am
pleased with your decision or whoever made the decision to tell
the airlines that you want to see the schedules in advance
beginning in March of 2008. So in reading the notice that went
out to the airlines, it is pretty specific. And it seems to me
that you believe the FAA believes that there are scheduling
problems at JFK specifically that has caused delays. Is that a
correct assumption?
Mr. Sturgell. Yeah. We are looking very closely at the
scheduling in the New York major airports as you mentioned.
There are some hours that are above the peak hours in those
airports.
Mr. Costello. But the answer is yes. You have looked, there
is evidence in your opinion that there are some scheduling
problems, and that is obviously why you have taken this action?
Mr. Sturgell. We have asked for the schedules, we have. You
know, it has obviously been a problem. Again, there are some
parts of the schedule that are above what we believe that
airport can handle. But in addition to the schedules, there is
a whole range of things we have been looking at, you know,
since the beginning of the year. And I know we have talked
about some of the operational things. We've met with the
airlines and the Port Authority, since about February of this
year, and we have been working to implement to help bring
relief to that area. And scheduling, of course, is one of, you
know, the many things we are looking at very, very closely.
Mr. Costello. The last question now before I turn it over
to the Ranking Member, is that--and I will come back to ask a
few more questions when we are finished with Members asking
questions. At this point, can you give any assurance to the
traveling public that nonweather-related delays, nonweather-
related--you have no control over weather delays, that the FAA,
that you are taking measures to reduce delays during the
holiday season and the short-term.
Mr. Sturgell. We are taking measures to address those
delays and specifically for the New York area. Some of the
early things we can do in the airspace redesign is what are
called fanned departures off of the runways at the airports up
there, specifically Philadelphia, Newark and then there is a
new procedure for right turn out of JFK when departing to the
northwest. The benefit is probably one to three an hour, in
terms of operations that you can add to the system, and it
doesn't sound like much, but it will be an impact if we can
move forward with that.
Mr. Costello. I thank you, and I will come back shortly.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I see that the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr.
Oberstar, is here and may want to participate, and I know that
the senior Republican of the Committee, Mr. Mica, has several
questions, and I would yield my time to him.
Mr. Mica. Okay. I think everyone agrees NGATS is not going
to be instituted or any parts of it really to deal with the
delays. So we have got two issues here: We have got the problem
of the delays, and then we have got the problem of dealing with
people who are held captive on planes for extended periods of
time. I have got a copy of my letter, April 19th, Mr. Sturgell,
to the Secretary. The second paragraph: I respectfully request
FAA develop a policy to determine acceptable procedures for
extraordinary flight delays, particularly when health, life,
safety of passengers are at risk.
Now, the Secretary sent me back a reply in May and said
that she was waiting on the IG's report, which was expected
later this summer. Now we get it in the fall today here. IG,
you have recommended that the Secretary should define what
constitutes an extended period of time. Do we have that, Mr.
Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Mica----
Mr. Mica. You just got the report.
Mr. Sturgell. Right. Just got the report and on behalf of
the Secretary, I do want to publicly thank the Inspector
General for the report. She did ask for that report to be
developed. She has also had a senior task group working on
these issues.
Mr. Mica. This is April 19th. This is the 23rd. To get this
thing rolling to make certain the people are protected on a
plane, when can I find out when she is going to have that, a
week, a month, a year? I mean, just something for the record.
You don't know? Okay. Because we can't deal with the issue of
taking care of passengers who are stranded. And the other thing
it says, the Secretary should direct the Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings to ensure airlines comply with
their public policies governing long--so we are asking the
airlines to develop that, and then you enforce it. But I am not
sure that is what I asked for. I asked for FAA to come up with
some standard. I mean, it is nice to have the airlines and then
use them as the fall guy all the time.
I asked for FAA to come up with something, and that is what
I think we need. Our responsibility is life, health, safety.
Okay. We have identified there are seven airports that account
for 70 some percent of the delays, right? JFK, Newark, La
Guardia, all in the same area. O'Hare, we are doing a massive
redesign of the runways. That will help some. I know
Philadelphia we have done an extension. Is Atlanta down? We
just finished that runway. Is Atlanta one of the ones down? Did
anyone find that? It isn't down? We just added that runway
capacity.
Mr. Sinha. It is Houston--Houston is the other one.
Mr. Mica. But I am getting to----
Mr. Sinha. Atlanta is on the list.
Mr. Mica. It is on the list. Okay. My point is, some places
we can add capacity; some we are adding it, and some we've
added it. So that should help a little bit. With weather, it is
still tough because you can only land so many planes. My point
here is JFK, Newark, La Guardia probably result in the bulk of
the delays. Wouldn't that be the case? I mean, those three in
that airspace. Now, the last point I made when I came to make
my little opening statement was that the airspace redesign can
result, I was told, in a 20 percent expansion of our capacity
and capability to handle aircraft and would lessen delays by
about that percent. Is that agreed, Mr.--I see a yes. Is that
yes? No?
Mr. Scovel. Ballpark, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Okay. So again, some of this isn't rocket
science. But the airspace redesign which we have been waiting
on 10 years--we had an overwhelming vote in Congress. We had
Republicans and Democrats. We all said, go forward with that
northeast quarter, and that would help us. Now, I am told the
GAO report might have to be interspersed here according to what
the Chairman has asked for, and I don't know that to even be
the case, which would further delay that. Is that the case? Is
there any impediment that you know, Mr. Sturgell, that will
stop us from doing the New York airspace redesign?
Mr. Sturgell. We have not received anything formally asking
us to stop the----
Mr. Mica. So that can go forward and that--if that goes
forward on an expedited basis, then we could expect, Mr.
Scovel, some improvement in delays?
Mr. Scovel. There certainly would be improvement, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Costello. I would ask the gentleman to yield. I think
everyone expects that the airspace redesign as proposed by the
FAA for the New York airspace, that it will end up in court,
that there will be litigation. So, I mean, I don't think there
is any question. I have been out to Philadelphia, and I have
attended a town meeting, and there is no question that everyone
expects that a lawsuit will be filed. So, from the standpoint
of expediting it, there are those of us who would like to see
that happen. But I think, realistically, we are in for some
litigation, which is going to take some time to reach a court
decision.
Mr. Mica. Again, I have been to hearings and meetings in
Connecticut and the northeast and Philadelphia and New Jersey,
and it goes on and on. My point here is, I don't want anything
to stand--I mean, this isn't rocket science. We can tell where
the planes are being delayed. They just testified to it. If we
can move them in the northeast quarter. If we have to put
something that puts--that jams that threw. We just had an
overwhelming vote in Congress. But we need to get that airspace
redesign--it is not like redesigning a highway since 1980. And
those are our airways, and we can't move planes through. That
is in the optimum condition. So stop blaming the airlines and
let us take the responsibility for government not putting in
place--stop blaming air traffic controllers who do their job.
We have the ability to move this forward and we should. Thank
you. Yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair would note that Mr. Petri has
exceeded his time by 1 minute. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sturgell, in your
testimony on Page 9, you say we encourage our friends in the
airline industry to re-assess their scheduling with an eye
towards relieving some strain on the system. You have asked for
them to start providing schedules in March. What are you going
to do with those schedules?
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. DeFazio, along those lines, the airlines,
we have worked with them at location-specific airports as well
as broadly. And, I would point out a couple of successes of
voluntary efforts in that regard.
Mr. DeFazio. How many failures do we have? We have lengthy
testimony from the air traffic controllers documenting a large
number of airports where we have scheduled more aircraft to
take off during a given number of hours than could possibly
take off on the best day in history, let alone any
insignificant limitation due to weather.
Mr. Sturgell. In the examples of places like Dallas, Fort
Worth and Atlanta, the airlines voluntarily de----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. When you have passengers all across
America, who are being given phony schedules as Mr. May says in
his testimony, people like frequent departures so the airlines
schedule them. In the case of Eugene, Oregon, where I live,
United schedules a lot of departures. And as soon as San
Francisco gets limited, which it is 30 percent of the time,
they just cancel or delay all those flights. Yeah,
theoretically, we are going to leave. If you are a business
traveler, you know it is a joke to have a ticket on United to
San Francisco because they are just going to bump your flight
and bring in the long-range flights. They are overscheduling
the airport, you know, given the normal conditions at San
Francisco. That is repeated at other airports throughout the
system. So there may be a few voluntary success stories on the
part of the industry, but you are a regulatory and a safety
agency.
So, my question is, what are you going to do with the
schedule--when they give you schedules in March that show they
have scheduled more departures at a number of airports than can
take off during a given number of consecutive hours on the best
day in history, what are you going to do about it? What are you
going to do at that point? That is the question.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, addressing scheduling is one of many
things----
Mr. DeFazio. I know. I am just trying to deal with one real
simple factor. We are scheduling more planes to take off and
land than can physically take off and land. We are allowing
this to go forward. We are saying the market will control it.
The market doesn't control it because the airlines aren't going
to give up their slots because their passengers might go on
someone else that gives them a fake schedule. The passengers
aren't informed that you are booking a flight for an hour that
is overbooked. There will be some planes delayed during that
hour. What are you going to do when you get the schedules that
they will propose for next summer if they don't voluntarily
adhere to the minimum or the maximum number of flights on an
hourly basis? What actions do you intend to take as a safety
and regulatory agency with those reports?
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. DeFazio, we will always ensure the safety
of the system. But, you know, it is airport, it is airline
specific. If there are things we can do to address that
schedule through procedures or new runways that are coming in--
--
Mr. DeFazio. I am just saying in March when they give you
the schedules for next summer, and we can't build the new
runways by next summer, we are not going to change the system
dramatically by next summer, when we have done everything we
can do to tweak it, when you know that they have booked more
flights during given hours to take off than can take off during
the best day in history at certain airports, what are we going
to do about that? How are we going to get back to a number that
is just realistic in terms of the best day in history, let
alone the inevitable problems that might result? What are we
going to do at that point? I am just asking about a little part
of the problem but one that is very frustrating to travelers
and is repeated time and time again. What are you going to do
when they give you numbers that show they have scheduled more
flights than can take off, are you going to somehow say, no, we
have got to cut this back to the theoretical capacity of the
airport and somehow get there?
Mr. Sturgell. I will use Chicago O'Hare as an example. We
worked with those airlines there, the two major carriers
voluntarily, voluntarily, and achieved a reduction.
Mr. DeFazio. So your plan is, in March, when you find
overscheduling at seven or ten or twelve airports around the
country, you will bring in all the airlines for voluntary
meetings to talk about voluntarily changing the schedules. I
mean, I just had a very disturbing meeting with the head of the
San Francisco airport yesterday. He said they are heading
towards dramatic problems 30 percent of the time. As the
airport director, there is nothing he can do about it, and he
is hoping someone, somewhere in the system will do something.
So I am asking you, is there--at that point, if they won't
voluntarily do something, what can we do? Could we impose a
congestion tax? Could we at least inform consumers that those
hours are overbooked, and their flights are likely to be
delayed if we are going to have market forces prevail?
Mr. Sturgell. Market forces in terms of congestion,
management and pricing, we would like to have that option. And,
it is one of the options we proposed in our reauthorization
proposal.
Mr. DeFazio. I am talking about hours that are overbooked.
If we said this hour is overbooked, if a commercial airline
wants to book that hour, are they going to pay a special fee
because it is overbooked.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, we are certainly interested in
congestion pricing. And we would willingly work with the
Congress as our bills go forward.
Mr. DeFazio. I am still not clear. I am over my time, but
it is still not clear. So, in March, just to wrap it up, when
you see that a number of airports are overbooked for departures
and arrivals, you are going to call in the airlines that
operate at those airports and ask them to voluntarily get it
down to at least the theoretical capacity of the airport.
Mr. Sturgell. Again, going back to O'Hare, we got
voluntarily reductions. In the end, they were not enough. We
did a short-term scheduling reduction while we had capacity
improvements coming on line. If we can get new runways built,
if we can get procedures changed and operational improvements,
that should be the goal.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. We have long-term goals, but I am just
saying--I am just talking about a very small part of the
problem. I recognize all those other concerns. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. Let me just make note,
Mr. Sturgell, that the airlines in 1999 said that they would
voluntarily implement what we know today is a passenger bill of
rights. It didn't happen. It is one of the reasons why we
have--we were here today, one of the reasons we put a section
in the FAA re-authorization dealing with those issues. I think
this is a simple question that Mr. DeFazio is asking, and the
question is simply this: If the airlines do with scheduling
like they did with the passenger bill of rights on a voluntary
basis and they do not scale back their operations when there is
evidence at JFK or any other hub in the Nation, will the FAA
take action? I know that you are going to meet with them. I
know that you are going to talk about scheduling. I know that
you are going to encourage them to take a look at scheduling
and pull back when they schedule too many flights. But the
question is, if they do not voluntarily act, will the FAA step
in and act and force them to, as you did in Chicago, as you did
in La Guardia, as you did at Reagan National Airport?
Mr. Sturgell. It is one of the options that is available to
us.
Mr. Costello. I know it is one of the options, but that is
not the question.
Mr. Costello. That is when people are cynical about
government. Of course, it is one of the options. There are a
lot of other options, but it is a simple question. I understand
you are Acting Administrator, and we are not here to beat you
up. I mean it is pretty simple.
If they do not act, are you going to?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, we have used that authority, as you
pointed out, in Chicago. So it is an option, you know, and we
have used that authority, the authority we got in the last
bill.
Mr. Costello. So that is a "maybe"?
Mr. Sturgell. At this time, like I said, there are ongoing
things we are working to implement both from the FAA
perspective and with the airlines at these, you know, congested
airports, specifically in New York.
Mr. Costello. You probably just answered the question that
some people have when they say, "Why does the government step
in and mandate an agency to do something?" it is because the
answer in this case, for instance, is, well, maybe we will;
maybe we will not. I mean it is in the interest of the
traveling public that we, in fact, take action, and if you are
not willing to take it at the FAA, then we have to legislate
it. With that----
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman of
the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. I was following up on your question, Mr.
Sturgell, and it at least goes to the heart of one of the
issues of this very complex nexus, and the greatest risk we
face is oversimplifying the delay issue and saying, "Oh, it is
here. Oh, it is there. Oh, it is something else."
If it were rocket science, as Mr. Mica was suggesting, it
would be easier, frankly. Rocket science obeys specific laws of
physics, which, when put in place, get our spacecraft up in the
air and bring them down within fractions of a second. This is
not rocket science. It is far more complicated, but the
question that, I think, Mr. Costello was posing is do you have
authority under existing law to order reductions in schedules
if those schedules exceed the capacity and if the excess is
having regional or national effect. If the answer to the
question is you do and you use that authority at Chicago's
O'Hare, can it also be extended to the New York region as well?
Mr. Sturgell. So we do have that authority, as you pointed
out, and it is available wherever we see that kind of problem.
Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, it is complicated. It is
not easy. The system, itself--you know, you have many times
eloquently talked about how complex our national airspace
system is. When we talk about scheduling 1 hour of peak
overscheduling, when there is a recovery period after that, it
does not really make a case for moving in and capping an
airport. So we see those situations at various airports around
the country. There are only very few airports where it is a
problem the entire day where there is no recovery. You know,
some of the things--I keep hedging a little bit. It is an
option. We are looking at it. It is definitely all of that. You
know, there is also an impact when you do that, and it is that
there could, perhaps, be a tendency to lose service to small
communities, which I know is very important. It takes away any
incentive to improve capacity in either that particular airport
or in the region. Folks get happy with the status quo, and with
the economic engine that the aviation industry is and with the
benefits to the traveling public, I just think, you know, it is
a tough situation, and we have to consider thoroughly all of
what is available to us before making those kinds of----
Mr. Oberstar. If the Chairman and the other Members will
indulge me further, to say, "oh, well, it is not an airline
problem" or "oh, it is not an air traffic controller problem,
but it is an FAA problem," that does a disservice to everybody.
We are all in this together. It is a three-legged stool; it is
airport capacity; it is air traffic control technology, and it
is airline scheduling.
Now, in the southern California TRACON, you have 2.4
million operations a year. That is 50 percent more than the
entire Paris regional in all of northern France, Belgium and
the Netherlands combined. The New York TRACON and the southern
California TRACON handle more air operations than all of Europe
combined. The New York TRACON handles operations for 45
airports, four of which are within 10 miles of each other, one
of which has two runways, 10,000 feet roughly at EWR Newark,
and has a 900-foot separation.
So the least bit of inclement weather means you are down to
one runway, a little more weather and that one runway is down
to 5-mile spacing. It is not simple. You understand that. That
is why you have this East Coast plan. Whatever you shift in one
area has an effect and a consequence on another. I get
impatient with those who want to oversimplify and thereby
denigrate the participants in this issue.
At JFK, you have capacity in the morning because it is an
afternoon arrival-dependent airport with internationals coming
in. If there are delays at La Guardia, the effect spreads
across the entire United States and the entire rest of the East
Coast. Continental at Newark will not give up a single slot
until--it may have 55 percent of the operations there, but they
will not give up a single slot until another airline says, "We
will do the same."
We met this issue at DFW when 5 or 6 years ago there was a
hearing in this Committee, and I think it was Mr. Duncan who
was Chairing the hearing at the time, and they had 57
departures all scheduled at 7:00 a.m. Now, they have three air
traffic control towers at DFW, and they cannot release 57
aircraft at 7:00 a.m. We know that. Now, it is the one
authority the FAA has to bring those carriers together and to
work on filling in the valleys, the slow times of the day,
spreading it out so that all of the carriers accept some of
that burden and lowering the peaks so that you have more
dependable arrival and departure patterns instead of airlines
scheduling flights at 7:00 a.m. that do not take off until a
quarter to 8:00 and asking the passengers to buy into the lie.
Now, the nexus of this issue is evening out the flow, and
you have a study underway. GAO has a review. The IG has a
review underway. All we need is for all of you to accelerate
work on those studies and to get them done as quickly as
possible, review, have public understanding of and input into,
and then move ahead with implementation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I appreciate the
indulgence.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the Full
Committee and recognizes Mr. Petri at this time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.
One, I do not know, Mr. Sturgell or Mr. Scovel, if I can
put this into context, but in preparing for this, we indicated
that some 41 percent of the delays in the system, roughly, are
due to weather conditions.
Do you have an idea of what percentage of the delays
overall are probably due to scheduling inspired congestion
because of overscheduling? How big a problem is this particular
phenomenon of all of the airlines wanting to have a flight when
the public wants to travel, obviously?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes. I do not have that information today,
Mr. Petri. It is obviously something we will try and put
together for the Committee. Again, you know, it depends whether
there are slower periods after peak volumes, how long the delay
is and how lengthy the delay is, you know, and I certainly
appreciate the frustration that has gone on with these chronic
delays, and it is something that the Department's enforcement
folks have been pursuing for a couple of months now. I just
want to put up one thing on the weather side that you
mentioned, though.
These are weather trends that specifically go to New York,
and I think, as you look at the graph, the trend in weather
from last year to this year has gotten a little worse broadly
across the NAS. We have had problems in particular areas.
Dallas-Fort Worth, for example, has had some severe
thunderstorms in the summer months as have a few other pockets
around the country, but the trend line for New York, as you can
see, has been very, very severe from 2006 to 2007. You know,
while the BTS statistics from the Department show 40 some
percent, our OPSNET delays, which are really focused on the air
traffic system performance, show weather delays running at
about 70 percent.
So, when Chairman Oberstar talks about things like how
close the runways are together and what happens when the
weather comes down, yes, it has an impact on the capacity and
on the efficiency at the airport. Again, going back to RNP and
some other things we are trying to do with systems like
Precision Runway Monitor, we are trying to move to have VMC
arrival rates during, you know, IMC conditions. That is the
direction the agency is moving in terms of throughput through
the system, and certainly, the NextGen weather programs will
help us along that line. Specifically for this summer and for
New York in particular, it has been very tough.
Mr. Petri. The general aviation community has said that--
they indicate that there has been a decrease in the number of
general aviation flights between 2000 and today, and yet, the
agency says that the general aviation community continues to be
a contributing factor to delays and congestion now. Could you
explain that?
Mr. Sturgell. You know, this is where you need to
thoroughly look at the data and what types of data you are
looking at. The business jet community is definitely growing
very substantially. Overall, though, general aviation
operations--piston and everybody else--is down some 17 percent
from where it was several years ago. You know, it is really
from the aircraft on the general aviation side, the high-
performance flyers, that get up into the system, that take up
space where we have the commercial aircraft flying as well, and
then you look at particular airports and particular regions.
The New York TRACON handles well over 100 airports. It has got
a fair amount of general aviation traffic as a TRACON. Now, at
the individual airport at La Guardia, for example, we hold six
unscheduled slots, you know. So it is not a lot, but it is six,
you know, and in a place like La Guardia, it matters. So it
depends on how you dissect the data to reach the various
conclusions and statements.
Mr. Petri. Just finally, earlier, Mr. Forrey, from NATCA
indicated that one contributor to--he thought there were clear
links between controller understaffing and delays in the
system. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, I think we have our workforce plan that
we have been working off of for several years now. I am very
confident we are going to hit the number again at the end of
the month here with 14,807 controllers, and we are going to see
that, by a fair amount, is the way things are shaping up this
week. That is a net gain of 200 controllers over last year. So,
I think the system is staffing well.
Again, Jerry, if you have got--we have got a chart that
shows operations per controller. You know, if you look at all
of the broad measures, overtime is running about 1.6 percent;
the time-on position is running about 5 hours and 1 minute, a
little bit less on the en route side, a little bit higher on
the terminal side for operations per controller. If you go back
to 1999 and 2000, we are still, today, handling less operations
per controller than we were in 1999 and 2000.
So, I think the broad measures all show that we are staffed
and that we are staffed adequately. There are only so many
positions for a specific facility that you need to staff, and
again, we are working off of our workforce plan. You know, do
we have some facilities where it is a bigger issue and a focus
for it? Sure, but overall, I think we are where we need to be
in terms of staffing with the controller workforce.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes now the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday, in Memphis, there was an unfortunate incident
where the air traffic control facility went down for about 2-1/
2 hours. The reportage that I have read about the problem was
that it was a Bell South, or now AT&T, problem and that our air
traffic control folk in that part of the country did an
admirable job, a commendable job, in fact, in maintaining
safety, which could have been jeopardized.
Does this incident, Mr. Administrator, indicate to you that
there is a need for more backup systems or more security? This
was not a security problem, but do we have security at the
telephone facilities that, if they were struck, could destroy
our capacity to have an air transportation system?
Mr. Sturgell. It was a very significant outage for us, as
you pointed out. You know, we are still investigating, but at
this point it is a Bell South-AT&T problem, and of course we
will be, you know, discussing this with them, as we have been
since it occurred, to figure out what the problem was and
whether our system should be routed differently at this
location and at other places to ensure more redundancy or
better reliability.
I would point out that, overall, system outages only
account for about 1.1 percent of delays, and you know, we are
running well over 99 percent in terms of our availability for
NAS equipment, but as you pointed out, you know, there were
several hundred delays, and we had about 200 aircraft, I think,
in that airspace at the time. The controllers did a tremendous
job. We do not see any, at this point, safety issues in terms
of separation losses. We are continuing the analysis. We are
also looking at things about what kind of additional things we
should be providing the workforce at facilities, you know, like
cell phones, just like we did when we looked at the weather
radio issue.
Mr. Cohen. Do you have anything to do--are you the person
or is it your office that negotiates with the air traffic
controllers for their contract?
Mr. Sturgell. Are you talking about the contract towers or
are you talking about the FAA employee towers?
Mr. Cohen. Either.
Mr. Sturgell. Either one? Yes, we have departments within
the organization that handle negotiating those salaries and
those programs.
Mr. Cohen. Doesn't this situation yesterday where human,
really, heroism to some extent but ingenuity probably saved us
from having an accident in the skies indicate how important it
is to have experienced air traffic controllers and to have a
labor mechanism that provides for the retention of the
experienced and skilled people who we depended on yesterday to
save us from a tragedy?
Mr. Sturgell. Again, our controllers did a great job in
handling that event yesterday, no question about it.
Mr. Cohen. And I hope our administrators do a great job in
appreciating them and in negotiating with them and in seeing
that they stay on the job.
Mr. Sturgell. Fair enough.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
Let me ask you this about regional jets. There has been
some issue and a lot of studies recently about regional jets
being a cause of some of our delays. We have got more smaller
planes and all of them flying with less passengers and taking
up the same amount of space and the same amount of time for the
air traffic controllers.
What is your opinion about regional jets and the problems
they are causing the American flying public?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, again, the regional jet industry has
really taken off, and I think----
Mr. Cohen. No pun intended, right?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes, exactly. I think, overall, it is the
result of, you know, the operators responding to passenger
needs and wants, and it has proved to be a great business tool
and a great thing for the traveling public.
With respect to how it impacts the system, I mean, I think,
largely these planes have been replacing smaller turboprops,
and that does a couple of things. Specifically, the turboprops
generally flew below what would be the typical high-altitude
environment for your commercial operators. The RJs have the
capability to do that. So, to some extent, they are up there
adding to the higher altitude level traffic.
Mr. Cohen. We are running out of time.
As they are adding to the traffic, they are causing part of
the delays, right? So they are not necessarily conveniencing
the public. Are they not a part of the delay problem? Let us
say, if we had fewer planes, fewer scheduled flights and more
people per plane, wouldn't we have the likelihood of less
delays?
Mr. Sturgell. I think, obviously, with fewer planes, there
would probably be fewer delays overall. Again, it depends on
where those planes are going and whether they are all going at
the same time or at different times, that kind of thing.
The other problems it presents to us is that, at some
runways in the system, we had shorter runways where turboprops
could land. RJs tend to take up larger landing distances, so
there is, you know, the impact that they need longer runways
and might not be able to use these off-load runways that the
turboprops used to use.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure where to begin after listening. My first
suggestion would be all of the different people who are blaming
each other for all of the problems come to the table again very
shortly with a list of suggestions of how "they" the airline,
"they" the FAA, "they" the controllers could improve the system
from their point of view.
It is frustrating for us and for the people at home to
listen to what is being said here. The FAA can shut down. They
can control. They can do all kinds of things. If there is a
golf tournament or a national Republican-Democrat convention
you take over, but I am not sure that is what we want to do,
and I understand your frustration in trying to answer that. Let
us put that aside for a minute.
If the Chairman would agree, I would sure like to have, as
soon as possible, those of you involved come back and say,
"Well, here is what we can do." The airlines are overscheduled
like crazy. They do not have enough equipment to absorb a
system delay when weather hits in one spot, and people who are
inconvenienced and put at risk are sick and tired of that, and
for the airlines to blame general aviation and other bogus
straw men is just terrible. It just does not help the
discussion.
I want to switch a minute, Mr. Chairman, to the Next
Generation Air Traffic Control, ADS-B. As I have spent a lot of
time looking into that from my perspective as a pilot, there is
a tremendous, a tremendous benefit waiting to be utilized by
all sectors of aviation. It is not expensive, but we have not
done a decent job of selling it to the public.
Now, Mr. Scovel, you pointed out some very pertinent facts.
I will disagree with the one you said that it will not cost the
airlines billions of dollars to equip; it will cost thousands
of dollars to equip, but everybody using the system needs to be
encouraged to take advantage, and the FAA has done a fabulous
job in Alaska, putting a system in place, developing it and
using it. We need to really get on the ball and move down the
track with that, but the public will not be confused. That is
not going to eliminate the congestion problem.
RVSM--we like to throw acronyms around--that has doubled
the airspace above 29,000 feet. Again, there is only so much we
can do. I would love to see the Northeast corridor and other
congested area develop new plans, but we have reached the point
of diminishing returns. Dan is a pilot. He is looking at me,
shaking his head, and he is right. There are so many things we
can do and not do with SIDS and stars. You know, our NAB has
come and gone. I just wish that we would move forward and let
people know what is available to us and what is realistic.
We can stop the delay problem by slowing down the
overinsertion of airplanes into the system. Mr. Cohen mentioned
regional jets. That has been a boon to hub and spoke
operations, but those are the, quote, "business jets" that are
punching the extra holes in the sky.
Mr. Chairman, I am having trouble developing a question in
all of this, but again, I would hope the people who are here
who have the answers, from their perspective, if they would
clean up their own little place of business and come back and
say, "well, we can do this" and somebody else says, "well, we
can do that," then we could begin to see some significant
progress.
Dr. Sinha, you have studied the thing from one end to the
other. What does MITRE think about how we can develop a more
cooperative attitude, a cooperative, collaborative whatever, to
get the problem moving and the public seeing that we are not
only talking about it but doing something about it?
Mr. Sinha. Well, the kind of collaboration that we are
talking about really boils down to people problems. So, I mean,
the way you framed it, sir, you know, by what does each party
bring to the table; most of the times we end up in a situation
that I will bring something to the table if my competitor does
it, too.
The question is how do you get past that knot that says
that it has got to be a joint action by a number of people.
In fact, theoretically, there has been lots of work done in
game theory which relates to things like this when one set of
people are playing games versus the other, and I do not think
all of the great minds who have worked on that have really
found an answer. So that is the best answer I can give you.
Mr. Hayes. Back to the airlines, the FAA does not have any
compensation right now that I know of, but again, I would sure
encourage everybody here on this Committee that the Chairman
and others are anxious to give a better product and to maintain
the highest level of safety.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to, I guess,
expend, but hopefully it will be helpful.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Boston, Mr.
Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hayes, you may think you vented. Watch this.
Mr. Sturgell, you say you have the power. Tell me why you
will not just do it.
Mr. Sturgell. Because there are other things we are working
on that will help alleviate the problem.
Mr. Capuano. Well, that really, really helps me while I am
sitting there waiting for plane that is stuck at La Guardia.
You talk about recovery time. What about my recovery time and
that of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who waste hour
upon hour sitting in an airport waiting for a plane that never
comes?
Now, I should not complain, because the airline I fly just
fixed the whole problem. They now list the flight to Boston as
an hour and 20 minutes instead of 65 minutes. I do not think
Boston has moved further away from Washington than it was last
week, but at least they are telling the truth a little bit
more, a little bit more.
I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I understand you
are Acting Director, and to some degree, I am sorry to take it
out on you but you are the guy today. It is more directed to
the FAA than to you, personally, and whoever comes into your
place, whoever it is, I hope they are listening. You are
embarrassing all of us here. Your agency's failure to act is an
embarrassment. It is hurting the American business--the
American economy, the American business flyers--and your
failure to act and to study the issue has no reasoning to me.
Why can't you take something and try it in one airport? Go
to La Guardia and say, "You do one thing." Go to Atlanta and
say, "You do one thing." If the airlines do not help you--look,
competition is competition. You might have missed it, but the
free market is not working on this issue. You are a regulatory
agency as well, and if the free market does not work, it is
your responsibility, your obligation as far as I see it, to
take some action. To tell me to wait for 15 years or to tell me
that we have an overbooking of 20 flights an hour and you want
to deal with one to three, that is not an answer, and if you
think that America is not angry, travel with me. I would love
to have you sitting next to me on the plane, so when people
come up to me and say, "Congressman, why aren't you doing
anything?" I can say, "Hey, he is the guy. Talk to him."
Explain it to them that you are studying the issue. It is not
an answer. It is an excuse to kick the can down the street.
Now, I am not asking you to have an exact answer on every
issue. I know it is complicated. There is nothing simple in
this world that I am aware of, but to fail to try to do
anything is an abrogation of your responsibilities and your
duties. I do not mean to pick out you individually, but you are
the FAA today. I am speaking to the entire FAA. If you try
something and it does not work, stop it and try something new
or if you try something and the airlines come back and say,
"Hey, we have a better idea," fine. Stop what you are doing and
try that. Every flying member of this public knows that what
you are doing now is not working, and I am a little embarrassed
that Congress has not forced you to do it, but apparently the
term "regulation" is like a swear word here in Washington. We
cannot say that. I am perfectly happy to let the free market
work, but when it does not work, we have an obligation to step
in, and I have got to tell you that when I am sitting here
talking about recovery time, recovery time means nothing to the
individual who is sitting in an airport terminal or, worse, on
an airplane.
I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I do not really
have a question except to beg you and your cohorts at the FAA
and your successor, whoever the permanent Director is going to
be, the Administrator, to please do something, anything. Try
it. If it does not work, stop it and try something else, and if
you do not have any ideas on what to do to try, ask any number
of airport directors. Ask any number of people at any airport,
and you will come up with a few. If we can help you, we are
happy to.
You said you have the authority. We know you have the
authority. The FAA reauthorization bill also has provisions in
there to allow you to implement different study programs and
procedures--not just study papers--around this country, and I
cannot encourage you any more strongly than I just did to do
something. Quit fiddling while America sits, please.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time that I no longer have,
I guess.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the former Chair.
Do you want to go to Mr. Coble?
The gentleman, Mr. Coble, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to have you gentlemen with us.
I saw a constituent of mine, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,
about 4 or 5 weeks ago at an airport, and he said to me "My
least favorite activity used to be going to my dentist." He
said, "I would rather go to my dentist than go to an airport."
Then he went on--and I am not piling on you guys, but he went
on to say that--he said, "I would exclusively travel by bus or
train if it were not for the time consumed."
This distresses me because I think my constituent voices a
common complaint shared by thousands. It distresses me because
the airline industry has served America admirably and, I think,
still serves us admirably. Plagued with problems, yes, problems
perhaps for which the airlines are at fault in some cases. We
are at war against terrorism. That, obviously, is another
problem, but let me ask you all this:
If you believe that we in the Congress should consider
legislation beyond the scope of passenger rights included in
the recently passed House aviation reauthorization, think about
that. Give us safeguards that we may implement to ensure that
we can continue to have a vibrant aviation sector, because if
we do not continue to have a vibrant aviation sector we are
vulnerable. We are fragile. We will look forward to going to
see dentists. That is a sad state. I do not mean to diminish
the dentist profession--I do not mean to do that at all--but we
are at the borderline, I think, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Sturgell, and I will repeat that
it is good to have you all with us. I know you feel like you
have targets on your chest, but I think there is no ill will
intended. I have heard that there is a proposal to develop
accelerated lines for frequent flyers; that is to say, people
who fly nine or 10 times a month as opposed to nine or 10 times
a year. Send them to this lane where they can move along, and
delays, of course, would be at least diminished. What is the
story on that or the status on that, Mr. Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Coble, I think you are referring to the
security lines while going through an airport.
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Mr. Sturgell. That falls within the jurisdiction of the
Transportation Security Administration. I do believe there are
those types of lines, but I cannot say for certain.
Mr. Coble. I would like to know. Can you tell us in more
detail about that subsequently?
Mr. Sturgell. We will follow up with the Committee on that
answer, sir.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.012
Mr. Coble. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I am not blaming anybody. Well,
somebody has to be to blame for some of it. Part of it is
because of the era in which we live, and we are stuck with that
for the moment, but I appreciate you all being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say this. Each of us has about 700,000 bosses, or
700,000 constituents, always putting pressure on us to do more
and to do better, and then one of our jobs is to put more
pressure on the FAA and on the airlines to do more and to do
better in response to our constituents. So that is sort of
where we are, but having said that, I think we also should owe
an obligation to be fair and to tell people that we do have the
best aviation system in the world, the best airlines in the
world. Our system and our airlines are the envy of the world.
Now, does that mean they should not do more and do better? They
should, but I mentioned here before that it is human nature
that, if somebody has 100 flights and they have one or two bad
ones or they have one or two cancellations or one or two
delays, those are the ones they talk about. They forget very
quickly about their good, safe flights, and safety has gone way
up in recent years. So we need to say some of those things.
Then I am told also that 40 or 41 percent of the delays are
directly attributable to weather, and when you add in the ones
that are indirectly attributable to weather in the national
aviation system, it goes to over 70 percent. So you have got
that situation, but there are things that we can and should be
doing.
For instance, if I heard Inspector General Scovel right, he
said, I think, eight airlines had come up with ground delay
plans, and five had not or had implemented those plans.
Is that correct?
Mr. Scovel. That is correct, sir. Eight have implemented
plans for establishing a time period for meeting passengers'
essential needs. Eight have also set a time period for
deplaning passengers after a long, on-board delay.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Then Administrator Sturgell, maybe it would be good for you
to do something as simple as call up those other five airlines
and ask them why they have not done the same thing as those
eight airlines, and I wish you would do that.
Now, let me say this about the air traffic control system.
I believe I heard you say that we have a little over 14,000 air
traffic controllers, but did you say that they are handling, on
average, fewer operations than they were in 1999 and 2000?
Mr. Sturgell. 14,807 is what we expect to end this fiscal
year with or more than that. Across the system, operations per
controller are less than they were in 1999 and in 2000. Now, at
specific airports, is it different where there has been a
tremendous amount of growth? It is probably the case. I do not
have those specific airports or numbers with me, but just
nationally, that is where we are with the system.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Let me say this.
You know, a one-size-fits-all situation usually is not the
best solution to any problem, and I was very interested when I
heard the figures, which I have heard similar figures many
times before--that you said 72 percent of the delays are
concentrated in seven airports; is that correct? Somebody said
that.
Mr. Sturgell. That is correct. Those same seven airports in
2000--in the summer of 2000, they were 55 percent of the
delays. Now they are 72 percent of the delays. That includes
places like Houston and Atlanta, though we have added runways,
and we have seen big improvements there.
Mr. Duncan. Right.
Mr. Sturgell. The focus has been on the New York area this
summer.
Mr. Duncan. I think somebody said or I read in one of the
testimonies that it is almost impossible to build a new
airport, and it is extremely difficult to add on even new
runways, but we need to concentrate on those airports where the
problems are the worst, and then, with all due respect to my
friend from the other end of Tennessee, we sure do not want to
restrict these regional jets or you are going to cut down the
service, the direct service, that cities like Knoxville and
Greensboro and many other cities would have to New York and to
Washington and to all of these other places. So the regional
jets, I will just say, have been a real blessing to areas like
mine.
So there are a lot of things that we can do and are doing.
In fact, we have spent, I think, an average of $2.5 billion
over the last 3 years on improving the system, the ADS-B
technology and the NextGen system. Now, in Chairman Costello's
bill, I am told we have got $13 billion over the next 3 years
that we have authorized for the NextGen system, so there are
going to be great improvements.
Finally, I will just say this because my time has run out.
While we still need to do a lot more, is the air traffic
control system, Administrator Sturgell, better than it was last
year? If you know, approximately how many people at the FAA are
working to improve the air traffic control system right now in
addition to the 14,000 air traffic controllers?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, the mission of the entire agency is to,
you know, maintain the safest and most efficient air
transportation system in the world. Everybody at the agency is
focused on delivering on that mission, and I am sorry that
folks have the impression that the FAA has not been doing
anything, I mean, you know, if we have not made that clear.
Since 2000, we put 13 new runways on line, 1.6 million
operations, including at Boston, which has been a huge delay
reduction airport. Next year, we are going to have three more
locations with new runways. In the last 2 years, I think we
have had five. We have been working--you know, since the high-
density rule came off in January of 2007, we have been working
with the airlines and the stakeholders in the New York area on
a dozen or so operational activities to help that area
specifically--RNAV, RNP, DRVSM, time-based metering. There is a
whole list of things that we have been doing that, I think,
have made this system better than it was last year and,
certainly, several years ago, and it is going to continue to
get better, especially if we can, you know, accelerate the
implementation of some of the technologies we know that are out
there.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sturgell, let me ask a couple of questions. I will get
them in here. The folks on our side of the aisle have asked
their questions.
You make a good point. There have been improvements. There
have been a number of runways built, a number of extensions and
improvements, and you know, that is one of the reasons why when
we did our extension on Monday of this week that we made
certain to extend contract authority for the AIP program for
the next 90 days as well.
The question, really, now is what are we going to say to
the American people for the next several months, from now
through the holiday season to the end of the year, and that is
what I would like you to focus on right now.
What, if anything, will the FAA be doing--I will give you
the opportunity on the record to say so now--to try and reduce
delays and congestion between now and the peak of the holiday
season until the end of the year?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, with respect to just a couple of things
here: interacting with the stakeholders who are involved and
specifically folks in the New York area where there has been a
tremendous amount this summer. We have had and the Secretary
has established a working group with ongoing initiatives and
discussions with the carriers about things we can do in a whole
number of areas, including consumer rights. Again, you know, I
understand, you know, how these long delays impact people.You
know, I use the system both as a passenger and as a pilot. It
is not a good situation to be in, but we are working with them.
I saw today that Delta announced that they were going to shift
some of their afternoon activities into a later third bank at
JFK, so we will be doing analysis to see how that helps that
airport. Again, that is done voluntarily.
Some of the other things we are going to be working on are
the airspace redesign, putting in the fanned departures that we
will, hopefully, be implementing in a matter of months. We are
looking at our own performance in terms of throughput at the
respective airports and what we can do there. Simultaneous
approaches at 31 at Kennedy are in use now as well as we have
started using three runways there, you know, as that operation
has built up. There are additional approaches at Newark and
additional RNP and RNAV procedures. All of these things, you
know, are ongoing, and we expect many of them to be implemented
before the winter schedule, but our focus is really on the
summer and, you know, bringing in ASDE-X there a year early so
that we can have that full system there by July. In addition to
that, what we are going to have 2 months before then, by May,
as part of that ASDE-X system is a surface traffic management
capability.
You know, this goes back to ``this whole thing is
complicated.'' One of the complications is the surface, not
just the movement areas, which we are responsible for, but the
nonmovement areas, which largely the carriers and the airport
operators are responsible for, and we intend to give them data
that will allow them to manage those operations better, and it
should help us as well.
Mr. Costello. I thank you.
Mr. Scovel, would you like to comment as to what can be
done in the short-term? You have heard Mr. Sturgell talk about
what the FAA intends to do and can do in the short-term to
address delays and congestion for the holiday season. I would
like to ask you specifically:
Are there any other suggested items that you would
recommend that the FAA do during this period to reduce
congestion and delays for the holiday season?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a number of
ideas that we would refer to the FAA and also to the Committee.
The first would be to revisit capacity benchmarks. Right
now, capacity benchmarks are calculated at hour intervals. We
think it would be more helpful if those were recalculated at
15-minute intervals to provide greater visibility to peaks in
scheduling. That way, the FAA and airlines, perhaps, if they
deem it necessary, can address depeaking through voluntary
means or otherwise.
Next, shift to a near-term focus at the New York airports.
We have heard the FAA talk about their concerns about next
summer. Our analysis is that everyone's concerns over what
happened this past summer will continue on through the winter
and, as you pointed out, the busy holiday season. We recommend
that the airlines and the FAA shift their focus specifically to
the high-density area around New York, the three airports with
the most delays, shift their focus to that.
Third, expand FAA's Airspace Flow Program. It has been
expanded from 7 to 18 locations. We recommend that the FAA
examine other locations on an urgent basis where this critical
program may prove beneficial.
Next, we urge the airlines--as they promised to do in 2001
but lost focus in the aftermath of 9/11, we urge the airlines
to establish specific targets for reducing chronically delayed
or canceled flights. In the month of June, my staff provided
for me a list of flights, chronically delayed flights, in the
month of June. There were seven flights that were late 100
percent of the time in the month of June. To update that for
July, there were no 100 percent delayed flights, but all 15
flights on our list had been delayed at least 93 percent of the
time. That is unsatisfactory, and the airlines can address
that.
We also have recommended to the airlines--and they have
resisted this recommendation--that they disclose on-time flight
performance. We think sunshine is a great thing for consumers
to make intelligent decisions regarding their ticketing needs.
If flight performance, on-time performance, is available at
airlines' Web sites, that would serve consumers well.
We have also recommended to the airlines that they, without
request by the consumer, disclose to a caller the on-time
performance of specific flights that the consumer is inquiring
about when he or she is making reservations.
The Department should reconvene the task force, that was
first instituted in 2001, to examine chronically delayed
flights and other consumer problems but which again lost focus
in the aftermath of 9/11.
Finally, sir, we would recommend that large- and medium-hub
airport operators implement processes for monitoring lengthy
delays. In my opening statement, I mentioned that 2 of the 13
airports that we examined had instituted a process to track or
monitor planes out on the tarmac. At the 2-hour mark, those
airport operators are prepared to call the carriers and say,
"What is happening with your plane? How may we assist?" We
recommend that other airports adopt that process as well.
Mr. Costello. I thank you, Mr. Scovel, and let me point out
that, as to many of the recommendations that you just made and
other recommendations in your report yesterday, I am pleased to
tell you, as you well know, that we have put in H.R. 2881, that
passed the House last Thursday, the consumer protection
provision of the bill. Included in that is transparency as far
as the airlines are concerned. We would require them to post on
their Web sites on a monthly basis those flights that have been
canceled/delayed so that the American people and the people who
fly have the ability to go online and determine which airlines/
which flights were delayed, canceled and so on.
With that, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, we appreciate you all being here and helping us out
with this.
I think one of the things is that we who sit here are
frequent travelers, you know, and are on the airlines every
week, and I think, you know, part of the reason that we have
such concern is that we have seen a fairly dramatic change in
the last few years, and the airlines have been so good; the
whole system has been so good. We really do need to nip this in
the bud before it gets like--we do not want it to get like
driving in to Washington, you know, in the morning or in so
many of our cities. Like I say, this has been the standard that
has worked so well.
What you can do for us, you know, and what I try and do and
what so many Congresspeople try and do is use the power of the
office for good, to bring people together, and so I think it is
really important that you do show the leadership and use the
power of the agency to get people to the table. You have got
the clout, some ability now, you know, to hammer folks and to
use that clout, and if you need more clout, then I think we
will be glad to give you that within reason.
I would like for you to talk a little bit about these. You
know, I have had constituents who have sat on the Tarmac for 8
hours and things like that. To me, there is just no reason in
the world, you know, that that kind of stuff can be tolerated.
Can you talk a little bit about that and how you can prevent
that or should it be prevented or--again, just kind of tell me
a little bit about your thoughts regarding those horror stories
that we hear about the 8-hour delays and the Port-a-Pottys
being full and the whole bit.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, just kind of operationally first and
then on the consumer side, Mr. Boozman, I will just say a
couple of things.
One is the whole understanding of what is going on on the
surface in terms of how airports are configured to flow traffic
onto a runway and off of a runway but also out of a terminal
where there are throats, where there are bottlenecks, where
there are folks pushed back and who cannot move because other
planes are in the way, that kind of thing.
So one of the things that, you know, we and the industry
need to do better on is on the surface management side in terms
of traffic flows, and I think folks--like I said, we are going
to get something into JFK before the summer of next year. Folks
like Continental and, I believe, Northwest have installed these
kinds of systems for themselves as well.
I also think severe weather does play a factor in terms of
lengthy delays and taxi-outs at times. Certainly, the ice
storm, which had been forecasted differently last year with the
JetBlue incident, was a contributing factor.
Mr. Boozman. I guess what I am saying, though, is:
Is there ever an excuse for keeping somebody on a plane for
6 or 8 hours? I mean that, to me, makes no sense at all.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, I know the airlines have recognized
that it is a problem, and some have voluntarily adopted
programs now, and I think the air transportation----
Mr. Boozman. But do you all recognize it as a problem?
Mr. Sturgell. I will let D.J. address some of that.
Mr. Gribbin. Thank you. I am not here because the
Administrator needs counsel. I am here because the General
Counsel's Office at DOT actually houses the Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, which is responsible for consumer
protection.
So we have done a number of things. Most recently in May,
we sent a letter to 20 carriers, in essence saying that we are
going to consider chronic delays--the instances were mentioned
before--where you have a flight that is late 100 percent of the
time as an unfair practice. We will penalize them if, for more
than two quarters, they continue to have flights like that,
because what we are looking for is twofold. One is we want
transparency for consumers when they are purchasing a ticket,
so they understand that this flight is likely to be delayed.
Secondly, we want them to have redress if something does go
wrong at the end of the day.
That said, our real focus, from a customer standpoint, is
congestion relief. At the end of the day, most of the
frustration--as somebody who commuted for a year and a half
from here to La Guardia, I can attest to the fact that my
flights were hardly ever on time, and there was no way for me
to predict when they would be on time. So what we are trying to
do is to put together a system that will allow us and will
allow the industry to more reliably operate airlines. A big
piece of that is potentially congestion pricing, and again, as
you know, the administration's bill had that as a component,
and that has been stripped out on the House side. I think that
is one short-term remedy that we could definitely use that,
unfortunately, looks like is not going to be available to us.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the
Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Costello, for the splendid
work you have done all throughout this hearing. I regret having
to be in and out with other Committee business that we have
been attending to and also with my own congressional district
business.
This is a vexing issue, and it is going to take everyone's
best efforts. I come back to the image I created earlier, the
three-legged stool. The FAA, the airports and the airlines all
have to be working together. No one entity can resolve this
issue alone.
The East Coast redesign that the FAA has set forth that is
now under review by GAO is an important step in the right
direction, but this is such a complex airspace. Again, there is
nothing like it anywhere else in the world, especially on the
East Coast. Now, if you add up the nine TRACONs on the East
Coast, they total 9.5 million operations for last year. That is
10 percent of all air operations in the United States, of all
TRACON operations in the United States. Those are more
operations than all of Europe combined, more than three times
as much as all of Europe combined. The nexus of it, the core of
it, is the New York TRACON's handling 45 airports, four of
which are within 10 miles of each other and are among the
busiest in the world. I could say they are the busiest in the
United States. It is the same as saying they are the busiest in
the world. This is the busiest airspace.
In untangling that complexity with the layers of problems,
the arrival rate has to be predominant. You have got to get
aircraft on the ground. Also, managing the noise impact on
communities near airports.
Whatever you do in the redesign is going to have an adverse
effect on somebody else because there is no free space in which
to move things around. The only area where you have capacity,
blatant capacity in that New York region, is Atlantic City near
the FAA Research Involvement Testing Center. The FAA just
recently approved a grant to extend the runway to build out an
existing runway to, I think, 12,000 feet and to add a taxiway.
Now, if you manage the ground service into Atlantic City,
which is very doable--New Jersey has a superb surface
transportation system, and a high reliance of 10 percent of all
transportation is by transit in the State of New Jersey--you
can redirect flow into Atlantic City and reduce pressure on
Newark, even on Philadelphia. There will probably not be much
of an effect, though. There might be some, conceivably, on La
Guardia.
It is going to take the FAA's paying heed to Mr. Scovel's
recommendations, which I thought were very pertinent, and
bringing the airlines into a regular discussion, using the
existing authority, and scheduling reduction meetings.
Mr. Oberstar. The Secretary of Transportation may request
that air carriers meet with the administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration to discuss flight reductions at
severely congested airports to reduce overscheduling and flight
delays. And the airlines have got to be part of that. They
can't sit on the sidelines and say, oh, there isn't sufficient
capacity in the air traffic control system, we need Next
Generation. That is 15 years off. They have got to be a part of
the solution. And they are sitting back saying we are not going
to move until everybody moves. The way to make everybody move
is for the FAA to exercise that authority. Now, tell me, Mr.
Sturgell, what steps are the FAA taking to implement that
authority?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, we have been--you know, in addition to
that, we have been working with the industry as you are talking
about on all these operational improvements, on all of the
issues in general, discussions about consumer issues,
discussions about their schedules as Chairman Costello pointed
out. We did ask recently for international schedules. So it is
one of the things, you know, among the many things we need to
be doing that we are looking at the very closely.
Mr. Oberstar. But you are willing to use that authority to
bring the carriers together to rationalize their schedules, to
fill in the peaks and the valleys.
Mr. Sturgell. We have worked with airlines in the past,
both voluntarily and at the example of Chicago, you know,
voluntary scheduling meeting followed by an order to make the
kind of changes to keep the system safe and efficient.
Mr. Oberstar. If I recall rightly, there was a time when
the Congress gave brief exemption from the antitrust authority
to the FAA--the DOT and the FAA to convene airlines together to
redo schedules. But I don't think that extensive authority is
needed because of this provision that I just read from the
existing law that we enacted a few years ago.
Mr. Gribbin. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that. Currently,
we are not able to grant antitrust immunity. We don't have----
Mr. Oberstar. You don't have that authority.
Mr. Gribbin. The way we proceeded in Chicago, was we had a
group meeting and then we had one-on-one negotiations with each
airline so the airlines would hear what each other was saying.
That said, I think we need to be careful in throwing out a
scheduling committee as a solution. It is somewhat akin to
saying that, you know, cars with license plates that end in
zero can't drive on Monday and one can't drive on Tuesday and
three can't drive on Wednesday. That will reduce congestion,
but it is really not going to improve kind of the quality of
life for Americans.
So part of our main mission is to grow capacity so that as
additional people want to travel, they are able to travel and
to do that in a way that they are able to travel that is--if
not congestion free, at least somewhat reliable. So I think
that is why we are hesitant to jump on a scheduling committee
as the ultimate solution to the problem. Because it will reduce
congestion, but it will significantly hamper economic growth.
Mr. Oberstar.And when you say that image you created,
several years ago I was in Phoenix, Arizona for a meeting, a
national meeting on infrastructure capacity and water and sewer
and sewage treatment plants. And just taking the temperature of
the local community of the Phoenix area, I turned on the TV for
the morning news. And there was an announcement, if your
license plate ends in 7, this is your voluntary no-drive day.
Mr. Gribbin. Right. Imagine if it was a mandatory no-drive
day. And that is essentially what the scheduling committee
would give us.
Mr. Oberstar. As an interim solution, you do have to use
that authority, to bring the carriers together to modulate
their operations. Well, where are you going to add runway
capacity at Newark, in the Passaic River? That is the only
place you can build another runway out there. Where are you
going to add more runways at La Guardia? There is no capacity.
There is capacity at JFK in the morning hours because you have
an arrival--an afternoon arrival rate for international
flights.
Mr. Gribbin. You----
Mr. Oberstar. You can't quite conveniently shift La Guardia
service to JFK.
Mr. Gribbin. You are dead on. You are severely limited
especially in New York at capacity now. One of the things that
we have found historically, however, when we impose caps, is
that incumbent airlines are hesitant to allow improvements to
the system that will expand capacity to allow new entrants in.
And so you do have kind of a perverse set of incentives once
you impose caps for those that are already at that facility to
resist expansion. That is why I think as Acting Administrator
Sturgell said earlier, the FAA's primary goal is to expand
capacity, expand capacity, expand capacity, try to meet
consumer demand. If you can't do that, use technology to also
expand capacity. Then only if we can't do that should we look
at more regulatory means like scheduling.
Mr. Oberstar. That is all true, and I understand and I
posited that at the outset. But if you had NextGen in hand
today, operating at Newark and you had a storm come in, you
have got two runways, 900-feet separation, you cannot have
simultaneous operations under those circumstances. You are down
to one runway. And what is the arrival and departure rate at
Newark?
Mr. Gribbin. I will let Mr. Sturgell answer that. We are
not talking about necessarily inclement weather issues. What we
are really looking----
Mr. Oberstar. That is when the system really breaks down,
though.
Mr. Gribbin. Exactly. But currently it is not functioning
even particularly well when you have clear sky delays,
especially in the New York area. So what we are trying to do is
figure out if you have a limited capacity, you have limited
sort of supply, what is the most efficient way to allocate that
out so that you don't create perverse incentives for
gamesmanship to block out competition due to a variety of other
things.
Mr. Oberstar. That is where the Department comes in to
moderate those forces.
Mr. Gribbin. Right. And what we had asked for in our bill
actually was the ability to congestion price, which we think
would allow for----
Mr. Oberstar. I don't know that pricing is necessary, but
if you get people around a table--if you have morning peaks,
mid day peaks and afternoon or evening peaks and then you have
valleys in between, you have unused--you have available
capacity and airlines could price, they could provide premiums
to travelers who have flexible travel schedules to use the 9:00
to 11:00 period for example or the 1:00 to 3:00 period and
provide incentives. Unless you bring them into the room
together, Jim May's operation isn't going to do that.
Mr. Gribbin. They have absolutely. The way we have
currently configured our system, the airlines are incentivized
to put as many flights as possible into New York, and they have
done exactly that. Which again, if you can price it, you change
those incentives and you get the people who value it most or
the people who are able to move the most people take advantage
of that time slot. I mean, you really have two options--three
options. One is let delays continue. The second is sort of
having an administrative solution and the third is pricing,
where you are allocating scarce resources. History has shown us
short of the administrative solution, because of data delays
and other things, is always less efficient than a pricing
model.
Mr. Oberstar. Have you tried a congestion pricing model
anywhere?
Mr. Gribbin. In fact, La Guardia had a congestion pricing
model in the 1960s and it worked very well.
Mr. Oberstar. They had one in the 1960s and then they just
got rolled over by the influx of air travel. So the departure
and arrival rate at La Guardia is still at 80 an hour?
Mr. Sturgell. It depends on whether it is VMC or IMC, Mr.
Chairman. The benchmarks have gone from 61 to 92 or so, I think
it is. And that is total operations per hour. But, you know,
you were talking earlier about Atlantic City. The Port
Authority is doing a regional study and, of course, we are
hoping that Stewart will be a viable fourth airport in that
region. A similar study is going on in San Francisco and we
think down the road southern California with LAX will need a
similar look as well. But, we are looking at all reliever
airports in that area to see what improvements we can do to
help encourage people to off-load to other airports.
Mr. Oberstar. Hasn't the introduction of regional jets
subplanting the Saabs and older generation turbo prop aircrafts
further complicated the airspace? That is you have RJs carrying
half the capacity of a 737 or a 320 or sometimes even less, but
using the same altitudes, same airspace, same arrival and same
arrival speeds or departure speeds, whereas the Saabs carry
roughly, say, a capacity of--maybe a little bit less, flying at
lower altitudes, slower speeds and can fit in. That is
further--I note that in 2000, we had 570 RJs and last year that
doubled to 1,746 RJs in the system. Isn't that creating
additional strains on the air traffic control system?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, certainly a different type--again--as
you said, it is complicated. There are different types of
airplanes. And the more there are different types of airplanes
in the system makes the system more complicated and difficult
in general. And you are correct to point out that, you know,
turbo props generally flew below the higher altitude structures
that commercial airlines typically fly and that the RJs are
largely capable of flying at those higher altitudes and will do
so when it is fuel efficient to them.
On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits with these
new planes. It is a new generation of aircraft. There are
additional capabilities in them. It is a different level of
comfort and service for the passenger. So there are goods in
others for all of these things. And, again, it goes back to: it
is very complicated and it will require everybody working
together to get this resolved.
Mr. Oberstar. So we have the GAO reviewing the airspace
redesign. I hope they can accelerate their review. We need to
move that along faster so that it can be subject to the public
commentary and then get on. What do you anticipate on two
levels? In reduction of delays and increase in capacity at La
Guardia, JFK, Newark, Teterborough from the redesign?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, our focus at this point is the summer
of 2008. And we hope to have some things addressed and in
place, you know, by early next summer, to help avoid the
situation that we had today. Obviously, if we move forward with
airspace redesign and a few of these other operational
improvements we are looking at, we may be able to help out in
the winter season this year.
Mr. Oberstar. Can you put a percentage of reduction of
delay and percentage of increase in operations? I won't hold it
to you. I won't say Mr. Sturgell, you told us this. Let's say
your best guess today is this much.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, I would be doing an injustice to
everyone by guessing.
Mr. Oberstar. The number 20 percent has been floated around
and attributed to the FAA. Is that a ballpark here?
Mr. Sturgell. If we are talking about the airspace
redesign, full implementation we will reduce delays by 20
percent over the levels we expect in 2011. So we do expect to
see substantial benefit out of that. And I think there are
short-term benefits to the airspace redesign for Newark
departures, La Guardia, and less so at Kennedy. But----
Mr. Oberstar. And that is an improved flow? Is that
departure flow or is that arrival flow or is it both?
Mr. Sturgell. Departure flow, fanned departures, yes, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. What about the redistribution of noise as a
result of the redesign? Will there be new populations that--or
existing populations that receive noise that receive a higher
impact of noise?
Mr. Sturgell. So, you know, I understand this is a tough
issue for everybody and certainly noise going forward for
aviation is a tough issue in general. There will be a
redistribution of some noise. But, the net overall benefit is a
decrease in noise for nearly 600,000 persons. So it is a
substantial benefit and we did put in a lot of mitigations to
achieve those benefits from an alternative--you know, if we
were focused solely on, you know, all about the operation and
not worried about people and the impact on your constituents
and the American public, you know, we would not have achieved
those types of reductions.
Mr. Oberstar. It is essentially a zero sum game, is it not?
Mr. Sturgell. It is a benefit in this case.
Mr. Oberstar. There is no place where there is no noise
impact now that--where there are no people living who will not
be impacted by noise.
Mr. Sturgell. Yeah. There will be new people with noise
impacts. A lot of the people with noise impacts today will be
relieved and the net benefit overall is nearly a 600,000
reduction in noise.
Mr. Oberstar. In some cases it is--I will stop on a measure
of relief for you. And that is in some cases, it is perception.
In 1990, we had just concluded action in Committee and on the
House floor on the Noise Reduction Act, moving to stage three,
the new stage three requirement and the bill passed the House.
And our Committee received an irate call from a homeowner in
the New York area saying, well, it hasn't benefited us a single
bit, it hasn't done a thing. I am getting all this noise from a
DC-10 and I can see it, I can see that aircraft coming right
overhead. And our Committee staff person that took the irate
call said, ma'am, you may be able to see that aircraft; but if
you can see it from where you are, you can't hear the noise.
That noise is coming from someplace else.
It is a tough problem. I just come back to the point, the
airlines have to be engaged. They have to be willing to move
flights around. They have to be willing to make--offer
incentives to air travelers to travel at maybe less attractive
hours of the day and to work hand in hand with the Congress and
the FAA_and the DOT needs to use the authority that exists in
law and to accept those_and implement the recommendations of
MITRE and of the inspector general and work with us. We will
work with you to help make this move better than it does today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Oberstar. I have a few other
questions I will submit to you in writing and ask you to reply.
Before we dismiss the first panel, though. I would like to make
some comments to follow up on Chairman Oberstar's comments to
you. One is that--there is no question that the FAA has the
authority to sit down with the airlines now and to address the
scheduling issue and as you indicated, Mr. Sturgell, you intend
to do that.
The bill that we have passed through the House requires the
FAA to do that. We require the FAA to sit down with the
airlines, where there is evidence that, in fact, overscheduling
as resulted in delays. So that is a major change and we think
that it is a necessary change. Also in congestion pricing, we
accepted an amendment on the floor that will require a study on
that issue.
So that issue is addressed in the bill. And last, I can't
help but making note of the fact that when you look at the
percentage of delays at Newark this year versus the percentage
of delays at O'Hare International Airport when the FAA came in
and capped flights at O'Hare, the delays are higher at Newark
today than they were at O'Hare when the FAA stepped in and
capped O'Hare. So I just make that point for the record. And,
Mr. Scovel, I would ask you and your agency, if you would, to
prepare a report for this Subcommittee.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a second--the second in a
series of hearings. I think one of the responsibilities that we
have is to make certain that both the FAA, the airlines and all
of the stakeholders here that we are all doing our job and that
there is aggressive oversight and I said it in our last hearing
to the airlines in particular and to others that if you think
we are going away, we are not. This will not be just one
hearing and we are going to walk away from this, that there
will be additional hearings. This is the second.
There will be another hearing on this matter in
approximately--at least one in the next 90 days. And by that
time I would hope, Mr. Scovel, that your agency could prepare a
report for the Subcommittee prior to the hearing, so that in
the next 90 days, that would take a look at this summer what we
are discussing right now, the congestion, the delays and the
problems that we have experienced. And we will get you this
request in writing.
But we would like you to take a look at the delays this
summer in comparison to delays since the year 2000 not only
delay, but cancellations, including chronically delayed flight,
as well as airline scheduling and provide to the Subcommittee
hopefully in the next 90 days prior to our next hearing.
So we will get that information to you, the specific
request in writing. We thank all of you for about being here
today to testify before the Subcommittee. And we will not only
beholding another hearing in about 90 day, but we will be in
constant contact with your office and in particular, Mr.
Sturgell and with Mr. Scovel as well. Again, we thank you for
your testimony and we would dismiss the first panel at this
time. Thank you. As our first panel is leaving, let me begin
the introductions of our second panel and ask our witnesses to
come forward and take their seats at the table.
Mr. Patrick Forrey, the President of the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Jim May, the President and
the CEO of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Steve Brown, who
is the senior vice president for operations, National Business
Aviation Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, the President of the
Regional Airline Association, Mr. Gregory Principato, who is
President of the Airport's Council International North America;
Ms. Kate Hanni, the executive director and spokesperson for the
Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights; and Mr.
Kevin Mitchell, who is the Chairman of the Business Travel
Coalition.
TESTIMONIES OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR
TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; STEVE BROWN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
OPERATIONS, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER
COHEN, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; GREGORY
PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL NORTH
AMERICA; KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AN
AIRLINE PASSENGERS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND KEVIN MITCHELL,
CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS TRAVEL COALITION
Mr. Costello. So we ask that you all take your seats and we
will recognize you as soon as you are seated and prepared to
testify. I would note for the second panel for our witnesses
that we have--your entire statement will be entered into the
record and we will ask you to summarize your statement so that
we can get to the questions. You heard the testimony in the
first panel. If any of you want to provide an answer or
question or make a point on the record concerning the testimony
that you have heard from the first panel, please feel free to
do so. And at this time, I would recognize Mr. Forrey under the
five-minute rule.
Let me ask, if I can, if all of you would pull the
microphone a little bit closer to you. We should have asked
that of the last panel. It would be helpful to us.
Mr. Forrey. Is that better? Does that work? Chairman
Costello, Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee,
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify. I do so on
behalf of the 19,000 aviation safety professionals that I
represent at NATCA. Also I would like to express my thanks to
allow us the ability to address the critical issue of the
aviation delays in the system. I cannot start this testimony
without mentioning a fact that the Memphis air route traffic
control center went into the ATC zero yesterday, which means
controllers lost all communication with aircraft for three
hours. Controllers had to clear all commercial flights over an
eight-state area until the problem was fixed. We have never had
an outage involving this much airspace for this long a period
of time.
One communication line brought the system down affecting
over a thousand flights and thousands of passengers. The
experienced veteran controllers rose to the challenge using
their personal cell phones to separate traffic and ensure
safety. Inexplicably, the FAA banned cell phones, but
controllers do what they have to do to make sure they get the
job done in a crisis and in unsafe events to prevent disaster.
As we start today's discussion about delays, I must point out
that if we continue to strip away at the safety redundancy of
the ATC system, occurrences such as this will continue to occur
and next time we might not be so lucky. Aside from the millions
of airline travelers who experienced the pain and frustration
of this summer's record level of flight delays firsthand, no
one had a better view of the congested runways, taxiways, gate
ramps and airways than the Nation's air traffic controllers.
These controllers work record amounts of hours of overtime in
high-stressed, understaffed work environments with the guiding
principle of moving the system along as efficiently as possible
while keeping safety above all as our highest priority.
The fact is most delays are caused by weather and airline
scheduling practices. Air traffic control staffing has also
become a major factor as facility staffing levels across the
country plummet. It is not uncommon to see flight restrictions
due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. Capacity in the
national airspace system is intricately related to runway
availability and adequate air traffic control staffing. While
modernizing enhancements and airspace procedures such as
required navigation performance and domestic reduced vertical
separation minimum will result in more available airspace, the
gains made will be limited by the inadequate air traffic
control staffing and infrastructure on the ground.
The simple truth is that the efficiency gains made in
airspace can only have a major positive impact on delays once
ground capacity is addressed. Runways and taxiways are an
absolute necessity to increase system capacity. Currently
runways are under construction at only three major airports,
Charlotte, North Carolina, Seattle, Washington and Washington,
Dulles. The best evidence that supports our position that the
current delay problem must have a ground based component are
the results of the new runway at Atlanta Hartsville Jackson
International Airport. Atlanta's new runway opened May 27,
2006.
A comparison of operations and delays was run from May 27th
to September 30th of 2006 against the same time period in 2005.
In that period, Atlanta had an increase of almost 3,100
operations, yet they had nearly 14,000 fewer delays in 2006.
Meanwhile, understaffing of air traffic control facilities will
continue to exacerbate the inefficiencies of the current
system. As the NTSB warned earlier, this year we cannot
continue to push our air controller workforce beyond its
limits. Controller fatigue rates are increasing at a
frightening level as air traffic continues grows. To me, the
impact controller staffing has on delays is clear. There are
1,100 fewer certified controllers currently watching the skies
than on 9/11, when 5,200 aircraft were landed safely in 90
minutes.
At the same time, delays have increased over 150 percent
with nearly identical traffic operations. Moreover, three
experienced controllers are leaving every day, and an
additional 70 percent of the current work force will retire in
the next 5 years. Efforts are going to have to be made to
stabilize and control the workforce. And a large segment of the
U.S. Economy is increasingly dependent upon air travel to keep
moving.
The simple fact is that when demand exceeds capacity,
delays will occur. Airline scheduling practices are unrealistic
and favor marketing demand but they fail to consider capacity.
Airline schedules are set to optimal conditions. And even at
that, demand often exceeds capacity. If the weather conditions,
runway availability, runway configuration, flight paths or
other restrictions exist, delays are inevitable for flight
schedules based on optimal conditions.
Also when airline operations are disrupted at major
airports, there is a ripple effect of delays across the country
since aircraft and flight crews will be in the wrong place at
the wrong time. It is our position that responsible scheduling
of flights within airport capacity limits will go a long way
towards alleviating delays. Former Administrator Blakely agreed
with our position when she recently admitted, "the airlines
need to take a step back on scheduling practices that are at
times out of line with reality."
To that point, NACTA looked at a one-day schedule earlier
this month for New York's La Guardiaairport. Under optimal
configurations of runways and under perfect weather, they will
be able to depart 10 aircraft per quarter hour for a total of
40 operations departures per hour. The following is a breakdown
by 15 minute blocks of the effects of the airlines scheduling
practices for that day.
Between 2:15 p.m. And 2:29 p.m., 17 aircraft are proposed
for departure. Remembering under optimal conditions, only 10
aircraft will the able to depart in the 15-minute block. So
therefore, seven aircraft will be delayed to the next quarter
hour creating an immediate backlog. Between 2:30 and 2:44,
another 10 aircraft are proposed for departure. Seven aircraft
remain in the backlog. Between 2:45 and 2:59, 11 aircraft are
proposed for departure. One aircraft will be delayed and added
to the quarter, totaling eight back logged.
Between 3:00 and 3:14, 13 aircraft are proposed for
departure. Three additional aircrafts are added to the back
log, totaling 11 in the backlog. 3:15 to 3:29, seven aircraft
are proposed for departure. Three aircraft can be departed from
the backlog. Eight aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 4:00
and 4:15 p.m., 14 aircraft are proposed for departure. Four
aircraft are added to the backlog. Eight are again in the
backlog. Between 4:15 and 4:29, 10 aircraft are proposed for
departure. Eight remain in the backlog. Between 4:30 and 4:44,
eight aircraft are proposed for departure, two aircraft can
depart from the backlog, six aircraft remain in the backlog.
Between 4:45 and 4:59, seven aircraft are proposed for
departure. Three aircraft can depart from the backlog, three
aircraft remain in the backlog.
Between 5:00 and 5:14, another 12 aircraft are proposed for
departure, two additional aircraft are added to the backlog,
totaling five aircraft in the backlog. Between 5:15 and 5:29,
four aircraft are proposed for departure. All five aircraft can
now depart from the backlog and for the first time since 2:00
that afternoon, the backlog is empty. The controllers will not
recover the time for nearly 3 hours and neither do the
passengers on the delayed aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I am available for any questions you or any
Member of the Committee might have.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Mr. Forrey for your
testimony and recognizes Mr. May.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll truncate my remarks
in the interest of time. You invited us to comment on
increasing flight delays and customer service improvements. As
you have already indicated, the two are inextricably linked.
Today more people are traveling to more places on more flights
than ever before. 760 million passengers will fly in 2007, 100
million more than the year 2000. And why? Because air travel is
convenient, relatively inexpensive, remarkably safe and demand
is expected to keep growing, particularly in the New York area
where metropolitan airports are major international gateways
serving 32 more international airports and almost 19,000 more
daily passengers this year than in 2000.
So I would note for you when you attack scheduling, there
is a scheduling issue, but we are serving far more destinations
and flying far more people and that has to be taken into
account. We are a service industry and our goal is to assure
that every journey is pleasant and safe and although every day
20,000 domestic flights and a million-plus passengers arrive at
their destinations on time, we understand that increasing
flight delays are a big problem and we are committed to finding
solutions.
Delays cost our passengers and us billions of dollars
annually. And unfortunately, when flights are delayed, our
service to passengers doesn't meet expectations, their
expectations or ours. That is unacceptable. We know we must do
better. There is another reality and that is that this
outdated, inefficient air traffic control system, increasing
flight delays and demand on responsive customer service do in
fact go hand in hand. So we have got to address the air traffic
control system and make it modern to enable planes to fly more
efficiently. And I think everybody at this panel would agree
with that. I won't spend a great deal of time. The point here
is that nobody likes 72 percent delay rates or efficiency rates
and it doesn't work to our advantage or to your advantage.
While NextGen may be the ultimate solution and here I
distinguish between short-term and long-term as you have in
your prior discussions, we think--and I think the FAA occurs,
that there are a number of steps that can be taken near-term to
improve operational efficiencies and increase use of available
capacity.
And this is on top of any scheduling discussions that we
are more than happy to have the DOT under the right
circumstances. I would also point out that there is not
sufficient antitrust protection there at the current time, and
that having discussions about New York are vastly different
than discussions in ORD if we can get into that if you choose.
As we requested in early August, the Department of
Transportation should accelerate implementation of New York
airspace it has been discussed today. We think there are
elements that can be put into place, very near-term, you can
see those departure routes on the screen on the left side of
the screen there, I think Pat would verify there is something
on the order of 12 departure routes right now. We would like to
take it to 17.
I think that would make a big difference, increase the
number of low altitude arrival and departure routes out of the
major metropolitan airports. We think that will help with
capacity. Increase the number of planes handled at airports by
using existing runways and procedures more efficiently. Our
experts tell us that there is opportunity for more intersecting
operations, better coordinate access to restricted airspace.
There is some fairly significant military space that is just
off of New York that we can't fly through. But if the FAA can
work it out with the military to provide lanes and operations,
especially in bad weather, it would have a big impact on the
operations.
Let me turn to customer service. And we know that we have
got to improve. We have read the IG report. I told the
Inspector General Scovel this morning that I thought it was a
good report. We have sent a letter today to the Department of
Transportation asking to sit down at the secretary's earliest
convenience to discuss the IG report. I would point out to this
Committee, we are the ones who originally, alongside this
Committee, asked that that report be completed. Our carriers
have aggressively pursued some of the suggestions that are in
there already. Got more than nine carriers that have time
limits that they have set. They are looking at their long delay
procedures. They are restocking water and food in strategic
locations and I think there is just a lot we can do, much
better than we have in the past. As I said, we have worked with
the Inspector General's office and we look forward to doing
that in the future.
I would note that we have a meeting with the Secretary of
Transportation tomorrow afternoon on the subject of New York
congestion and on customer service, and I think that will be
the first step. So we are not letting any grass grow under our
feet in terms of responding to this issue. Mr. Chairman, this
industry has been down this road before. I understand that
without fundamental change in our air traffic management
system, the incidents are going to get worse. That is what
drove us to the demand for NextGen raising. We are moving 760
million passengers a year today we are going to move a billion
passengers a year probably within the next 5 years and we have
to have change to be able to accommodate that. New York is a
microcosm of what is going to occur around the country. Thank
you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May, and recognizes
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Member Petri. Thank
you for inviting us to appear before the Committee. It is a
privilege to be with you today. I am Steve Brown. I serve as
senior vice president of operations for the National Business
Aviation Association. We represent companies across the country
that use general aviation aircraft to make their business
models work. The vast majority of these companies are small to
medium-sized businesses that use a single aircraft for their
transportation needs. Prior to joining NBAA, I served as the
associate administrator for air traffic services at the FAA
where I managed the operation of the Nation's air traffic
control system.
Earlier in my career, I was employed as a commercial pilot
and taught courses on the faculty at Texas A&M University. This
varied background has provided me with many of the insights
outlined today about our aviation system. Mr. Chairman, as you
know and as Members of the Subcommittee know, for the past
several months, the general aviation community has endured
erroneous allegations from some of the Nation's airlines. They
have attempted to blame record delays and increasing congestion
on our community. I can tell you from my years of experience
and current flying activity that those assertions are untrue,
especially when you look at the facts.
For instance, at the nation's 10 busiest airports, general
aviation accounts for less than 4 percent of all aircraft
operations. When it comes to the busy New York area, because we
receive so much attention today, our operations have actually
gone down in recent years, and I expect they will in the
future. These numbers are so low because our Members typically
avoid the major airline hubs and instead fly primarily into
areas where there are no capacity constraints and into general
aviation reliever airports in the suburbs of metropolitan
areas.
On the rare occasions when our operations do go into the
major hubs, we frequently do so using different approaches and
different runways as is the case with Boston's Logan Airport.
What that means is even in the small number of cases when we
are in areas with major airline congestion, we are not
contributing to it significantly. Clearly a fair question is,
if general aviation isn't causing delay, what is? Let me again
reference New York's airspace.
Based on my years of managing that airspace, I can tell you
that when there are capacity issues in the air, it is usually
because of the problems being caused by hub operations on the
ground at those few congested airports where traffic is more
and more concentrated every year.
For example, JFK, which has been spoken about many times
today, has enough capacity normally for 44 departures in the
early morning hours, but the airlines regularly schedule about
57. When they do that, the gates become full, the scheduled
carriers ultimately fill the taxiways and the runways with what
we in the industry refer to as conga lines. There is nowhere to
put additional aircraft on the ground, and therefore, arriving
aircraft back up in the air waiting for landing clearance. It
is natural then that when we look at the data on delays, the
Department of Transportation information shows that the
commercial airline scheduling practices are the second leading
cause of delay, exceeded only by adverse weather. It is also
worth noting that a few successful airlines are using schedules
that create smooth demand on the air traffic control system and
they avoid the destructive practice of overscheduling and
causing peaks that stimulate delays.
During my years with Administrator Blakely at FAA, we
initiated the airline scheduling discussions that ultimately
resulted in significant delay reductions at Chicago's O'Hare
Airport. Clearly, general aviation is not the problem when it
comes to these airline delay issues at congested hubs, and no
authoritative source has ever concluded otherwise. However, we
are committed to expanding system capacity because when
capacity becomes constrained, general aviation is usually the
first segment to be pushed out of those areas. For example, our
industry has embraced technologies to help increase the
capacity of the aviation system. Just over 2 years ago, our
operators equipped their aircraft at their own significant
expense with RVSM, reduced vertical separation technology. That
term basically describes the technology as we have heard today
that doubles the in route airspace available to high altitude
aircraft. The majority of these routes created by the capacity
increase are used by the airlines every day, saving them
hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel and flight time.
Our industry also leads the way in supporting stakeholder
efforts to lay the groundwork for a modernized system. We have
stakeholders on every one of these Committees working with the
FAA. And I personally co-chair with my ATA counterpart, the
current aviation regulatory committee. It is focused on a
promising technology referred to today as ADS-B or automatic
dependence surveillance. This technology that we are mutually
committed to is widely viewed as the cornerstone of
modernization and will offer significant improvement in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, we have demonstrated a commitment to
strengthening the system as has this Subcommittee by passing
the legislation that you referred to in your opening remarks.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 uses a proven funding
mechanism, fuel taxes to raise the needed funds for system and
transformation without resorting to foreign style user fees or
providing tax breaks for other segments as the critical need
for modernization and more capacity arises. This legislation
substantially increases the fuel taxes that general aviation
will pay, support system modernization.
In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate one central
point and that is the airline delays at congested hubs are
basically a self-inflicted wound that is a byproduct of their
business practices in those congested areas. My many years of
managing the system and flying in it have made this reality
clear. Data from DOT indicates this is also the case. And
people with a real understanding of how the system works and
airline economics know that it is true. Anyone who tries to
convince the public or Members of this Subcommittee otherwise,
is just simply not representing the complete picture or the
essential facts. Thank you, and I look forward to any questions
you may have.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Brown. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is
Roger Cohen. On behalf of RAA's 43 member airlines, there are
more than 300 associate member suppliers. Thank you for
inviting us here today since it provides us an opportunity to
dispel the notion, this growing urban legend that regional jets
have somehow caused the travel delays this past summer. Instead
of demonizing RJs, historians will likely look back at the
regional jet as the transformational jet of this generation.
Just as the 707 brought comfortable, fast and affordable
transcontinental and transAtlantic service to millions of
Americans 50 years ago, the RJ has delivered those same
benefits to small and medium-sized communities across this
country, communities whose alternatives used to be a handful of
flights on slower, less comfortable planes or no flights at
all. Given America's reliance on regional airlines, it is
understandable how this urban legend has taken on a life of its
own. Today, regional airlines carry close to one out of every
four passengers in this country. We are about one half of the
schedules flights and we serve more than 600 communities across
the country.
Most notably, I point to the map. In 442 of those
communities, 70 percent of the United States regional airlines
provide the only scheduled airline service.
Mr. Chairman, all this is in our brand new annual report.
And after the Committee meeting, if--we would love to give you
the first copy off the press. This came out today. So we will
do that after the hearing. We have mapped in here airline
service for each State. For example, in your home State of
Illinois, 23 percent of the passengers flew last year on a
regional airline and regional jets and turbo props represented
about 46 percent of the lots.
Six Illinois airports are served exclusively by regionals
and Peoria is just shy of that at 93 percent. Even at Chicago's
O'Hare airport, one of the world's busiest and it was one of
the world's busiest before the regional jet was even on the
drawing board, regional airplanes represent half of the
flights. But where are those flights going?
Of the 1,041 daily flights at O'Hare, less than 5 percent
of those aircraft are flying to what FAA designates are the
countries other big 35 hub airports, which includes close-in
places like Detroit and Cleveland and Minneapolis and St.
Louis. The remaining 95 percent fly to small and medium-sized
communities whose only service into O'Hare may be on regional
aircraft and that is Appleton to Birmingham, Cedar Rapids, both
Springfields, Wausau, you name it.
Well, what about the Big Apple? Because if urban legends--
well, if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere. Let
me go back here to JFK. At JFK, regional aircraft today
comprise about half of the daily schedule. But during the
evening rush hour, that 6 to 8 p.m. Time frame when getting to
the airport from midtown Manhattan is probably going to take
longer than the actual flight, aircraft of less than 70 seats
represent only 25 percent of the departures.
So there are fewer RJs during JFK's busiest period than
there are at other times of the day. Let us take a look at La
Guardia. This chart may be hard to see. But some suggest that
solving La Guardia's historical delay problems would be solved
by squeezing out or even banishing RJs. They have proposed a
scheme forcing airlines to upgauge the planes serving La
Guardia. But at a capacity constrained, slot-controlled airport
like La Guardia, discriminating against regional aircraft could
jeopardize service to countless communities, communities as
large as Jacksonville, Knoxville, Columbus, Dayton, Louisville,
Savannah and dozens more.
Mr. Chairman, regional airlines and regional aircraft
didn't cause this summer's travel delays. In fact, while the
number of passengers flying on regionals grew last year by
about 2 1/2 percent, the number of regional flights actually
declined by 3 percent. The total hours flown by regional
airlines also fell last year. So regionals reduced their usage
of the ATC and airport system year over year. Most notably--and
I think this is very important--this upgauging of the regional
fleet has been occurring without any forced schemes or any
other kind of machinations. In the post 9/11 period, the
average seating capacity of the regional fleet has grown by
about a third, from 35 seats per aircraft to about 50 seats
today.
In closing and on behalf of our member airlines, who have
been at the foundation of the industry's post 9/11 recovery, we
pledge to work with you, this Committee, the FAA and all
parties to fix the system for the Nation's travellers, even if
it means one delay at a time. Thank you again for this
opportunity.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Costello. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Principato.
Mr. Principato. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri, thank you for allowing Airports Council
International the opportunity to testify at this hearing. My
name is Greg Principato and I am president of ACI North
America. Our member airports inplane more than 95 percent of
the domestic and virtually all of the international passenger
and cargo traffic in North America. About 400 aviation-related
businesses are also members of ACI North America. We want to
begin by applauding the Committee for its tireless work on HR
2881. We especially commend you for providing airports the
financial tools necessary to build critical safety, security
and capacity projects, including new runways, taxiways and
terminals to meet growing passenger needs by increasing the
ceiling on the passenger facility charge user fee to $7. By
doing so, airports can meet the growing passenger demand by
planning now to invest in modern, secure, comfortable and
environmentally compliant facilities for air travelers.
We are also grateful to the Committee for including the
departure queue management pilot program. When implemented,
this pilot program will have the added benefit of greatly
reducing the amount of fuel burned and emissions produced by
taxiing or idling aircraft on the airfield. Airports are
greatly affected by extended delays and extraordinary flight
disruptions. The vast majority of airports have contingency
plans to assist airlines when such assistance is requested.
This is an important point. Airports do not have and are not
seeking the regulatory authority to interfere with an airline's
operations during an extended ground delay.
However, we do agree that airport operators should work
more closely with air carriers in enhancing contingency plans,
including offering assistance after an aircraft has been on the
tarmac for an agreed upon period of time. The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey is a good example. Anticipating that
there may be unusual situations where an airline may face an
imbalance between the number of terminal gates and number of
flights, a policy was implemented several years ago at the Port
Authority's airports to mitigate the passenger impact.
This policy urges all carriers to notify airport operation
staff to determine if an alternate plan can be developed to
allow passengers to safely disembark at another location. In
addition to the Port Authority, Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson
Airport and others across the country are working with the
airlines in implementing similar contingency plans to
successfully combat irregular operations. Just last week, and I
think this is an important event, more than 40 industry
representatives from 13 airports and six major airlines
gathered at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, at DFW's instigation
by the way, to facilitate better planning to collectively
respond to significant service disruptions affecting
passengers.
The single most important conclusion from that meeting was
the need for airports and airlines to use the same techniques
that have long been successfully employed to respond to
emergencies, snowstorms and runway construction disruptions.
ACI North America also believes it is important to provide
passengers comprehensive information upon which to make their
air travel decisions and to reasonably compensate them for
travel disruptions. DOT regulations should be expanded to
require all airlines that code share with a major international
airline to report delay and mishandled baggage information.
Given the fact that regional code sharing airlines now
provide nearly 50 percent of daily departures, this change is
long overdue. Additionally, DOT must more effectively measure
how delays affect passengers. ACI North America agrees with the
aviation consumer organizations that the current reports do not
provide complete data. Lacking statistics on the impact of
air--on air travelers of flight cancellations and diversions.
Given the fact that airlines are operating at historically
high load factors, it can take many hours or even days for
passengers to be reaccommodated. DOT data does not adequately
capture the impact of these rebooking problems which result in
significant passenger delay and inconvenience. Involuntary
denied boarding compensation should also been increased as we
advocated in comments filed with DOT. We applaud the House for
enacting legislation requiring the final regulations be
promulgated within one year. We know that expanded capacity in
modernizing the air traffic control system will address many of
the delays experienced by passengers.
Since 2004, six new runways at some of the busiest U.S.
airports have opened, funded in part with PFCs including
Atlanta and Los Angeles. Additionally, five important runway
projects are projected to be completed by 2010, including the
Chicago O'Hare modernization project.
However, it is important to keep in mind that airport
congestion management programs should be--should also be
considered as part of the solution, in those limited
circumstances, where additional airport capacity is not an
available alternative, or the capacity will not be available
for several years. It is in the best interest of passengers
that airport proprietors be permitted to work with airline
partners to manage capacity in ways that encourage more
efficient use of airport infrastructure, maintain a safe
environment and operational balance and respond to community
complaints about delays. We thank you for this opportunity to
testify and look forward to working with you to solve these
problems. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Principato.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni.
Ms. Hanni. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Kate Hanni and I appreciate the opportunity
to testify on behalf of the now 20,500 members of the coalition
for an airline passenger's bill of rights on these timely and
important topics. In addition, I would like to take a special
moment to thank those Members who sent staffers to attend our
strand-in last week on the Capitol Mall. Most importantly, the
coalition is most grateful for the many passenger rights
provisions that were included in the manager's amendment, HR
2881, FAA reauthorization.
We look forward to working with you to support the
retention of these provisions in the House/Senate conference.
Need to cover passengers in 30- to 60-seat aircraft. We hope
you can fill one gap when you conference with the Senate. Under
H.R. 2881 as passed in the House, there is no protection for
passengers flying in aircraft with fewer than 60 seats. That
leaves approximately 25 percent of all flights without
protection or 167 million airline passengers last year. And
5,000 of the 16,000-plus diverted flights last year are ignored
by the House passed language. Some of your communities aren't
served at all by larger aircraft, so without a language change
in conference, your communities and passengers won't get the
protection of the airline contingency programs that you voted
for last week.
Ms. Hanni. Delays for reasons under control of the
airlines. We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this
issue of delayed airline flights given the recent painful
experiences of passengers during the summer months. We have
included in an attachment of just a few of the hundreds of
incidences experienced by our members. There are two elements
of the airline delay equation that are often mentioned by the
passengers who contact our Web site, and each is under the
complete control of the airlines.
First, the airlines who schedule more departures or
arrivals than an airport can handle in a given period of time
under the best of weather conditions are simply deceiving their
passengers. They are collectively promising for marketing
reasons a service that they cannot provide. The coalition
wholeheartedly endorses the provision for mandatory reductions
of airline schedules that was added to H.R. 2881 by the
Committee leadership, and we will urge the Senate to adopt this
approach in its legislation. However, individual airlines
should bear responsibility for their own acts of deceptive
behavior toward their passengers. An airline that continues to
schedule a flight that is chronically canceled or delayed is
deceiving its passengers and should be penalized and forced to
correct the situation. We will urge the Senate at the House-
Senate conference to amend existing law to make individual
airlines eliminate these deceptive acts.
Secondly, the airline sets flight schedules and airport
staffing levels under the assumption that nothing will go
wrong, which I heard talked about a lot earlier. When flights
are delayed or canceled, the airlines simply do not have enough
staff on duty to make alternative flight arrangements for the
hundreds of passengers standing in lines or who are getting
busy signals when they call the airlines' reservation numbers.
The missing report from the DOT Inspector General. This is
where I am going to divert--I am going to make a flight
diversion from my notes. I received the IG report last night as
I arrived in D.C. I spent most of the night reading it and
writing some notes to comment. We had only a few hours to
review the IG's report. Our initial thoughts are these.
The report relies on the myth that American, JetBlue and
others have developed policies for delays and have successfully
adhered to those policies. Not true. In June and July, there
were three JetBlue and a handful of AA violations. At the time
of the preparation of this report, there was clear knowledge on
the part of the Inspector General about a mass stranding on
April 24th where there were 13 jets that were all over Texas
that were American Airlines jets, and I am glad to hear that
you are going to have more hearings on what happened over the
summer that clarifies that there will be more detail put into
the IG's report, but it was of grave concern to me last night
that it was not mentioned in the report and that, apparently,
the report sounded like American Airlines had taken care of
this problem in their new policy.
One of the things that we are very concerned about is the
wiggle words in their contracts of carriage or in their rule,
of which they first came out with a 4-hour rule, which, on
April 24th, became an internal operational guideline that would
not benefit consumers, and it was not until they realized they
had to talk about what had happened and that there were jets
stranded on the Tarmac that they admitted that it was not
anything that would benefit consumers, that it was an internal
operational guideline only meant to notify the pilots that
there was a plane out on the Tarmac for 4 hours. Now they are
calling it a "policy." So I am not really sure whether it is a
rule, an internal operational guideline or a policy or what any
of those three terms actually mean when it comes to their
language.
The IG report relies on a small slice of time, December
29th through March, in regard to the airlines' performance,
which I am grateful again that you will be reviewing in 90
days. If you are studying airline delays, study them over the
holidays and during the summer. The IG appears to be
recommending that the airlines police themselves again. That
does not work. Fool me once, dot, dot, dot.
We think the reasonable conclusion to make as a result of
this IG's report is that there is clearly a need for
legislation. It is amazing to me to listen to a group of very
bright, educated individuals avoid that question. I am stunned,
just as a normal human being coming into this as recently as
December 29th, to listen to a group of people not being able to
answer the questions that were presented earlier. Depending
upon a self-serving contract of carriage with wiggle words like
"reasonable" and "as appropriate" are not specific, enforceable
contracts, and this is acknowledged by the DOT. I know and the
DOT knows that the rule adopted after December 29th by American
Airlines quickly became an internal operational guideline only
to notify pilots of the 4 hours on the ground. Now it is a
policy. Their words hold no water. Their words are meaningless.
Deregulation was not intended to give carte blanche to the
airlines to do whatever they pleased. It was intended to
provide increased competition and more choices for air
travelers, not to let airlines violate the basic human rights
of their passengers. So it is time for Congress to set minimum
industry standards and for the DOT to monitor and to enforce
the performance of those standards. However, the DOT has not
done an adequate job of implementing consumer protection
regarding these issues.
In addition, the DOT must correct the collection of invalid
statistics for Tarmac delays soon. Even where Tarmac delay data
are reported, reports from our members show a glaring
difference between the data reported and the actual passenger
experience.
Finally, it is imperative that the Committee take note that
the DOT acknowledges that the customer service plans submitted
by the airlines are not enforceable. We urge this Committee to
provide oversight to ensure that the final plans are in
compliance with your legislative intent and that they are
enforceable.
Again--and these are my thank you's--I would like to thank
Chairman Oberstar and especially Chairman Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Ms. Hanni.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting the Business Travel Coalition to testify. My testimony
today is also on behalf of the 400,000 members of the
International Airline Passengers Association, IAPA.
It is promising that the intention of this hearing is to
move beyond service meltdowns such as the JetBlue debacle this
winter and expand the analysis to customer service much more
broadly defined to include long and unpredictable airport
security lines, cramped planes and the unreliability of the
system vis-a-vis delays and cancellations. The statistics about
delays, cancellations and service failures are well-known, so I
will not repeat them.
We also hear about the projection of passenger growth from
today's more than 700 million to 1 billion passengers by 2015
and how there is a crisis looming. The reality in the U.S.
commercial aviation system is, today, that there is already a
crisis, and we are heading for a political and an economic
nightmare in the years ahead.
Conventional wisdom is that we will need to prepare now for
these 1 billion passengers, but in just a short 24 months, we
will be near 800 million passengers, rendering 2007 and its
many problems a mere historical footnote. The aviation system
for business travelers will simply be unreliable; traveler
productivity will plummet, and commercial activity will be
reduced.
The public policy concern is that, on the one hand, if we
choose ill-conceived remedies in the short-term, we will do
harm to consumers ultimately and waste precious time laboring
under "feel good" measures that do not address systemic
problems. On the other hand, doing nothing is not an option
given what is fast approaching. Bad weather and the FAA are no
doubt part of the problem as are ordinary citizens who, for
example, will likely file lawsuits to block a more efficient
airspace redesign in the New York area.
However, it is BTC's view that airlines, as an industry,
and as the prime movers with respect to fundamental change are
not energized and motivated to provide the level of leadership
required to seriously move the dial in sufficient time.
The airline industry is more than capable of united
leadership and singleness of purpose as when, for example, it
secured $5 billion from Congress in 2001 as partial
compensation for the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. BTC supported
that legislation. Stories in the press at the time told of a
galvanized and united airline industry lobby, indeed,
unprecedented but in the face of an unparalleled crisis, and
that is what is required now in this growing crisis, but we are
not seeing it.
Our recommendation is that Congress should consider
Reverse-Sunset legislation that would provide a very strong
inducement for airlines to develop and implement solutions to
immediately address its portion of the current crisis. BTC
recommends that the National Academies of Sciences,
Transportation Research Board be directed by Congress to
produce two deliverables.
First, Congress should request a set of well-vetted
recommendations regarding solutions to systemic aviation system
problems. For example, immunized DOT-moderated airline
schedule-reduction conferences for major airport hubs, airport
congestion pricing alternatives, operational meltdowns, and
customer service recovery metrics and plans are all areas
requiring exploration and decisions.
Second, the TRB would be tasked with defining and stress
testing criteria to determine if there is a true market failure
with respect to the reliability and customer service levels of
the commercial air transportation system. The failure could be
caused by a lack of national aviation capacity in all of its
forms and causes or by a lack of aviation industry action to
address customer service problems broadly defined. Criteria
might include auditable airline customer service recovery plans
or metrics such as the DOT-tracked on-time arrivals, mishandled
baggage, involuntarily bumpings, and customer complaints. Such
metrics have been legitimized by the airlines like Continental,
who has used them to reward employee performance.
Representative DeFazio's consumer hotline idea needs to be
implemented.
After considering the ideas and strategies developed by
TRB, Congress would pass under this concept a Reverse-Sunset
legislation, embracing some or all of TRB's recommendations. If
at a point in the future it were determined that the airline
industry had failed to deliver on its commitments, there would
not be more hearings to determine if there is a problem.
Rather, the already passed Reversed-Sunset legislation would
become the new requirements for the airline industry. The DOT
Inspector General would be charged with monitoring the industry
vis-a-vis this legislation, and would report to Congress on a
routine basis.
The benefits of the strategic approach would be three--
avoiding punitive, ill-conceived fixes in the near term that
would ultimately harm the consumer, encouraging the airline
industry to put energy and leadership behind a campaign to
introduce sustainable, fundamental reforms to the industry, and
developing a TRB-led strategy with useful ideas that the
airline industry could consider implementing voluntarily.
When I testified in 1999 before this Committee on this very
subject, BTC believed then that the airlines could and should
solve their own problems. BTC still believes that this is the
case today. The difference today is that we are now out of
time, and the airlines need some old-fashioned motivation to
take this situation seriously and solve their own problems. BTC
believes airlines have an historic choice to make--provide real
leadership today or face regulation tomorrow.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Forrey, in your testimony, you indicate that O'Hare and
the three airports in the New York area as well as Philadelphia
International are the most overscheduled airports in the
country, and I wonder if you might explain the consequences of
airlines overscheduling.
Mr. Forrey. Well, the consequence initially is going to be
delays. You just cannot utilize more runways than what you have
available. If you put too many airplanes on there, they are
going to be pushed back. It creates congestion on the airport
taxiways and the ramp-up areas. It could create confusion. It
even could come to a point where some of the flight plan data
that you have in the system times out. Then you have additional
work that the controllers now have to do to put that
information back into the system to make sure that it is
consistent.
It also adds to mistakes. If you have all of your runways
jammed up with airplanes and delays are going on, particularly
if you have places where there is low staffing, people get
tired, and they make mistakes, and sometimes you get someone
who knows, and sometimes you get someone in front of the other,
the point being that people make mistakes, and with the more
opportunity you create to do that, that is what is going to
happen. Unfortunately, as these scheduling practices continue,
the opportunity for a mistake or for an accident to occur
increases. So those are the initial consequences.
Mr. Costello. You were here for the earlier panel, and I
think you heard the testimony indicating, I think from Mr.
Sturgell, that the FAA says that the system was adequately
staffed and the productivity of controllers was down since
1999. I believe those to be his words. The system is adequately
staffed, but productivity is down from 1999. I wonder if you
would like to comment.
Mr. Forrey. That reminds me of the old adage "liars figure
and figures lie."
Currently, there are 14,807 controllers, according to the
FAA, 200 of whom are still at the academy in Oklahoma City, and
3,000-plus are trainees who are not certified to work
airplanes. So, looking back to 1999, there were about 12,700
controllers certified to work airplanes. Today, there are only
11,400. So, if you look at the statistics and you want to use
the facts, the average operation, I think, in 1999 was 11.3.
Today, it is 12.7. So, actually, we are working with more
productivity today than we were back in 1999, but you know,
that is what figures do.
The same thing with the statistics on the New York
airspace. I mean we have been working with the agency, or were
up to 2 years ago, to develop that whole plan with New York,
and like Chairman Oberstar said earlier, it is very complicated
because you just cannot increase a bunch of fanned departures
out of New York without affecting all of the other inbound
traffic and all of the other overflight traffic coming from the
west, the east, the north, and the south.
So I am not quite sure where they are getting the
statistics on the 20 percent increase on operational
performance or productivity or the increase in reduction and
delays. It may be possible, but I do not think you implement
just a piece of the plan without the other parts involved. That
is a very intricate thing. That goes from Chicago to Boston,
all the way down to Miami--that whole airspace redesign--for
which, basically, the agency told us 2 years ago they are not
interested in our opinions anymore, and we are no longer
participating. So I think there is a lot more to the story
there than one would throw statistics out about.
Mr. Costello. I thank you.
Mr. May, you indicated that the airlines are a service
industry and that the airlines are committed to finding
solutions to the problems. We have heard testimony, and you
have heard comments by myself and by others up here that, you
know, these are complicated issues. There are weather delays,
nonweather delays, and there are some things that the FAA can
do that, in my judgment, they are not doing and some things
that the airlines can do regarding scheduling that they are
failing to do and will not do unless they are forced to do it,
but that is how I see it.
You did make the statement, if I got this correctly, that
there is a lot the airlines can do to prevent delays in the
holiday season, the coming season, and I wonder. As I asked the
first panel, I would ask you because that is what people want
to know immediately, the flying public today. They want to know
what can be done and what can be expected between now and
Thanksgiving and Christmas and the holiday season.
Specifically, what are the airlines doing to try and
prevent delays during the holiday season?
Mr. May. I do not know that we have timed it, Mr. Chairman,
specifically to the holiday season, but we have said, short-
term, Delta Airlines announced today that they have revamped
their schedule significantly at JFK. They have eliminated a
certain number of departures an hour; they are moving a lot of
their flights to a new morning bank for international travel,
and they are right-sizing changing their fleet mix to do more
to cabin service than single cabin service as they have in the
past. If I remember the numbers off the top of my head, some 63
percent of their operations going forward after these changes
are complete will be that.
I think we have indicated to you that we think it would be
appropriate for the Secretary to pull all of the parties
together and to sit down. We are having an initial meeting
tomorrow--as I indicated, no grass under the feet--with the
Secretary and with the FAA to specifically discuss some of the
issues of New York airspace. I think the dynamic here--those
are just two examples. We have said we will be happy to sit
down and address scheduling, but I think you have acknowledged
already--and certainly, Chairman Oberstar has acknowledged
already--some of the real problems with scheduling. You get one
carrier to take down the schedule, and somebody else, as a new
entrant, comes in and picks up on it. So what is the advantage
to volunteering to do that? You get capacity constraints put on
LGA, La Guardia, and there are two immediate exceptions--one
for new entrants and the other for small markets. You know, if
you are going to have constraints apply--and it sounds to us
like a lot of people are heading in that direction--then you
have to do it fairly across the whole NAS and for all of those
people who are moving through there.
You have talked about the fact there are 40-plus airports
feeding the New York TRACON. I think that is absolutely
correct. It is one of the most complex and difficult jobs in
the world, let alone the United States, to manage traffic
coming through there with the en route and that which is
originating and landing in that area. There are some 15
airports that have that sort of OMB status, all different sizes
of aircraft, all sorts of different destinations. I think there
are probably opportunities for the airlines, for Mr. Forrey on
my right and for others to sit down and discuss ways we can try
and optimize all that mix of traffic and see whether or not we
cannot get something done.
We talked about finding ways to open up that military
restricted space that is sitting off of New York. I think that
provides some options. The military does not like to give it
up, but I have never known anybody more powerful than Chairman
Oberstar. If there is somebody who is ready to take on the
military, it is bound to be him.
So I think we all recognize a need to get this done, but
what we have not acknowledged is this is not just a scheduling
issue. You know, we are moving 19,000-plus people a day more
out of New York, itself. We are running at 85 percent loads--
load factor--in our operations. We are right-sizing the size of
the fleet. We have to take into account that there is far
greater demand than there has been in the past. It is not going
to stop, and there will be consequences of caps, limitations,
congestion pricing, all of these ideas that are being floated
around there, and there are going to be a whole lot of people
in New York who do not have the choices they would like to have
to fly to those 32 brand new international destinations that
they have been able to fly to since the year 2000.
Mr. Costello. You know, I have other Members who want to
ask questions, so I am limited here.
Mr. May. We are happy to come in and have these
conversations with you off line as well.
Mr. Costello. Let me say that it is interesting, and I
think it is worth noting that, one, the Administrator on her
way out on the very last day and in her last speech addressed
the issue of overscheduling and that if the airlines do not do
something about it that the government needs to--or that the
government will, and that is very true. We have had
conversations with her about scheduling in the past.
Secondly, Delta, I think, did the right thing today. They
looked at their scheduling. They are trying to move in the
right direction to try and reduce the congestion and delays,
and you indicated here today that, on behalf of the airlines,
you are willing to work, and you have a meeting tomorrow with
the Secretary, and you are willing to do what is necessary, but
I have to tell you that there was not a whole lot of action in
that regard before we started our hearings earlier this year.
Mr. May. I do not think there was a whole lot of action
before we had the really unfortunate incidents in Austin and in
New York.
Mr. Costello. I would disagree with you, and I would tell
you that, if you go back and look at the record, it was the
Administrator--Administrator Blakey and many others--saying,
"Boy, we had a terrible year last summer, and this summer is
not going to be any better," and that was in February of this
year, but the airlines did not come in and say, "Hey, let us
sit down, and let us try and address this problem." The
Administrator at the FAA did not reach out to the airlines and
say, "Hey, we have to do something about this," and now we find
ourselves where we are, and the FAA is saying and the airlines
are saying, "Gosh, we have got to get together and work this
out."
My point is that when we provide aggressive oversight,
people act and they come together and try and solve problems.
When the Congress does not act and we leave it up to others to
act, a lot of times self-interests prevail and nothing gets
done, and that is the point that I am making.
At this time, I would recognize my friend and Ranking
Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will just
ask a few questions.
First of all, to Mr. Forrey, the FAA has just completed, I
guess, a major redesign of the New York and nearby airspace
which they are hoping will, among other things, reduce delays
by about 20 percent.
Have you or your organization had a chance to look at that?
Do you have any opinion on their redesign or whether the
prospects are as rosy as they forecast?
Mr. Forrey. Mr. Petri, thanks for the question.
Like I said earlier when I answered the earlier question,
we had been working collaboratively with the agency from 1999
up till about 2005. It not only developed the New York airspace
but addressed how that interrelates to the traffic from
Chicago, the traffic from Atlanta, the traffic down to Miami,
the traffic up to Boston, to Washington, everywhere because you
just cannot change one thing in New York and expect everything
else to work fine.
I am not quite sure what--we have not been briefed by the
agency on their new airspace redesign or what they are going to
do in New York. We have seen some of the pictures and plans
from the GAO because they came to us and asked us about the
same thing that you are asking right now. Some of what they are
doing is pretty much identical. The environmental impact study
that we had worked towards up to 2005 is, essentially, what the
agency is going to run with as far as what kind of airspace
changes they are going to make. However, we do not know that
they are implementing any other piece to it, and you just
cannot implement one piece and expect it to give you the
results that you think it is going to give you.
I do not know whether to say it is a complete failure. I do
not know whether to say it is going to work. I think some of
the elements of what they are doing have very little impact
like the fanning of departures to the south. I think that is
kind of a no-brainer in the New York area, but as far as how
you increase departures out of that airspace and you do not
impact other arrivals coming in and other overflights, I do not
see that being addressed in this plan. It may be, but they have
not briefed my organization on it. So that is probably the best
answer I can give you on that.
Mr. Petri. Mr. May, I do not know if you can really answer
this or not, and Mr. Oberstar said that, you know, it is a very
complicated system, and there are a lot of factors going into
it.
Is it, would you say, fundamentally that delays are caused
by--well, obviously, we have weather and things like that which
are going to always be a factor, but are they problems specific
to particular airports or to particular carriers? That is to
say, once in a while, I suppose a carrier can lose control of
its operations, and they have from time to time, and teams have
to come in and straighten it out. So I suppose sometimes it is
one way, and sometimes it is another.
Looked at longer term from the point of view of the Nation,
what do you think we can do to try to minimize, as far as
humanly possible, these sorts of delays?
Mr. May. Mr. Petri, I have said it before, and I will say
it again. I think there is no single solution to the problem
any more than there is a single cause to the problem.
At the end of the day, we have extraordinary growth and
demand. In New York City alone--I said it earlier--we are
doing, you know, significantly more international destinations
as well as domestic destinations. We are putting more flights
on. There is real growth there, and it is not just a matter of
overscheduling, and I would acknowledge there have been
examples of overscheduling in New York, but it is overall
demand in the system that is increasing. I think you have to
take that into account.
I think you have to take the need for the next generation
system long-term. I think short-term we need to have a
collaborative effort with Pat's organization, the FAA, DOT and
our guys and others to address some short-term solutions to the
particular demands of that airspace. As I said, it is probably
the single most complicated airspace in the world when you look
at all of the different airports that are feeding it, both from
an en route system on an OMB basis.
So I do not know any better way to do it than what was
suggested earlier in this hearing, which is to have all of the
effective parties come in and sit down and try and work out a
suite of solutions that are important, because at the end of
the day, if we use artificial caps or some other kind of
economic mechanism, your colleagues from New York are going to
come to you, and they are going to say, "Wait a minute. Why is
it that you guys are restraining those of us in New York, this
great economic engine, from flying where we want to go and how
we want to get there?" that is what we are enabling right now.
We just have to do it in a more efficient and productive way.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Forrey, I think you were here when the Acting
Administrator and I were engaging in a dialogue about
overscheduling, and I was particularly impressed on how well
you quantified it in your testimony. I just want to go back to
one point where he seemed to disagree with you and with me,
which is--you know, I said he seemed to imply that this is a
very transitory problem. It is only a couple of hours, so what
is the difference? You know, he said this gets cleaned out, but
I mean, I think, as you pointed out, this can under optimal
conditions cascade 3 or even 4 hours out in terms of delays,
and obviously, with less than optimal conditions, it is going
to be a mess. Is that a fair----
Mr. Forrey. I think your characterization of it is spot on.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I just happened to have been in a
meeting with the manager of the San Francisco Airport yesterday
where there is a growing problem. He has one major airline,
United, bringing in about the same number of people it used to
bring in on twice as many planes. Do you find that some of the
congestion we are dealing with--I think we are talking about
the number of RJs doubling, and regional transport folks are
proud of that, but the problem is that a lot of that is
supplanting what used to be mainline routes with larger planes.
You just have a little--maybe you have more frequency to try
and bring in the same number of people, but isn't that causing
also----
Mr. Forrey. I think it is--you know, I do not want to throw
the regional jets under the bus, but you are getting fewer
people coming in on an airplane. So, obviously, if you are
going to bring the same number of people in on----
Mr. DeFazio. Except for weight turbulence, it is absorbing
the same amount of space as a larger plane, correct?
Mr. Forrey. Absolutely. When we used to have the props come
in, you could off-load those on other runways, on shorter
runways and everything. Now the RJs are just another jet. I
mean it is. Now, if you have a heavy aircraft or even a large
aircraft in front of an RJ, you need more space. You cannot use
the 3 miles or even the 2-1/2 where you can do that at some
airports, but that is the same thing with any large aircraft,
heavy or anything else that you have. The RJs, sure, it is
going to create those kinds of issues at those airports. If you
schedule it properly--I will go back to that--and spread it out
throughout the day when you are not trying to jam everyone in
there at the same time, it is probably less of an impact.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Now, Mr. Mitchell, when you were talking about business
travelers, I kind of liked what you said. Bill Lipinski and I
for years were talking about the "R" word. You said real
leadership today or reregulation tomorrow. Bill and I were
predicting that a number of years ago and used to applaud the
industry, and then a few years ago when they were in big
economic trouble, they said, "Well, maybe that is not a bad
idea." I think they are now back to where the free market is
going to solve their problems here now that they have all gone
bankrupt and have basically divested themselves of pensions and
of other obligations, and you know, they are operating so
efficiently. So I would like to put to you:
What is the most important thing to a business traveler?
Mr. May says business passengers demand frequent service. Now,
is it frequent service on a schedule? Is that more important
than, say, "Gee, I really wanted to fly at 8:47, but you know,
there is a plane at 9:30, and there is one at 8:00 that are
actually going to go, but the one at 8:47 is going to be
scheduled at a time when it will not go because we are
overscheduled"? Would realistic scheduling that is predictable
be more important to business travelers?
Like I say, in my job, it is the most important thing. I
have got a very tight schedule. I have got to get where I am
going or I miss a meeting or I miss boats or I miss doing
things in the district. I assume that most business travelers
feel that same pressure.
Do you think they are demanding that planes be overbooked
during a time period so they can just choose an exact moment
they want, but in all likelihood it is going to be delayed? Do
they like that?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, underlying what, I think, Mr. May was
referring to in terms of business travelers demanding frequency
is the fact that it is the old "S" curve thing in the airline
industry where the competitor with the great number of
frequencies reaps the disproportionate amount of the revenue
and the profits. It is just an economic reality.
Frequency is very important to business travelers,
particularly in many of the large hub markets. However, what is
paramount, only second to safety, is the reliability of the
system, and that is what is at risk here. That is what is
breaking down further every day. When we were leading into the
year 2000 when we had a comparable situation where you could
not rely on the system to get out to a meeting and back in the
same day or simply to make a 9:00 o'clock meeting sometime
somewhere, you would go in the night before, and that is the
kind of behavior that is back now. People are going out and are
spending more time away from their families, incurring hotel
bills and other expenses. So that is the critical thing at this
point in time. It is the reliability of the system.
Mr. DeFazio. You know, there are some services that provide
some discreet information on delays, but they are nowhere near
complete on a flight-by-flight basis.
Would that be something useful for the government to
require of the airlines that they make available an up-to-date
percentage of on-time performance for every flight they offer?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes. I mean it goes without saying that a
consumer who has got complete and accurate information is going
to make better choices and will actually drive the market, and
I would say that there is yet another opportunity that may even
be larger than that, and that is to show statistically, in some
kind of graphic way, the relative efficiency of these various
hubs so that, if you show that O'Hare is far less efficient
from a business traveler's standpoint than a competing hub,
perhaps the traveler will then go through the other hub, and
that is going to get the attention of the two hub carriers at
O'Hare very, very quickly.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay.
Mr. Mitchell. There is no reason that DOT could not produce
that information.
Mr. DeFazio. So we are back to Adam Smith here, basically,
that if we are going to run this with market forces in a
competitive, free market system of capitalism, the consumers
need perfect information or all information, better
information?
Mr. Mitchell. They need better information, and there has
to be a recognition that some markets work well and some
markets do not work well, and I leave that up to the economists
to say where this one is, but in a market that does not work
particularly well, the premium is even greater on information
to the consumer.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging my
overtime.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the
Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Petri,
for your patience in working through a long afternoon of an
extensive list of witnesses and hearings and very important
information.
Mr. Principato, the airports are one of that three-legged
stool that I talked about in addressing successfully the issue
of capacity in our system.
In the aftermath of September 11, airports put on hold a
large number of AIP projects, capacity enhancement initiatives,
in order to put the money into security. Some $3.2 billion to
$3.5 billion in runway capacity projects was put on hold and
the money shifted to security needs. None of that has been
reimbursed to--I use that word loosely--has been repatriated to
airports as I, at the time, suggested out of the DOD
appropriation or out of the Homeland Security Department
appropriation. None of that. You have had to issue PFCs. You
have had to scale back on projects and still try to recapture
some of that capacity. So, even if we gave you all the money in
the world right now, you could not build all of that additional
capacity this year or next year. It takes years to build,
doesn't it?
Mr. Principato. It does. It takes a long time. One of the
best quotes on that is probably from Gina Marie Lindsey when
she ran the Seattle airport. Maybe it was before this Committee
she was testifying, and she said it took the Egyptians less
time to build the pyramids at Giza than it is taking her to
build her runway in Seattle. It takes an awful long time. You
are right. It is not going to happen in just a year or two, but
we want to begin now to try to catch up. You are right. We put
a lot of projects on hold. We want to catch up.
The new runway in Atlanta was referenced earlier by the
earlier panel. Thirty more arrivals per hour, I think is the
figure, and it is not only service to more communities but is
certainly a more efficient use of that airfield, and then the
round taxiway there, again, is a more efficient use of the
airfield.
Mr. Oberstar. A footnote to your comment about Seattle is
that I am not quite sure about the time it took to build the
pyramids in Egypt, but I do know this, that from the time the
planning began for the crosswind runway at Seattle, the 8,700-
foot runway, until the time actual work began on the runway,
Hong Kong built two 12,500-foot runways in the ocean at a depth
of 600 meters and a terminal to accommodate 90 million
passengers a year and had aircraft operating and a 23-mile
connector rail, truck and passenger vehicle to downtown Hong
Kong before Seattle got its runway out there. That is why we
included permit streamlining in the 2003 aviation bill.
Mr. Principato. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Oberstar. But there are limitations. You cannot add
runway capacity at Newark--we had this discussion with the
previous panel--unless you build it in the Passaic River. It is
not a very good option.
There is no ability to add capacity, runway capacity, at La
Guardia, is there, or at JFK for that matter----
Mr. Principato. That is right.
Mr. Oberstar. --or a Teterboro?
Mr. Principato. Right.
Mr. Oberstar. You do have capacity at Stewart, and you have
some potential capacity at Atlantic City. That is going to take
airlines routing traffic into Atlantic City. It is going to
take ground capacity to serve Atlantic City. It can be done and
it should be done and it needs to be done, and we will create
the additional capacity.
Now, Mr. Mitchell, from the years when your organization
went from the National Passenger Traffic Coalition to the
National Business Travelers Association, you supported the
passenger facility charge in the anticipation that it would add
to capacity, but roughly 23 percent of PFCs have gone into air
side capacity over the 16 years that it has been in operation.
We have put increased pressure on airports. The existing bill
passed the House to invest more funds.
What opportunities do you see for airport air side capacity
to provide relief to the congestion problem?
Mr. Mitchell. I think you may be confusing two different
organizations. We have never commented on PFCs or----
Mr. Oberstar. I am sorry. I thought you had. I thought you
had.
Mr. Mitchell. No. I think that might be another group, so I
would defer to the other experts on the panel.
Mr. Oberstar. I will answer the question myself.
We expect the airports to do that, Mr. Principato.
Mr. Principato. If I could just say, we have heard you loud
and clear on that point, and have talked to you, of course,
many times this year.
I think the other thing that is important to know is that
the terminal projects, of course, are more expensive than
runway projects for a variety of reasons, and there are
actually more air side projects being funded with PFCs that are
ongoing right now than terminal projects because the terminal
projects cost so much more that the dollar figures are out of
balance, and as to the air side projects that are planned into
the future for PFCs that are on the books now and that are
approved, there are far more air side projects than terminal
projects.
The industry is hearing you loud and clear on that, but I
do want to make sure that it is said that, because terminal
projects are so much more expensive than air side projects, the
dollar figures are out of balance with the number of projects
that are going on.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, following up, Mr. Mitchell, on Mr.
DeFazio's question to you about when business travelers want to
travel and, Mr. May, your members and their scheduling flights,
if you got together and if the airlines provided some
incentives to business travelers to use less attractive periods
of the day with a financial incentive attached to it, that
would provide some incentive, wouldn't it, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Mitchell. It certainly would, and it might help on the
margins. It is already sort of in the airline pricing today. If
a flight is at 3:00 o'clock--and traditionally, it has 50
percent load factors--there are natural incentives to be very,
very price competitive on that flight.
I think that the reality is that we are going to have to do
something to level off demand. The options are, you know, slot
controls, auctions and congestion pricing, perhaps changing
from weight-based landing fees to passenger fees. These are all
extraordinarily complex economic concepts that you can debate
on either side. Both sides of an issue, you know, can win on
any given day. I just think we need some real expertise,
neutral expertise, to wade through this.
Mr. Oberstar. We have that expertise right here at this
table.
Mr. May, who bears the cost burden of congestion pricing?
Mr. May. I think, ultimately, the passenger will bear the
burden of----
Mr. Oberstar. But up front it is the airline?
Mr. May. Up front it will be, but you know, congestion
pricing, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is little more than
an economic transference of wealth from one party to another,
and it is not necessarily going to affect consumer behavior. If
a businessman needs to fly at 5:00 o'clock in the evening to
London out of JFK to make an important meeting, then all that
congestion pricing is going to do is to put a premium on that
ticket.
As to the other suggestion that we look for ways, we say
with great affection to you, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to
raise our prices, not lower our prices for our tickets.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are doing a very good job of that.
That is for sure.
Mr. May. I wish we were doing a much better job.
Mr. Oberstar. And it is not moving the travel along.
Now, you know, because you have been through this
situation--and I have cited several times--that you cannot have
57 flights all depart DFW at 7:00 a.m. Air traffic controllers
cannot move that many aircraft departing at 7:00 a.m.
Mr. May. Mr. Forrey has been reminding me of that ever
since we have been sitting here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes.
Mr. May. We have committed to sit down and to discuss
scheduling but I would point out, in JFK's instance in
particular, there are about 80 airlines that are flying in and
out of JFK.
Mr. Oberstar. That is right.
Mr. May. There is a huge demand coming on international
because of the U.S.-EU agreements, and that is going to
complicate our life significantly, and if we put artificial
restrictions on flying in and out of there, the places that are
going to suffer the most are the smaller communities and the
underserved communities right now. So we just need to make sure
we understand what the consequence is of all of these
discussions.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, as I discussed earlier--and you heard
the discussion with Mr. Sturgell--the FAA has the authority to
convene airlines and to work out scheduling.
Mr. May. They do not, Mr. Chairman, have the antitrust----
Mr. Oberstar. But you do not need an antitrust exemption to
do these things.
Mr. May. Yes, sir. I would very respectfully----
Mr. Oberstar. Now, I think in the short-term you can reach
accommodations, and we do not need to add--we did for a very
brief period of time provide antitrust exemption, but it can be
done in a way that is less cumbersome and that raises less
concern about the outcome than to have antitrust exemption, and
you can come together to discuss scheduling and to avoid that
problem of the airlines that say, "Well, you are asking me, but
you are not asking the others to make a sacrifice." I cannot
blame an airline like--I do not know where I have that specific
language--but that says we do not want to--here we are.
The delay reduction actions: "the Secretary of
Transportation may request air carriers meet with the
Administrator of the FAA to discuss flight reductions at
severely congested airports to reduce overscheduling and flight
delays during hours of peak operations."
Mr. May. Correct.
My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that when they did O'Hare,
for example--Chairman Costello is particularly familiar with
this, as are you--there was a reason they had to use shuttle
discussion, and that was because they did not have the
antitrust authority to put both American and United in the room
at the same time, and there is an airport where two very
dominant carriers were in the operation. At JFK, you do not
have that same dynamic, and there are lots and lots of
different parties, some of them foreign flag.
All I am pointing out is not an interest or a willingness
to sit down and come up with an answer to the challenge, but it
is a far more difficult legal environment than it was at
O'Hare.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, tomorrow, apparently, the President is
going to convene a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation
and with the FAA and will discuss the congestion problem and
the air traffic delays, and he may have some observations.
Is there anything more that we could have done in the bill
that we passed in the House to address delays?
Mr. May. Specific to delays, I do not know, because I think
what we are talking about is shorter term issues between now
and this Christmas. I think those are administrative and
operational kinds of challenges that we need to take on, and I
think it is going to take a fully cooperative effort between
the FAA, the controllers, airlines, reports, and others to
address that.
Mr. Oberstar. Right. Maybe the President has a rabbit in
his hat that he is going to pull out, and the rabbit is going
to be implementing NextGen in the next 6 months.
Mr. May. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that we are going
to hear an announcement on caps for both JFK and Newark, and as
I said earlier, when you have artificial constraints of that
sort----
Mr. Oberstar. That is going to have an economic consequence
in raising costs and in reducing opportunities for travel.
Mr. May. That is exactly right, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank each member of the panel.
Ms. Hanni, thank you for the work that you have done on
behalf of your coalition. You have really inspired Members of
Congress to respond, and you have made it possible for us to
include improvements in this legislation for air travelers
during periods of delays.
Ms. Hanni. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Oberstar, and I thank our
witnesses today.
I just wonder, Mr. Forrey. Are you invited to the meeting
tomorrow with the President and the Secretary?
Mr. Forrey. What meeting? No.
Mr. Costello. As I said earlier, we were pleased with the
announcement by Delta that they are looking at their scheduling
at JFK and will reduce the number of flights. I think that is a
step in the right direction. I think the Administrator's
observation was the right observation, and I think the Acting
Administrator's decision and announcement the other day that
they are going to sit down with the airlines and try and take a
look at scheduling to address the problem--I think all of those
things are a step in the right direction, and we look forward
to hearing from the President tomorrow, and we hope that it
involves a cooperative agreement between some of our airlines
reducing flights in congested areas and taking action that is
necessary to address this problem. We thank you.
Let me say to Ms. Hanni, as Chairman Oberstar said, we not
only thank you but your members for your active involvement,
and I would tell you that we are only halfway through the
process, and I would encourage you to spend time over on the
other side of the Capitol, in the other body, to inspire them
and to make certain that they take a look at H.R. 2881. If they
do, we think that if those provisions are contained in a final
legislation signed by the President that it will go a long way
to helping passengers in the future.
With that, we again thank all of our witnesses for being
here today. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.234