[Senate Hearing 110-698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-698
A REVIEW OF THE AIRSPACE REDESIGN PROJECT AND FLIGHT SCHEDULING
PRACTICES AT THE PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
APRIL 25, 2008--PHILADELPHIA, PA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-742 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Charles Kieffer, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies
PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM HARKIN, Iowa TED STEVENS, Alaska
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Rogoff
William Simpson
Meaghan L. McCarthy
Rachel Milberg
Jon Kamarck (Minority)
Matthew McCardle (Minority)
Ellen Beares (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Arlen Specter....................... 1
Statement of Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.......... 3
Steve Kelley, Program Manager, Airport Redesign Project.......... 3
Mary McCarthy, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administra- Gtion.............................................. 3
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Sturgell......................... 4
Congestion and Delays--Understanding the Problem................. 4
Airspace Redesign Overview....................................... 5
Airspace Redesign Project Implementation......................... 5
Complementary Solutions--Enhancing Capacity...................... 6
Complementary Solutions--NextGen................................. 7
Complementary Solutions--New York ARC............................ 7
Environmental Stewardship........................................ 8
Statement of David James Gribbin, General Counsel, Department of
Transportation................................................. 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 11
The Problem...................................................... 11
DOT Actions...................................................... 12
Addressing the Problem and Not the Symptom....................... 15
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg................ 20
Operations During Peak Hours..................................... 21
Statement of Hon. Michael Nutter, Mayor, City of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, PA............................................... 27
Prepared Statement........................................... 30
Introductory Remarks............................................. 30
Airport Update................................................... 30
New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia FAA Airspace Redesign........... 30
Flight Scheduling Practices...................................... 31
Aviation Delays.................................................. 35
Prepared Statement of Bryan R. Lentz, Pennsylvania State
Representative................................................. 44
Statement of Representative Joe Sestak, U.S. House of
Representatives, Pennsylvania, Seventh District................ 45
Statement of John J. Whelan, Vice Chairman, Delaware County
Council........................................................ 48
Prepared Statement........................................... 50
Statement of Patrick Forrey, President, National Air Traffic
Controllers Association........................................ 52
Don Chapman, National Air Traffic Controller Association's
Facility Representative........................................ 52
Prepared Statement of Patrick Forrey............................. 55
Air Traffic Issues of Concern to the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Area........................................................... 55
De-Combination of Philadelphia Tower and TRACON.................. 56
Dispersal Headings............................................... 57
Airline Over-scheduling.......................................... 58
Air Traffic Controller Staffing and the Effect of the Imposed
Work Rules..................................................... 59
Statement of Stephen S. Aichele, Chairman, Saul Ewing,
Representing the Philadelphia CEO Council for Growth........... 61
Prepared Statement of Mark Schweiker, President and CEO, Greater
Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce; Chairman of the CEO Council
for Growth..................................................... 63
Statement of John Meenan, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operations Officer, Air Transport Association of America....... 65
Prepared Statement........................................... 68
A REVIEW OF THE AIRSPACE REDESIGN PROJECT AND FLIGHT SCHEDULING
PRACTICES AT THE PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Philadelphia, PA.
The subcommittee met at 3:50 p.m., at the National
Constitution Center, 525 Arch Street, Independence Mall, Kirby
Auditorium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter
presiding.
Present: Senator Specter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's
3:50, the scheduled time for this hearing on the Philadelphia
International Airport. At the outset, I thank the chairperson
and the ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee of
Appropriations, Senator Murray and Senator Bond, for
authorizing the hearing.
I am a member of the subcommittee, and of course, of the
full Appropriations Committee. I regret the necessity of having
to delay the hearing, but I appreciate your accommodating my
schedule, it was a matter of necessity.
The Philadelphia Airport is a very vital part of this
region, southeastern Pennsylvania, really, to the middle part
of the State, much of New Jersey, the State of Delaware--very,
very important to the commerce of the city, the private
activities of so many passengers.
It serves some 29 airlines, providing 700 daily departures
to more than 100 domestic and international cities, and has a
$14 billion impact on the region.
Philadelphia ranks 9th in the Nation and 10th in the world
in the number of flights that it handles. Regrettably, 2007,
Philadelphia ranked 29 out of the 32 major domestic airports in
terms of on-time departures, with slightly less than a 70
percent on-time flight rating, and 28 out of 32, in terms of
on-time arrivals, with only 66.5 percent of flights arriving on
time.
The subject matter of today's hearings will take up the
overflights over Delaware County, which have understandably
created grave concern by the residents of that area, who have
been impacted by the noise. The commitment has been made by the
FAA, that on the overflights from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
to 7 p.m., that there would be no overflights unless there were
more than 10 planes backed up.
According to air traffic controllers, planes are sent over
Delaware County as a first option, even when no other planes
are waiting to take off, meaning that the overflights are being
used as primary routes, not reliever routes, as the FAA earlier
had indicated.
We have had extensive correspondence with Acting
Administrator Sturgell, who has been very cooperative in
responding to the questions which we have had. We have had
meetings with both Mr. Sturgell, and Mr. Kelley--(Air
Controller Chief), on these issues--and have emphasized the
need to have more done on this issue. And we're going to
explore that on the public record here today. And we have
Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell, and Mr. Gribbin, the
General Counsel of the Department of Transportation.
With respect to the overcrowding, the situation appears to
me to be enormously serious--it's like a restaurant with 100
seats and has 175 bookings, so what would you expect? People
come for a 7:45 reservation.
The testimony of the President of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, Patrick Forrey, on September 7, 2007,
commented that Philadelphia is able to handle 12 or 13
departing aircraft per quarter hour, under optimal conditions,
yet 15 flights are scheduled to depart from 9:45 a.m. to 10
a.m., another 15 from 10:00 to 10:15, and 17 from 10:15 to
10:30. So that, in the course of a 45-minute timeframe, you
have 47 flights scheduled to depart. I think I've been on those
most of the time.
According to Mr. Forrey's testimony, 19 aircraft were
scheduled to depart from 5:45 p.m. to 6 p.m., 18 from 6:00 to
6:15, 17 from 6:15 to 6:30.
Now, we want to really say what the overall picture looks
like, and in our discussions--which, I appreciate, again, with
Administrator Sturgell, and others, and we had a hearing before
the full subcommittee in Washington last week, where some of
these matters were aired--it may be that the Department of
Transportation needs additional authority from Congress.
Additional authority from Congress to give them the power
to limit the number of flights which can come in and which can
take off. And my sense of the Congress is that we would be
willing to do that, because it is a very serious national
problem--Philadelphia is only one part of it, but a very
serious part of it, because of the size of our city.
We appreciate the witnesses coming in today, and we will
begin with the Honorable Robert A. Sturgell, Acting
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Mr. Sturgell, we're going to limit your time to 5 minutes,
we have quite an array of witnesses, and will enable us to have
more time for dialogue, questions and answers. Thank you for
joining us and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
STEVE KELLEY, PROGRAM MANAGER, AIRPORT REDESIGN PROJECT
MARY McCARTHY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Sturgell. Senator Specter, thank you for inviting me
and my colleague, D.J. Gribbin, the Department's General
Counsel, to discuss these issues today.
The New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia Airspace Redesign
Project is vital to the safety and efficiency of our national
airspace system. As you indicated, in 2007 we did see record
flight delays across the country--the system is stretched to
the limit.
Against this backdrop, the Redesign Project is a crucial
piece of the solution--both near-term and long-term. We
estimate that by 2011, when Airspace Redesign is fully
implemented and complete, we'll see a 20 percent reduction in
delay. It's expected to reduce annual operating costs by $248
million, and severe weather delay costs by another $37 million.
In the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia region alone, this
could yield economic benefits to air carriers, passengers, and
local businesses, of $7 to $9 billion.
We're not just doing this on our own. For the past 10
years, and at a cost of $53 million in appropriated funds,
we've been studying and evaluating the airspace--for the
pilots, for the airlines, for our controllers, and ultimately
for the traveling public.
And we have done our best to involve the public--the public
that lives by this airport, and the public that uses this
airport. With the input from the surrounding community, the
airport operators, the carriers, the local businesses, the
traveling public, I think we've been able to structure the
airspace redesigns, so that we can balance the savings in time,
money and delay reduction, with the environmental impact.
I recognize and appreciate that this is a sensitive issue,
which is why we've made extensive efforts over the past years
to involve all of the affected communities. We've held over 120
public meetings throughout the region, published newsletters,
considered the comments, and maintained a dedicated website
with all of the relevant information.
I want to emphasize that, not only did we conduct this
public outreach, but we listened to what people had to say.
Before we made any final decisions, we considered all of the
feedback from the community, and we took it seriously. We went
back to the drawing board, to design environmental mitigation
measures into airspace redesign.
So, I'd like to put this into context for you. The chart
that's being displayed, in grey, you will see the seven
departure headings that we originally considered for
Philadelphia going out to the west. They were part of what I
call a ``operationally ideal'' plan. If we had our way, and
were it only about air traffic, those are the seven headings we
proposed, and would use--to give us the maximum flexibility to
handle the traffic.
This second map shows the noise impact that would have
occurred if--and I stress, if--we had implemented those seven
headings without community----
Senator Specter. Would you please bring the chart and set
it right between the, in front of the flags?
Mr. Sturgell. You bet.
So, the yellow, orange, and red-colored areas show the
noise increases, while the purple-colored areas show noise
decreases. Again, this is the noise level we would have seen if
we hadn't been acting on the comments and concerns of the
community. I want to make it very clear that this map does not
show what the FAA ultimately decided to implement.
The second heading chart that you'll see, after community
input, this is, in fact, what we are actually implementing.
We're only going to implement three of those departure
headings, as a direct result of the community input we've
received. And then the noise map from those three headings.
Once again, the yellow areas show an increase in noise, the
purple areas, a decrease. As you can see, the areas affected by
increased noise are substantially smaller, and we even have
areas that currently hear airport noise showing an ultimate
decrease in noise.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to reiterate that we recognize the sensitivity of
these issues, and the delicate balance that must be struck. How
do you relieve congestion delays without causing too great of
an environmental impact? The FAA believes that we achieve the
balance of interests with this redesign project, and we've done
it by listening to, and hearing the input from the interested
stakeholders.
Senator, this concludes my prepared remarks, I'd be happy
to answer any questions you have.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Sturgell.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Sturgell
Senator Specter and Senator Casey: Thank you for inviting me to
appear here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace
Redesign (Airspace Redesign Project), a project that is vital to the
safety and efficiency of our national airspace system (NAS). My
colleague, D.J. Gribbin, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, is also here to discuss airline flight scheduling
practices at Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).
CONGESTION AND DELAYS--UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM
Growing congestion and delays in our aviation system are a serious
threat to the U.S. economy and our quality of life. Successfully
addressing this threat will require us to embrace new solutions and
acknowledge that pursuit of status quo policies will do little, if
anything, to reverse the substantial decline in system performance that
we have experienced in recent years. While we are enjoying a record
level of safety, we are at a critical point with congestion and delays.
To give you some perspective, let me draw a national and regional
framework. According to FAA Air Traffic Operations Network (OPSNET)
data, in 2007, there were 46,495,785 total air traffic control center
operations in the United States. Approximately one-third of the
Nation's flights and one-sixth of the world's flights either start or
traverse the airspace that supports the New York/New Jersey/
Philadelphia (NY/NJ/PHL) region.
During this same time period, we saw record delays in flights
across the country. For calendar year 2007, delays were up
approximately 10 percent nationwide, compared with calendar year 2006.
Eighteen of our Nation's largest airports, including PHL, have returned
to their highest pre-9/11 commercial passenger levels. Throughout all
of this, the FAA's primary goal is one of safety, separating aircraft
in the airspace so that they can navigate safely. In an airspace that
is already operating at, or even beyond, capacity, any disruption, be
it weather or equipment difficulties, requires the FAA to institute
measures that can often translate into delays. From May 1-August 31,
2007 alone, we saw a total of 210,443 delays totaling 9,808,347 minutes
throughout the system. Of those, 77.6 percent occurred in the NY/NJ/PHL
region. OPSNET data indicates that 72 percent of delays were caused by
weather, while 14 percent were caused by volume, with the remaining
delays were due to other causes (e.g., equipment outages, runway
construction, etc.). Our aviation system is stretched to the limit.
As we seek solutions to the problem of congestion and delays, we
must recognize that aviation is one of the most complex industries in
the world, consisting of an extremely intricate web of infrastructure,
technology, and people. The FAA is addressing the congestion and delays
problem in a variety of ways, with new technologies and procedures
immediately, and in the long-term with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen), which will transform the aviation
system and how we control air traffic. We must be able to handle the
demands of the future for aviation travel, projected to be one billion
passengers by 2015. The Airspace Redesign Project is a crucial piece of
the solution to the congestion and delays problem.
AIRSPACE REDESIGN OVERVIEW
The Airspace Redesign Project is the culmination of over 9 years of
study and evaluation by the FAA to address congestion and delays at
some of our Nation's busiest airports. The complexity of the airspace
in the NY/NJ/PHL area and its importance to the Nation cannot be
overstated. There are 5 major airports (John F. Kennedy International
Airport, LaGuardia Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport,
Teterboro Airport, and Philadelphia International Airport) and 16 other
airports in the region that were studied as part of the Airspace
Redesign Project. There are approximately 15 other commercial service,
general aviation, reliever, or military airports that are located in
the region, but were not individually studied as part of the Airspace
Redesign Project. From an air traffic control (ATC) perspective, the
sky can look like an anthill over each major airport, with hundreds of
planes in transit, arriving, or departing at any given moment. For
example, only a few miles separates the streams of arrivals at Newark
and La Guardia, southbound La Guardia departures are ``climbed over''
Newark arrivals, and the approach path to La Guardia can depend in part
on runway use at Kennedy; this represents only a fraction of the
activity. This interdependency means that Philadelphia International
Airport (PHL) departures are frequently delayed because of volume in
New York. As noted above, one-third of the Nation's flights and one-
sixth of the world's flights either starts or traverses the airspace,
making an already intricately choreographed system even more complex.
The goal of the Airspace Redesign Project, then, is to enhance the
efficiency and reliability of the airspace structure and the ATC system
for pilots, airlines, and the traveling public. The project modernizes
the structure of the NY/NJ/PHL air traffic environment in an
environmentally responsible manner, while laying a foundation for
NextGen. Moreover, it will accommodate growth while enhancing safety
and reducing delays by 20 percent in the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area.
From an environmental standpoint, by 2011, this project is expected to
reduce noise levels for 619,023 people who currently experience noise
at or above 45 dB DNL, and reduce fuel burn and, in turn, emissions by
the airlines.
The FAA's experience with the 2005 Florida Airspace Redesign
emphasizes how these efforts save time and money, by successfully
addressing delays. FAA calculates that in its first year, the redesign
has reduced delays, reduced reroutes, and reduced foreign fees
attributable to reroutes in the amount of $22.5 million in direct
operating costs (e.g., fuel, crew, and hourly maintenance costs) for
traffic inbound to South Florida and $11.7 million for traffic outbound
from South Florida. In the Caribbean, a savings of $400,000 has been
realized due to reduced reroutes and international user fees. The
benefits of the Florida Airspace Redesign total almost $35 million
annually.
AIRSPACE REDESIGN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project is estimated to
take 5 years, and will progress along four qualitatively different
stages. Overall, the project represents an innovative approach to
airspace design in the NY/NJ/PHL area. Air traffic rules differ between
the ``terminal,'' or ``en route,'' or ``center'' environments. For
example, ``terminal'' airspace has 3 nautical mile separation of
aircraft criteria, while ``en route'' airspace uses 5 mile criteria.
The project expands the terminal airspace over a larger geographical
area than is currently designated, and expands it vertically up to
23,000 feet above mean sea level in some areas. Some airspace sectors
that are currently worked in the en route or center environment, upon
full implementation of the project, will be worked using terminal rules
and terminal equipment. Expanding the terminal airspace permits ATC to
use terminal separation rules as well as the more flexible terminal
holding rules over this larger area, providing ATC with more
flexibility. This ``terminalization'' of the airspace also permits ATC
to incorporate expanded departure gates and to separate arrival and
departure flows in the NY/NJ/PHL metropolitan areas, increasing the
efficiency of the airspace. Practically speaking, this means that ATC
can sequence aircraft further out from the airports, where there is
more space to do so. This makes the flow of air traffic more efficient,
even when there's bad weather.
Reconfiguring the airspace will enable the FAA to take several
direct actions to take advantage of improved aircraft performance and
emerging ATC technologies. Leveraging these technologies, the FAA can
implement new and modified ATC procedures, including dispersal
headings, multiple departure gates and simplified arrival procedures by
2011. The FAA will also use these technologies to employ noise
mitigation measures, such as use of continuous descent approaches
(CDA), and raising arrival altitudes.
Implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project will be able to
make use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required
Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved
safety, access, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as
reduced environmental impacts. RNAV operations remove the requirement
for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based
navigational aid (i.e. flying only from radar beacon to radar beacon),
thereby allowing aircraft greater access to better routes and
permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations. By using more
precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in
fuel burn and emissions and increases in efficiency.
RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting
function. This onboard capability enhances the pilot's situational
awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain.
RNP takes advantage of an airplane's onboard navigation capability to
fly a more precise flight path into an airport. It increases access
during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate
airports. While not all of these benefits may apply to every community
affected by the Airspace Redesign Project, RNAV and RNP may prove
useful in helping to reduce overall noise and aggregate emissions.
The FAA has explored and will include several mitigation strategies
to reduce the impact of the new routings on the underlying communities.
We are instituting several measures in response to the concerns raised
at the numerous public meeting that we have had for this project in the
Philadelphia area. These measures include a reduction in the number of
dispersal headings (33 percent in the east configuration and 50 percent
in the west configuration), as well as time of day restrictions to help
minimize the impacts on the surrounding residents. To illustrate, one
of the mitigation measures is that during nighttime hours, we return to
a one heading departure procedure to minimize the impacts while
continuing aviation service to the community.
The Airspace Redesign Project is very large and complex and the
implementation will take several years. There will be four stages of
the implementation, distinguished by the degree of airspace realignment
and facility changes required to support each of the overlying
operational enhancements. As noted above, implementation is estimated
to take at least 5 years, with each stage taking approximately 12-18
months to complete.
COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS--ENHANCING CAPACITY
Rest assured, however, that we are not simply relying upon
redesigning the airspace to address the congestion in this region. Our
preference is to expand capacity in order to meet demand. Philadelphia
currently has two projects underway that would address this issue.
On April 29, 2005, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Runway 17-
35 Extension Project was signed. The ROD provided environmental
clearance to extend Runway 17-35 by 640 feet to the north and 400 feet
to the south to a new length of 6,500 feet. This project will include
standard runway safety areas and will maintain the existing ship
notification procedure with regard to ships in the Delaware River. The
project also includes extension of the parallel taxiways to the east
and west of Runway 17-35, a new high-speed exit taxiway, a new holding
apron, and relocation of 1,000 parking spaces.
The Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) is a major airfield
redevelopment project aimed at enhancing airport capacity in order to
accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area during all weather conditions. It is a more
comprehensive, long-term solution. Two on-airport construction
alternatives have been determined to be reasonable and feasible and
will meet the project purpose and need. Both alternatives are in a
parallel configuration with an additional southern runway. Each will
provide for the capability of simultaneous aircraft arrivals or
departures in bad weather conditions. Both alternatives are being
examined as part of the ongoing EIS being prepared by the FAA. A Draft
EIS is tentatively scheduled to be released in late Summer 2008.
COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS--NEXTGEN
Additionally, our NextGen efforts will help with congestion relief
in the long-term. To maximize the benefits as soon as possible, we have
expedited implementation of some of the latest air traffic control
technology at airports in the Philadelphia and New York region. With
Philadelphia and New York airspace so interdependent, technologies
deployed in one airport in the region will have a beneficial
``cascade'' effect on the others. Thus, deployment of technology and
other solutions at JFK that reduce congestion means fewer delays at
PHL.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B), the backbone
of NextGen, is a satellite-based technology that broadcasts aircraft
identification, position, and speed with once-per-second updates (as
compared to the current 5 to 12 second refresh from today's radar).
While a time savings of 4 to 11 seconds may seem brief to some, this
savings actually allows for far greater accuracy in determining
aircraft position. Philadelphia has been selected as an initial key
site for the installation of ADS-B. Philadelphia is scheduled to have
coverage both in terminal airspace and on the airport surface by
February 2010.
Improvements at PHL can come from NextGen technologies at
neighboring airports. At JFK, we have accelerated the installation of
the Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X) system, which
provides the surface surveillance necessary to reduce runway incursions
and can allow airport users and operators collaborative surveillance of
aircraft so that everyone has the same picture of the airport and
aircraft. The schedule for ASDE-X has been accelerated by 1 year, and
the additional surface surveillance planned for collaborative decision
making is being developed and installed at the same time. It is
anticipated that the ASDE-X installation and additional surveillance
tools will be operational by August 2008, with PHL scheduled for
installation in 2009.
The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) aids controllers sequencing
aircraft through en route airspace into major terminals. This system
calculates a specific time for each aircraft to cross a fixed point in
the airport landing route and also considers minimum safe distances
between aircraft. Appropriate direction to pilots are then provided
using that data, allowing arrival streams to take better advantage of
available landing slots. The FAA plans to expand deployment of this
tool and integrate arrivals and departures in the New York area in July
2008, and plan to include a demonstration of the incorporation of
enhanced weather detection and prediction into TMA in 2008.
COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS--NEW YORK ARC
Further, in response to the growing delays in the NY/NJ/PHL area,
the President, Secretary Peters, and I met to discuss the unacceptable
impact these delays were having on the Nation's airspace. We formed a
New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to work with industry and
community stakeholders to come up with a list of potential solutions.
My colleague, D.J. Gribbin, will provide more detail on this, but I
would like to touch briefly here on some of those results.
On December 19, the Secretary announced a number of steps being
taken in New York as a result. These steps include a cap on scheduled
operations at JFK, planned caps on scheduled operations at Newark, a
list of 77 operational improvements to reduce congestion in the region,
and establishment of a New York airspace czar. Many of these solutions
can be implemented in the short-term, but longer-term efforts such as
airspace redesign and NextGen will also be required in order to address
the problems in this congested airspace. To date, we have completed 8
of the 77 identified operational improvements, and we expect to
complete an additional 9 by this summer. We are working closely with
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the stakeholders to
prioritize the remaining 60 items, which are either long-term projects
or items that are under review for feasibility, and expect to finalize
the priority list this summer. Because the NY/NJ airports share common
routes with Philadelphia, and are in many ways interdependent, there
will be direct benefits to Philadelphia as operational improvements are
put into place in NY and NJ.
Beginning March 30, as a short-term solution, airlines agreed to
cap operations at JFK at either 82 or 83 operations per hour, depending
on the time of day. These caps will be in place through October 2009
and follow the conclusion of a schedule reduction meeting we held with
the air carriers and airport authority. Hourly limits are also planned
for Newark. On March 18, FAA published a proposed order limiting total
operations at that airport at an average of 83 per hour. We propose to
implement those caps on June 1. Additionally, on April 16, the
Secretary announced a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) for LaGuardia Airport. This proposed rule follows the FAA's
original congestion management proposal, dated August 29, 2006. Like
the NPRM, the SNPRM would maintain an hourly cap at the airport and
``grandfather'' a majority of the existing Operating Authorizations to
the carriers serving the airport today. However, we have decided to
withdraw that part of the proposal that would require aircraft
upgauging, which was not favorably received by most commenters.
The SNPRM incorporates the use of auctions at the airport. Under
the proposal, up to 36 slots would be auctioned each year, for the
first 5 years of the rule. We believe that auctioning off a portion of
the existing capacity will create a monetary value for this scarce
resource, which will encourage carriers to use the limited number of
slots in the most productive manner. The FAA is inviting the public to
comment on the proposal. The comment period will be open for 60-days.
In addition to the regulatory initiatives proposed and in place for
the New York metro area, implementation of the latest air traffic
control technology at airports in the Philadelphia and New York region
is being expedited, and a permanent aviation ``czar'' has been
appointed to serve as director of the newly-created New York
Integration Office.
Nevertheless, expanding capacity is not always possible; neither is
it an immediate solution, nor can physical expansion be limitless. As I
have noted, the aviation industry is a major economic engine, providing
support and jobs both for the country as a whole and for local
communities. We need to continue to find ways to address congestion and
allocate limited space efficiently and fairly. We believe that a
market-based approach provides the best outcome because it sets the
right incentives for efficient use of the system. That is why we are
also looking at market-based measures for solutions to congestion.
On January 14, Secretary Peters announced one of these solutions--a
proposal for comprehensive market-based changes to the FAA's Policy on
Airport Rates and Charges. The amendments, if adopted, will provide
airports with more tools to finance projects that reduce congestion and
to encourage more efficient use of existing facilities. The amendments
will allow a congested airport to raise the price of using its runways.
This in turn could provide a financial incentive to aircraft operators
to consider alternatives, such as scheduling flights outside of peak
demand times, increasing aircraft size to use the congested runways
more efficiently, or meeting regional air service needs through
alternative, less congested facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
The FAA is ever-mindful of our environmental responsibilities.
NextGen must be more efficient than the current system, but it must
also be quieter and cleaner. Our goal for NextGen is to meet growing
demand by developing a system capable of handling two to three times
the operations in the Nation's airspace while reducing significant
environmental impacts. We want to ensure that the number of people in
the United States who are exposed to aircraft noise continues to
decline, and that we are reducing air and water quality impacts,
addressing the impact of aviation's greenhouse gas emissions on the
global climate, and supporting the development of alternative aviation
fuels. Additionally, it is our goal to provide expertise and funding to
assist in abating the impacts of aircraft noise in neighborhoods
surrounding airports by purchasing land, relocating persons and
businesses, soundproofing residential homes or buildings used for
educational and medical purposes, purchasing noise barriers and
monitors, and researching new noise projection and abatement models and
new technologies.
For example, the city of Philadelphia has an approved noise
compatibility program for PHL that includes residential sound
insulation. The city is just beginning to update that program, which is
based upon a study completed in 2002. In the meantime, the city can
continue to mitigate in areas that are known to be still impacted by
significant noise levels and for which mitigation was approved. The FAA
intends to support this program to the extent possible.
CONCLUSION
Congestion and delays throughout our aviation system are at a
critical point. The FAA has spent years considering the alternatives
and determining the most effective solutions to relieving the problems
in the NY/NJ/PHL airspace, without compromising our environmental
stewardship. The Airspace Redesign Project is one which will enhance
efficiency and reliability of the airspace, while also accommodating
the projected growth. The project plays a crucial role in our overall
solutions in the region, which include upgrades in technology and other
short-term scheduling solutions.
Senator Specter, Senator Casey, this concludes my prepared remarks.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Specter. We now turn to the distinguished General
Counsel for the Department of Transportation, David James
Gribbin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID JAMES GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gribbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator, thank you for this opportunity to update you on
the initiatives that have been taken by the Department to
address flight scheduling practices, as they relate to airline
delays and consumer protection.
We are all too familiar with the litany of statistics that
demonstrate that action is needed on behalf of air travelers.
One of the most compelling statistics is that last year, almost
2 million flights operated by large carriers, did not land on
time, because they were delayed, cancelled, or diverted.
So, over a year ago, the administration identified the need
to respond to the growing consumer impacts of aviation delays.
We have launched a two-prong attack on this problem, and we are
working to improve consumer protections, and we're working to
resolve systemic failures that resulted in delayed flights,
missed connections and lost luggage.
As a response to that, we've developed a suite of options,
to reduce congestion and improve the consumer experience. The
Department started by undertaking a number of consumer-specific
measures. In fact, just last week, we announced final changes
to the rule that will double the limit on compensation airlines
must pay to passengers who are involuntarily bumped from their
flights. The rule will also cover more flights.
We have two other ongoing rulemakings that will help
passengers know what to expect when they book a flight; that
will allow us to step up oversight of chronically delayed
flights, and enhance protections for consumers who are bumped,
experience delays, or have complaints against airlines.
Secretary Peters also formed a Tarmac Delay Task Force, to
develop model contingency plans for airlines and airports. In
addition to improving consumer protections, we are also working
to address the underlying cause of much of the occasional
misery attributed to air travel, that is, congestion and
delays.
Flight delay problems, including cancellations and missed
connections, are the number one air traveler complaint. Along
these lines, the Department has overseen the construction of 13
new runways, allowing for 1.6 million additional operations,
worked on accelerating the deployment of NextGen technology,
and proposed amendments to our rates and charges policy, to
give airports more tools to manage congestion at the local
level.
We have taken a number of actions to address aviation
congestion in the New York area, including caps and operational
improvements. We focused on New York initially, because delays
in New York cascade throughout the system, affecting flights
across the continent and even across the ocean.
Philadelphia, in particular, stands to gain from
improvements made in the New York area. The changes we have
made will help, but more work needs to be done. To really
address congestion, we have a choice between two fundamentally
different approaches, that are currently being debated--
administrative remedies or market-based solutions. And we
believe that moving towards a market-based system will reduce
delays and contribute to an improved flying experience for air
travelers.
Instituting administrative remedies alone, such as caps, is
an effective--but not an efficient way--to reduce delays. Slots
limit capacity, stifle innovation, and block competition. As a
result, passengers get poorer service and pay higher fares.
In addition, imposition of slots in the manner proposed by
the airlines, would result in a massive wealth transfer from
the public to the airlines. That is why last week, Secretary
Peters announced a proposal for LaGuardia, with two market-
based options that would require a limited number of flights
operated by the airlines in a given day, known as slots, to be
made available through an auction process. Both options will
increase choices for passengers, and add competition, which is
proven to lower fares. They also will cut delays and fund new
aviation capacity projects for the region.
The cause of congestion at our busiest airports is not a
mystery. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Free
access and a significant demand for a finite resource,
ultimately dooms the resource to over-exploitation. Our current
structure dooms airports. In fact, last summer, some airlines
recognized this, and asked us to intervene and cap the New York
City airports. And as you mentioned, airlines currently are
incentivized to schedule more flights in a given time period,
than airports can accommodate.
Pricing, by contrast, balances demand with available
capacity, resulting in less congestion and more reliable
schedules. Pricing sends better signals as to where the system
needs extra capacity, and it can supply the revenues to add
such needed capacity.
Pricing can also increase the number of passengers served
in an airport, even if the number of planes does not increase.
That is why we proposed changes to our rates and charges
policy, allowing airports to use pricing to manage congestion
at the local level. In fact, we are working on a meeting with
the Philadelphia Airport to discuss how some of these new
policies may benefit this area.
Market forces, however, do not address every policy problem
with aviation congestion. Market forces do an excellent job of
allocating resources to those who can realize the most economic
value from that resource, but they do not allow for the
societal value placed on certain activities--such as access to
airports by general aviation, or small community service. The
Department recognizes this, and will respond accordingly.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Let me conclude by saying I think we all agree that the
American public deserves the safest and most efficient,
reliable airline system possible.
Thank you for allowing me to testify, Senator, I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David James Gribbin
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. Allow me to use this time to update you
on the initiatives taken by the Office of the Secretary and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to address the issue of flight scheduling
practices as it relates to the broader issues of airline delays and
consumer protection.
The administration identified the need to respond to the growing
consumer impacts of aviation system delays over a year ago. Since then,
we have taken a series of important steps, including the President's
announcements related to holiday travel. At the direction of Secretary
Peters, our Department has developed a comprehensive list of
initiatives designed to improve air travel and reduce the impacts of
lengthy delays on consumers. While we have maintained a strong focus on
short term actions, it is imperative that we not lose sight of the
ultimate objective: establishing a sustainable and economically
efficient aviation policy that actually reduces delays, not simply
treats the symptoms. In order to accomplish this objective, it is
important that we reform our economic model for air traffic control
services and airport pricing similar to what the administration
proposed last year. Without changes of this magnitude and regardless of
regulatory actions pursued, it is inevitable that millions of Americans
will experience unreliable air travel options and growing
dissatisfaction with the performance of the U.S. aviation system.
THE PROBLEM
We are all too familiar with the litany of statistics that
demonstrate without question that action is needed on behalf of air
travelers and the aviation sector of the national economy. One of the
most compelling statistics is that last year almost 2 million flights
operated by large air carriers did not land on time because they were
delayed, cancelled, or diverted. That is almost 27 percent of the
operations reported by these carriers. Imagine any other business
telling its customers that 27 percent of the time the service they paid
for is not available as advertised. The administration has made
commitments at the highest levels to address this problem. When
Secretary Peters met with President Bush last September, he said,
``We've got a problem, we understand there's a problem, and we're going
to address the problem.''
Unfortunately, Philadelphia is not immune from the problems
experienced by many air travelers. The departure and arrival statistics
for Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) provide the proof as
recorded by the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).
In 2007, Philadelphia International Airport ranked 5th worst of the 32
major airports in the percentage ranking for on time arrivals--only
about 67 percent of flights arrived on time. Similarly, PHL ranked 4th
worst of the 32 major airports in on-time departures for 2007 with
approximately 70 percent of flights departing on time.
I think we all agree that the air traveler deserves a better
approach. Last year, according to the American Customer Satisfaction
Index, the satisfaction level with the airline industry overall fell to
its lowest level in 7 years. The statistics we gather monthly at DOT
confirm deteriorating service levels. In 2007, there was a sharp rise
in the number of complaints received by the Department--13,168
complaints, which is over 58 percent more than the 8,325 complaints
received in 2006. Complaints are continuing at a high rate in 2008--the
Department received 3,152 complaints during the first quarter of this
year. For us, the objective is not to parcel out the blame, but to get
to the root of the problem--congestion. Consumer satisfaction would be
vastly improved if flights simply arrived on schedule. The growing lack
of reliability in air travel these days is one of the most significant
impacts of congestion.
DOT ACTIONS
The Department began to address flight delays and related consumer
issues over a year ago. In February 2007, the administration sent
Congress a comprehensive plan for transforming our aviation system to
meet our present and future needs. A central reform of the
administration's proposal was the overhaul of the FAA's financing
structure to replace the decades old system of collecting ticket taxes
with a stable, cost-based funding stream and to facilitate equipping
our aviation system with modern Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen) technology. The proposal creates a stronger
correlation between what users pay and what it costs the FAA to provide
them with air traffic control services; thus, providing price
incentives for systems users to reduce delays.
Flight delay problems--including cancellations and missed
connections--are the number one air traveler complaint. That is why
addressing aviation congestion is a critical component to improving
consumer satisfaction with the aviation industry. The year 2007 was the
second worst year for delays since 1995, and the first 2 months of
2008, while slightly better, are the third worst for flight delays
during that time of year. Since one-third of the air traffic moves
through New York airspace, the three airports in the New York City
metropolitan area had the highest percentage of delayed flights last
summer, and delays in New York cascade throughout the system, the
Department chose to focus its initial efforts in the New York area.
Given the record delays last summer, in July 2007, Secretary Peters
formed an internal New York Air Congestion Working Group and tasked
them with developing an action plan to reduce congestion and delays at
airports in the New York City region and improve customer satisfaction.
The working group developed a plan, which included establishing a New
York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), holding scheduling reduction
meetings, implementing operational improvements, and enhancing customer
satisfaction. Since forming the New York Air Congestion Working Group,
the Department has taken a number of actions to implement the working
group's recommendations.
Aviation Congestion Mitigation Efforts
Last September, Secretary Peters formed a New York Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which was composed of representatives from
passenger and cargo airlines operating out LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy
International (JFK), Newark Liberty International (Newark), and
Teterboro Airports, airline and airport trade associations, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), passenger rights
advocates, and representatives from FAA and DOT. The ARC had the
monumental task of researching and vetting the options for reducing
congestion in New York's major airports over the course of merely 3
months. The administration wanted to have a robust discussion and input
from all interested parties before moving forward with a policy action.
Incorporating the information received from the ARC, the Department
is undertaking several actions to address aviation congestion in New
York.\1\ These actions include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report can be
accessed at: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/media/
NY%20ARC%20Final%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Caps on hourly operations at JFK;
--Proposed caps on hourly operations at Newark;
--Completion of 8 of the 17 airport and airspace recommended
operational improvements identified by the Air Transport
Association (ATA) and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey. We expect to complete the remaining nine recommended
improvements by summer 2008;
--Establishing an executive-level Director position at the FAA to
head the New York Area Program Integration Office;
--Further implementation of New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace
redesign; and
--Proposed amendments to the Airport Rates and Charges Policy.
During the holiday season, the Department also instituted other
measures to mitigate flight delays, such as negotiating an agreement
with the Department of Defense to open military airspace for commercial
use. We are also continuing our outreach efforts with various
stakeholders, including consumer groups, airports, and airline CEOs.
We are making better use of our skies to limit the impact weather
has on travelers. Last week, the Secretary announced new air traffic
measures designed to help cut delays this summer. The first involves
new and greater flexibility for aircraft to use alternative routes in
the sky to avoid severe weather. This includes a new routing
alternative that provides an ``escape route'' into Canadian airspace
from the New York metropolitan area so airlines can fly around summer
thunderstorms and high winds. In addition, the FAA will open a second
westbound route for aircraft, akin to adding another interstate highway
lane in the sky. This would in effect provide a parallel route along a
heavily-traveled aviation corridor, helping cut westbound delays from
the New York area.
Straight caps (hourly limitations on flight operations during
certain peak hours) without some mechanism to ensure an efficient
allocation of scarce slot resources is not economically efficient and,
therefore, not our preferred option. Given the urgent need for action,
however, it was necessary at the New York City area airports. The Port
Authority elected not to pursue various delay reduction approaches, and
the President and Secretary Peters would not tolerate delays like those
that occurred last summer. The caps at JFK took effect on March 30, and
we expect to issue a final order for Newark soon (the comment period on
the notice proposing caps at Newark closed on April 1). The caps at JFK
(and Newark, if adopted,) are scheduled to expire on October 24, 2009.
It is also worth noting that because it is so heavily influenced by
events in New York airspace, Philadelphia stands to gain from
improvements that can be made in the New York area.
We still believe that there is a need for market-based measures to
allocate capacity, and the Department continues to explore such
measures. For example, there are options available to airports in lieu
of caps. Our preference is to see airports address their challenges
locally; however, the Federal Government will be involved once a
congested airport impacts the rest of the national airspace. New York
air congestion causes delays throughout the United States.
In January, we issued a notice that proposed providing airports
with a new and useful tool to price access to their facilities better.
The FAA proposal would make three changes to the airports rates and
charges policy. The first change would clarify that airports may use a
two-part fee structure with an operation-based and weight-based
element. The second change would permit an operator of a congested
airport to charge for work under construction. Finally, the third
change would expand the authority of an operator of an airport system
to charge users of the congested airport in the system for the airfield
costs of other airports in its system. If adopted, the amendments would
allow a congested airport to charge prices commensurate with the true
costs of using its runways. In return, this will provide users better
incentives to consider alternatives, such as scheduling flights outside
of peak demand times, increasing aircraft size to use the congested
runways more efficiently or meeting regional air service needs through
alternative, less congested facilities. The comment period ended on
April 3, and we hope to act on the proposal soon.
Per landing charges are a much better proxy for costs than weight-
based charges. Since 2002, the amount of small aircraft (planes with
fewer than 100 seats) flying into New York area airport increased
substantially. Small aircraft flights at JFK increased 393 percent;
Newark increased 53 percent; and LaGuardia increased 48 percent. The
way we charge for airport use is an important contributor to this
trend. Economists on both sides of the political aisle have
acknowledged this relationship.
We share the view that expanded capacity is a critical component of
the long-term solution to relieve congestion and get travelers to their
destinations on time and in a humane fashion. We are intensely focused
on such solutions, both at the FAA with NextGen and at the Department
level. The FAA is hard at work bringing new technology and techniques
on-line to unsnarl air traffic delays, and we appreciate the funding
Congress has appropriated for these purposes. In recognition of these
critical enhancements, the President's fiscal year 2009 Budget Request
would more than double the investment in NextGen technology--providing
$688 million for key research and technology to help meet the Nation's
rapidly growing demand for air travel, including the transformation
from radar-based to satellite-based air traffic systems.
The FAA will begin rolling out several elements of the NextGen
system this summer. This rollout will include the national debut of
Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) technology in
Florida. The ADS-B program will change the Nation's air traffic control
system from one that relies on radar technology to a system that uses
precise location data from a global satellite network. The FAA has
chosen Miami as the key site for installation and testing of two
broadcast services of the ADS-B program--Traffic Information Services--
Broadcast (TIS-B) and Flight Information Services--Broadcast (FIS-B).
These broadcast services transmit weather and traffic information to
the cockpit of properly equipped aircraft. The FAA plans to commission
these broadcast services in November 2008 and can then begin nationwide
deployment.
Over the next few years, the FAA will also install and test ADS-B
for use in Air Traffic Control Separation Services. Philadelphia is one
of the key sites for this initiative. The FAA plans to commission the
ADS-B services in September 2010 and a nationwide rollout by 2013.
Consumer Protection Initiatives
While relieving congestion will go a long way in addressing
consumer issues, the Department also is undertaking a number of
consumer-specific measures. Our consumer protection initiatives have
advanced a great deal in the last 6 months. This is due in part to the
appropriation by Congress of $2.5 million targeted to improving
consumer protections, and I can assure you we are putting it to good
use. The funding is being used for additional staff to pursue
investigations and enforcement actions, improvements to our aviation
consumer protection website and consumer complaint system, brochures
for air travelers to help them understand their rights and
responsibilities, and a series of public forums to listen to air
travelers and the problems they have experienced.
The Department has initiated three rulemakings to enhance passenger
rights and protections. In November 2007, the Department issued a
proposal to double the limits on the compensation required to be paid
to ``bumped'' passengers and extend the compensation requirement to
smaller aircraft. Just last week Secretary Peters announced final
changes to the so called ``bumping rule,'' which takes effect next
month. Under the revised rule, fliers who are involuntarily bumped will
receive up to $400 if they are rescheduled to reach their destination
within 2 hours of their original arrival time or 4 hours for
international flights, and up to $800 if they are not rerouted within
that time frame. The new rule also covers more flights, including those
operated with aircraft seating 30 people or more; the current rule
covers flights with 60 seats or more. The amount of these payments are
determined by the price of the ticket and the length of the delay, and
are in addition to the value of the passenger's ticket, which the flyer
can use for alternate transportation or have refunded if not used. As
the Secretary has noted, it is difficult to compensate for a missed
family occasion or business opportunity, but this rule will ensure
flyers are more fairly reimbursed for their inconvenience.
The Department also published a proposal to enhance the on-time
performance data that carriers currently report to the Department so
that the Department, the industry, and the public have access to more
complete information on flights that are cancelled, diverted, or
experience gate returns. We hope to take final action soon.
The third rulemaking, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
requested comments on various proposals designed to provide consumers
information or enhance consumer protections, including proposed
requirements that airlines: create legally binding contingency plans
for extended tarmac delays, respond to all consumer complaints within
30 days, publish complaint data online, and provide on-time performance
information for international flights. The Department is currently
considering the comments received. The next step would be issuance of a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on any proposals the
Department decides to advance after reviewing the public comments.
In addition to these rulemakings, the Secretary formed a ``Tarmac
Delay Task Force'' in December. The purpose of the task force is to
study past delays, review existing and other promising practices, and
develop model contingency plans that airlines and airports can tailor
to their unique operating environments to mitigate the impact of
lengthy ground delays on consumers. The task force also will consider
possible unintended consequences that solutions to tarmac delays may
pose for travelers. The task force is composed of 35 individuals
representing a broad cross-section of airlines, airports, consumer
groups, and other stakeholders. The first meeting of the task force was
held February 26, and the next meeting is scheduled for April 29. The
Department expects that the task force will meet at least three more
times in 2008 and will complete its work by the end of the year. In my
opinion, the Task Force is working well and will be the source of best
practices that will improve the travel experience when things do go
wrong.
Three other important initiatives of our Aviation Enforcement
Office deserve mention. The office has plans to conduct on-site
enforcement investigations of five large airlines this fiscal year to
evaluate their compliance with consumer protection requirements. In
addition, the office will be holding three Aviation Consumer Protection
Forums across the country to educate consumers regarding their rights
as air travelers and to hear first-hand their concerns about air
travel. The office is also continuing its investigation of unrealistic
scheduling by large airlines, targeting chronically delayed flights.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, the number of such flights decreased
dramatically, and in 2008, the Aviation Enforcement Office will be
applying a somewhat more rigorous set of criteria during its review.
Some have argued that airlines have individually or collectively
scheduled flights during periods of the day in which the system is
simply unable to handle the volume without resulting delays. I would
like to assure the committee that the Department of Transportation has
sufficient authority to investigate unrealistic scheduling and, if
necessary, penalize actions that we deem to be unfair or deceptive
trade practices. Although a congested system is not necessarily
evidence of unfair or deceptive practices, we will continue to
diligently investigate potential evidence of such practices and take
any appropriate action.
We are well aware that tarmac and flight delays are making air
travel an unpleasant experience for passengers. The Department will
continue to take action to ease uncertainty and reduce inconvenience
for passengers.
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SYMPTOM
While we are working to improve consumer protections, we do not
want to lose sight of the fact that the underlying cause of much of the
occasional misery attributed to air travel is congestion and delays.
For this reason, the Department has been engaged in a discussion over
the last several months with a wide variety of stakeholders on the
efficacy of using a better economic model to balance supply and demand
in a sustainable way.
Some have incorrectly suggested that expanding capacity should be
the only Government response to congestion in New York City and around
the country. This view largely ignores the tremendous short-term
opportunities to utilize existing capacity efficiently. It also ignores
the physical, economic, and political constraints on capacity expansion
in many parts of the U.S. aviation system.
The Department looks to increase capacity whenever and wherever
possible. Our support for expansion of Philadelphia International
Airport and O'Hare International Airport are concrete examples.
Philadelphia in particular is proposing major capacity enhancements to
accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area during all weather conditions. Key features of the
proposal consist of major airfield improvements, including construction
of one or more new runways and related facilities. Capacity increases
must be part of the solution, particularly considering that we expect
more than 1 billion air passengers by 2016. However, capacity
increases, both physical and operational, often take a long time to
implement and may be limited in scope. Sometimes physical capacity
cannot be expanded; such as is the case with LaGuardia Airport.
Operational improvements can help to address congestion, but sometimes
they cannot provide enough capacity to meet demand. For example, in New
York, even with the implementation of all the operational improvements
initially suggested by the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Port
Authority, congestion was expected to double this year, assuming the
FAA took no further action and the airlines moved forward with planned
increases in their schedules.
There are additional solutions. Basically, we have a choice between
two fundamentally different approaches--administrative remedies and
market-based solutions. We believe that outdated Government policies
relying on administrative remedies have led to an inefficient
allocation of the airspace, and that moving towards a market-based
system will reduce these inefficiencies and contribute to an improved
flying experience for air travelers.
Administrative Remedies
Instituting administrative remedies, such as caps, is an effective,
but not efficient way to reduce delays. Limiting the number of flights
into an airport will reduce congestion at that airport. The Department
decided to institute a short-term cap at JFK and Newark airports
because something needed to be done to avoid a repeat of the flight
delays that we experienced last summer. However, caps are not the best
solution for improving travel options for passengers.
Airlines are often enthusiastic in their support of caps at an
airport they already serve. When a cap is established, incumbents are
protected because they typically maintain their market share and the
potential for new competition is diminished. The legacy airlines'
support for such a policy makes sense, because limited competition
makes them more profitable and protects them from new entrants that
might want to compete by offering lower fares.
Although caps protect existing airline business, they also prevent
airlines from adding capacity at an airport unless they are able to
obtain a slot from a competitor. As a result, one of the best-known
problems with slots is that they encourage airlines to ``baby sit''
slots; i.e., underutilize the slot by flying multiple small aircraft
into an airport to maximize the number of slots an airline can occupy
at the lowest possible cost.\2\ As a result, slots do not always go to
those who value them the most and who will use the capacity in the most
efficient manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO report GAO/RCED-99-234 notes on p. 16 that ``For example,
because the regulations allow a slot to go unused for up to 20 percent
of the time, a carrier with five slots in 1 hour must operate only four
flights in that hour on any day to obtain 80-percent use for each of
its five slots. The carrier is allowed to `rotate' its four flights
across the five slots over the 2-month period to prevent FAA from
withdrawing the slot. The practice of a carrier's rotating actual
flights among its allocated slots is commonly referred to as
`babysitting.' FAA officials emphasized that babysitting is not
prohibited by existing regulation, provided that a slot meets the
minimum-use requirements.'' See http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/
rc99234.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This limitation on capacity and competition naturally leads to fare
increases at an airport, because it creates a scarce commodity, and
passengers pay a premium for that commodity.
A less apparent problem is the perverse incentive that appears when
caps are being contemplated at an airport for the first time. In such a
situation, incumbents are encouraged to build up flight operations in
advance of a capping action, simply to generate a better base for the
future allocation of slots. Thus, the talk of a heavy handed and
artificial solution to a problem actually exacerbates the congestion
problems at the airport. For example, when the FAA began to intervene
at Newark Liberty and JFK airports by designating both airports Level
2, Schedule Facilitated, airports under International Air Transport
Association guidelines, the schedules that the air carriers proposed
for the summer of 2008 reflected growth that appeared to be enhanced by
the signals that the FAA intended to address the congestion problem
with a cap.
If caps are not the answer, then the question arises--what is the
solution?
Market-Based Remedies
Alfred Kahn, an airline economist and former Chairman of the Civil
Aeronautics Board said, ``Whenever competition is feasible, it is, for
all its imperfections, superior to regulation as a means of serving the
public interest.'' Secretary Peters echoed that sentiment when she
said, ``Our preference is to find a way to let market incentives do the
job, and not to return to the days of Government-regulated flights and
limited competition.'' Although the Department instituted caps as a
short-term measure, we continue to explore market-based remedies as a
longer-term solution to congestion.
Last week, Secretary Peters announced the Department's proposal for
a new way to manage congestion at New York's LaGuardia Airport in a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (LaGuardia SNPRM).\3\ Even
though this facility has been capped since 1968, it is still
consistently one of the top three most delayed airports in the Nation.
Under a supplemental rulemaking, the Department is proposing two
market-based options that would require a limited number of flights
operated by the airlines in a given day, known as slots, to be made
available through an auction process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 73 Fed. Reg. 20846 (April 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the first option, all air carriers would be given up to 20
slots a day for the 10 year life of the rule. Meanwhile, over the next
5 years, 8 percent of the additional slots currently used by an airline
would be made available to any carrier via an auction. An additional 2
percent of the slots would be retired to help cut the record delays at
the airport. Proceeds from the auction would be invested in new
congestion reduction and capacity improvement initiatives in the New
York region.
The second option also gives airlines permanent access to up to 20
slots a day for a 10 year period. Beyond those flights, 20 percent of
the slots currently used by the airlines would be made available over
the next 5 years to all other airlines through an auction. Under this
option, the carriers would retain the net proceeds of their auctioned
slots.
Both options provide financial stability to the airlines operating
at LaGuardia by providing them with a defined right to operate at the
airport for a decade, something they do not have today. These rights
are given in recognition of the significant financial investment the
airlines have made in the airport's infrastructure.
This plan strikes a sound balance between protecting investments by
incumbent carriers and ensuring that all airlines have the ability to
fly to New York's LaGuardia. While the status quo at LaGuardia has led
to stagnant service, delays, and unnecessarily high fares, open access
and competition will help give flyers more choices, fewer delays, and
lower fares.
It is clear that the current system does not allocate airspace
capacity efficiently. Solving that problem, however, should not entail
Government picking ``winners and losers,'' particularly when, as
currently structured, everyone involved in air travel feels like they
are the loser--both those getting terrible service and those getting
blamed for providing terrible service.
Market-based pricing has been demonstrated time and again as the
most effective way to allocate a scarce resource that is in high
demand. Space in a movie theater, use of cell phone infrastructure, or
flights during certain times to certain destinations are all examples
that illustrate that such pricing works. Pricing can balance demand
with available capacity, resulting in less congestion and more reliable
schedules. Also, pricing sends better signals as to where the system
needs extra capacity, and it can supply the revenues to add such needed
capacity. Increases in fares under a pricing regime would be an
indicator that more capacity is needed. In terms of efficiency, the
current system focuses on airplane throughput. Instead, the objective
of airspace and airport management policies should be passenger
throughput. Proper pricing can increase the number of passengers served
at an airport, even if the number of planes does not increase. And a
framework to establish proper price signals need not be disruptive to
the operations of airports.
Changing from the traditional, increasingly inefficient
administrative controls to a market-based system has generated a fair
amount of concern, primarily from the airlines. The following
discussion outlines the issues related to pricing that were considered
by the ARC. It details concerns expressed about pricing and how those
concerns can be addressed.
Track Record in Aviation.--Some opponents to market-based pricing
believe it does not have a proven track record in aviation, and that
implementation of such pricing for airspace will devastate the
industry. Further, they do not believe that experience with such
pricing in other industries provides a meaningful parallel for
application in the airline industry.
We live in a market economy which allocates scarce resources
through pricing. This model has been adopted because history has
demonstrated repeatedly that markets are the most efficient means of
allocating a scarce commodity. While the aviation industry is unique in
a number of respects, there is no reason to believe that market-based
methods will fail if applied to this industry.
In fact, market-based pricing has been used effectively in the
United States for aviation. Boston's Logan International Airport
applied a pricing plan in 1988 that dramatically reduced congestion at
that airport. While the plan was later found to be out of proportion to
the need to reduce congestion, because it operated during non-congested
as well as congested periods market-based pricing at Logan Airport did
reduce congestion. In addition, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey applied pricing in 1968 to control congestion. The pricing
worked initially; however, the fee was not increased with time and
eventually became ineffective.
Those questioning the efficacy of market-based pricing in aviation
need look no further than airline pricing policies. Airlines already
apply a market-based pricing model to airline travel. When searching
for low fare flights to your destination, inevitably the cheapest
flights to be found are those departing or arriving at the least
desirable times. By pricing flights at less attractive times at a lower
level than flights at popular travel times, airlines are incentivizing
consumers to move to a less congested flight. However, this congestion
fee does not reduce overall congestion in the system, because it does
not impact the way the airlines themselves are charged for air traffic
control and airport services.
Cost to Consumers.--Arguments have been made that market-based
pricing could increase the monetary cost to travelers, if airlines pass
congestion fees on to consumers. This argument, however, ignores two
facts: (1) limiting competition by capping an airport creates
significant upward pressure on fares: and (2) congestion fees will be
offset by congestion savings.
The increased cost of a congestion charge is likely to be more than
offset by the downward pressure on fares brought about by additional
competition. Statistics show that when a low cost carrier enters a new
market, the additional competition results in a fare decrease. When
Southwest entered the market in Philadelphia in May 2004, the result
was an immediate fare decrease of 24 percent. Three years later, in the
4th quarter of 2007, the average air fare in Philadelphia was still
down 12 percent from the 4th quarter of 2003, before Southwest entered
the market. While it is still unclear how much airlines will pay in an
auction for slots at LaGuardia, it is likely that competition from new
entrants will result in greater fare savings, which will offset any
increases as a result of the purchasing slots.
Similarly, we need to explore the costs of instituting market
mechanisms compared to the costs of various alternatives (including
capping access to an airport or allowing substantial increases in
delays).
In fact, congestion is expensive. According to the ATA, congestion
costs the economy over $12.5 billion a year. The New York City
Comptroller has estimated that congestion costs travelers to New York
City an additional $187 million. Reducing congestion will produce
increased system reliability and dramatic savings for consumers.
Market-based pricing would decrease congestion and thereby decrease the
costs that flow from congestion.
Market-based pricing makes the costs consumers already pay for
flying into a congested market transparent and gives them the ability
to avoid the higher costs by traveling during less congested periods.
When scarcity exists, consumers pay higher costs. In the case of
aviation, those costs are paid in terms of wait times or higher fares
due to slot controls or pricing. Only with market-based pricing do
consumers have the choice of avoiding higher prices. Some airlines now
charge more for additional leg room. If passengers will pay for
additional leg room, they almost certainly will pay to arrive on time.
Government Tax.--One of the principal points argued by those
opposed to market-based mechanisms is that the organizations that
control airport and airspace access are both monopolies and, therefore,
are themselves not market-based. For this reason, pricing of airport or
airspace access would operate as a Government tax, rather than a market
price between two private entities.
The details of how the proceeds of a pricing mechanism might be
spent are important and if the proceeds are dedicated to expanding
capacity and funding specific projects at the airports, then the
revenue would be directly used to alleviate the congestion that
generated the proceeds and would not be a tax. In recognition of this
concern, under first option proposed in the LaGuardia SNPRM, the FAA
would spend any proceeds from an auction on congestion and delay
management initiatives in the New York City area, after recouping the
costs of the auction. Under the second proposed option, the airlines
would retain the proceeds of the auction.
Relationship Between Physical Assets and Investments.--Many
airlines have invested hundreds of millions, and even billions, of
dollars in terminals, gates, hangars, and other facilities at airports.
Those airlines using special revenue facility bond financing gain tax
preferences due to the public nature of the facilities whose financing
they underwrite. They give up the facility to the airport proprietor at
a predetermined date. The airlines also realize that the airport
proprietor ultimately controls the use of the facilities for the
benefit of the public. Nonetheless, those airlines are concerned that
they would lose the ability to realize a return on those investments,
if a pricing program resulted in the airlines not being able to fly
their traditional schedule. Conversely, if reallocation of slots is
achieved through imposition of a market-based pricing mechanism that
does not recognize historic rights, some are concerned that the new
owners of slots would not be able to gain access to the gates and
ticket counters controlled by the former owners of the slots.
Any pricing mechanism pursued by the Department will recognize
these concerns. Since the advent of the competition plan requirement in
AIR-21, the Department has been educating airport proprietors about
their responsibilities to accommodate all requesting carriers on a
reasonable basis. Airlines are aware that their unused gate leaseholds
may be accessed by other carriers, due to the unavailability of common-
use gates and if the need arises. In addition, the Department would
manage any market-based system in such a way as to recognize the
legitimate interests of those airlines, which have made significant
investments in existing infrastructure, to realize an adequate return
on those investments. The Department does not want to create a
disincentive for future airline investment in aviation infrastructure.
We recognize the concern about disruptions to the industry in the
LGA SNPRM. The proposals would grant 10-year leases to airlines
currently serving LaGuardia for at least 20 of their current slots.
Such an approach recognizes the historical investment by airlines at
the airport and the community, and will avoid disruption to the
national air transportation system.
Additionally, the Airport Council International, North America,
expressed concerns that the Department's LaGuardia SNPRM might
interfere with the airport's ability to manage its own facilities. The
Department has consistently worked with airports to give them
additional tools to manage their airports and reduce delays--such as
through our rates and charges policies--and we will continue to work to
develop better delay and congestion management tools that do not
overstep our regulatory authority to manage the airspace and respect
the airports need to manage its own facilities. The Port Authority has
failed to use this tool and not managed congestion at LaGuardia for 40
years.
Reduced Demand for Air Travel.--Some civic leaders were
particularly concerned about the impact market-based pricing might have
on the affordability of traveling to the New York City. As noted above,
however, consumers are paying a heavy price in terms of congestion. It
is unlikely that slightly higher prices during peak periods would serve
as a greater deterrent than the chronic delays New York City currently
experiences. In fact, a USA Today article published last year noted
that savvy travelers avoid New York City whenever possible. That can
change if market-pricing can play an appropriate role.
Additionally, by establishing a market mechanism whereby slots will
be allocated to the most efficient user, the incentive will be for the
slots to go to the airline with the most efficient use of the slot--
which will likely be the airline that is able to bring the most
passengers in on a plane. This should result in increased passenger
throughput at an airport--even as the physical number of planes coming
through the airport remains steady--and result in greater availability
of seats and downward pressure on ticket prices.
Economic Disruption.--Given the sharp increase in fuel prices,
airlines are understandably concerned about any additional financial
burden generated by pricing. In addition, the airports have billions of
dollars of debt and other financing tied to the financial health of the
airlines. The Department understands the financial environment in which
airlines and airports are operating. Any market-based solution will
need to be implemented in a manner that does not unduly disrupt the
current system.
The recent LaGuardia SNPRM will result in a very small number of
flights being auctioned off annually--under options 1 and 2, 14 or 36
slots out of 1,168 slots, respectively, will be auctioned annually for
the first 5 years of the rule, with no required auctions for the last 5
years of the rule. This is a very small number of slots that will be
auctioned--and while some will claim that any disruption is
problematic, we expect that numerous experts and economists will chide
the Department for having auctioned what they view as too small of an
amount. This SNPRM is attempting to strike a balance between competing
views and to spur a secondary, voluntary market whereby airlines can
freely trade slots and excess capacity to the highest bidder able to
realize the best economic use of the slot.
Impact on Small Communities and General Aviation.--There are
concerns that market-based pricing would limit general aviation access
to airports and would make it difficult for carriers to continue
adequately serving small communities. While market-based pricing does
an excellent job of allocating resources to those who can realize the
most economic value from that resource, such pricing does not allow for
the societal value placed on certain activities. The Department will
monitor whether modifications to market-based mechanisms are necessary
to provide for continued service to small communities and continued
access for general aviation. If the Department were to publish a final
rule that would auction slots at LaGuardia, the Department will
carefully analyze and consider the impacts an auction will have on
service to small communities.
CONCLUSION
Our objective is to address the fundamentals of the problem of
aviation congestion and achieve solutions that are long-term and that
provide maximum benefits to the traveling public and the vital industry
that serves them. The basic question for us is whether to continue to
apply temporary band-aids to the problem, or whether to seek solutions
that will do a better job of allocating our scarce airspace. We believe
that we must take positive, immediate steps to deal with a dynamic air
transportation system that has far outpaced earlier efforts at
improvement. Air travelers deserve to fly the safest and most reliable
air system possible. The time has come to bring aviation into the 21st
century and more fully allow market forces to work.
Change is difficult, and the airlines' concerns are understandable.
In fact, very similar arguments were made by the airlines in opposition
to deregulation. Concerns were raised about disruption to the industry,
lack of a track record, and disruption to business models. However, the
ATA Airline Handbook includes a long list of benefits that resulted
from deregulation. The Handbook notes that deregulation stimulated
competition, led to rapid growth in air travel, and reduced fares by
more than 50 percent in real terms. We believe that market-based
remedies directed at congestion will improve airline service like
deregulation did.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell and Mr. Gribbin bring
excellent qualification to their job. Mr. Sturgell had been a
Senior Policy Advisor to the National Transportation Safety
Board, before becoming Acting FAA Administrator. He was, prior
to that, a pilot for United Airlines, graduated the U.S. Naval
Academy and Virginia Law School.
Mr. Gribbin, before becoming General Counsel to the
Department of Transportation, was Chief Counsel to the Federal
Highway Administration, got a degree from Georgetown University
undergrad, and Georgetown University Law School.
Without objection, a statement made by Senator Lautenberg
will be made part of the record. He expressed his regrets that
he could not be here, because of a longstanding prior
commitment. Senator Casey wanted to be here as well, but again,
time was not something he could accommodate to, and I can tell
you, they're both following these proceedings very, very
closely.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
One month ago I stood on the bank of the Delaware River in West
Deptford, New Jersey, across from the Philadelphia Airport and spoke
out about the dangers of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)
Airspace Redesign project.
Since that time, leaders at the FAA have continued to march the
agency toward worsening problems in our skies, on our runways, in the
maintenance hangars and over our homes.
The FAA has failed to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety
of the flying public, treat its professional safety employees with the
respect they deserve, and preserve the quality of life of New Jersey
residents.
Although the project has taken nearly a decade to complete, FAA
spent less than a year sharing its final plans with the public and then
rushed to implement them. This process has been unfair for New Jersey
residents and has put the traveling public at risk.
In its rush to get the newly designed flight patterns in place last
December, the FAA began using the new ``dispersal'' headings before it
even published new official documents showing pilots and controllers
the new roadmaps to our region's skyways.
The resulting confusion has caused some planes to take off in the
wrong direction and put travelers and residents at risk of a major
catastrophe. This is a senseless risk to take with air safety, but the
FAA has used these procedures at both Philadelphia International
Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport.
Even FAA's own employees at the Philadelphia Airport--the air
traffic controllers--tried to point out the problems with rushing the
project, but the Bush administration's FAA told them that if they had
safety concerns they should essentially ``go find another job.'' That's
unacceptable and an outrageous response from this administration.
When I heard New Jerseyans were turned away at FAA public meetings
held in Philadelphia about this plan, I insisted that the agency come
back and hold additional meetings--in New Jersey.
While FAA seemed intent on quietly and quickly pushing the project
ahead, I wanted each affected New Jersey resident to be able to learn
about how their lives and homes would be impacted by the FAA's plan--
and to express their concerns to the FAA.
For these reasons, I have continued to block, along with my
colleague Senator Menendez, President Bush's appointment of Robert
Sturgell to be Administrator of the FAA.
Mr. Sturgell, the FAA's Deputy Administrator for 5 years before
taking over as Acting Administrator last year, helped create many of
the failed policies which led to our country's current air travel
problems.
Worse, he has shown no indication that he can or will change the
direction of the agency to address these key problems. His appointment
represents a continuation of failed aviation policies by the Bush
administration, and I will continue to block Mr. Sturgell's Senate
confirmation until we see evidence of real change from the
administration on these important issues.
We have seen a sad pattern of failure from FAA leaders over the
past several years. The agency has failed to hire sufficient numbers of
air traffic controllers we need to ensure our safety. A report I
requested from the Government Accountability Office last year found
that nationwide, at least 20 percent of the controllers at 25 air
traffic control facilities, including towers at major airports, were
working 6-day weeks. This overworking can lead to fatigue and tired
eyes on our skies and our runways.
The FAA has also failed to hire enough safety inspectors to keep up
with the airline companies' level of outsourcing to foreign maintenance
facilities. Only recently we learned the extent to which FAA has been
relying on the airlines to self-regulate much of its inspection work,
as the problem of the lack of safety inspectors came to light.
Since runway safety continues to be a major concern, I will
introduce legislation shortly to ensure the agency focuses on this
major problem. Near-collisions on our runways continue to increase, and
FAA has not taken a leadership role in coordinating its efforts to
address these problems.
This is not a new problem. The improvement of runway safety has
been on the National Transportation Safety Board's list of ``most
wanted'' safety improvements since 1991.
I will continue to fight to ensure the FAA does not neglect the
Nation's air safety needs--and New Jersey's quality of life.
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell, would you identify the other
two individuals who are sitting at the witness table with you?
Mr. Sturgell. Sure.
To my far right is Steve Kelley, the Program Manager for
this project, and then to my immediate right is Mary McCarthy,
from the Counsel's Office at the FAA, who's also involved in
this project.
OPERATIONS DURING PEAK HOURS
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell, I'll begin with you.
Set the time clock at 10 minutes, please?
I begin with you on the basic question about the
understanding that on the so-called peak hours from 9 o'clock
to 11 o'clock, and 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock, there would not be
more than--there would be no overflights over the Delaware
County route, unless there were 10 or more aircraft waiting to
depart. That is the understanding, is it not?
Mr. Sturgell. That is not quite accurate, Senator Specter,
and if you permit me to expound on this for a little bit.
We have both dispersal headings being used at Philadelphia
and at Newark. At Newark, we are using a demand trigger for
those three headings, which goes to the number of aircraft----
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell, before you have at it, let
me quote your letter from March 20. I had written to you about
that commitment, and you responded, on March 20, ``Your
assertion that my representative advised your staff that
Philadelphia dispersal headings over Delaware County would
initially only be used during peak demand hours, which we
define as periods where 10 or more aircraft would be waiting to
depart in the absence of the dispersal heading, that is
correct.''
Now, you're not backing off from your statement in that
letter, are you?
Mr. Sturgell. No, I'm not. We do define peak demand hours
as generally the hours where 10 or more aircraft are waiting
for departure.
Senator Specter. Well, aren't the peak hours defined as--
you have defined them, I don't know if they're necessarily
correct, but you have defined them as 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock
and 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock.
Mr. Sturgell. Those are the hours where we are currently
using the two available dispersal headings.
Senator Specter. Those are the hours where you're doing
what?
Mr. Sturgell. That we are using dispersal headings to the
west at Philadelphia.
Senator Specter. Okay, and that means subject to the rule
that there would not be overflights over Delaware County,
unless there were 10 or more aircraft waiting.
Mr. Sturgell. So, the chart shows those hours, and it shows
the number of departures----
Senator Specter. Before what the chart shows, I want to
ascertain, with precision, your commitment. I'm trying to
establish the commitment that--on the peak hours, which you
define as 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock and 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock,
as your letter of March 20 said, there wouldn't be dispersal
unless there were 10 or more aircraft waiting to depart.
Mr. Sturgell. So, the peak demand hours generally equate to
the aircraft waiting to depart. And at Newark, that is what we
are using, because we did not reduce the number of dispersal
headings.
At Philadelphia----
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell, why go to Newark when I'm
pressing you hard to find out about your commitment to
Philadelphia.
Mr. Sturgell. I'm trying to distinguish between the two,
because----
Senator Specter. But I'm not asking you for a distinction,
I'm asking you for what your commitment has been.
Mr. Sturgell. Right.
The issues have arisen together in various forms, Senator
Specter, that's all----
Senator Specter. I don't care about that. What I care about
is our exchange of correspondence where it is pretty plain that
your commitment is what I have said. No routings over Delaware
County, unless there are 10 or more aircraft waiting, during
those designated periods.
Mr. Sturgell. I think that correspondence says that we are
using them during those hours, because those are peak demand
hours. And that generally, peak demand hours are hours where
you have those kinds of aircraft waiting for departure.
Senator Specter. But you said, well, the difficulty with
what you're saying is that you have the commitment, we have on
the record, departures over Delaware County where you don't
have 10 aircraft waiting, don't we?
Mr. Sturgell. So, if we didn't use these dispersal headings
during those hours, we would have those kinds of delays in
terms of aircraft waiting for departure.
Senator Specter. Well, if you--if you have fewer than 10
aircraft waiting, you made that commitment, because that was a
standard where you could avoid using the departure route over
Delaware County, right?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I believe the commitment we made to
you, and in that correspondence was that we would limit the use
to peak demand hours, and then we tried to explain that
generally, a peak demand hour is an hour where you would have
10 or more aircraft waiting for departure.
Senator Specter. And if you have less than 10? You would
not use the overflights over Delaware County?
Mr. Sturgell. We are trying to limit the use to the peak
demand hours. And in fact, we could be starting earlier, we
could be ending later, we were trying to very narrowly limit
the impact to people by reducing these hours until we get
further into the project, and we get the third dispersal
heading, and we get other things accomplished.
Senator Specter. Well, alright. Take it on your re-
interpretation of what your commitment is, as I read it, aside
from the so-called ``peak hours'' where you have 10 or more
waiting, if you're at a time period, or if you're in a
situation where there are fewer than 10 waiting, would you
concede, at least in that situation, you'd be obligated not to
send flights over Delaware County.
Mr. Sturgell. We are not using the headings in non-peak
demand hours. From 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., we're not using the
dispersal headings.
Senator Specter. You're not using--in situations--never
mind non-peak--let's talk turkey, let's talk specifics, if we
can, for just one question. If you have nine or fewer waiting,
you won't go over Delaware County?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, the mitigation strategies we had in
place for this project at Philadelphia do not equate to the
number of aircraft, they equate to peak demand hours. Which, as
I tried to explain, generally does mean 10 aircraft. But, if
you're using the headings, you won't see those kinds of delays.
Senator Specter. Mr. Sturgell, I wrote to you on February
15. ``I'm advised that Federal Aviation Administration
representatives claim that in November 16, 2007, congressional
staff briefing, that the heading over Delaware County would
initially only be used during periods of moderate and heavy
traffic at Philadelphia, or when approximately 10 to 15
aircraft were waiting to depart.''
We rely on these representatives, and I would fairly call
commitments, and you responded, on March 20, ``Your assertion
that my representatives advised your staff that Philadelphia
dispersal headings over Delaware County would initially only be
used during peak man hours which we define as periods when 10
or more aircraft would be waiting to depart, in the absence of
the dispersal heading, is correct.''
Now, Mr. Sturgell, isn't a fair--really, the only realistic
reading of our exchange of correspondence, a commitment not to
fly over Delaware County? If there weren't 10 to 15 aircraft
waiting to depart?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator Specter, what I'm trying to convey is
that the peak demand hours, yes, generally equate to those
types of numbers of aircraft being lined up, but if you're
using the headings during those hours, the point is not to have
those kinds of departure delays for the traveling public, so
you would not end up with 10 aircraft in line.
And if we're using these over a period of 2 hours where we
have peak demands, you're going to reduce those number of
aircraft in line. So then, do we stop using them until we've
got 10 more lined up, and start using them again? We were
trying to do this on a rational basis that has a limited impact
to the community, by restricting the hours during those peak
demand hours.
Senator Specter. I don't understand your last answer, about
are you saying that there are times when you have fewer than 10
airplanes you consider indispensable to fly over Delaware
County?
Mr. Sturgell. First of all, I'm not saying that every
airplane out there is flying over Delaware County.
Senator Specter. You're not saying what?
Mr. Sturgell. That every airplane is flying over Delaware
County.
Senator Specter. I don't care about the others, on this
question. I do care about the others on other questions, which
I'll come to.
But let me repeat the question, this is only about the
seventh time. Are you saying that there are circumstances where
you have nine or fewer aircraft waiting to depart, do you find
it indispensable to fly over Delaware County?
Mr. Sturgell. I would say that when we are using these
dispersal headings, that they are probably reducing delays,
such that we don't have those types of numbers of aircraft
waiting in line during the hours we're using them.
Senator Specter. Mr. Gribbin, you're a lawyer, do you
understand that question--answer?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, yes, sir.
Senator Specter. I don't think you have to be a lawyer to
understand, but you're a lawyer, Mr. Gribbin. And I know you
have a certain bias and relationship here, but you also are
sworn to uphold the Constitution, which requires telling the
truth. I'm not suggesting that anybody's not telling the truth.
Mr. Sturgell. I appreciate that.
Senator Specter. I'm not swearing the witnesses. I'm trying
to find out what's happened in as a relaxed atmosphere as we
can. This is not the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Gribbin. Right. Actually, what Administrator Sturgell
is saying is that----
Senator Specter. Speak into the microphone, Senator
Thurmond used to say, ``Pull the machine closer.''
Mr. Gribbin. Talking into the machine.
What Acting Administrator Sturgell is saying is that we
define peak periods as, if there were no use of dispersal
headings, then----
Senator Specter. I don't want to know what you define, I
want to know if you understood his answer.
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, his answer was----
Senator Specter. All right. You understood his answer.
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, sir.
Senator Specter. Now, tell me what his answer was?
Mr. Gribbin. His answer was that we will use the additional
dispersal headings. If we did not use them, there would be more
than 10 aircraft in line. As a result of using them, it reduces
the line, which is the point of having the dispersal headings.
Senator Specter. So, there are some times when there are 9
or fewer aircraft waiting, that you fly over Delaware County.
Mr. Sturgell. If they depart on the 268 heading----
Senator Specter. May the record show that Mr. Gribbin
looked at Mr. Sturgell, nodded in the affirmative, and now
we're listening to Mr. Sturgell's answer.
Do you agree with him?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes, yes. If they use the northern dispersal
heading on the departure.
Senator Specter. So, it's a qualified ``yes.''
Mr. Sturgell. Because there is a dispersal heading that
goes to the south, away from Delaware County.
Senator Specter. But, sometimes the headings going away
from Delaware County are not used, so that you have Mr.
Gribbin's answer, but you are flying over Delaware County with
fewer than 10 aircraft waiting.
May the record show, Mr. Sturgell is nodding, in the
affirmative. You're saying that's right.
Mr. Sturgell. That's correct.
Senator Specter. Good. We're only 14 minutes and 32 seconds
into this question.
Now we have enough questions that will take us past
midnight at that rate.
Mr. Sturgell, put the chart up, with the various flight
patterns around, and I think it would be useful to everyone if
you would come up and show what you're doing here, by way of
generalization, to give you an opportunity to state what you
are trying to do to avoid the Delaware County problem. I don't
think you're there by the last answer, and by my full
understanding of it, but I think it would be helpful if you
would--why had that chart been withheld from us, Mr. Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. I'm sorry?
Senator Specter. Why had that chart been withheld from us?
May the record show that we had a group of charts first,
and now this one comes from the closet. I just want to put that
for the record.
Mr. Sturgell. So, the original project proposed seven
headings in grey. When we were looking at this from completely
an operational efficiency and delay-reduction perspective, we
came up with seven different departure headings, in grey, which
permitted us to get more airplanes off the runway faster, and
reduce delays.
Then we heard from the citizens. And what we did was we
went back, and tried to find ways to reduce noise impact on the
citizens, and, in particular, for the four headings right
here--270, 29, 310, 330--all flowing off into Delaware County.
So, we heard from the community, and what we did was, we
came up with three headings. So, we took an operational hit,
and helped mitigate the impact to the communities. And we ended
up with three headings, in purple. We moved 270 to 268, to try
and reduce the noise impact in this area, and we got rid of the
headings flying up to the north.
We kept 245, we have not yet put in 230--I think that's
going to take us about 2 years to do, because we have some
internal airspace changes we have to do----
Senator Specter. Why should it take 2 years to put in two-
thirds of the dispersal and dotted lines?
Mr. Sturgell. Because it involves airspace changes within
our facilities, which impacts the workforce and our operating
environment, and they take longer to do. These two did not
require those changes.
And we're also using the red heading, 255 down the river,
during the off-peak hours, at night, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.,
and then there's a slot during the middle of the day, from 11
o'clock to 2 o'clock or so, where the demand drops off, we're
using those headings during that time.
Senator Specter. Now, now, now, now, now--wait, wait.
You're saying--as you had explained to me in our meeting
earlier this week--that from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., you are using
only--use the chart, which has 255 on it. That chart. And you
told me that from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., you were using only 255,
correct?
Mr. Sturgell. That's correct.
Senator Specter. Well, how can you do that, Mr. Sturgell,
in view of a very heavy traffic at the airport, in the 7
o'clock time zone?
Mr. Sturgell. So, you can see, from 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock,
the traffic picks up, 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock----
Senator Specter. Pull that chart up.
Mr. Sturgell. Five to seven starts ramping up, 7 o'clock to
9 o'clock, it's fairly high, it's above the average, which is
the green. But it's not at some of the peak hours. So we are
taking hits by not using the headings during that time. But it
is part of our mitigation strategy to try and reduce the noise
impact to the community at early times of the day, were we to
be using those dispersal headings.
Until we get the third heading in, we're going to monitor
these hours very closely, and try to limit them to our peak
demand hours.
Senator Specter. And you're talking about the third heading
coming in, as 230.
Mr. Sturgell. Yes, sir.
Senator Specter. And you say that'll be in 2 years?
Mr. Sturgell. Approximately.
Senator Specter. And when 230 is in, will that eliminate
the flights over Delaware County?
Mr. Sturgell. It will not eliminate the flights over
Delaware County. It will more evenly distribute the flights
among three headings, vice two headings.
Senator Specter. Will it reduce the flights over Delaware
County?
Mr. Sturgell. I think it will reduce the noise impact once
it will be implemented.
Senator Specter. Reduce the noise impact?
Mr. Gribbin, would you explain that answer to me?
Mr. Sturgell, if it reduces the noise impact, wouldn't that
necessarily mean that's because the number of flights were
reduced?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes, I think they directly relate to each
other. I'm----
Senator Specter. They directly relate to each other.
Mr. Sturgell. I don't specifically know whether the actual
flights are reduced, I don't have that knowledge. I do know the
noise impact will be less, because we will have a third heading
to use.
Senator Specter. Well, I'm just trying to understand your
testimony. The question is, will the number of flights be
reduced over Delaware County? The answer to that, unresponsive,
the noise impact will be reduced. Well, if noise impact is
reduced, doesn't that mean the number of flights will be
reduced? Answer: Well, there is a direct correlation, there.
Do you want to--
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I think that's a safe assumption, I
just don't----
Senator Specter. I'm not interested in assumptions.
Mr. Sturgell. Right.
Senator Specter. I want to know conclusions. Will the
number of flights be reduced?
Mr. Sturgell. I don't know the actual numbers that are
involved.
Senator Specter. But you know the noise impact will be
reduced.
Mr. Sturgell. But I know the noise impact.
Senator Specter. Okay. It's like pulling teeth, Mr.
Sturgell. And I'm trying to work through to get your best
presentation, give you a chance.
I think your best presentation has lots of problems, but I
want to give you a chance for your best presentation.
I'm advised that Mayor Nutter has to leave very, very
shortly. And of course we'll accommodate the Mayor.
Mayor Nutter, would you step forward and would you four
take seats on the front row and I'll recall you in just a few
minutes?
While the Mayor is coming downstairs, let me introduce him
to you. Not that he needs an introduction. The Mayor comes with
a very distinguished record. Elected on November 6, former
Councilman from the 4th District, Democratic Ward Leader,
University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, 1979, and he has
hit the ground sprinting as Mayor, and I have had the pleasure
of talking to him informally, worked with him when he was on
the City Council, we were on panels together, we've had a long
friendship and I'm pleased to see what he's doing in so many,
many areas, and especially in this area, because he convened a
meeting of the airlines in the past couple of weeks to tackle
this problem.
And no longer introduction, Mr. Mayor. I'll give you the
maximum time you can spend with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL NUTTER, MAYOR, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Mr. Nutter. Senator Specter, thank you very, very much for
this opportunity and the honor of testifying before this Senate
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development and Related Agencies. And I might, to ease my way
into it, given the last panel--as happy as I am to be here, I
think Mr. Sturgell might be happier that I'm here to provide a
bit of a break.
These are my opening comments, Senator, I will not take a
significant amount of time, but this is a very important issue.
And you are correct, we did have an opportunity to talk with
the airlines about these issues and many others.
And for the record, my name is Michael A. Nutter, I'm Mayor
of the city of Philadelphia. The city of Philadelphia owns and
operates Philadelphia International Airport, which I will
subsequently refer to as PHL.
The gateway to America's fourth most populous metropolitan
area, the airport sustains over 34,000 jobs, and contributes
more than $14 billion annually to the regional economy. It is a
key component of my strategic plan for economic development,
job creation, and customer service in Philadelphia and our
region.
Twenty-nine airlines fly over 650 daily departures from
Philadelphia to 122 non-stop domestic and international
destinations.
I'd like to also add for the record that I am pleased and
proud to--in our continuing efforts with our Deputy Mayor Rina
Cutler, and our airport director Charlie Isdell, to continue to
develop working partnerships with our good friends in Tenniken
Township, and Delaware County--critical and important
stakeholders and partners in our efforts from a regional
standpoint, to make Philadelphia International Airport work for
all of us.
Senator Specter, I'd just like to give you a bit of an
update on the airport. Our airport has achieved yet another
record year in 2007 by accommodating over 32.2 million total
passengers. This continues the steady rate of passenger growth,
which we have been experiencing since 2004. PHL landed 499,653
aircraft take-offs and landings in 2007, making it the 10th-
busiest airport in the United States.
Unfortunately, along with its record-setting passenger
growth and robust contribution to the regional economy, PHL was
ranked among the most-delayed airports in the United States for
some--has ranked among the most-delayed airports in the United
States for some time.
In terms of total delays in 2007, PHL ranked 6th worse
among the 30th largest U.S. airports, behind only Chicago,
Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and Atlanta.
However, over the past 3 years, the number of annual
takeoffs and landings at PHL has declined by nearly 7 percent.
This decline in activity has primarily resulted from a change
in airline behavior. The current state of the economy--
especially the price of jet fuel--has forced the airlines to
find new ways to accommodate continued passenger growth.
Rather than simply increase flights, they have been
reducing overall seat capacity by eliminating underperforming
routes, consolidating activity at fewer hub airports, and
strategically introducing newer, larger, more fuel efficient
regional jets. In addition, at Philadelphia, US Airways has
been working to reduce delays, by improving their facilities
and operational efficiency.
Total delays at PHL over the past 3 years have declined by
11 percent. The total delays at JFK in 2007 were 30 percent
greater than those experienced at PHL. Total delays at
LaGuardia, Newark, and Chicago were 2 to 2.5 times greater than
those at PHL. The delay situation at Philadelphia is certainly
worth of this subcommittee's attention, but it is not yet
comparable to those airports which have been forced to consider
and, in some cases, implement strict demand-management
measures.
We do not intend to allow our airport to ever reach that
level of intervention. The city has completed an Airport Master
Plan process, which recommended short-term and long-term
airfield improvements, aimed at needed delay reduction.
The short-term recommendation was a 1,000-foot extension of
runway 17-35, to make it usable for a broader range of aircraft
types. The Federal Aviation Administration approved this
project in 2005, and it is scheduled for completion later this
year. It is expected to reduce overall delays in Philadelphia
by 8 percent.
The long-term plan involved continued development of the
airfield, including a new runway, extension of two other
runways, and several important improvements to the taxiway
system. This program is currently the subject of an
environmental impact statement being prepared by the FAA. The
EIS process was set back by a full year, when the recent
Airspace Redesign Process was implemented, because of a great
deal of airfield design work had to be recalculated in light of
the airspace changes.
The FAA is not scheduled to complete the PHL airfield EIS
until the end of 2009. Following FAA approval, the city expects
to embark on the initial phase of the program expeditiously.
This multi-year process will result in airfield
infrastructure improvements that will increase the capacity of
our airport, reduce delays, and allow PHL to accommodate
projected growth while offering a higher level of service to
our passengers.
A couple of last points, Senator Specter. We are also fully
aware of a variety of other topics, and I'll just touch on the
sub-headings, here. Of course, the New York-New Jersey-
Philadelphia airspace, FAA Airspace Redesign, we are actively
involved in that process.
Flight scheduling practices--there are three that we are
primarily looking, of course, first is voluntary adjustment of
airline flight schedules, the second, administrative
approaches, and third, market-based approaches, as well.
In summary, Senator Specter, I would say that our primary
concern with all of these approaches is their potential impact
on airfares. Much progress has been made in recent years at
Philadelphia to increase competition. Prior to the approval of
Southwest Airlines in 2004, PHL's passengers consistently paid
some of the highest average airfares in the Nation.
For the past 4 years, our passengers have consistently
enjoyed some of the Nation's lowest average airfares. This
accomplishment could be undone by demand management measures,
particularly if they are not carefully planned and implemented.
I do not mean to diminish the seriousness of our delay
problems at PHL, at all. We are committed to considering any
and all responsible measures to address this problem. Our
present focus is on the implementation of a long-term airfield
development program. We would gratefully accept any assistance
this subcommittee can provide in prioritizing that initiative.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify
today, I would submit the fuller testimony for the record, and
I would certainly be glad to answer any questions that you
might have that I might be able to answer on my own.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. Your full statement will be made part of
the record, without objection, and I very much appreciate your
coming in, Mr. Mayor.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Nutter
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
I am Michael Nutter, Mayor of the city of Philadelphia, which owns
and operates Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), the gateway to
America's 4th most populous metropolitan area. The Airport sustains
over 34,000 jobs and contributes more than $14 billion annually to the
regional economy. It is a key component of my strategic plan for
economic development, job creation and customer service. Twenty-nine
airlines fly over 650 daily departures from Philadelphia to 122 non-
stop domestic and international destinations.
AIRPORT UPDATE
Our Airport achieved yet another record year in 2007 by
accommodating over 32.2 million total passengers. This continues the
steady rate of passenger growth, which we have been experiencing since
2004. PHL handled 499,653 aircraft take-offs and landings in 2007,
making it the 10th busiest airport in the United States. Unfortunately,
along with its record-setting passenger growth and robust contribution
to the regional economy, PHL has ranked among the most delayed airports
in the United States for some time. In terms of total delays in 2007,
PHL ranked 6th worst among the 30 largest U.S. airports, behind only
Chicago, Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and Atlanta.
However, over the past 3 years, the number of annual take-offs and
landings at PHL has declined by nearly 7 percent. This decline in
activity has primarily resulted from a change in airline behavior. The
current state of the economy, especially the price of jet fuel, has
forced the airlines to find new ways to accommodate continued passenger
growth. Rather than simply increase flights, they have been reducing
overall seat capacity by eliminating under-performing routes,
consolidating activity at fewer hub airports and strategically
introducing newer, larger, more fuel-efficient regional jets. In
addition, at Philadelphia, US Airways has been working to reduce delays
by improving their facilities and operational efficiency.
Total delays at PHL over the past 3 years have declined by 11
percent. The total delays at JFK in 2007 were 30 percent greater than
those experienced at PHL. Total delays at LaGuardia, Newark and Chicago
were 2 to 2.5 times greater than those at PHL. The delay situation at
Philadelphia is certainly worthy of this subcommittee's attention but
it is not yet comparable to those airports, which have been forced to
consider and, in some cases, implement strict demand management
measures.
We do not intend to allow our airport to ever reach that level of
intervention. The city has completed an Airport Master Plan process,
which recommended short-term and long-term airfield improvements aimed
at much needed delay reduction. The short-term recommendation was a
1,000-foot extension of Runway 17-35 to make it useable for a broader
range of aircraft types. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
approved this project in 2005 and it is scheduled for completion later
this year. It is expected to reduce overall delays in Philadelphia by 8
percent.
The long-term plan involves continued development of the airfield,
including a new runway, extension of two other runways, and several
improvements to the taxiway system. This program is currently the
subject of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared by
the FAA. The EIS process was set back by a full year when the recent
Airspace Redesign process was implemented because a great deal of
airfield design work had to be recalculated in light of the airspace
changes. The FAA is not scheduled to complete the PHL airfield EIS
until the end of 2009. Following FAA approval, the city expects to
embark on the initial phase of the program expeditiously. This multi-
year process will result in airfield infrastructure improvements that
will increase the capacity of our airport, reduce delays, and allow PHL
to accommodate projected growth while offering a higher level of
service to our passengers.
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY/PHILADELPHIA FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN
For the last 10 years the FAA has been exploring ways to improve
the flow of air traffic in the Philadelphia/New York/New Jersey
metropolitan airspace, which is the most congested in the Nation. The
city of Philadelphia has a vested interest in the outcome of this
process. We hope to benefit from any new procedures that may help
reduce delays. The city offered comments on the draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) released by the FAA in 2006. The FAA was
evaluating several alternatives, some of which introduced new flight
routes for aircraft operating here. The city commented that the FAA's
``integrated airspace'' alternative would offer the most potential
benefit for delay reduction by creating additional flight paths for use
by aircraft departing from Philadelphia in a westbound direction. The
proposed headings would allow FAA controllers to release departing
flights faster and reduce the number of aircraft that are delayed while
waiting to take-off.
The city simultaneously expressed concern over the potential for
increased noise over Delaware County. We were pleased to see that when
the final FAA report was released, it had been revised to eliminate
some of the proposed departure headings, and also included time-of-day
limitations on when the new headings could be used. Significantly, the
city's own noise policy, calling for planes to stay over the Delaware
River until they reach 3,000 feet, has been maintained. The use of the
new headings was approved last year and implemented on December 19. The
FAA has not yet published any data with which their effectiveness can
be evaluated. The FAA Philadelphia Tower Manager has assured us that
controllers are limiting use of the new headings to peak activity
periods and adhering to the time-of-day stipulations.
FLIGHT SCHEDULING PRACTICES
In addition to airspace redesign and the expansion of airport
facilities to reduce delays, ``demand management'' strategies have been
considered and, in some cases, implemented at a limited number of
airports in the United States. There are three primary demand
management techniques:
--Voluntary adjustment of airline flight schedules during peak
periods to shift operations to off-peak hours. This typically
involves a request to the airlines that they voluntarily ``de-
peak'' their flight schedules. The opportunities for this
practice to be effective at PHL are limited because we have
already experienced a significant de-peaking of the daily
flight schedule. As demand for air service has grown at PHL
over the last several years, the airlines have responded by
adding flights during the available low activity periods in the
daily schedule. This has effectively resulted in a de-peaking
of the schedule. We do not believe there is much room for
additional schedule adjustments that would reduce peak period
operations. Furthermore, the flight schedule at PHL is largely
made up of the domestic and international operation of our hub
carrier, US Airways, which accounts for 62 percent of
Philadelphia's market share. Their scheduling is driven by the
need to link their connecting flights. Transatlantic and
transcontinental flights in particular have limited windows of
time in which to operate and be available to passengers at a
reasonable time of day. Shorter domestic flights carrying
passengers who will connect to those transcontinental or
international flights must be scheduled accordingly. Thus the
hub airline has limited flexibility to further adjust flight
schedules. Airlines in general need to schedule flights at the
times preferred by travelers in order to remain competitive in
the marketplace. This also hinders the Airport's ability to
secure airline cooperation in voluntarily adjusting schedules.
--Administrative Approaches to reduce delays have been used by the
FAA at a limited number of airports, including the imposition
of operational limitations or ``caps.'' Caps strictly limit the
number of flights that can be operated during a day, or a given
peak period of a day. In recent years this approach has been
implemented as a ``temporary'' measure at Chicago O'Hare,
LaGuardia, JFK and Newark International Airports. As previously
stated, these airports are experiencing delay levels that are
significantly greater than PHL's. As a result we believe that
caps are not appropriate at Philadelphia. They would limit
opportunities for continued growth in air service and
competition. The associated benefits to travelers, such as
direct access to markets and competitive airfares, would be
lost. Caps are not a reasonable long-term solution to
Philadelphia's delay problem. We believe that long-term delay
reduction is attainable through development and expansion of
our airfield.
--Market-based Approaches can take several forms, including the
establishment of peak period pricing, whereby an airport could
charge higher fees during peak periods to encourage airlines to
move some of their flights to off-peak periods or to other
airports. Currently, the FAA prohibits this type of
differential fee structure. However, the FAA has recently
embarked upon a rule-making process that could enable peak-hour
pricing in the future. Philadelphia, along with many other
airports, submitted comments on the FAA's draft proposal last
month. Among other points, we noted that the continued FAA
requirement that such new pricing must be ``revenue neutral''
for the airport undercuts the expressed purpose of the new
rule.
Additionally, the city has recently executed a new Lease Agreement
with the airlines at PHL. Unless the FAA preempts it, this agreement
would not permit any type of peak period pricing structure to be
effected during its 4-year term. As previously stated, we believe that
peak-hour pricing would have little effect at PHL because the airlines
have already voluntarily de-peaked to the extent feasible.
SUMMARY
Our primary concern with all of these approaches is their potential
impact on airfares. Much progress has been made in recent years at
Philadelphia to increase competition. Prior to the arrival of Southwest
Airlines in 2004, PHL's passengers consistently paid some of the
highest average airfares in the Nation. For the past 4 years, our
passengers have consistently enjoyed some of the Nation's lowest
average airfares. This accomplishment could be undone by demand
management measures, particularly if they are not carefully planned and
implemented.
We do not mean to diminish the seriousness of our delay problem at
PHL. We are committed to considering any and all responsible measures
to address this problem. Our present focus is on the implementation of
a long-term airfield development program. We would gratefully accept
any assistance this subcommittee can provide in prioritizing that
initiative. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
glad to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Specter. Let me pick up on a comment you just made
late in your testimony, at Philadelphia that there are the
highest airfares in Philadelphia in the country. Do you have
any idea as to why that is so?
Mr. Nutter. Well, I would certainly suggest--and not just
because of Southwest, but certainly Southwest Airline's arrival
in Philadelphia set off--as I best recall--a good healthy round
of competition among the various airlines. And I would only
suggest, help to drive prices down, helped us to attract more
customers, and Philadelphia International Airport, and our
passengers, were the true beneficiaries. And there have been
some other entrants into the market who have stepped up their
presence.
Senator Specter. So, before Southwest--and I agree with
you, they've driven down prices. Before Southwest, the prices
were even higher. But why should Philadelphia be among the
highest airfare-cost cities?
Mr. Nutter. Well, I would agree with you, Senator.
Senator Specter. And that may be a question that neither of
us can answer.
Mr. Nutter. Right. We shouldn't.
Senator Specter. But, I think we ought to find out.
Mr. Nutter. Yes, I would agree with that. We should not be.
Senator Specter. Mr. Mayor, on the impact on commerce and
encouraging corporations and other business to settle here, has
to be impacted by the difficulty of getting in and out of the
city. Without quantifying it statistically, just off the cuff,
what would your overall impression be, having been city
government on council for many years, and now Mayor and an
aircraft flyer yourself, on how people look at Philadelphia and
how they think about settling here, contrasted with a city
which has a good record.
Mr. Nutter. Senator, I can tell you from direct personal
experience and conversations that this issue does arise, more
oftentimes than not. After we get past, you know, discussions--
especially with major companies that we may be trying to
attract or encouraging others to expand, when you get beyond
taxes and public safety and a number of other factors,
invariably, issues related to Philadelphia International
Airport do arise.
It is, unfortunately, something that we're known for. Not
necessarily in the most positive light. And so, that was why I
convened the meeting of the airlines, our primary airlines in
Philadelphia, and of course you were a participant in that
discussion.
I look at Philadelphia International Airport, as I
mentioned in my testimony, as a key component of the economic
vitality, not just of Philadelphia. Everyone knows that two-
thirds of the airport is actually in Delaware County and
Tenniken Township, this is a regional asset, it is a regional
economic engine.
In our uniquely--what I refer to as our unique situation--
almost perfectly situated between New York and Washington, I
believe there's actually a strategic advantage for the city of
Philadelphia, but we have to be able to get people on the
ground and in the terminal, or out of the--away from the gate
and in the air much quicker.
It does nothing for our reputation if you can technically
land on time but no--I guess the formal term is, deplane--for
the rest of us, get off the aircraft, as opposed to sitting on
the runway.
Senator Specter. Well, I think you point up a good factor.
If you're delayed in getting into the terminal, it oughtn't be
landing time, it ought to be foot in the terminal time.
Mr. Nutter. I mean I have to agree with you. I mean, you
know, the fact that I got on the plane at 9:30 a.m. for a 10
a.m. departure, and maybe then sit on the runway for another
half hour--yes, I did get on on-time, and we pulled away on-
time, but we didn't leave. So, the goal is not to be on the
tarmac of Philly International. I think you're trying to get
to, you know, Boston or Baltimore or New York or wherever it is
that you're trying to go.
Senator Specter. Mr. Mayor, what consideration, if any,
should be given to charging the airlines for these peak hours?
To try to discourage them from using them?
Mr. Nutter. That issue certainly came up during the course
of our meeting, and I've had other discussions about it, you
know, one--I don't know what the reaction by the airlines would
be, two, I don't know what impact, ultimately, that would have
on fares.
Speaking now, more from a business standpoint, I would
wonder whether that ``fee'' would be passed on to passengers,
and if that were the case, it may put Philadelphia back in the
uncompetitive status from a fare standpoint, which of course
we're constantly seeking to drive our fares down, use fares as
a competitive advantage, in addition to our strategic location.
I need a well-functioning airport that is fairly priced,
competitive with many other cities up and down the east coast.
It is--it puts Philadelphia in an uncompetitive situation if
the alternatives are to leave Philadelphia or our region--with
no disrespect to Baltimore or other locations--but to go to
BWI, or Newark or somewhere else, to avoid Philadelphia
International Airport. That is an untenable situation for us,
and I can not accept that, under any circumstances, as Mayor of
Philadelphia.
Senator Specter. Mr. Mayor, there has been action by the
FAA to go into New York and to try to do some rational
scheduling. And the testimony earlier today was New York causes
a cascade, and it's a national problem. I know the answer to
this question, but let's put it on the record--is there any
reason why New York should get more consideration for the FAA
on trying to work out a rational airline schedule for arrivals
and departures in Philadelphia?
Mr. Nutter. Well, as long as we're still as part of the
United States, I would say the answer is no.
Senator Specter. The Equal Protection Clause?
Mr. Nutter. You're much better at arguing those--making
those arguments, but yes, Philadelphia should at least receive
the same consideration from our Federal Aviation
Administration.
Senator Specter. Mr. Mayor, I've been discussing with key
officials in the Department of Transportation legislation--the
FAA does not have the authority to impose restrictions, or at
least if a--it is highly doubtful, something they are not
inclined to do. And I believe the mood of the Congress is
really very angry about what's going on with these arrivals and
departures all over the country.
It would behoove the airlines to try to take some action in
advance of congressional inaction--whatever the market does, or
the airlines do, as a private matter is always more sensible
than waiting for somebody to come down and impose it. It also
takes a long time to get the legislation through and implement
it.
So, it may be that as a supplement to what--and I
appreciated the invitation to your meeting--the supplement to
what you have done, and what we're trying to do on this
subcommittee, that we might encourage the airlines to come up
with a voluntary plan--they know what these delays are, ask
them to sit down and figure it out themselves, with the obvious
implication really flat statement that the Sword of Damocles is
not far away. Try to get them to do it. And for all I know,
you'd be prepared to provide leadership on that subject----
Mr. Nutter. Yes.
Senator Specter. And something I believe we ought to
consider, as a follow-up on your meeting with them, and this
session.
Mr. Nutter. Well, Senator, I can certainly report to you
that after that meeting, and you had a--I know you have another
meeting to attend, but I can report to you, we haven't talked
since. The airlines were quite inspired, based on your
comments, with regard to the Federal legislative option, to
start exploring ways that they may be able to--away from any,
you know, anti-trust or occlusion issues, but they were more
than optimistic about trying to explore ways to voluntarily
sort out these scheduling challenges.
Senator Specter. Volunteerism may come to the fore with
imminent Federal action in the rear.
Mr. Nutter. I think, Senator, when you mention the Sword of
Damocles--that was the point where they really were looking at
the voluntary action. Most of them try to avoid that sword.
Senator Specter. Mr. Mayor, we'd be glad to hear anything
you'd care to add. In the absence of that, I thank you for
revising your schedule to accommodate what we had to do on
scheduling at this end.
Mr. Nutter. Thank you. Any time for you, Senator.
Thank you very much.
AVIATION DELAYS
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
I'd like to recall, now, the four witnesses from the FAA.
Welcome back. Let's move to the subject of overbooking,
delays on takeoffs and landings.
On those calculations, Mr. Gribbin, do they count the time
when--or they don't count the time the plane takes off after
waiting on the tarmac for all that time? They count the time
from the scheduled departure?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, they count the tarmac delays--we keep
tarmac delay statistics, also.
Senator Specter. Well, if the statistics are that the
planes--so many of the planes left late, that's late from the
time they take off on the tarmac, not from the time they pull
away from the gate?
Mr. Gribbin. No, we're counting delays as based on
arrivals, so----
Senator Specter. You count delays based on arrivals?
Mr. Gribbin. On arrival times.
Senator Specter. Well, you also count delays based on
takeoffs?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, we count tarmac delays, and then we
count arrival time delays.
So, I think the challenge that you mentioned earlier during
your opening statement, is that airlines will over-schedule
certain periods of time for departure times, because consumers
want to leave at those times. Right now, there is no
disincentive for them to do that, in fact, they're incentivized
to over-schedule key departure times. But, there's nothing that
prohibits them, currently, from padding their schedule. And
even if they end up departing late, if they arrive on time,
that is counted as an on-time flight.
Currently, the Secretary has asked my office to----
Senator Specter. Excuse me, Mr. Gribbin?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, sir.
Senator Specter. If the plane is scheduled to leave at 7
a.m., and it pulls away from the gate at 7 a.m. and it takes
off at 10 a.m., is that a delayed flight?
Mr. Gribbin. That is a delayed flight.
Senator Specter. And if a plane, you're scheduled to arrive
at 5 p.m., and pulls into the gate at 5 p.m.--pulls into the
gate area, but can't get a gate to allow the passengers to
depart the plane until 6 p.m., is that a delayed arrival?
Mr. Gribbin. That is a delayed arrival.
Senator Specter. Well, the issue of delayed takeoffs and
delayed arrivals is of enormous import--don't have to talk too
much about it to establish the nature of the problem, you've
heard the Mayor's testimony, and I can testify personally to
the problems, over a long, long period of time. And beyond the
commercial aspects, which we talked about, that's what I wanted
to focus with the Mayor, didn't want to keep him any longer
than absolutely necessary because of his other commitments, but
the experience I've had, and the experience with passengers
I've been with, you're due to come in at 6 o'clock and it's
foggy and rainy and you circle back to Harrisburg and back, and
a terrible anxiety as to what's going on. Especially with the
limitation on air controllers and all of the issues on safety
in the sky--and let me commend you for the hearing you had last
week, and the efforts that are being made there.
Had a surprising story in the New York Times today about
the biggest problem in flying is collisions on the ground.
But getting back to the anguish, flying, foggy, rainy, just
takes a tremendous, tremendous toll, it's like something you
really have to come to grips with.
Mr. Gribbin, you talk about New York having a cascade
across the country. Well, I think Philadelphia qualifies for
that.
Mr. Gribbin. That's right.
Senator Specter. I note that you are on the Study Group for
New York, in addition to your duties of General Counsel, you're
chairman of the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which
convened meetings in New York area airports in October to come
up with findings for dealing with air congestion. Why not a
similar meeting for Philadelphia?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, when we started the Aviation Rulemaking
Committee, the question was, how big a scope did we want to
have? We talked about doing something that was nationwide, and
then we decided to focus on the New York area, and then we
decided to collapse that even further, and focus just on the
Port Authority-owned airports, since most of the Nation's
delays were triggered by those three airports.
However, there's nothing that prohibits us from taking us--
--
Senator Specter. Pull the mike a little closer.
Mr. Gribbin. There's nothing that takes us----
Senator Specter. You say you started with three--just three
airports?
Mr. Gribbin. We started with just the Port Authority
airports--Newark, LaGuardia, JFK. And what we wanted to have
with New York, which was represented by airlines, consumer
groups, State of New York, State of New Jersey and the Port
Authority----
Senator Specter. Isn't Philadelphia really indispensable
for that consideration because of the confluence of the
airspace?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, Philadelphia is considered to be part of
the New York City airspace, and the changes being proposed in
New York will benefit Philadelphia, as well.
Senator Specter. My question was different, my question is,
isn't Philadelphia travel--air travel, the airlines, so
integral with what happens out of New York that they ought to
be included in those studies?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, we are including Philadelphia in future
actions. The ARC has concluded, so that action has finished,
and we had a set of recommendations that came forward out of
that exercise. But that does not preclude us from taking what
we learned from the ARC, and applying it to Philadelphia.
Senator Specter. Well, will you schedule one of those
meetings for Philadelphia?
Mr. Gribbin. We would be glad to schedule a meeting for
Philadelphia. In fact, I handed the mayor my card----
Senator Specter. Within 90 days?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, sir, we will do that within 90 days.
Senator Specter. Okay, that's a nice, direct answer. We're
making progress.
With respect to the question of imposing limitations on the
airlines, Mr. Gribbin, does the Department of Transportation
need authority from Congress to do that?
Mr. Gribbin. The Department of Transportation currently has
legal authority to convene schedule reduction meetings with the
airlines, similar to what the FAA did for JFK and Newark,
during the end of last year and the early part of this year. I
think that our concern is that--and the mayor touched on this--
if you cap an airport, as in, you say there's only so many
operations allowed per hour, you grant that to the incumbent
airlines, and effectively you've locked out competition.
The mayor talked about the importance of Southwest entering
into the Philadelphia market and what that did for fares----
Senator Specter. Well, I wouldn't do that--come back to the
central question which I'd like to have answered, and then I
can move on--could, does the Department of Transportation have
the authority, now, to establish a limited number of flights,
say from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.,
et cetera, at Philadelphia International Airport?
Mr. Gribbin. It does. The question is, if it does that,
what does that do to fares and competition, and is that in the
public interest?
Senator Specter. So, you do not need congressional
authority?
Mr. Gribbin. Currently we do not need congressional
authority to place flight limitations on an airport.
Senator Specter. Flight limitations on the airport.
Mr. Gribbin. That's correct.
Senator Specter. Well, when you talk about freezing out
competition, I agree with you--you can't do that. But that
could be accommodated by a monthly reevaluation, or 45 days or
some realistic period, so the schedules can be made for an
appropriate period of time. Has that consideration been given
by the Department of Transportation?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, as part of our focus on New York, which
will soon include Philadelphia, we just talked about what term
limit--if you impose slots on an airport, what term should that
slot take for the airlines? The airlines argue that it should
be for incumbents in perpetuity, new entrants suggest, that it
should be a matter of a year or two.
So, there's significant debate over, once you impose slots,
what property interest you're giving to incumbent airlines.
Senator Specter. I don't really understand your position on
that. Is the Department of Transportation giving serious
consideration to limiting the number of flights into New York
City so that there are only as many flights scheduled as New
York, LaGuardia, JFK, Newark, can handle?
Mr. Gribbin. Currently what we have done is similar to what
we have historically--LaGuardia has been capped since 1968. So,
those caps have been in place----
Senator Specter. New York caps in 1968, are they realistic?
Or are they still having lots of delays?
Mr. Gribbin. There is concern that the current cap that is
in place is too high, because there are significant delays at
LaGuardia. It remains one of the top three----
Senator Specter. Cap is too high, or too low?
Mr. Gribbin. Too high--too many flights per hour.
Senator Specter. Okay, so has consideration been given to
lowering the cap, something which is realistic with what the
airport can handle?
Mr. Gribbin. As part of the supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that the Department put out a couple of weeks ago,
one of the options would reduce the number of operations at
LaGuardia. As you can imagine there's----
Senator Specter. And what are the other options?
Mr. Gribbin. There are two options. What we are suggesting
is, capping the airport, and then allowing for options for some
of the existing capacity. This would allow the new entrants of
the world, the Southwests, to compete in that market and keep
fares low.
So, the two options----
Senator Specter. Is that option two?
Mr. Gribbin. Auctions are in both options. Under the first
option----
Senator Specter. Option one is to lower the cap. What's
option two?
Mr. Gribbin. Option one is to withdraw 10 percent of the
slots, auction 8 percent of them, and retire the 2 percent that
are not auctioned. That's option one.
Option two does not have a retirement. So, it doesn't
reduce the number of slots, it would just require the airlines
to auction a piece of the slots that they have to another
airline, and then the airlines could keep the proceeds from
that auction.
Senator Specter. Well, option two is not going to help the
congestion. Is--you're going to offer 8 percent to other
airlines, or 2 percent?
Mr. Gribbin. Eight percent and then 2 percent would be
retired.
Senator Specter. Isn't 2 percent a pittance? Not realistic,
at all to solve the congestion problem.
Mr. Gribbin. Well, what we're trying to do is accommodate,
sort of, the public interest. Because the Port Authority would
prefer that it not be lowered, at all. Airlines, similarly,
would prefer that it not be lowered at all.
Senator Specter. Why is it so hard to answer my question
and then move on to whatever you would like to say? That's what
the chairman is supposed to be able to do, or the member who
raises the question.
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, sir, to answer your question----
Senator Specter. Yes, I would----
Mr. Gribbin. I would----
Senator Specter [continuing]. Much if you would start with
answering my question. Then if you want to answer some of your
questions, I'll let you take the time to do it.
The pending question is--is a 2 percent reduction, de
minimus? Meaningless, virtually? To deal with the congestion?
Mr. Gribbin. I would not consider 2 percent meaningless. It
is small. But again, what we anticipate, with the improvements
that the FAA is going to make to New York City airspace, is
that over time capacity will grow. And therefore delays will be
reduced without having to lower the cap.
Senator Specter. Well, that's fine, over time. And if I had
3 days for your testimony, here, we could go into all of the
hypothetical things that might happen.
But, in terms of getting something done now, isn't 2
percent a pittance?
Mr. Gribbin. Remember, similar to the comment you made
about the Philadelphia Airport, these airports are operating in
a system, and the FAA is currently making up improvements in
Philadelphia, as Acting Administrator Sturgell mentioned
earlier, making improvements at Newark, and we've put in place
caps at JFK. So, I think, overall, we expect a reduction in the
amount of delays.
Second, I think the goal is not to reduce the delays to
zero. In other words, we could cut in half the number of
flights that are coming in----
Senator Specter. What are the caps at JFK?
Mr. Gribbin. The caps at JFK are an average of 82 or 83 per
hour.
Senator Specter. And what's the reduction?
Mr. Gribbin. The delay reduction is from an average of----
Mr. Sturgell. I think it's about a 13 to 15 percent delay
reduction, based on our modeling.
Senator Specter. Thirteen to 15 percent?
Mr. Sturgell. I believe that's correct.
Senator Specter. I don't consider that adequate. I won't
ask you if you do, but I don't consider that adequate to leave
85 to 87 percent of the delays in effect. I don't think my
colleagues in the Congress would consider that adequate,
either.
It would not be a desirable situation to have the Congress
come in, and start to establish standards for the FAA. But,
gentlemen, and lady, I don't think what you're talking about is
realistic, in terms of that kind of minimal reduction. And 2
percent, I think, is laughable. And 15 percent is a start, but
only a start.
We have the authority, as you say, Mr. Gribbin. That might
leave Congress the only option to mandate, which we can do.
Mr. Gribbin. That's correct.
Senator Specter. We can mandate the standards. I think that
would be a very bad governmental policy, for the Congress to
try to micromanage the Department of Transportation and the
FAA. But if you don't do it, we will.
I can't go into all of the long-range undertakings that you
have in mind to make this Newark 10 percent meaningful. But,
I'd like you to submit, in writing, within 30 days the
projections which would support your argument, that 2 percent
is meaningful.
Mr. Gribbin. I'd be glad to, Senator.
Senator Specter. And LaGuardia? What is the proposal for
delay reduction there?
Mr. Gribbin. The 2 percent was LaGuardia.
Senator Specter. I thought 2 percent was Newark, well,
what's Newark?
Mr. Gribbin. Newark, we just put in place caps to prevent
the growth of delays. Those are the caps I mentioned that were
averaging 82 to 83 per hour.
Senator Specter. Doing what?
Mr. Gribbin. The caps average 82 or 83 operations per hour.
And the delay reduction would be----
Mr. Sturgell. I don't recall those off-hand, Senator, but
we'll get you that information, also.
[The information follows:]
Dear Senator Specter, thank you for your April 22 letter about the
use of departure dispersal headings at the Philadelphia International
Airport and your request to consider a method for restricting access to
the airport to avoid chronic overscheduling. In addition, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to share these discussion items with you
and your constituents at the field hearing you hosted on April 25.
While we agree that 10 aircraft waiting to depart is a problem, the
Federal Aviation Administration's use of departure dispersal headings
at Philadelphia is intended to avoid and prevent having too many
aircraft waiting for departure. We are using dispersal headings during
periods of peak demand as a tool to prevent long departure lines and
avoid excessive delays. Once long lines form, it can take significant
time for delays to be reduced or eliminated.
You also requested that we consider demand-triggered headings at
Philadelphia in the same way. we use them at Newark Liberty
International Airport. At Newark, we use one departure heading during
light demand (fewer than 5 departures waiting), 2 departure headings
during moderate demand (more than 5 departures waiting), and 3
departure headings during heavy demand (more than 10 departures
waiting). This is the most viable way to provide noise mitigation at
Newark because all of the original headings proposed in redesign were
retained. Mitigation at Philadelphia was provided by reducing the total
number of departure dispersal headings from six headings to three.
These measures were selected at each location independently to provide
the optimum mitigation while still meeting the purpose and need of this
valuable project.
I appreciate the offer to assist with legislative authority to
address overscheduling. I agree congestion and delays at key airports
may result in far-reaching impacts throughout the NAS. We have limited
operations at several airports through existing authority to manage the
NAS safely and efficiently. In Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, Congress specifically authorized the Department of
Transportation to convene scheduling reduction meetings when necessary.
We believe sufficient authority exists to address congestion and delays
caused by schedules that routinely exceed the average available
capacity of an airport or the NAS. We prefer to improve system
efficiency and accommodate demand rather than impose operating limits
that may have unintended consequences.
There were two points raised at the field hearing that I would also
like to address. The first is the scheduling adjustments and delay
reduction efforts by the FAA at Newark. The second is the potential
impact of reducing the number of slots at LaGuardia Airport under one
of the options proposed by the FAA in a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on April 17.
The FAA requested schedule information from carriers planning
Newark operations for the summer 2008 season. The schedule requests
included about 100 new operations, many in the busiest hours when
delays were already high. If implemented, some delays would have
increased by as much as 50 percent above the summer 2007 levels. We
worked with the airlines to re-time flights to periods when the airport
has unused capacity. By doing this, about 50 new operations were
scheduled outside peak hours. This was not an easy task as carriers
made choices on which flights needed to be rescheduled and, ultimately,
we simply did not approve the addition of new flights by some carriers
at their preferred times. Additionally, we expect some operational
improvements because of the implementation of the initial stages of
Airspace Redesign and other measures to improve operations. We were
also concerned that operating limitations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport could indirectly encourage carriers to operate
new flights to Newark. On May 15, the FAA issued a final order to adopt
operating limits at Newark continuing through summer 2009. We also
issued a proposed rule that would extend limits at JFK and Newark and
introduce market-based approaches to assign slots. The comment period
closes July 21, 2008.
In the recently issued proposal for LaGuardia, one option includes
a measure to phase out 18 slots, or about 1 slot an hour, over the
first 5 years of the rule. We recognize this would only provide minimal
delay mitigation. We expect to receive comments on the appropriate
level of operations at the airport. The comment period closes June 16.
As is the case of other airports in the area, we are also seeking
efficiency gains and delay reduction by implementing Airspace Redesign
and other measures.
Senator Specter. Well, within the 30 days, tell us what
will be the specific impact on delay reduction at Newark.
Mr. Gribbin. We'd be glad to.
Senator Specter. Well, I think we all have--we all have a
lot of work to do. And I know that you're overburdened in your
administration, I know your budget requests have not been
fulfilled. That's true, isn't it?
Mr. Sturgell. We have received support from the Congress
for the budgets we have submitted. So, the Congress is funding
what the administration is requesting.
Senator Specter. You've gotten what OMB allowed you to ask
for?
Mr. Sturgell. We got what the administration submitted,
Senator.
Senator Specter. And those----
Mr. Sturgell. And we have received great support. I do want
to say, we've received great support from the Congress,
especially on our staffing levels, both in aviation safety and
oversight, and for our----
Senator Specter. And beyond safety?
Mr. Sturgell. For our controller workforce, and for our
modernization programs, and this year we are asking for
increases in the 2009 budget in all of those areas. And it
would be great if Congress would support those increases.
Senator Specter. Well, let's follow up on the open-ended
questions which we've come here today, and I would ask you, Mr.
Sturgell, to really review those flight patterns. And the
commitment not to fly over Delaware County when you have fewer
than 10 waiting.
And, Mr. Gribbin, I've left you with the lion's share of
the work on these delay issues.
And I know it's always a delicate subject, in fact, it's
not a delicate subject you can't communicate with the Congress
on your ideas for what is adequate funding, that's not
permitted. You submit your request through channels, and they
go through the Office of Management and Budget and that puts
together the entire budget, but your budget comes out of the
discretionary pot, and that is very, very tightly
circumscribed.
So much so that there are cuts in funding for the National
Institutes of Health and inadequate funding for the Centers for
Disease Control and title I on Education. But those are not--
not your overall problems, those are problems for the
Appropriations Committee.
But I believe that the issues we've dealt with today are
top priority and I will do my best through the subcommittee and
the full committee to help provide the adequate funding.
Thanks very much for coming up and for modifying the
schedules today. I appreciate it.
Mr. Sturgell. All right.
Mr. Gribbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Specter. I will now call the second panel. vice
chairman Jack Whelan of the Delaware County Council, former
Governor and president Mark Schweiker of the Greater
Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, executive vice president and
chief operating officer of the Air Transport Association,
president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association,
Patrick Forrey. Congressman Joe Sestak has requested to be
added to the panel, and we will hear from him, as well.
We'll take a 5-minute recess while the panel is assembled.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in. For the
record, State Representative Brian Lentz has submitted
testimony for the record, which will be made a part of the
record without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan R. Lentz, Pennsylvania State Representative
Senator Specter, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the airspace redesign at Philadelphia
International Airport. As you know, two-thirds of Philadelphia
International is located within Delaware County. As a State
Representative in Delaware County, increased air traffic over our
communities is an issue of grave concern to the citizens I represent.
Residents of Delaware County know about air traffic congestion and the
harm it causes because it directly affects them and their neighbors.
Delaware County residents, however, are not the only citizens of the
Commonwealth who should be tracking the dramatic increases in air
traffic. All of Pennsylvania should be concerned that our State is not
prepared to handle the historic increases in air traffic coming over
the next 20 years. If we do not plan for and develop systems to
properly manage the massive increase in flights, communities like the
ones I represent will suffer, as will Pennsylvania's economy and
security.
The simple fact is we have no choice but to start to look elsewhere
to accommodate our air traffic needs. At the same time Philadelphia
International is bursting at the seams, other regional airports like
Lehigh Valley International are dramatically underused and have ample
capacity and desire for increased airline business. Right now, more
than half of all Lehigh Valley residents rely on airports other than
Lehigh Valley for air travel. Airports in Trenton, New Castle, and
Atlantic City also have ample capacity but are underused.
Unlike cities such as Boston, New York, Chicago and Washington,
commercial air traffic in our area is heavily concentrated at a single
airport--Philadelphia International--instead of being spread out among
existing airports in the region. Philadelphia International had over
530,000 aircraft operations in 2005 alone. That is more than any other
airport in the northeast corridor, including LaGuardia, JFK and Newark,
and it is at or above the airport's capacity. Demand at Philadelphia
International is expected to increase to over 700,000 takeoffs and
landings per year during the next 20 years.
The FAA wants to address this problem by redirecting flights and
aggressively expanding the airport. The airspace redesign is about
increasing capacity. By directing flights along multiple paths, the
airport can increase its ability to handle more takeoffs and landings.
In 2005, the airport also began extending a commuter runway to handle
larger planes, a $60 million project that will address only 8 percent
of the traffic problems. Later this year, a report is expected on the
impact of Philadelphia's proposal to spend over $2 billion to add a
parallel runway at the airport. No matter how much Philadelphia
International is expanded or improved, the airport will still continue
to operate at its saturation point. The runway expansion and airspace
redesign combined account for 20 to 30 percent of a projected 50
percent increase in traffic. Despite the stunning cost and impact of
these proposals, Philadelphia International and the FAA did not
consider greater use of regional airports as a way to relieve the
coming air traffic congestion.
To address the problem of congestion we must address development,
growth and traffic needs on a regional basis instead of each airport
fending for itself. Regional authorities have worked and are working in
other States, and an authority can work in Pennsylvania. In
Massachusetts, the Port Authority, known as MASSPORT, monitors air
service levels at more than half a dozen airports. It continually
analyzes airport development, how to improve and distribute service,
and how the region as a whole can market itself to air carriers. The
New York Port Authority follows a similar approach, and recently
purchased Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York in order to expand the
authority's regional capacity. Stewart will be the fourth major airport
in the New York Port Authority airport system.
As a freestanding facility, Philadelphia does not have the options
for system expansion that are available to the New York Port Authority
or similar authorities. Philadelphia International is also limited by
its size, sitting on approximately 2,400 acres. By way of comparison,
Denver International, a similarly busy airport, occupies 36,000 acres.
To help solve the problem of airport congestion, I have introduced
House Bill 1182 in the State legislature. House Bill 1182 would create
a regional authority to replicate the success of these other State
authorities. The authority would coordinate activities of regional
airports along with rail and mass-transit agencies.
In addition to the harm it does to neighboring communities,
concentrating all regional air travel at a single airport has other
negative effects. Over 50 percent of the flights to and from
Philadelphia International are to destinations within 500 miles. This
preponderance of commuter traffic hinders the airport's ability to
expand international routes. International traffic has a greater
economic benefit to our region, yet the concentration of shorter
flights is so great that international terminals are being used for
domestic flights. These frequent short distance flights also contribute
to the traffic congestion on the roads and highways in and out of
Philadelphia International. In the long-term, a high speed rail system
like the proposed MAGLEV train would be best suited to move people to
and from destinations within 500 miles.
Achieving the goal of managing air traffic needs is a challenging
task. If we do not start following the example set by other regions, we
will be unprepared for the increase in air travel in the years ahead
and left out of the economic benefits that air travel will create.
Before billions are spent to expand Philadelphia International, I would
urge this committee to scrutinize any funding for airports that is not
linked to a regional approach to dealing with increases in air traffic
and development of alternative means of travel.
Senator Specter. And we will begin our panel with
Congressman Joe Sestak, graduate of the Naval Academy, Admiral
of the United States Navy, and now a Congressman.
Welcome Congressman Sestak, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOE SESTAK, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, PENNSYLVANIA, SEVENTH
DISTRICT
Mr. Sestak. Thank you, Senator, and Senator, first off,
thank you very much. You and your staff have been a gem to work
on this issue, not just today, but for months on end, and I
appreciate that very much. And I also appreciate, personally,
the best advice I got when I entered Congress, when I met you,
right after the election, which was remember you're a public
servant and everything should be transparent.
Senator Specter. Pull the mike a little closer. You weren't
in the Congress when Senator Thurmond was there, but he's
famous for saying, ``Pull the machine a little closer.''
Mr. Sestak. But thank you for your support sir, both in
personal advice and for this issue.
I want to start off by saying the Philadelphia
International Airport is, as Mayor Nutter so well pointed out,
it's absolutely critical--absolutely critical to the economic
growth of our community. But delays in the departures are well
documented. However, I've spoken up about this Air Space
Redesign, because I honestly believe that it inadequately
addresses the safety and health of residents here in the
community, as well as those who are traveling, and it fails to
take into account other options, such as unused capacity at
regional airports.
As you notice, Michael Nutter spoke up and said, ``I'll fly
into Baltimore/Washington.'' Over one-third of all aircraft
that come into Philadelphia International Airport come from
less than 200 miles away. And so, not only other options might
be looked at, like unused capacity or the others that you were
questioning Michael Nutter--Mayor Nutter upon, but also, can we
not be a model, the pilot model, for a true inter-modal type of
transportation policy that this Nation so badly needs?
And that's part of the major reason I've spoken up on this.
Yes, it affects my district, but it also cries out for an
inter-modal approach for this Nation.
This airspace redesign began 10 years ago in a meeting down
in Baltimore. And then in 2003, something occurred that I
think, Senator, really made it go amiss. Congress approved the
streamline legislation that gave FAA exclusive authority to
determine the objectives and the options that were to be
studied. About that time, they removed from the Philadelphia
Airspace Redesign Project, Senator, the objective of noise
abatement. And then they really only studied one option,
although they listed four. And I think that's a large reason
you'll hear from someone who's led this fight, Mr. Whelan here,
of why there are 12 separate communities, including ours, that
have 13 lawsuits pending.
I was very fortunate, after the election, to have
established an Expert Advisory Board led by Mr. and Mrs. George
Loveless, who have worked with your staff. The resulting study,
which we briefed the FAA Administrator on over a year ago--
about a year ago--looked at the benefits and the costs. Without
a question, the benefits that the FAA has listed, Mr. Senator,
are well documented, the dollars that the airlines will save.
And also, as they stated, there'll be 4 minutes saved in
delays for each flight, 4 minutes. Other studies have shown,
and their own website data has shown, it's actually 29 seconds.
Whether it's 29 seconds or 4 minutes, that's not much of a
benefit, not when you consider the cost.
When you look at the cost, Senator, you look at the cost of
the environmental impact statement on sound, noise, and air
emissions, how they were supposed to adhere to the Clean Air
Act, for example. And when the EPA objected to how they said it
was de minimus, they then declared, on their own, a ``presume
to conform activity,'' inserted into the Federal Register, and
then said, ``There is no air emissions that are going to harm
anyone.''
And however, they (the FAA) absolutely ignored the law as
well as their own implementing order on NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, where it said that you are supposed
to do a separate study if it impacts children. As we briefed
documented studies to show that these flights under 3,000 feet
would mean one--a child who starts in first grade, Senator, and
ends in high school, will lose 1 year, documented, statistical
studies, of 1 year of education. In addition, my community will
be at risk of the deadliest disease killer in the Nation,
cardiovascular disease.
That's why it was galling to us when the U.S. Department of
Transportation spokesman, Brian Turmail said, ``We hope they
won't let a small thing like a slight change in noise level''--
a slight change in noise level--``affect us.''
Senator, I was in charge of the Navy's $70 billion warfare
program. We studied and the Navy input, millions of dollars
into Woods Hole, Massachusetts to understand what's the impact
of the noise from sonar upon mammals. Millions of dollars I
spent for the U.S. Government, under direction of the U.S.
Government. We know they had a health impact, we haven't spent
a cent on children. And then, most galling, is when we briefed
Administrator Blakely, and Representative Andrews has been a
stellar star on this, said to her, ``What's the cost after 10
years of this?'' She said, ``We don't know.'' We don't know the
cost, but we sure can tell you what the benefits are to the
airlines. And then most galling, sir, I think, and of most
concern to me, is the safety considerations.
The FAA Administrator--spokesman said several times, ``We
can not institute this plan that they announced last
September,'' or documented--they announced it 2 years ago, but
then put into action, that they would last September, for 8 to
12 months, Senator, because of safety concerns, that they would
have to have the New York airspace open up better, as was
alluded to earlier. And where we get our aircraft up and into
their airspace, because it's their airspace that's causing our
delay.
And yet, when asked----
Senator Specter. Representative Sestak, you're more than a
minute over, how much more time will you need.
Mr. Sestak. May I have one minute and summarize?
Senator Specter. Okay.
Mr. Sestak. Thank you, Senator.
I'll summarize just by saying that this safety concern for
ours is enormous, as they will turn at 500 feet with these 747s
at center over our district, particularly with their safety
record. As you saw on the front page of the newspaper today,
once again FAA has hidden safety revelations. Now, one more
airline, Southwest.
In summary, I think Chairman Oberstar is right, the FAA,
yes, needs to clean the house from top to bottom, but more so,
we need to take care of our citizens, say, just stop. There are
other options before we implement this and harm our children.
This was to be a cost-benefit analysis. We know the
benefits of the airlines, but never have they addressed the
cost per the procedure, which is why we've asked for the
Government Accountability Office--which will be done this
summer--to look over of how they have failed in doing this, not
to have implemented this unsafe and very costly procedure that
they are having for our District.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO Report: July 2008--FAA Airspace Redesign, Report No: GAO-
08-786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for abiding me my overrun, sir.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much.
We turn now to the vice chairman of the Delaware County
Council, the honorable Jack Whelan, partner in the firm of
Whelan, Doyle, and Pressman. He was the Delaware County
Assistant DA from 1986 to 1991, a graduate of the Temple
University School of Law.
Welcome for joining us Jack, and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WHELAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, DELAWARE
COUNTY COUNCIL
Mr. Whelan. Thank you, Senator Specter, for the opportunity
to explain how the changes in flight paths at the Philadelphia
International Airport have impacted and distressed Delaware
County residents. Specifically today, I want to stress how the
new departure headings implemented in December have disrupted
the lives of the residents in Delaware County without achieving
many benefits, or minimal benefits, at best.
Not only do we want to use flight--not only do we want the
flight paths curtailed, but we want the planes in the--flying
over, to remain at an altitude of 3,000 feet before they turn.
Senator, I believe that the prior practice was, when an
aircraft would take off from the International Airport, it
would reach an altitude of 3,000 feet before it was permitted
to turn over Delaware County, thus it would have a minimal
impact in noise and pollution.
There's no compelling evidence from the FAA to show that
putting more planes over Delaware County homes and
neighborhoods would reduce delays at the airport, except to a
very de minimus nature.
It is important to point out that two-thirds of
Philadelphia International Airport is located in Delaware
County, which of course, as the Senator knows, is a built-up
suburb of Philadelphia, having about 550,000 residents, first
generation communities, which are densely populated, all near
the airport.
On December 19, 2007, the FAA implemented a new departure
heading right over Delaware County homes, schools, and
businesses. Since the new departure heading went into effect,
the complaint calls to the airport noise hotline increased by a
remarkable 1,400 percent.
Prior to December 19, there would be, at best, one or a
half a call per day averaged, but however, after the 3-month
period, specifically between December 19, and April 3, there
have been 881 calls to the airport noise hotline, which has
increased it to the 1,400 percent. And we believe, Senator,
that there are only a handful of people calling. I get calls
from my constituents at the County Council offices constantly,
beyond what is being reported at the airport noise hotline.
What's really disturbing is also the fact that 10 percent
of these calls are between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., so
that a resident is being disturbed after midnight and between 5
a.m. when they're trying to sleep.
These are numbers that have been calculated during the
winter, and we're very concerned, now that the weather's
getting nice and we're approaching later into the spring and
summer, that we're going to have a myriad of additional
complaints. Delaware County is at ground-zero when it comes to
increased air traffic in Philadelphia and the FAA consistently
fails to take into consideration the negative impacts these
flights have had on the health and quality of life for people
in the county.
I speak for those people and I want to relate some of those
complaints directly to you, Senator. Terri Lummy, a resident of
Middletown Township, about 7 miles from the airport, works at
home, can't schedule any phone calls between 3 and 5 p.m.
because of the airplane noise. One day airplanes were going
over their house 2 minutes apart, non-stop, from 5:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m., and again at 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The next
morning airplane noise bothered her for 2\1/2\ hours.
Mary Keefer, a resident in Chester Heights, about 10
miles--and this is the western part of Delaware County, not the
eastern part--complained about loud flights between 3 and 3:30
a.m. The noise was so loud it woke her up right out of her bed.
One really disturbing complaint came from Barbara White,
the Principal at Lakeview Elementary School in Ridley Park.
This school is approximately 3 miles from the end of the
runway. Ms. White said flights over the school and playground
on February 1, were so loud that they frightened the students
and staff. Ms. White has been a principal at Lakeview for 14
years and the change has been very noticeable. She said that
the multiple over-flights cause school staff to say it felt
like a subway train was going through the building.
Natalie Coleman, her 8-year-old son attends Lakeview
School. He said between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. the planes were so
loud they thought they were in a war. The girls got really
scared and the teachers had to yell at the kids so that they
could be heard. He said that, ``Lately the noise at the school
has been really bad, we all get headaches, we're very angry. At
recess it is so loud that I hate it.''
People are also worried about their safety. Philadelphia
air traffic controllers say they're concerned about safety of
the new takeoff headings. One of the county's concerns from the
beginning was the increased risk of airplane crashes or objects
falling from airplanes.
Before the flight changes occurred, two recent instances of
airplane debris falling through the roofs of Delaware County
homes, miraculously resulted in no injuries. And I can say,
Senator that I personally visited the one house on Donna
Avenue, and it was devastating to see the hole in that roof and
how close it came to hitting that mother and child.
The bottom line is that the Airspace Redesign Project is
not achieving its goal, the reduction in flight delays in
Philadelphia. In fact, the only reduction we see is the quality
of life in our communities.
Mike Wagner, air traffic manager, Philadelphia, says there
has been a slight reduction in delays between December 19, 2007
but not because of airspace redesign, it's because there has
been fewer flights. And I would, it's been a very mild winter.
There's been about 4 percent, as they're touting, of
improvement, however I would again suggest to you,
respectfully, Senator, that is because of weather and because
of reduced flights.
We would ask you to consider common sense strategies to
improve airport service and reduce negative impacts on Delaware
County residents. The FAA should encourage airlines to use
regional airports that are grossly underutilized, such as
Lehigh Valley International, Atlantic City International, New
Castle County, Trenton/Mercer Airports. This would take the
pressure off of Philadelphia and give people near those
airports a more convenient way to fly.
Based on the reduction in flights and the resulting
reduction in delays, the FAA should consider putting a
reasonable cap on the number of flights during peak hours,
consistent with the flights that the airport can physically
handle.
Finally, I would point out that the airport and the
airlines should be encouraged to adopt a congestion pricing----
Senator Specter. Chairman Whelan, you're a minute over. How
much more time will you need?
Mr. Whelan. I'm done, Senator. I would just simply point
out, and it was referred to earlier today, that if we charge--
even if it's passed on to the consumer--a higher price during
peak hours, that would encourage consumers to go off peak
hours. So, if we could get people--I have a family of six, if
it was cheaper to fly at 10 o'clock in the morning or 12 noon,
I would be encouraged to do so instead of peak hours where the
congestion is most problematic.
I thank you for considering my comments.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John J. Whelan
Thank you, Senator Specter and members of the hearing panel, for
the opportunity to explain how changes in flight paths at Philadelphia
International Airport have impacted--and distressed--Delaware County
residents.
Specifically, I want to stress how the new departure heading,
implemented in December, has disrupted the lives of residents in
Delaware County without achieving any benefits.
Not only do we want use of this flight path curtailed, but we want
all planes departing the airport to remain over the Delaware River
until they reach an altitude of 3,000 feet. We are not wavering from
this position.
There is no compelling evidence from the FAA to show that putting
more planes over Delaware County homes and neighborhoods will reduce
flight delays at the airport.
So why subject our residents to more noise, more air pollution, and
the threat of safety hazards, if it's not going to improve air service
at the airport?
In all the hearings, in all the reports, in all of the FAA's
statistics . . . NO ONE has been able to answer that question for us.
It's important to point out that three-fourths of Philadelphia's
airport is located in Delaware County, a built-up suburb of
Philadelphia, having about 550,000 residents. Our first-generation
communities, which are densely populated, are all near the airport.
December 19, 2007, was a defining moment in this whole, misguided
airspace redesign plan.
December 19 is when the FAA implemented a new departure heading,
right over Delaware County homes, schools and businesses. Since the new
departure heading went into effect, complaint calls to the Airport's
noise hotline increased by a remarkable 1,400 percent.
During the 3-month period before December 19, there were an average
of .54 calls per day to the noise hotline and a total of 58 calls in
those three months.
During the 3 months after the change was made (between December 19,
and April 3, 2008), County residents called the Airport's noise hotline
881 times to report an airplane that was too close or too loud for
comfort. That's an average of 8.23 calls per day, or a daily increase
of about 1,400 percent.
What's more disturbing is that after December 19, 10 percent of the
complaints (88) were made between midnight and 5:00 a.m., a time when
the FAA admits traffic is light. The FAA said it would only utilize
this new departure heading when traffic was backed up during airport
rush hours. But these headings are being used in the middle of the
night, in blatant opposition to what was promised.
And these numbers are for winter. Wait until summer, when people
want to have their windows open, or be outside in their yards, and are
bombarded by airplane noise.
Delaware County is Ground Zero when it comes to increased air
traffic in Philadelphia. And the FAA consistently fails to take into
account the negative impact these flights have on the health and
quality of life for people in the county. Today, I speak for those
people and want to relate some of their complaints directly to you.
Terri Lunny, a resident of Middletown Township, about 7 miles from
the airport, works from home and can't schedule any phone calls between
3 and 5 p.m. because of the airplane noise. One day, airplanes were
going over her house 2 minutes apart non-stop from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.,
then again from 9:30 to 10:30 p.m. The next morning, airplane noise
bothered her for 2\1/2\ hours.
Mary Keefer, a resident in Chester Heights, about 10 miles from the
airport, complained about loud flights at 3 or 3:30 a.m. The noise was
so loud, it work her up.
One really disturbing complaint came from Barbara White, the
principal at Lakeview Elementary School in Ridley Park. This school is
3 miles from the end of the runway. Mrs. White said flights over the
school and playground on February 1, 2008, were so low and loud, they
frightened the students and staff.
Mrs. White has been principal at Lakeview for 14 years and the
change has been very noticeable. She said that multiple overflights
caused school staff to say that it felt like a subway train was going
through the building.
Natalie Coleman's 8-year-old son attends the Lakeview school. He
said that between 8 and 10 a.m., ``the planes were so loud they thought
they were `in a war.' The girls got real scared and the teachers had to
yell so the kids could hear them. He said that lately the noise at
school `has been real bad, we all get headaches and we are angry. At
recess it is very loud and I hate it.' ''
Mrs. Coleman said at her house, the new departure flights mean:
``We can't sleep, my clients can't hear me on the telephone in my home
office, we have seen the volume on our TV go from a 24 to a 49 just to
hear it and we still hear the planes, the windows shake . . . and my
home value has gone down.''
That's just a small sampling of the hundreds of complaints we've
heard.
People are also worried about their safety. Philadelphia air
traffic controllers say they are concerned about the safety of the new
takeoff headings. One of the county's concerns from the beginning was
the increased risk of airplane crashes or objects falling from
airplanes. Before the flight changes occurred, there were two recent
instances of airplane debris falling through the roofs of Delaware
County homes, miraculously resulting in no injuries.
In Delaware County, we are working to revitalize our eastern and
riverfront communities, the same areas where airplane noise is now
having a negative impact. The county is providing funding to these
older, inner-ring suburbs to revitalize their business districts,
parks, and streetscapes. We are trying to stem the tide of migration to
more distant areas and encourage home ownership in these communities.
But major airplane noise impacts threaten to undo this work.
The bottom line is the airspace redesign project is NOT achieving
its goal of a reduction in delays at PHL. In fact, the only reduction
we see is a reduction in property values and quality of life in our
communities.
Mike Wagner, the air traffic manager at PHL, said there has been a
slight reduction in delays since December 19, 2007, but it's NOT
because of the airspace redesign changes. It's because there have been
fewer flights.
Between January and November 2007, about 67 percent of PHL flights
were on time. In January and February 2008, about 71 percent of flights
were on time. Prior to December, approximately 1,500 flights per day
were arriving or departing. After December, about 1,400 flights have
been arriving or departing every day. Economic conditions, fuel costs,
and larger airplanes are contributing to the reduction in flights.
About 330 daily flights during the hours of 9 and 11 a.m. and 2 and 7
p.m. are using the new flight headings.
Our aviation expert, Williams Aviation Consultants, estimated that
the FAA's airspace redesign would reduce delays at PHL by a mere 3
percent, which translates to a couple of minutes.
Historically, 84 percent of PHL delays have been caused by factors
that cannot be addressed by airspace redesign, such as bad weather and
equipment problems. The impacts on Delaware County residents and school
children are not worth the tiny delay reductions.
Truth is, experts can manipulate these numbers, this flight data, a
million ways. Two things remain clear. The FAA overestimates any
benefit the airspace redesign will have; and underestimates the impact
on our residents.
Delaware County Council stands strong in this battle and we are
even expending tax dollars to fight these changes in court. Be we would
prefer a legislative remedy. We don't want to spend tax dollars
fighting the FAA, an agency that's supposed to protect people. So we
are looking to members of the House and Senate to find an alternate way
to accomplish these transportation goals.
We're not here to stand in the way of progress and success at the
airport. The County supports a viable airport to serve the region. But
putting more planes over the county is not the answer.
We propose three common-sense strategies to improve airport service
and reduce negative impacts on Delaware County residents:
--The FAA should encourage airlines to use other regional airports
that are grossly underutilized, such as Lehigh Valley
International, Atlantic City International, New Castle County,
and Trenton-Mercer airports. This would take some of the
pressure off of PHL and give people near those airports a more
convenient way to fly.
--Based on the recent reduction in flights and the resulting
reduction in delays, the FAA should consider putting a
reasonable cap on the number of flights during the peak hours,
consistent with the number of flights the airport can
physically handle.
--The airport and airlines should also be encouraged to adopt
congestion pricing, charging more for flying during peak times
and less for off-peak times. In January, Secretary of
Transportation Mary Peters introduced a policy to allow this.
This would encourage some flyers to change their flying times
to off-peak times.
A combination of these strategies would reduce the need for flying
over Delaware County homes and schools at low altitudes.
Thank you very much. I'll be happy to answer questions.
Senator Specter. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr.
Whelan.
Our next witness is executive vice president of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Mr. Paul Rinaldi,
15 years as an air traffic controller at Washington/Dulles,
attended the University of Dayton. He is accompanied by Mr. Don
Chapman, the National Air Traffic Controller Association's
facility representative for the Philadelphia International
Airport to respond to questions if any arise, specifically of
local questions.
Mr. Rinaldi, thank you for coming in, and we look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION
ACCOMPANIED BY DON CHAPMAN, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER
ASSOCIATION'S FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Forrey. Senator Specter, thank you, and my name is
Patrick Forrey, I'm the President of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association. Mr. Rinaldi, somehow must have got
mixed up in this whole process, but he's not here.
Senator Specter. Well, we need--we accept your
qualifications and----
Mr. Forrey. I appreciate that.
Senator Specter [continuing]. But without an introduction--
I know that there are many, many occasions where I have vastly
preferred no introduction.
Mr. Forrey. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. I would
like to say--start by thanking you for showing such leadership
on this important issue of aviation. The men and women I
represent in this State, as well as throughout the Nation, are
grateful to you because you treat their profession with respect
and you are a champion for their cause and the safety of the
system.
I also want to thank Senator Lautenberg who isn't here
today, but who sits on this important subcommittee. Like you
Senator, he continues to be a champion for the working men and
women of NATCA, by making sure that our aviation system is safe
and working conditions for air traffic controllers and other
FAA employees are adequate.
Air travel is an integral part of the economy and life in
Philadelphia, where the airport is ranked ninth busiest in the
world and among the fastest growing in the United States. Over
the past 3 years, more than 83 million passengers flew into or
out of Philadelphia Airport for business or leisure.
But flying into Philadelphia has become less efficient.
Philadelphia is ranked 30th out of 32 major airports for on-
time departures, a rate which has fallen 9 percentage points in
5 years, to a low of 70 percent. Arrivals are even worse, with
only 67 percent of flights arriving within 15 minutes of their
scheduled landing time.
Rather than working with stakeholders to identify and
address the root of this problem, the FAA has endeavored to
follow its own flight plan, unilaterally enacting changes to
Philadelphia's airspace design and to aircraft control
facilities. It is the opinion of NATCA that neither the
dispersal headings nor the de-combination of Philadelphia's air
traffic control operations will have any positive impact on air
travel, in or out of Philadelphia Airport.
Rather, both changes will introduce additional safety risks
into the system, and increase the potential for confusion and
inefficiency. We believe that a status quo is unacceptable, as
well, but that changes must directly address the two key
components of Philadelphia's airspace woes, airline over-
scheduling, and the understaffing of air traffic control
facilities. The actions already underway by the FAA are, at
best, ill-advised, and at worst, downright harmful.
First, the plan to separate tower and radar approach
functions at Philadelphia Airport will result in, with
increased staffing pressure, at a facility already too thinly
spread. Philadelphia is currently operating with 61 percent of
the controllers authorized by the FAA in 1998, and traffic has
grown since that time.
With only 67 of the authorized 109 controllers working at
Philadelphia, and an additional 15 eligible for retirement, we
are becoming increasingly concerned with the inexperience,
over-work and fatigue controllers are now subjected to.
While the FAA has stated that splitting this facility will
require an increase in the overall staffing of controllers,
they have not addressed how the need will be filled, or how
long it will take. One major importance to note--splitting this
facility will narrow the field of knowledge for the
controllers, and introduce barriers for communication and
smooth operation.
Trainees assigned to the new split facilities will have no
knowledge of the tower operations or TRACON operations,
depending on where they're assigned. They will, therefore, lack
a clear understanding of how their actions affect operations at
the JC positions.
The co-location of tower and TRACON functions allows for a
more comprehensive understanding of operations, simpler
communications and more face-to-face interactions, resulting in
greater efficiency. Barriers to communications caused by
physical separation reduce efficiency, potentially causes
additional, unnecessary delays.
Second, the hastily introduced dispersal headings of
Philadelphia have increased risk of miscommunication between
air traffic controllers and pilots. FAA has published no
official guidelines governing the uses of dispersal headings,
nor have they updated Standard Instrument Departure routing
charts, we call SIDs, to include these new headings.
Without new SID charts, controllers have had to verbally
override SID instructions, requiring pilots to depart using
unfamiliar procedures, without the benefit of written
instructions, which opens up the potential for
miscommunications. An audit of 23 hours of tape revealed nine
communication errors, in that short span of time.
These, and all areas, have high stakes, particularly when
dealing with such constrained airspace. Additionally, these
headings have not been tested for use during hot weather, where
aircraft are known to climb and turn much more sluggishly.
But, while the FAA has made these ill-advised changes, they
have addressed neither the issue of airline over scheduling,
nor that of air traffic controller staffing. The work rules
imposed by the FAA on the controller workforce have resulted in
unprecedented attrition of air traffic controllers. Controllers
are leaving the workforce at a rate of 5.2 per day. Most of
them are retirees who have not yet reached mandatory retirement
age. Resignations have also tripled to 345 since the
implementation of the imposed work rules. For Philadelphia,
this has meant running operations at 61 percent of the
authorized staffing levels.
There are fewer eyes watching the skies and runways in
Philadelphia, and throughout the country, and those that remain
are suffering from fatigue. This fatigue has resulted in more
frequent lapses in safety, and a less efficient, and therefore,
more delayed operation. The FAA has taken no steps to stem that
flow.
As for the issue of airline over scheduling, while the FAA
has determined that Philadelphia can handle 13 departures per
quarter hour in optimal weather conditions, they do not require
airlines to take these rates into account when planning their
schedules. Therefore, the airlines are free to use marketing as
their only driving force in their schedule development--a
practice which may maximize profits for the airlines, but
results in losses for airline customers in the form of delays.
Airlines frequently schedule departures in excess of optimal
airport capacity.
These excess departures automatically result in delays,
before weather or even air traffic control staffing are
factored into the equation.
Although we are gathered here to discuss the issues facing
aviation in Philadelphia area, it must be understood that the
situation is Philadelphia is not unique. Overall airline delays
in 2007 were second-worst on record, with nearly one-fourth of
arrivals, 21 percent of departures experiencing delays. This
number has consistently risen over the past 5 years, and with
arrival delays increasing by 12 percentage points since 2001.
Meanwhile, total staffing----
Senator Specter. Mr. Forrey, you're more than a minute
over, how much more time will you need?
Mr. Forrey. Just 30 seconds.
Senator Specter. Okay.
Mr. Forrey. Meanwhile, controller staffing nationwide is at
a 16-year low, with the number of certified professional
controllers at 70 percent of authorized levels.
Our hope is that, for this hearing, that by using
Philadelphia as an example, we can bring about meaningful and
substantive changes that will benefit the flying public
throughout the country.
Therefore, we recommend the following: the FAA should abide
by their clause in S. 1300, and realign facilities only after
receiving input and approval by review board, consisting of the
representatives from all stakeholder groups, including NACA,
pilots, Members of Congress, and the community.
The FAA must discontinue use of dispersal headings until
such time as full testing is complete, and proper procedures
have been established with collaboration from all stakeholder
groups.
The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling, to
prevent scheduling over the maximum arrival and departure
rates, and Congress must pass the FAA reauthorization bill,
that will require FAA to return to the bargaining table for
fair negotiations with the controllers, in order to curtail a
rapid attrition rates in the workforce.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Forrey
AIR TRAFFIC ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA
Air travel is an integral part the economy and of life in
Philadelphia. Ranked the 9th busiest airport in the world and among the
fastest growing in the United States,\1\ Philadelphia International
Airport has had more than 83 million passengers arriving and departing
over the last 3 years.\2\ But flying into Philadelphia has become less
efficient; Philadelphia is ranked 30 out of 32 major airports in
percent of on-time departures, a rate which as fallen from 79 percent
in 2001 to only 70 percent in 2008. Arrivals are even worse, with only
67 percent of flights arriving within 15 minutes of their scheduled
landing time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Aviation Administration Philadelphia International
ATCT/TRACON De-combining Staff Study.
\2\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airport snapshot for PHL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than working with stakeholders to identify and address the
roots of this problem, the FAA has endeavored to follow its own flight
plan, unilaterally enacting changes to Philadelphia's airspace design
and air traffic control facilities. Neither the dispersal headings nor
the de-combination of PHL's air traffic operations will have any
positive impact on air travel into and out of Philadelphia Airport.
Rather, both changes will introduce additional safety risk into the
system and increase the potential for confusion and inefficiency. The
status quo is unacceptable, but changes must directly address the two
key components of PHL's air traffic woes--airline over-scheduling and
the understaffing of air traffic control facilities.
NATCA therefore makes the following recommendations to this
committee:
--The FAA should initiate realignment activity only after receiving
input and approval from a review board as per the FAA
reauthorization bill passed by the House of Representatives and
under consideration by the Senate. This board would include
representatives from all stakeholder groups including air
traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress and the
community. In the case of the PHL, the FAA should work with
NATCA and consider our alternate plan to reduce the number of
positions required for full certification while maintaining the
integrity of the combined facility.
--The FAA must discontinue the use of dispersal headings until such
time as full testing--including hot weather testing--is
complete and proper procedures--including revised Standard
Instrument Departure (SID) charts--have been established. This
too must be developed with active participation of all
stakeholder groups including air traffic controllers, pilots,
members of congress and the community.
--The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling and prevent
scheduling over the maximum arrival/departure rates.
--Congress must quickly pass the FAA reauthorization bill, which
would require the FAA to return to the bargaining table for
fair negotiations with NATCA in order to curtail the rapid
attrition from the workforce.
de-combination of philadelphia tower and tracon
On March 31, 2008 the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
was officially informed of the FAA's plan to de-combine the
Philadelphia International Airport's air traffic control facility by
separating tower and radar approach functions in separate facilities.
This decision was made entirely without the participation of those with
most intimate understanding of air traffic control operations at
Philadelphia Airport--the air traffic controllers who work there each
day. The FAA did not seek input from these controllers who are best
able to identify benefits and pitfalls and make informed suggestions
for plan improvement. This shows not only contempt for the air traffic
control workforce, but also a lack of sincere desire to develop a plan
with the greatest benefit to users. It is the opinion of NATCA that the
plan to de-combine PHL ATCT/TRACON is deeply flawed and will bring no
benefit to users but will instead introduce into the system additional
safety risks and opportunities for delays.
It must be understood that NATCA is not categorically opposed to
all realignment initiatives. In the past, we have worked alongside the
FAA to plan some of the most successful realignments of ATC facilities.
This includes the formation of TRACON facilities in New York, Southern
California, Chicago, Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, Northern California,
Atlanta, and the Baltimore/Washington/Virginia Tri-State (Potomac)
area. However, it is our firm belief that all realignment decisions
must be made with a specific operational need in mind. These changes
must serve the public by improving safety, efficiency and service. To
date, the FAA has been unable to satisfactorily justify their PHL plan
on any of the above grounds. Instead, the administration has chosen to
focus on reducing its own operating costs while ignoring the cost of
delays for those who depend on our airspace for travel and commerce.
As the facility is currently structured, controllers must learn all
aspects of operations required for safe and efficient arrivals and
departures from PHL. This well-rounded training enables controllers to
understand how their actions at one position effect the operation of
the adjacent positions. With this knowledge, controllers are able to
optimize their performance for both safety and efficiency. By splitting
this facility, the FAA will narrow the field of knowledge for
controllers. New trainees will not only be denied the opportunity to
train on all dimensions of the operation, they will not even have the
opportunity to observe operations at other sectors.
Creating two separate facilities will also introduce barriers to
coordination between the Tower and TRACON. The collocation of tower and
TRACON functions allows for simpler communications and more face-to-
face interactions, resulting in greater efficiency. Philadelphia has a
unique and very intense crossing runway operation which requires
continuous interaction between tower and TRACON. Barriers to
communication caused by physical separation necessarily reduce
efficiency, potentially causing additional unnecessary delays.
Perhaps the deepest flaw in the de-combination plan is that by
creating two facilities, the FAA increases the number of controllers
necessary to conduct operations. The combined tower/TRACON facility
allows for flexibility in staffing. If, for example, the tower finds
itself short-staffed on any given day, they can call upon the TRACON to
supply the additional staffing, and vice versa. If these facilities
were separated, this flexibility would be lost, and each facility would
be required to maintain a higher level of staffing in order to ensure
uninterrupted service. The FAA acknowledges this fact in their staff
study stating that de-combination ``will require an increase in the
overall staffing of controllers, administrative, and support staff,''
but they did not discuss how that need would be filled.
Already PHL is in the midst of a staffing shortage, one that is
likely to grow only more severe. PHL currently employs only 67
certified professional controllers (CPCs), only 61 percent of the
staffing level jointly authorized by the FAA and NATCA in 1998. Of
those 67, 3 are scheduled for transfers and 15 are already eligible to
retire. De-combination would encourage retirement of those that are
eligible, as the split would result in the downgrading of each of the
daughter facilities causing an estimated 4 percent pay cut to
employees. The 2006 imposed work rules have already removed incentives
for experienced controllers to transfer to new facilities, as doing so
would reduce their pay by placing them in the new pay bands.
The FAA's key justification for the separation of these facilities
is that it would ``reduce the lengthy training time required for
developmental and prior experienced controllers in attaining full
performance level certification. By reducing the total number of
positions a controller is assigned to work maintaining currency would
be easier and controllers would become more proficient in the areas
they are assigned to work.'' \3\ NATCA agrees that there are advantages
in reducing training time. However, we believe that this same objective
can be met without losing the benefits of an integrated air traffic
environment. Larger Centers and TRACONs throughout the country have
their operations divided into sectors, a structure that has used
successfully in Miami, a facility similar Philadelphia. There is no
reason why similar structural changes should not be an equal success in
Philadelphia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Federal Aviation Administration Philadelphia International
ATCT/TRACON De-combining Staff Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA's refusal to consider this reasonable alternative calls
into question the agency's true motive for change. The agency has shown
itself to be motivated primarily by its own bottom line, without regard
for safety or delays. We also have reason to believe that this
realignment is but the first in a series of changes that the FAA is
planning for the Pennsylvania area. If we use past FAA behavior as a
predictor, PA can expect to see consolidation, closing or outsourcing
of air traffic control towers at smaller local airports in the region.
Allentown, Wilkes-Barre Scanton, Reading, Atlantic City, and perhaps
Harrisburg airports are all at risk. We base this prediction on the
FAA' behavior in southern Florida--where a similarly-justified de-
combination of Miami tower and TRACON ultimately resulted in the
consolidation of Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) TRACON and
potential outsourcing of the remaining tower functions at PBI--and
Texas--where in recent weeks we have seen the consolidation of Beaumont
Airport's (BPT) TRACON functions with operations out of Houston.
DISPERSAL HEADINGS
On December 19, 2007, misguided FAA management unilaterally
implemented dispersal headings to be used for aircraft departing out of
Philadelphia airport. These new headings were supposed to reduce delays
by cramming more aircraft into the already-constrained airspace
surrounding PHL. The theory was that if we were to fan out aircraft
along multiple vectors from PHL, we could speed the rate of departures
as the new departures would not be following in trail and would
therefore not need the same buffer of time between takeoffs. As with
de-combination, the FAA failed to seek collaboration from Air Traffic
Controllers, pilots and other stakeholders and therefore overlooked
major pitfalls and consequences of their plan.
Such constrained airspace poses a risk to the safety of aircraft by
eliminating room for error. Small misjudgments, pilot error, or
imperfect aircraft handling could have disastrous consequences in an
operation run too tightly. For example, if a pilot landing on runway
27R or 9R has to abort a landing while the dispersal headings are in
use, they may be faced with departure traffic coming towards them on
the 268 heading. Further complicating matters in this situation is the
fact that the departing and arriving aircraft are communicating on
different frequencies.
The implementation of these dispersal headings has also created an
environment ripe for miscommunication. The US Airways ALPA safety
chairman, an active airline pilot wrote: ``It is now a practice where a
different heading is being assigned as part of the takeoff clearance.
This practice can easily result in confusion as it is a change to the
briefed departure heading. It also occurs during a very busy time in
the cockpit and possibly while only one pilot is on the radio.'' In
response to public pressure on this issue, the FAA conducted a random
review of 23 hours of tape and found 9 communication errors in that
short span of time. Further contributing to the potential for
miscommunication is the increased frequency congestion caused by a
combination of overutilization of airspace and understaffing of Air
Traffic Control. With more aircraft in the same space and no change to
controller staffing, each single controller must communicate with and
monitor read-backs from an increased number of pilots. This congestion
of the communication frequencies increases the likelihood that a
controller will overlook--and therefore fail to correct--a
miscommunication between himself and a pilot. Needless to say,
controller-pilot miscommunication poses an additional risk to safety.
Another leading cause of miscommunication over dispersal headings
is the complete lack of published procedures. As of the writing of this
testimony, the FAA has published no official guidelines governing the
usage of the dispersal headings, nor has the FAA updated Standard
Instrument Departure (SID) charts to include these new headings. Under
ordinary circumstances controllers refer to these charts when issuing
departure clearances to aircraft, giving pilots and controllers a great
level of clarity regarding the departure plan. Without new SID charts,
controllers have had to verbally override SID instructions, requiring
pilots to depart using unfamiliar procedures without the benefit of
written instructions. Without SID charts, miscommunications have
increased. One of the instances of miscommunication discovered in the
above referenced investigation--of which NATCA maintained audio
records--resulted in an aircraft traveling ten degrees off course.
Relatedly, neither Air Traffic Controllers at PHL nor pilots have
received meaningful training on this change in procedure. Controllers
had been briefed that a particular procedure would be used, and then on
the day of implementation the agency changed the procedures and
required controllers to ``read an initial'' the changes on the day of
implementation.
There still exists the possibility of additional dangers caused by
the headings, as the FAA failed to comprehensively test them prior to
implementation. Notably missing from the FAA testing was testing in hot
weather conditions. Aircraft are known to perform sluggishly in hot
weather and climb and turn rates often suffer as a result. Controllers
have already reported issues with constrained airspace design, an issue
which will be exacerbated in hot weather and could pose serious safety
problems. This must be tested prior to using these headings during such
weather.
The FAA hastily implemented these dispersal headings in order to
appear to be addressing the issue of delays in the Philadelphia area.
While delays are a serious and growing problem at PHL, the dispersal
headings do not address the root of the problem and will have little if
any impact on the situation. The key culprits in the problem of delays
in the Philadelphia area are airline over-scheduling, and understaffed
air traffic control facilities. Unfortunately, the FAA would prefer not
to address either of these issues in a meaningful way, as they have
proven resistant both to regulating airline behavior and to negotiating
with air traffic controllers.
AIRLINE OVER-SCHEDULING
Due to the laws of physics and FAA separation requirements, there
is a finite number of aircraft that can safely arrive or depart an
airport in a given span of time. The FAA has developed an estimate of
the maximum number of operations each airport can handle in optimal
weather conditions called the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) and the
Airport Departure Rate (ADR). The ADR at PHL is 52, meaning that 52
aircraft per hour--13 per quarter hour--can safely depart Philadelphia
airport. However, the FAA does not require airlines to take these rates
into account when planning their schedules. Therefore the airlines are
free to use marketing as the only driving force in their schedule
development, a practice which may maximize profits for airlines but
which results in losses for airline customers in the form of delays, as
airlines frequently schedule departures in excess of optimal airport
capacity. Although PHL can depart only 13 aircraft per quarter hour in
the best of conditions, there are some 15-minute intervals in which
more than 20 aircraft are scheduled to depart.
The graph below is a snapshot taken from the Flight Schedule
Monitor (FSM), built from data in the Enhanced Traffic Management
System (ETMS), tools used by traffic management specialists to manage
traffic flow. This was taken at 12:35 p.m. local time on March 25, 2008
and depicts scheduled departures until 11 p.m. The horizontal white
line indicates the departure rate for that day. In this case, PHL was
operating at full capacity, with 13 aircraft able to depart per quarter
hour.
The green bars indicate the number of aircraft scheduled to depart
from PHL in each 15 minute interval. Each instance in which the green
bar goes over the white line, the airlines have scheduled beyond
optimal capacity for the airport. In each of those cases, aircraft must
be delayed.
This type of scheduling automatically builds delays into the system
before weather, understaffing or other mitigating factors are taken
into account. In the example above--a typical day not during the peak
travel season--this is what happens:
--At 2:00 p.m. (1800Z) there are 22 flights scheduled to depart, 9
more than the maximum. So nine flights must be delayed and
carried into the next interval. This begins the backlog.
--At 2:15 there are 16 flights scheduled to depart, plus the 9 that
were carried over for a total of 25. This is 12 beyond the
maximum, so 12 must be carried over.
--At 2:30 there are 10 flights scheduled to depart, plus the 12 that
have been carried over for a total of 22. Because the scheduled
number was below the maximum, we were able to absorb some of
the backlog; however the backlog was so great that, nine must
still be carried over.
--At 2:45 there are 6 flights scheduled for departure, plus the 9
that have been carried over for a total of 15. Again, we are
able to absorb some of the backlog, but 2 flights must still be
carried over.
--At 3:00 we are finally able to absorb the entire backlog. There are
six flights scheduled plus the two carried over, for a total of
eight, which is below the maximum.
--However, the process begins again at 4:00 p.m., when 21 flights are
scheduled to depart.
Therefore, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. airline scheduling alone
caused an estimated 480 minutes (8 hours) of delays at PHL.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This figure was calculated by estimating 15 minutes of delay
for each aircraft carried over from one interval to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the FAA's responsibility to ensure that NAS customers--the
flying public--are protected. This means taking all possible steps to
ensure not only a safe passage through the skies, but to help them
avoid unnecessary delays. Rather than look out for the flying public,
however, the FAA chose to protect a corporate bottom line, letting
marketing, rather than logic or physics dictate airline scheduling
practices.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER STAFFING AND THE EFFECT OF THE IMPOSED WORK
RULES
On September 3, 2006, the FAA unilaterally imposed a set of work
rules on its air traffic controller workforce. These rules instituted
unpopular changes to the annual leave policy, removed career
advancement opportunities, established new pay bands that decreased
controller wages significantly, and eliminated rest periods, among
other provisions which left many controllers dissatisfied with their
work environment. Recent NATCA research has shown that as a result of
these imposed work rules the total number of CPCs has fallen to a 15
year low, attrition from the ATC workforce has reached record levels
and exceeded all expectations--the attrition rate in fiscal year 2008
has been 6.8 per day--and facilities throughout the country are
severely understaffed.
The FAA has repeatedly claimed that the increase in controller
attrition is due entirely to the increase in retirement eligibility as
those hired following the PATCO strike reach eligibility age. NATCA
research shatters those claims. Ninety-eight percent of Air Traffic
Controllers who left the workforce in fiscal year 2007 did so with time
still left on the table. Resignations--of which there were only 64 \5\
in the last year of the signed contract--more than more than tripled to
202 in fiscal year 2007. Similarly the percent of those eligible to
retire who chose to do so has increased from 21 to 30 percent since the
imposition of the work rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All staffing data is based on FAA payroll information provided
to the union by the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practically, this means that there are fewer eyes watching the
skies and runways throughout the country, and those that remain are
suffering from fatigue. At Philadelphia Tower/TRACON, there are
currently only 67 CPCs, 2 of whom are scheduled for transfer within the
next several months. This is less than 65 percent of the 109 jointly
authorized by the FAA and NATCA in 1998. Smaller facilities in
Pennsylvania are similarly strained. Wilkes-Barre airport has 14 CPCs
rather than the authorized 25, while Harrisburg is down to a staggering
13 full performance level controllers 43 percent of what had been
authorized.
Left with understaffed facilities, management is faced with two
choices for handling the ever-increasing volume of air traffic: call in
overtime or work short-staffed. Both of these options--which are often
used in tandem--create fatigue among air traffic controllers. Regular
use of overtime limits a controller's ability to recover from work-
related stress and fatigue, while short-staffing increases workload and
limits opportunities for rest and recovery during the shift. On short-
staffed shifts managers are forced to reduce the number of Radar
Assistants (RAs), giving one controller the responsibility of not only
for communication with aircraft but also coordination with other
controller positions and facilities and updating flight progress
information. Additionally, managers may be forced to combine positions,
creating greater complexity by requiring each controller to monitor
greater numbers of confliction points and an increased volume of
aircraft. According to the FAA's own research, ``evidence was found
that increased sector complexity may be associated with reduced
situational awareness and may lead to a larger number of, and more
severe, errors.'' \6\ Fatigued Air Traffic Controllers are more likely
to make errors, less likely to identify pilot error, and are more
likely to increase the safety buffer, which would result in delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Rogers, Mark D, Richard H. Mogford, Leslye S. Mogford, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Office of
Aviation Medicine The Relationship of Sector Characteristics to
Operational Errors, May 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHL currently has 15 CPCs who are eligible to retire. If they left,
this would further exacerbate the staffing shortage and the threat of
fatigue-related errors and delays. Rather than encourage the continued
outflow of experienced controllers by continuing to enforce the imposed
work rules, the FAA must return to the bargaining table to bargain
fairly with NATCA. Congress can do its part by quickly passing the FAA
reauthorization bill, which contains provisions that would force the
FAA to resume bargaining with NATCA and would send any unresolved
disputes into binding arbitration. While this would not reverse the
damage that has already been done, it would significantly slow the rate
of attrition and give the system more time to recover.
CONCLUSION
The FAA has repeatedly shown that it is either unable or unwilling
to govern the usage of our Nation's airspace and runways in a way that
maximizes the benefit and minimizes risks to the flying public. Time
and time again they have ignored offers from subject-matter experts
like air traffic controllers to assist them in their endeavors, just as
they have ignored the pleas from elected officials. In this way,
Philadelphia is not unique. The issues facing this city, and indeed the
entire State of Pennsylvania are being experienced in various
incarnations throughout the country. Mismanagement has become endemic
in this agency, which is determined to focus only on its own bottom
line. Today we are given the opportunity to identify the problems
facing air travelers in the Philadelphia area--many of which have been
either caused by the FAA or ignored by them--and begin taking steps to
correct them. It is the sincere hope of this union that this hearing
will lead to meaningful action and that positive changes will be made
throughout the country.
We therefore recommend the following:
--The FAA should initiate realignment activity only after receiving
approval from a review board as per the clause in the FAA
reauthorization bill passed by the House of Representatives and
currently under consideration by the Senate. This board would
include representatives from all stakeholder groups including
air traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress and the
community. In the case of the PHL, the FAA should work with
NATCA and consider our alternate plan to reduce the number of
positions required for full certification while maintaining the
integrity of the combined facility.
--The FAA must discontinue the use of dispersal headings until such
time as full testing (including hot weather testing) is
complete and proper procedures, including appropriate revisions
to the PHL7 SID chart have been established. This too must be
done with the active participation of all stakeholder groups
including air traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress
and the community.
--The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling and prevent
scheduling over the Maximum Arrival/Departure Rates.
--Congress must quickly pass the FAA reauthorization bill that would
require the FAA to return to the bargaining table for fair
negotiations with NATCA, in order to curtail the rapid
attrition from the workforce.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Forrey.
Mr. Chapman, would you care to add anything to that?
Mr. Chapman. No, Senator, I just want to thank you for
inviting us to participate today, and I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Specter. Well, on a number of occasions I've
visited your towers. It's dark, a lot of funny-looking symbols
on the screens, and we thank you for what you do, even though
we wonder what it is, sometimes.
Our next witness is going to be Mr. Steve Aichele. He is a
key member of the Philadelphia CEO Council for Growth. Graduate
of the Naval Academy, now he's the Chairman of Saul Ewing, a
very distinguished Philadelphia old-line law firm.
He appears here instead of former Governor Mark Schweiker,
who's President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of
Commerce, but this hearing had originally been scheduled for 11
a.m., when the Governor was available, and couldn't miss--
couldn't make it because of the necessary change in scheduling.
So, we welcome you here, Mr. Aichele, and look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN S. AICHELE, CHAIRMAN, SAUL EWING,
ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA CEO COUNCIL
FOR GROWTH
Mr. Aichele. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Senator, and
thank you for having the business community here today.
On a personal note, and off the record, please, thank you
for being here. Keep up the fight, you're an inspiration to
those of us who are fighting a similar battle, so thank you
very much for being here.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Mr. Aichele. I'm here today, as you said, on behalf of the
regional business community, specifically the CEO Council for
Growth, which is a group of over 60 CEOs of major businesses
throughout the 11 county region of Greater Philadelphia.
They've formed an alliance with the Greater Philadelphia
Chamber of Commerce, which we've named Select Greater
Philadelphia. Our President and CEO, Tom Moore, is in the
audience today, as well.
Our objective is to increase the competitiveness of
Philadelphia as a world-class city, and to make sure that the
rest of the world knows about that. One of the major points in
achieving that objective would be for the PHL, which we're
calling the Philadelphia International Airport, to become--and
remain, remain and become--an even better world-class airport,
that's absolutely essential.
In today's global economy, having a world-class airport is,
as I said, absolutely essential. Throughout history, commerce
has occurred where trades routes cross, and in our century, the
21st century, that's going to be airports.
Philadelphia International Airport is already a gateway to
the world, and a critical driver of the regional economy. Tens
of thousands of jobs rely on the airport, currently, and the
ability to easily travel in and out of the region is a
significant factor for professionals who choose to do business
here, and for residents seeking convenience.
Our region currently enjoys one of the most rapidly growing
air travel markets, there are a whole bunch of data cited in
the testimony, that's on the record, I'm going to skip over
that. But clearly, airport provides benefits to businesses,
residents, and travelers, and to follow up on the question you
asked Mayor Nutter--we have had businesses cite Philadelphia
International Airport as a reason not to locate in this region.
So, it is definitely having an impact, currently.
In a very dynamic airline competitive environment, the city
of Philadelphia, the management of PHL have done a very
effective job of attracting both domestic and international
flights to serve our region. Sizable projects currently under
construction will solve most of the irritating problems that
all of us encounter from time to time. Recent facility
improvements such as Terminal East have set a standard of
quality at PHL that's appropriate for major market communities,
such as ours.
However, the growth in quality of service at PHL can
provide is dependent on its ability to expand its capacity,
both in the air and on the ground. Currently, Philadelphia
International Airport is among the five worst U.S. airports,
we've heard about that over and over, so I'm not going to go
into any more of the detail here.
As a result, however, of all of that, we've garnered a
somewhat negative reputation for travelers, in that the delay
detracts from the region's quality of life, ability to attract
and retain businesses, which are highly dependent on airline
travel. With an eye to addressing such delay, the FAA is taking
the actions that you've heard about today, and which is the
subject of a lot of your discussion and questioning.
We favor, obviously, the improving the efficiency of the
operations at PHL, however, we believe that every effort should
be made to ensure the important goal of reducing delays at PHL
be balanced with efforts to mitigate noise impacts on our
community.
We commend the FAA for listening to the concerned citizens
of Delaware County and other communities, resulting in
significant mitigations of the proposed heading over the
county, over which was originally proposed. We urge the new
headings over Delaware County be used only when necessary to
reduce the delays--much as your line of questioning intimated.
We're committed to working with the airport, the FAA, and the
region's congressional delegation to help make sure that these
appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken.
We also believe that preserving and enhancing the airport's
ability to serve as an economic engine for the region will
directly benefit Delaware County by providing job growth and
increased tax revenues.
In addition, we believe that the airport and its adjacent
areas should be viewed strategically--as this is Delaware,
Philadelphia, South Jersey--should be viewed strategically as a
prime development opportunity, where adjacent land uses could
enhance PHL's ability to create jobs for nearby residents, and
tax revenues for everybody.
We recently articulated our vision for the future of PHL in
a letter to Mayor Michael Nutter, and his Deputy Mayor for
Transportation and Utilities, Rina Cutler. I think it's
realistic to say, after you heard the mayor today, that the new
mayor and his administration share many of the same priorities
for PHL as the city and the region's business community and
we're ready to work together to leverage and improve this great
infrastructure asset.
To that end, we are certainly interested in Federal
funding, and in assistance for developing the airport and its
adjacent areas, so it can truly become a global hub.
Therefore, in order to accelerate recent progress, we hope
that all of the stakeholders--the city of Philadelphia, the
Commonwealth, neighboring jurisdictions, regional Federal
officials, the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Homeland Security, air carriers, and our business community,
can dedicate ourselves to completing a series of actions and
facility projects over the next 10 years, that will improve the
quality of customer service, increase the availability of more
non-stop flights, enhance the efficiency of operations, and
maximize the contributions of PHL to the quality of life and
growth of regional prosperity here.
With shared commitment and foresight, we believe PHL can be
the first-class airport that this region needs. With that in
mind, we're here today to offer the support of the Greater
Philadelphia region's business community, to these efforts.
In closing, Senator, let me thank you again for the
opportunity to provide comments this afternoon, and I also
would be happy to answer any questions and I should just for--
correct the record, sitting next to an admiral and a real
graduate of the Naval Academy--I'm a retired Naval Reserve
Captain, but I was ROTC, I went to Cornell University.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Aichele.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Schweiker, President and CEO, Greater
Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce; Chairman of the CEO Council for
Growth
Thank you, Senator, for inviting me to testify before you today on
behalf of the business community. And best wishes for good health. For
the record, I am Mark Schweiker, President and CEO of the Greater
Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, which is the premier advocate of the
region's business community, representing 5,000 companies and
organizations in 11 counties across 3 States--southeastern
Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and northern Delaware.
Today, I am here in my role as Chairman of the CEO Council for
Growth, which is a group of prominent business executives committed to
Greater Philadelphia's growth and prosperity and an affiliate of the
Chamber. The mission of the CEO Council is to enhance the
competitiveness of the Greater Philadelphia region in the global
economy. One key to successfully carrying out this mission would be the
ability of Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) to serve as an
economic engine for Greater Philadelphia.
In today's global economy, having a world class airport is
essential. Throughout history, commerce has occurred where trade routes
cross; in the 21st century, that means airports. Philadelphia
International Airport is our gateway to the world and a critical driver
of our regional economy that also provides very real benefits to local
communities. Tens of thousands of jobs rely upon the airport. The
ability to easily travel in and out of the region is a significant
factor for professionals doing business, and for residents seeking
convenience.
Our region currently enjoys one of the most rapidly growing air
travel markets and has both hub and low fare operators that are
committed to air service expansion at PHL. Between 1997 and 2006, total
passengers at PHL have increased 42 percent. There are currently 700
daily departures to 120 cities, including 52 daily non-stops to 36
international destinations. By 2009, US Airways will initiate non-stop
direct service to Beijing, a route that provides direct and indirect
economic impacts to every region that can secure the service. With
34,000 employees and over 200 employers, PHL is estimated to provide
$14 billion in regional economic impact. Clearly the airport provides
important benefits to businesses, residents and travelers.
In a very dynamic airline competitive environment, the city and
management of PHL have done an effective job of attracting both
domestic and international flights to serve our region. Also, sizeable
projects currently under construction will solve some of PHL's most
irritating problems. Recent facility improvements such as Terminal A
East have set a standard of quality at PHL that is appropriate for a
major market community such as ours.
However, the growth and quality of service that PHL can provide is
dependent on its ability to expand its capacity, both in the air and on
the ground. Currently, Philadelphia International Airport is among the
five worst U.S. airports for departure delays. Routinely, the New York
and Philadelphia metropolitan areas are among the top 10 that
experience regular airport delays. As a result, PHL has garnered a
negative reputation among air travelers that detracts from the region's
quality of life and ability to attract and retain businesses who are
highly dependent on airplane travel.
With an eye on addressing such delay, in 2007, the FAA made the
decision to redesign airspace along the eastern half of the United
States. This area has the most complex and densely traveled airspace in
the world. Travelers in and out of Greater Philadelphia will benefit
from better air traffic flows, as will people traveling to and from
Boston, Washington, DC and New York City.
We favor improving the efficiency of operations at PHL. However, we
believe that every effort should be made to ensure that the important
goal of reducing delays at PHL be balanced with efforts to mitigate
noise impacts in our community. We commend the FAA for listening to the
concerned citizens of Delaware County and other communities, resulting
in significant mitigation of the proposed headings over the County. We
urge the new headings over Delaware County be used only when necessary
to reduce delays on the ground as originally proposed by FAA. We are
committed to working with the airport, the FAA and the region's
Congressional delegation to help make sure that these appropriate
mitigation measures are undertaken to preserve the quality of life in
Delaware County and other communities.
We also believe that preserving and enhancing the airport's ability
to serve as an economic engine for the region will directly benefit
Delaware County by providing job growth and increased tax revenue. In
addition, we believe that the airport and its adjacent areas should be
viewed strategically as a prime development opportunity where adjacent
land uses could enhance PHL's ability to create jobs for nearby
residents and tax revenues for Philadelphia, Delaware County and the
region.
We recently articulated our vision for the future of PHL in a
letter to Mayor Michael Nutter and his Deputy Mayor for Transportation
and Utilities, Rina Cutler. For the first time, I think it is realistic
to say that the Mayor shares many of the same priorities for PHL as the
city and region's business community and we are ready to work together
to leverage and improve on this great infrastructure asset. To that
end, we are certainly interested in Federal funding and assistance for
developing the airport and its adjacent areas so that it can truly
become a global hub for travel and business growth.
Therefore, in order to accelerate recent progress, we hope that all
stakeholders--the city of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, neighboring jurisdictions, regional Federal officials,
the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland
Security, air carriers serving PHL and the business community--should
dedicate ourselves to completing a series of actions and facility
projects over the next 10 years that will improve the quality of
customer service, increase the availability of more non-stop flights,
enhance the efficiency of operations and maximize the contribution of
PHL to the quality of life and growth of regional prosperity here.
With shared commitment and foresight, PHL can be the first class
airport that this region needs. With that in mind, I am here today to
offer the support of the Greater Philadelphia region's business
community.
In closing, let me thank you for the opportunity to provide
comments this morning and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Specter. We'll work out the seating arrangements
more carefully next time.
Our next and final witness is executive vice president and
chief operating officer of the Air Transport Association, Mr.
John Meenan. Had been Assistant General Counsel with the
Association, 9 years in the U.S. Secret Service, a Bachelor's
Degree in Political Science from Holy Cross, a law degree from
Santa Clara.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Meenan, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Meenan. Senator, thank you very much. I hope my written
testimony can be submitted for the record, but I do want to
thank you, on behalf of the airlines for the opportunity to
appear here today to discuss both redesign and our scheduling
practices.
We've heard the airspace, the east coast airspace and the
issue here affects the entire country, and that's absolutely
true. What amazing about that is, is that that airspace today
is being managed essentially the same way it was in the 1960s.
We--it doesn't reflect current technology, it doesn't reflect
the integration of airspace between New York and Philadelphia
and Washington, it doesn't reflect the air traffic control
technologies that exist, and are coming into being today.
As a result, it's managed in a very complex way, and what
Airspace Redesign is all about, is trying to eliminate and
reduce those complexities, to make the flow of traffic move
more smoothly, to better the working conditions for the air
traffic controllers, we know there are a lot of issues that
need to be worked through, but we're confident that those can
be addressed.
We're, of course, also mindful of the concerns expressed
about the airlines' scheduling practices. And on that note, I
would simply point out that at $4 a gallon for jet fuel, it's
unrealistic to really think that airlines aren't doing
everything they can to go after every passenger and every
shipment they can, but they're certainly not wasting fuel for
the purpose of simply flying around in the air.
Now, how does this reflect itself at Philadelphia
International? The FAA's published capacity rate for the
airport, under optimal conditions, shows between 104 and 116
operations an hour. Under IFR conditions, that drops to 96.
Looking at projected June schedules for this year, in only 1
hour of the day do those scheduled exceed by 4 operations--the
96 level that the FAA publishes as the acceptable IFR rate for
that airport. What that tells me is we're not over scheduling
at the airport. Philadelphia should be able to handle that
level of operations, it shouldn't be handling less than it did
before.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Meenan, if they are not
overscheduled, why are these enormous delays?
Mr. Meenan. In part, sir, because of the inadequate design
of the airspace. That's one of the reasons for redesigning the
airspace, so that we can move those airplanes more efficiently.
Senator Specter. Well, how do you know that? When the
schedules were established, what did you say? In 1999?
Mr. Meenan. What I'm saying is that the FAA publishes rates
based on data that the FAA analyzes to determine what an
airport----
Senator Specter. Publishes rates?
Mr. Meenan. Rates of acceptable levels of operation at an
airport, optimal conditions, as I say, 106 to 114. Under
Instrument Flight Rule conditions, at Philadelphia, it's 96.
Senator Specter. But, the schedule that they establish is
reasonable flight--planes coming in and out--is based upon the
current system. You talk about a revised system not using the
air properly, well, that may be so, or it may not be so, but
what we do know what is so, is what it's on now--are those
allotments realistic with what is happening today?
Mr. Meenan. I think, sir, what we know is that the rates
have been published for more than a decade. We would be
surprised, based on the billions of dollars that's been spent
on the air traffic management system over the last decade, that
we're handling fewer operations today than we were able to
operate a decade ago. That's disappointing to us.
Senator Specter. Handling fewer?
Mr. Meenan. That's essentially what we would be saying, if
we can't handle the levels of operations that the FAA told us a
decade ago that that airport can handle.
Senator Specter. Well, when they posted them a decade ago,
was that for the flight patterns they had at that time?
Mr. Meenan. It was for the flight patterns they had at that
time.
Senator Specter. And were there enormous delays on takeoffs
and landings?
Mr. Meenan. Those flight patterns, unfortunately, are still
based on 1960s aircraft design characteristics, aircraft
operating capabilities, FAA's air traffic control management--
--
Senator Specter. Aren't there more planes now, then----
Mr. Meenan. There are more planes, but they can perform
better. They can perform much more precisely, they can climb
more rapidly, they can move much more precisely through the
airspace.
Senator Specter. But there are many more planes.
Mr. Meenan. There are, for example, there are 18,000
business jets in operation today that we don't hear much about.
All we seem to want to talk about is commercial jets----
Senator Specter. Well, do they figure into the----
Mr. Meenan. Very much so. They're 20 to 30 percent of the
operations, for example, in the New York airspace during peak
hours. We're not talking about them, we seem to only want to
focus on the commercial operators, that are really looking to
benefit the broader community.
And on that, I would like to just briefly, the rest of my
testimony touches on the fact that if you look at what we think
is an indication of what----
Senator Specter. You will have all of the time I took from
you. It's not the Supreme Court of the United States where
Chief Justice Rehnquist bangs the gavel at the end of the----
Mr. Meenan. Senator, I certainly don't want to prolong
this----
Senator Specter. I've been there, when I defended the
Philadelphia Navy Yard. And the rumor was--you'll get this
time, too--the rumor was Chief Justice Rehnquist is looking for
an opportunity to interrupt a lawyer in the middle of the word
``if.''
Your turn, Mr. Meenan.
Mr. Meenan. There's 6 million people in the Philadelphia
metropolitan area, there are 24 million passengers a year at
Philadelphia, origin and destination passengers. Those are
people who are coming from the community and using the airport.
There's another, 20 or 30 percent more of connecting passengers
there.
Right now, this last summer, looking at the busiest period
of the year, our load factors at the airport were over 80
percent--83, 84, 85 percent. That's an extraordinarily high
level of people getting on each and every airplane leaving that
airport. What that tells me is, we're just meeting the demands
of the community. We're trying to respond to the economic needs
of the Philadelphia area.
That's what we want to do, that's what we're in the
business of doing. We want to be able to do that as
efficiently, and as an environmentally friendly way as
possible. We think the Airspace Redesign, for example, can help
reduce emissions by 20 percent in the region. We think it can
help reduce exposed noise population rather substantially, for
the most part. There are always going to be small communities,
they're going to be affected differently. We can't avoid that,
at this point.
One final note I would really like to emphasize, and that
is that the airline industry today is in a far more serious
financial meltdown than it was following 9/11.
There are fundamental questions about the future of
aviation in the United States. We think this is a particularly
inappropriate time for the Department of Transportation to be
talking about extracting more money from the airline industry
for some economic experiment, rather than getting at the heart
of some of these problems, and helping us move more airplanes
as efficiently as possible.
Senator Specter. You--are you finished?
Mr. Meenan. I will end on that note.
Senator Specter. Okay. I just----
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Meenan. But I--one more--we look forward to working
with everyone--with you, with Congress, with the FAA, with the
controllers, with the communities, with the airports--that's
the business we're in.
Senator Specter. I just wanted to be sure you felt that you
were getting all of your 5 minute allowance.
Mr. Meenan. I appreciate it very much, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Meenan
On behalf of the Air Transport Association,\1\ let me begin by
thanking the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear at today's
field hearing. The level and quality of air service to and from
Philadelphia is of vital importance to us and we look forward to
discussing both the ongoing airspace redesign and airline scheduling
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ATA airline members are: ABX Air, Inc.; AirTran Airways; Alaska
Airlines, Inc.; Aloha Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines, Inc.; ASTAR
Air Cargo, Inc.; Atlas Air, Inc.; Continental Airlines, Inc.; Delta Air
Lines, Inc.; Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.; Federal Express
Corporation; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Midwest
Airlines; Northwest Airlines, Inc.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United
Airlines, Inc.; UPS Airlines; and US Airways, Inc. ATA Airline
Associate Members are: Air Canada, Air Jamaica Ltd. and Mexicana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the former, as the subcommittee is aware, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has undertaken a multi-year, four-stage
project to re-engineer the way the Nation's airspace is utilized in the
New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. This project has
been in development for 10 years and has been the subject of an
extensive environmental review. It is critically important.
Why? The airspace under review is among the most heavily congested
in the United States. This is not surprising given that the aviation
marketplace in the metroplex both fuels and benefits from the vibrant
economy of the region. What is surprising, however, is the fact that
the way this airspace is currently being managed is based on aircraft
performance characteristics and air traffic control technologies dating
to the early 1960s.
As a result, the way the airspace is managed is extremely
complicated--and that complexity leads to avoidable delays. By re-
engineering the airspace to take greater advantage of modern aircraft
climb capabilities, improved speed, higher altitude capability and more
precise navigation technology--and by better integrating the way the
airspace is managed in relation to adjoining airspace--we can move more
aircraft even more safely and with greater efficiency. Aside from the
obvious benefit of reduced delays, the FAA projects a drop in people
exposed to noise levels above 45 DNL of 619,000 and a reduction of
aircraft emissions by 20 percent. In an era of $4 per gallon jet fuel,
of course, we would also welcome the associated reduction in fuel burn.
In addition to these benefits, the redesign is also intended to
reduce and improve the balance of air traffic controller workload by
permitting the more efficient flowing of traffic through the airspace.
It will enhance departure capabilities with additional headings--a key
to reducing delays--and provide greater flexibility in routing aircraft
during significant weather events.
We are, of course, also mindful of concerns expressed about airline
scheduling and the often expressed concern with ``over-scheduling.'' To
return the focus to $4 per gallon jet fuel for just a moment, I would
simply note that airlines are intensely motivated to schedule flights
to meet public demand for air transportation--they are seeking every
passenger (or shipper) possible. Excess capacity or over-scheduling
makes no sense.
How does this reflect itself at Philadelphia International Airport?
The FAA's published capacity rate for the airport under optimal
conditions is between 104 and 116 operations per hour. Under instrument
flight rule (IFR) conditions that rate drops to 96 per hour. Looking at
projected June 2008 airline schedules, reflecting the busiest travel
season, there is only one hour in which scheduled operations exceed (by
4) the published IFR capacity of the airport. At no point do scheduled
operations exceed the optimal conditions rates. These levels of demand
are consistent with what Philadelphia Airport is capable of handling.
The data is also strongly suggestive that these schedules are
driven by consumer demand. The best indicator is to look at the load
factors expected on flights at Philadelphia Airport. For the June 2008
schedule cited, looking back to last summer offers the best picture of
what to expect this summer. What we see is that the average load factor
for the two largest carriers operating at Philadelphia Airport exceeded
84 percent for this time frame. That is an extraordinarily high
percentage of filled seats on each and every flight and we have every
reason to believe that will be equaled if not exceeded this summer.
Rather than over-scheduling it would appear that the carriers are
hitting the mark in meeting the market demand.
WN/US AVERAGE PHL LOAD FACTORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2007.................................................. 84.16
July 2007.................................................. 84.43
August 2007................................................ 83.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the stakes for airspace redesign are high. This is a
program with tremendous potential to pay noise, emissions, reduced fuel
consumption and delay reduction dividends. Properly implemented, the
long-term benefits to the regional and national economies are
tremendous and we look forward to working with the FAA, the
controllers, the airport, the community and all interested stakeholders
to assure that those benefits are realized.
Thank you and I would, of course be pleased to respond to any
questions.
Senator Specter. With an exception I took.
I will begin the questioning with you, Mr. Meenan.
Will you set the clock at 5 minutes please? Not that I'll
observe, but I'd like to know what the time is.
The chairman doesn't have to observe the time limit. The
witnesses do, and that's only to try to inject some mortar into
focus as to what, at least the subcommittee thinks is relevant.
You said, Mr. Meenan, something about the Government
extracting funds from the airlines and you were in disagreement
with what they were doing. Would you expand on that?
Mr. Meenan. The--the subject is this--this economic
experiment that's being tried up at LaGuardia to take more
money, effectively, out of the airline industry and turn it
over to the Government. And the putative purpose behind that is
to--to move airplanes out of particular slots in the day.
Senator Specter. You think that's a bad idea?
Mr. Meenan. We think that's a very bad idea. We think that
the industry is----
Senator Specter. Especially since the FAA thinks they're
adequately financed?
Mr. Meenan. The FAA does think they're adequately financed,
but I----
Senator Specter. So why are they asking for more money at
LaGuardia?
Mr. Meenan. The----
Senator Specter. That's a question for them, not you.
Mr. Meenan. That's a question really that I can't answer.
But the--our point in it is, the airline industry needs every
penny it has today to try to improve the way we fly people
around the country, the service we provide to the public, the
way we replace our fleet. The U.S. airline fleet is aging
rapidly and we are unable to replenish that fleet, because we
don't have the money to do it.
That's why we are opposed to things that simply take more
money off the table. We think they're hurting the end-game--the
end-goal here, which is improving service.
Senator Specter. Mr. Meenan, you heard the testimony about
the enormous delays in the Philadelphia Airport, takeoff and
landing, and the way they're scheduling 35 flights in 45
minutes, can't possibly handle it. Do you think that is
satisfactory?
Mr. Meenan. Senator, the carriers are always looking at the
way they schedule to try to improve their performance, to try
to improve their on-time performance overall. We think that--
and I will say that the carriers are precluded from talking to
one another about how they schedule those flights, as you know.
But on balance, we think an airport like Philadelphia, with
a published capacity of 96 instrument flight rule operations
per hour, ought to be able to handle, pretty comfortably, 96
instrument flight rule operations per hour.
Senator Specter. Now would you answer my question?
Mr. Meenan. And that was----
Senator Specter. Forgot it.
Mr. Meenan. I'm not sure----
Senator Specter. With the enormous delays, takeoff and
landing, which you hear, and I repeated something just now, is
that satisfactory?
Mr. Meenan. Not at all.
Senator Specter. Okay. That's all I wanted to know. And if
you look for the years ahead, on a speculative basis, it is too
long to wait and who knows what we'll get at the end of the
wait.
What--do you think--well let me go to Congressman Sestak,
do you think, in light of the fact that the FAA has the
authority now to impose caps and they haven't done it, that the
House and Senate--I put the House first--that the House and
Senate ought to impose mandates?
Mr. Sestak. No sir, I don't think they should do that right
now.
Senator Specter. Should do that?
Mr. Sestak. I do not think that they should do that right
now. It is an option later. I think that there is a better way
to approach this.
Senator Specter. Congressman Sestak, would you follow the
suggestion of your colleague, Congressman Dent, from the Lehigh
Valley who--understandably on grounds of representing the
Lehigh Valley--would like to have that airport used more. He
makes an argument of accessibility from a good part of the
metropolitan area, not too far--if you start, say at Willow
Grove, probably closer to the Lehigh Valley Airport than the
Philadelphia Airport. Do you think there ought to be a big
effort made to use that airport more?
Mr. Sestak. Yes, sir. Lehigh and New Castle. And as you
know, when the BRAC Commission closed Willow Grove, it was
inserted in the language that the future use of this was to be
used as a civilian airport.
Senator Specter. You had mentioned Washington and Baltimore
and flights, do you think that there ought to be a prohibition
on flights from those cities, to use alternative transportation
like Amtrak?
Mr. Sestak. No sir, I don't think that there should be,
right now, a prohibition. I think a better way to do it is to
invest in a bullet-like type of train, like Shanghai has or
Maglev capability, which you well know, because I know your
office is following this, that Pittsburgh is developing--and
Delaware County Community College is investing in--so that
someone can get on a train and be there in relative minutes.
I think that type of positive incentive to move to a
different type of inter-modal transportation is the way to do
it, if you can avoid mandating it from the Government level.
Senator Specter. Do you see a way to integrate Pittsburgh,
Congressman Sestak, into the issues and problems we're facing
here, for some of the answer?
Mr. Sestak. Yes sir, I do. There has been a proposal, and I
believe Brian Lentz the State Representative has, that there
should be much more of a regional airport approach to this. We
have, as Mr. Whelan's pointed out, two-thirds of this airport
is actually in Delaware County, but the authority resides in
Philadelphia. I believe that, both on the--as you, I believe,
are addressing--I hope I'm answering the question--there are
all these airports in the region----
Senator Specter. And you think the Pittsburgh Airport could
figure in that?
Mr. Sestak. Yes sir, I do, in the sense that what--where
does Pittsburgh fly to? For example, does it fly to Harrisburg?
Or does it fly to--and I don't know the answer to that. But if
you then look at where it is flying to, can we then, not just
on the Airspace Regional Plan, but on the Surface Regional
Plan, actually alleviate the demands.
Senator Specter. But how could that take pressure off of
the Philadelphia Airport?
Mr. Sestak. I'm not sure, sir, right now. I just--as I
said, I believe it can work itself in.
Senator Specter. Mr. Meenan, is there any realistic way to
utilize Pittsburgh to take pressure off of Philadelphia?
Mr. Meenan. I think it obviously is something that
individual carriers have to decide where they want to base
their operation. But when you're running a network system, if
that's what you're talking about, you pick a particular spot
for a hub, and that's where you work out from.
Senator Specter. Well, the airlines have made their
choices.
Mr. Meenan. But other--other carriers certainly have
decided Pittsburgh is a great spot for business. There are
carriers providing a lot of service there.
Senator Specter. But the question is, would it take
pressure off of Philadelphia?
Mr. Meenan. I don't really think it, I mean, when you--if
you want an airport like Philadelphia to grow and expand into a
worldwide airport, the more service you have in and out of
there, the more rapidly that worldwide service will develop. By
dispersing yourself into, you know, backyard sort of steel
mills isn't going to get you there.
Mr. Sestak. Mr. Senator, may I ask----
Senator Specter. Of course, it looks like you have
something critical, because I do want to move on to some of the
other panelists quick.
Mr. Sestak. May I just--the critical issue I think in this
is, a lot, a vast majority--when you take off from
Philadelphia, air traffic goes into New York airspace. The
delays are not caused by Philadelphia, the delays, as the
controllers can tell you, are caused because they wait on the
tarmac, waiting for New York airspace to open up. If Pittsburgh
airspace--aircraft are also jamming itself into that New York
airspace, that's part of the delay in Philadelphia. So there is
an interconnection.
Mr. Meenan. Senator?
Senator Specter. Mr. Forrey, you talked about shortage and
fatigue. Could you amplify your thought that that is
contributing to the delays?
Mr. Forrey. Well, the fewer controllers you have, the fewer
positions you can open, so the controllers are now required to
work more aircraft, they're busier, it's a greater workload,
they get tired quicker. And when you get tired you make
mistakes, so when you are prone to make mistakes, you try to be
more careful. As you're being more careful, you may end up
causing more delays. So, it's just a question of the ability to
manage traffic in a safe and efficient manner, and the more
tired you get, the harder that is.
Senator Specter. I was distracted for a moment, would you
repeat that answer?
Mr. Forrey. Yes, sir. I'd certainly be happy to.
Senator, when you have fewer controllers and they're
working more positions combined, they're working more aircraft
combined, the workload is greater and it creates quite a bit of
mental fatigue. And when you know you're prone to making
mistakes, you try to be more careful, so you try to be more
precise and direct and slow down. So, that's part of the
difficulty. Or, you get jammed up quicker and now you've got a
mess on your hands and you have to shut things off before you
can clean it up, because you have to be safe before you are
anything else.
Senator Specter. Vice Chairman Whelan, I'm very much
impressed with the specific situation, you commented about
people being kept awake 12 a.m. to 5 a.m., because the FAA says
they don't use that flight--in that timeframe. That from 10
p.m. to 7 a.m. they fly across the river.
I would ask you, how do you account for that, but there's
no way you can. What do you think of that?
Mr. Whelan. Well, you're correct, I can't account for it,
but I can tell you, I'm getting a myriad of complaints at that
particular timeframe.
Just last week, I received a complaint from a couple of
senior citizens that live on Colonial Drive in Nether
Providence Township. They say they are constantly being awoken
in the night, but their problem area is anywhere from 8 p.m.,
right through the middle of the night. I was going to schedule
a visit to that particular neighborhood to see what's going on,
but it's contrary, clearly, to what the FAA testified here
today.
Senator Specter. Mr. Whelan, I'd like to get those
specifics from you, and have my staff contact you to get those
specific people, copies of your correspondence, so we can
confront the FAA.
You've heard what they've had to say here about the hours
they don't fly over Delaware County, at a very minimum, they
really ought to be observing that. We heard what might be
characterized as double-talk about peak hours and not more than
10 flights waiting, et cetera, et cetera. We're going to have
to see to it that at least they abide by their own rules. They
try to make a case of necessity for some of those flights, but
they've established times where they say they won't fly, they
at least ought to be held to that.
Mr. Aichele, how serious do you think this problem is of
retarding growth of business?
Mr. Aichele. It's clearly----
Senator Specter. In the region?
Mr. Aichele. It's serious. It's clearly having an impact
today, and to the extent that you try to resolve the issue by
laying off flights or moving flights to more convenient times,
you will end up further exacerbating the issue of the
convenience for business travelers coming and going from
Philadelphia.
We have had situations where meeting planners have told our
folks that when they're coming to Philadelphia, they schedule
a, you know, an hour or 2 hour earlier flight, just to make
sure they account for the delays. And if they're telling us
that, imagine what they're telling their people, the folks that
are scheduling, what do you call that--bringing businesses into
town--they're the site selectors.
Senator Specter. Mr. Aichele, what do you think about the
proposition that the FAA on its own ought to impose limits, and
see to it that schedules are established so that they're not
overbooked to have the long delays?
Mr. Aichele. It seems--as a business person--I'd always
rather have less Government regulation, then more.
On the other hand----
Senator Specter. You're not just a business person, you're
a lawyer, you're the head of a very big law firm.
Mr. Aichele. Who very much appreciates the importance of
convenience in getting in and out of our airport to the rest of
the cities we need to be at.
Where I was going is----
Senator Specter. How many cities do you have offices in?
Mr. Aichele. Eight different cities throughout the region.
Senator Specter. You must use air traffic.
Mr. Aichele. All the time. And we suffer the delays in
spades.
Senator Specter. Do you have to schedule 2 hours early, to
be sure you get there?
Mr. Aichele. Yes, sir.
Senator Specter. What's your hourly rate?
You don't have to answer that question.
Mr. Aichele. Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. But those 2 hours are costing a lot of
money.
Mr. Aichele. Yes, sir. There's no doubt about it. And that
inefficiency, that exact inefficiency is----
Senator Specter. I used to--I used to do that.
Now, you might be interested to know, not relevant to this
subject, that I've asked Laurie Frankly to appear before the
International Trade Commission. The U.S. Steel Industry wants
me to appear there.
I'm not sure they like the quality of my argument, but they
certainly like my hourly rate. I don't do case law.
So, what do you think about FAA establishing schedules so
that you don't have to leave 2 hours early? See to it that we,
if not eliminate, at least minimize these long waits?
Mr. Aichele. If it maintains or increases the capacity of
the airport to bring people into this town and get people out
of the town, then it's something that should be looked at.
Senator Specter. Anybody else have anything they'd like to
have added to this fund of knowledge?
I thought you might, Congressman Sestak.
Mr. Sestak. Thanks, Senator. I just wanted to make it clear
that all we want is to ask this to stop and have a true cost-
benefit study done, where the costs are transparent and the
benefits are transparent.
Then society, the citizens, the Government can make a
decision objectively--what are the right options? I honestly
believe that when all of the costs are out there, that it will
force you to look at these other options that you've, at least,
asked questions about--regional airports, or caps, or other
ones, and then you can look at the fair spread of options.
Because it is true, this is an important economic
development. We just believe that this has come to a--since
that 2003 legislation to a single-source solution that has
not--as FAA Administrator says, where they have--don't even
know the cost financially, never mind the impact on education
and health--and then have an objective assessment done.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen.
We're now approaching the 2\1/2\ hour mark, and it had run
longer than I had anticipated, but I did not want to cut
anybody short, I wanted to explore one of the issues fully. It
took months to schedule this hearing, to get the FAA to come to
Philadelphia--very, very hard to get them to do that, had a lot
of preparation time when they appeared before the subcommittee
in Washington, and a lot of correspondences. And I sat down for
an hour with them earlier this week, to get a background so
that we--it wasn't too easy to illicit information today. But
you should have been with me on Wednesday for an hour.
But these are complex matters, and they require a lot of
explanation.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
But we very much appreciate your coming, and that concludes
our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., Friday, April 25, the hearing was
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-