[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AVIATION CONSUMER ISSUES:
EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY
PLANNING AND OUTLOOK
FOR SUMMER TRAVEL
=======================================================================
(111-36)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-955 WASHINGTON : 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 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Virginia
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
Columbia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Virginia
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Crites, James M., Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/
Fort Worth International Airport, and Member, American
Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council
International-North America.................................... 19
Fornarotto, Christa, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation....... 4
Friend, Patricia A., International President, Association of
Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO................................. 19
Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Flyersrights.org, Coalition for
Airline Passengers Bill of Rights.............................. 19
Lobue, Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy,
Planning, and Environment, Federal Aviation Administration..... 4
Meenan, John M., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Air Transportation Association........................ 19
Scovel, III, Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 30
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 31
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 37
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 39
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Crites, James M.................................................. 43
Fornarotto, Christa.............................................. 57
Friend, Patricia A............................................... 73
Hanni, Kate...................................................... 87
Meenan, John M................................................... 104
Scovel, III, Calvin L............................................ 114
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Fornarotto, Christa, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation,
responses to questions from the Committee...................... 69
Scovel, III, Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation, responses to questions from the Committee...... 131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.118
HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER ISSUES: EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND
OUTLOOK FOR SUMMER TRAVEL
----------
Wednesday, May 20, 2009,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommmitee met, pursuant to call, at 2:33 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommmitee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommmitee will come to order. The
Chair will ask that all Members, staff, and everyone turn
electronic devices off or on vibrate.
The Subcommmitee is meeting today to hear testimony on
aviation consumer issues, focusing on emergency contingency
planning and the outlook for summer travel. I will give a brief
opening statement and then will ask the Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri, for any remarks or his opening statement. Then we will
go to the first panel of witnesses.
I want to welcome everyone today to our Subcommmitee
hearing on Aviation Consumer Issues: Emergency Contingency
Planning and the Outlook for Summer Travel. As all of you, I
think, on this panel know and many in the audience know, the
Subcommmitee promised to hold this hearing some time ago. We
said that in April or May we would hold a hearing on this
issue. That is the reason we are here today.
The Subcommmitee continues to examine consumer issues and
airline delays to provide accountability and oversight of the
Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the airline industry. In the 110th
Congress, this Subcommmitee held a series of four hearings and
one roundtable meeting on flight delays and consumer issues.
Today, we will examine the progress and remaining challenges to
reduce flight delays and improve airline consumer protections.
Although delay and consumer service statistics show
improvement overall, we are interested in hearing from the
witnesses to learn if these trends can be maintained when air
travel rebounds. The downturn of the economy has had a
significant impact on the airlines. Roughly 13 percent of
domestic scheduled flights were cut. Airfares increased and new
fees for services such as checked baggage were initiated. This
led to a 10 percent decline in passengers compared to the same
period in 2007. With fewer flights and less passengers, airline
delays decreased. According to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, approximately 20 percent of flights were delayed or
canceled thus far through March of 2009, the lowest level since
2003.
Despite this decline in delays nationwide, New York remains
a critical choke point in the system. I have requested that the
DOT Inspector General examine how the delays in the New York
regional airspace affect the rest of the national airspace
system. I look forward to hearing the IG's preliminary
assessment today.
According to the FAA, 75 percent of delays nationwide in
the summer of 2007 resulted from congestion surrounding New
York. The DOT IG will report today on progress made by the FAA
to implement the 77 operational and infrastructure improvements
that the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommended.
Today's hearing will also touch on how the aviation
industry plans and reacts to health emergencies and what
precautionary steps have been taken to protect passengers and
those who work onboard the aircraft. This is especially
important with the recent outbreak of swine flu.
The airline industry plays an important role in assisting
public health officials to control the spread of communicable
diseases. The outbreak of SARS and avian flu have shaped how
Government agencies and airlines prepare and plan for public
health emergencies to protect public health and diminish major
travel disruptions.
Air travel continues to be safe despite the recent swine
flu outbreak. Airports and airlines are voluntarily increasing
their efforts to clean public spaces thoroughly and inform the
public on the latest travel and health advisory notices. Flight
attendants also play a critical role in screening passengers
for flu-like symptoms and taking precautions to ensure
passengers are protected from exposure to the viruses.
The hearings we held in the 110th Congress greatly shaped
the consumer protection provisions incorporated in House of
Representatives 915: FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2009.
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will consider this
legislation. I will look forward to working with our friends in
the other body to pass a final bill that includes strong
consumer protections.
With that, I again want to welcome all of you here today. I
especially welcome our witnesses. I look forward to hearing
your testimony.
Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
ask unanimous consent to allow two weeks for all Members to
revise and extend their remarks, and to permit the submission
of additional statements and materials by Members and
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of
the Subcommmitee, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am also
pleased to welcome our witnesses here today as we again
consider airline congestion and consumer services.
Since the last Subcommmitee hearing on this topic, the
airline industry has changed dramatically. First, due to the
high price of fuel last spring and summer, airlines were forced
to make significant capacity cuts at the end of last summer.
Second, airlines have been dealing with a steep drop off in
demand, as has the rest of the economy, caused by the current
economic downturn. The result has been a dramatically
contracted industry.
With the contraction of the airline industry, there has
been a corresponding decrease in delays across the national
airspace system. According to statistics offered by the
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General,
delays nationwide have decreased an average of 19 percent.
Almost every statistical metric collected by the Department
portrays an industry with better on time performance and
customer satisfaction.
However, it is my understanding that the Nation's busiest
airports, the hubs of the air transportation network, have not
seen as dramatic a decrease in traffic nor the corresponding
reduction in delays. I am interested in hearing from the
Inspector General about what steps the FAA is taking to address
these persistent choke points.
Last year the FAA identified 77 initiatives that in
conjunction with the New York Airspace Redesign project would
help unlock the New York airspace. I am interested in hearing
about the FAA's progress in implementing these initiatives, as
well as the Inspector's General assessment of whether or not
these initiatives effectively address congestion problems.
Also, I am interested in hearing about the progress of the
Department of Transportation rulemaking now underway to address
consumer protections. Last Congress, this Subcommmitee worked
in a bipartisan fashion to address consumer protections in the
FAA Reauthorization Bill. I am pleased that those provisions
are a part of the Reauthorization Bill to be considered on the
Floor this very week.
We all understand that weather is the wild card factor in
aviation and there is not much we can do about it. But there
are improvements that can be made in the near term to help
avoid frustrating delays. We are witnessing a system in
desperate need of new, advanced technologies in the air and
increased capacity on the ground. If history is any guide,
passenger demand and increased traffic will rebound with the
economy. The FAA must use this lull as an opportunity to get
ahead of the next crisis. While NextGen will offer some
efficiencies, it alone will not solve congestion. Initiatives
undertaken by the stakeholders to address this dilemma sooner
rather than later are critical to get out of this problem so
that we may prevent future aviation travel problems.
Both the Government and industry witnesses will provide an
update on the initiatives they have implemented since our last
hearing on this topic. I am also interested in hearing exactly
what impact they predict these efforts will have on the
traveling public this summer.
With that, I thank the Chairman and look forward to the
witnesses' testimony.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
Let me introduce our first panel of witnesses, but let me
make an announcement before I do. The Rules Committee will be
meeting in just a few minutes to hear testimony from Chairman
Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Mr. Petri, and myself so Mr.
Petri and I will be leaving to go to the Rules Committee. A
number of amendments have been filed and we are going over to
testify on the bill and on the rule before the Rules Committee.
I have asked the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell, to Chair the
hearing until we can return, if in fact we get done in that
period of time before you are finished with this hearing. He
has graciously offered to Chair this hearing.
Let me introduce the witnesses. I will ask to begin the
testimony as we, Mr. Petri and I, have to depart.
But we welcome Ms. Christa Fornarotto, the Acting Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs with the U.S.
Department of Transportation. She used to be a member of this
staff and was my Legislative Director for nine years before
going to the Department of Transportation. So we welcome her
back before the Subcommmitee. We make a commitment that we are
going to have you back often.
Ms. Nancy LoBue is the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment with the FAA.
The Honorable Calvin Scovel, III is the Inspector General
for the U.S. Department of Transportation. He has testified
before this Subcommmitee many times and has done excellent work
for this Subcommmitee and for our Country.
With that, the Chair would remind our witnesses that your
entire statement will be entered into the record. We would ask
you to summarize your testimony in five minutes. With that, the
Chair recognizes Ms. Fornarotto.
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTA FORNAROTTO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; NANCY LOBUE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION POLICY, PLANNING, AND ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; AND CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Fornarotto. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri, and
Members of the Subcommmitee, thank you for inviting me to this
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you and
the Subcommmitee aviation consumer issues. Specifically, I will
be discussing the status of our current consumer protection and
regulatory compliance initiatives, and our work in coordination
with other Federal agencies in connection with the H1N1
outbreak.
In 2007, complaints by airline consumers filed with the
Department spiked sharply. This spike was in part due to the
deteriorating on time performance and incidents in December
2006 and February 2007 in which passengers onboard many
aircraft were stranded for hours on airport tarmacs while
waiting for their flights to take off.
Over the last two years, however, data reported to the
Department show improvements in the quality of air service. For
example, for the first quarter of 2009, air service complaints
were down 30 percent compared to the first quarter of 2008 and
down 25 percent compared to the first quarter of 2007. In
another example, for the first quarter of 2009, the on time
performance rate was 79.2 percent compared to the 70.8 percent
rate during the first quarter of 2008 and the 71.4 percent rate
during the first quarter of 2007.
Although these statistics show a trend in the right
direction, they do not necessarily indicate that the underlying
problems that they measure are being solved. Rather, much of
the improvement may be attributable to capacity cuts by the
airlines. With this in mind, the Department is committed to
protecting consumers and ensuring that the quality of air
service continues to improve even when airlines return to
adding capacity as the economy recovers.
We believe that consumers are entitled to strong and
effective protections when traveling by air. We believe more
can and will be done. In particular, we are focused on a notice
of proposed rulemaking issued last December proposing to
enhance airline passenger protections. It suggests (1)
designating the operation of a chronically delayed flight as an
unfair and deceptive practice, (2) requiring carriers to adopt
contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays and to incorporate
them into their contract of carriage, as well as (3) having
customer service plans and incorporating them into their
contract of carriage. Finally, it suggests an audit of their
compliance with their plans.
While I cannot discuss the specific issues involved in an
active rulemaking before the Department, we are currently
evaluating the NPRM and the comments filed in response to it.
We will determine the next steps associated with this NPRM once
we are through with our evaluation.
Regarding the H1N1 flu outbreak, let me start by
reiterating earlier comments by Secretary LaHood: It is safe to
fly. One of the reasons it is safe to fly is that the
Department of Transportation, together with several other
Government agencies, has been working hard to ensure that our
aviation system is prepared to handle the kinds of concerns
raised by the recent H1N1 outbreak. Specifically, the
Department has been participating for several years in a
Pandemic Planning and Preparedness Working Group led by the
Homeland Security Council. Consequently, when H1N1 broke out, a
response scheme was already in place and we were ready to take
immediate action.
The planning components and exercises previously conducted
by the Department ensured that DOT staff could rapidly and
appropriately respond to H1N1 as the situation warranted. Over
the weeks following the initial outbreak, the measures taken
and the communications initiated were scaled up and then down
as more information about the virus became available.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I again want to reiterate that
the Department is committed to protecting consumers. We look
forward to working with Congress and all stakeholders to
achieve this goal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I will be happy to answer any questions or comments you
may have.
Mr. Boswell. [Presiding] Thank you. Ms. LoBue?
Ms. LoBue. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members
of the Subcommmitee, and Mr. Boswell, thank you very much for
having me here today to discuss the outlook for the summer
travel season.
I appreciate this Committee's concern about congestion and
delays. No one wants a repeat of the summer of 2007. That is
why NextGen is the necessary technology leap that expands
capacity to meet demand. It improves the passenger experience
while enhancing safety and it reduces congestion, noise, and
emissions.
Even in the face of falling passenger demand and a reduced
number of airline flights, we still experience congestion in
our busiest airspace. We know that we must be poised to handle
demand that will surely return as the Nation's economy
improves. Secretary LaHood has made clear that accelerating
NextGen is a key priority for him and this Administration. We
appreciate the support that this Committee as well as Congress
as a whole has given us as we move forward with NextGen.
Nationwide, the FAA has been putting a range of solutions
into place. New runways provide significant capacity and
operational improvements. As you know, we opened three new
runways in November at Seattle, Dulles, and O'Hare. We also
completed a runway extension at Philadelphia in February. We
have several other runway projects in development over the next
several years to increase capacity and reduce delays for the
flying public.
The FAA has been highly proactive in anticipating and
planning to reduce delays nationally. We began our summer 2009
planning last October. We have met with the air carriers and
other stakeholders. We are monitoring airline schedules six
months into the future. We are ready to respond with congestion
action teams to any airports where schedule increases appear
likely to increase delays significantly.
We have already seen these improvements pay dividends. Last
summer, we saw improvements in delays over the summer of 2007.
In New York, on time performance, average total delays, and the
number of operations with long delays all improved in the
summer of 2008 compared to the summer of 2007. As we gear up
for the summer of 2009, we are continuing our work on
implementing measures to minimize delays.
Summer thunderstorms typically mean increased delays but we
expect on time performance to be higher nationally than last
summer with the reduction in flights by the airlines. Despite
the downturn in traffic, FAA is continuing to work aggressively
to implement operational and structural improvements so we are
prepared to handle the uptick of traffic in the future.
Now in New York, we haven't seen the same volume of
downturn in either traffic or delays. We are also anticipating
some impact on operations caused by various runway construction
improvements. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is
working on construction projects at JFK that will ultimately
have delay benefits closed a runway there for the past few
weeks and will close another runway there for much of next
summer. Planning for that process is underway on how to
mitigate delays. We will be reaching out further to the airport
and other stakeholders as we move forward.
In response to New York's unique situation, the FAA
maximizes the use of airspace, especially in congested areas
such as New York, through targeted airspace and procedure
enhancements. For example, we are using RAPT, the Route
Availability Planning Tool, to better work around bad weather
to reduce delays this summer. We have also limited scheduled
operations at LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark. In our ongoing
efforts to reduce delays, the FAA plans to continue to keep the
limits on scheduled operations in place at the New York
airports while this Administration continues to consider its
next steps with regard to long term congestion management
programs.
While we have a strong focus in New York because of its
impact on the rest of the NAS, we continue to work to improve
the safety and efficiency of the entire system nationwide.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Mr. Boswell, and
Members of the Subcommmitee, this concludes my prepared
remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Mr. Scovel?
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Mr.
Boswell, and Members of the Subcommmitee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the progress and challenges with the
Department's and FAA's efforts to reduce flight delays and
improve airline customer service.
Since we last testified on this subject in April 2008, the
aviation landscape has significantly changed as evidenced by
flight cutbacks and new fees. The industry will continue to
face uncertain times as airlines and airports respond to the
economic downturn. This summer, while air travelers will likely
see fewer delays due to reduced flight operations and other
factors, they will also have fewer choices with respect to
scheduled flights and destinations.
In my statement today I will highlight three key points
related to delays and customer service, the reasons for last
year's reductions in delays, initiatives that can further
reduce delays, and welcome progress in airline customer
service.
First, we saw reductions in delays from 2007. The decrease
in delays was primarily driven by cutbacks in flights that
airlines implemented in response to last year's spike in fuel
prices and the softening economy. In addition, we saw changes
in flight scheduling practices, with airlines increasing the
time between arrival of an aircraft at an airport and its next
departure. This increase in the turnaround time allows the
airline to absorb inbound delays and minimizes the delay of
subsequent flights.
While overall air travel delays have improved, high levels
of delay continue at larger congested airports such as Newark,
JFK, and LaGuardia. Delays at these airports are particularly
problematic because they have ripple effects nationwide.
It is important to point out that although overall flight
delays look favorable, history shows that traffic will rebound
given the intrinsic value of air transport to the Nation's
livelihood. FAA has an opportunity to position the Agency for
when demand returns.
This leads me to my second point. Near-term initiatives
that can reduce delays, particularly at choke points such as
the New York airports, must be pursued by FAA. As we noted in
our March 2009 testimony, FAA must continue to pursue a number
of short-term projects that can enhance the flow of traffic at
congested airports. These include new airport infrastructure,
airspace redesign, and performance-based navigation
initiatives. These initiatives are critical interim measures
that can reduce delays until FAA can better define the
expectations, costs, and benefits of NextGen.
Following record breaking delays in the summer of 2007,
DOT's Aviation Rulemaking Committee, or ARC, recommended 77
initiatives to reduce delays at the three New York airports.
While FAA reports that more than one-third of the initiatives
are complete, most of them are not used or are used
infrequently. Additionally, it is not clear that the completed
initiatives have reduced delays since FAA has no way to measure
their impact.
We believe it would be prudent for FAA to reevaluate the
initiatives and determine what reasonably can be accomplished
at the three New York airports. At this Subcommmitee's request,
we will continue to review FAA's progress in implementing these
initiatives.
Third, DOT has made progress on the customer service front.
With fewer planes in the air and the resulting slowdown in
passenger traffic, there was also a drop in consumer complaints
in 2008. These were down approximately 20 percent from 2007,
and there were 25 percent fewer reports of mishandled baggage.
In addition, the amount of compensation doubled for passengers
bumped from their flights.
More data are now collected on flights that are canceled,
diverted, or returned to the gate to provide a better
understanding of long, on-board delays. With airlines' advance
schedules for summer 2009 showing scheduled flights down by
about 5 percent from last summer, the expectation is that on-
time performance and corresponding customer satisfaction will
hold steady or improve further.
While these appear to be positive trends, these
improvements were primarily driven by airline capacity cuts and
service reductions and the corresponding decline in passenger
traffic. It is therefore important for DOT to complete a
critical rule that would provide enhanced protections to
travelers. These include airline contingency plans for lengthy
delays, designees to respond to complaints, and published delay
and complaint data. Once finalized, DOT must work to position
itself to oversee air carrier compliance with the new
requirements included in the final rule.
In addition, DOT should continue the good faith efforts of
the national taskforce that developed a model contingency plan
for dealing with long, on-board delays. The taskforce issued
its report to the Secretary last November and offered general
voluntary guidance to airlines, airports, Government agencies,
and other aviation service providers.
However, we think additional guidance is needed from DOT to
include defining the time period that warrants efforts to meet
essential needs of passengers caught in an on-board delay and
determining how long to wait before deplaning them. We
recognize that one size does not fit all but maintain that a
range needs to be established.
In conclusion, the U.S. civil aviation industry is
remarkably resilient. History tells us the demand for air
travel will rebound. Given that the improvements we have
witnessed with respect to delays and airline customer
satisfaction are largely attributable to airline reductions in
service, the Department, FAA, and stakeholders must focus on
fundamental changes that can boost capacity and reduce delays
in both the short and long term. We will continue to monitor
related efforts underway to enhance capacity and improve
airline customer service.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommmitee might have.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much.
For questions, I will start with Ms. Fornarotto. What has
been the response to DOT's notice of proposed rulemaking on
enhancing airline passenger protections? Could you kind of
comment on that?
Ms. Fornarotto. Sure. We have gotten a lot of comments from
the proposed rulemaking. The comment period closed on March 9th
and we are currently evaluating those comments. We are working
as quickly as possible to get through them.
Mr. Boswell. In your written testimony, you state that the
DOT had a Department-wide pandemic influenza plan. What does
the plan consist of? How were its principles applied during the
H1N1 outbreak or concerns?
Ms. Fornarotto. Over the last couple of years, we have been
working with a variety of agencies to make sure that we did
have a plan in place should something happen. We took those
plans and we did apply them for H1N1.
In regard to H1N1 specifically, we put together a response
team. We had meetings every day. We had principal meetings at
the White House. Our Deputy Secretary was involved; our Chief
of Staff was involved. We made sure that information was
disseminated not only to the public but also to the airline
employees and to airports, making sure that as much factual
information got out as quickly as possible. As more factual
information became available, we scaled up and then down our
response given the threat.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Ms. LoBue, in your statement you
state the FAA has established ``congestion action teams to
respond to airports where delays appear to increase
significantly.'' Can you explain what that really means?
Ms. LoBue. After the summer of 2007, we looked at those
areas where we might need short term actions based on what we
saw airlines staffing up to handle, what they were projecting
in the airline guide, and the seats they were selling. Those
congestion action teams are targeted at where we are going to
see significant delays because of a buildup of air traffic.
Longer term, we see NextGen and many of the operational
procedures and technologies that it promises giving us more
long term relief.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. You also say in your testimony that
30 of 77 ARC initiatives have been substantially completed.
Could you give us a few examples of those 30? Has FAA seen an
impact from the completed items?
Ms. LoBue. Some of the projects of the 77 were terrific
projects. One example is the Port Authority JFK example that I
gave you in my oral statement. It is going to reduce ground
delays by some efforts that have been put into the runway and
the taxiways there to give more flexibility to air traffic and
to the airlines in getting on and off to the gates. That is an
example of a good project.
There were some projects in the 77 that were not within our
scope, things like knocking down the Ramada hotel to increase
capacity at the airport. So it was really a brainstormed list.
Many of them were good projects. Some of them were projects
that I think we will continue to look at as capacity issues
over the years, but that are not practical to do immediately.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, would you agree with
what she has just stated?
Mr. Scovel. Partially, Mr. Boswell. We would take issue
with FAA's statement that indeed 30 of the ARC's 77 initiatives
have been substantially completed. It seems like everyone has a
slightly different count. We would count 14 as being completed
and having measurable benefits as acknowledged by the
stakeholders, the Port Authority, and the Agency. Of those, I
am recalling six are in play now and in regular use. Another
eight have been completed. They have been documented. They are
kind of kept on the shelf for when traffic and weather
conditions would require them. We do anticipate that they will
produce benefits when they are in use.
With the remaining 16, however, the air traffic controllers
have substantial problems with 5 and 11 have operational or
technical difficulties. The applicability of those to
congestion in the New York area isn't clear at all.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you. You state one fact that led
to the decrease in the number of delays was airline flight
scheduling practices. Could you expound on that a little bit?
Mr. Scovel. Yes sir, I would be glad to. Starting in the
fall of 2008 with the reduction in the number of flights, the
airlines also expanded by sometimes even just a few minutes the
length of time that published schedules indicated a flight
would be in the air. They also expanded by sometimes just a few
minutes the length of time that an aircraft would be on the
ground. Together, these changes had the effect of reducing
delays because each airline flight was better able to match its
published schedule. As a result of that, in part, the number of
delayed flights was reduced from the fall of 2008. Those
reductions continue today.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Well, I apologize I didn't get here in time to
hear the testimony. But you know, we had a hearing on some of
this about a year ago. You probably covered some of this in
your testimony that I didn't hear, but will you tell me what
the Department and particularly what the airlines are doing,
some of the things that have been done since we got into this a
year ago?
Ms. Fornarotto. From the Department's perspective, we
completed a taskforce for model contingency planning that
wrapped up at the end of 2008. We are taking that model plan,
and sharing it with the airlines and the airports. As the IG
said, it is voluntary at this point but we backed that up with
a notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments closed on March 9th
and we are currently reviewing those comments so we can go
towards a final rule at some point this year. Our Enforcement
Office has been stepping up their efforts as well.
So you are seeing a full approach from the Department. I
will also say, and the IG mentioned this as well, that we are
changing how we report our statistics. You are now seeing us
report long onboard tarmac delays so that consumers are also
aware of what is happening. We are trying to communicate better
with passengers and get information out there as best we can.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Ms. LoBue. From the FAA's standpoint, we have done a number
of things. You have seen nationally that we opened three new
runways in November at Dulles, O'Hare, and Seattle. We opened a
runway extension in Philadelphia. So we continue to work the
infrastructure aggressively.
I think you have seen a lot of focus on the New York area
as it drove a lot of the delays in 2007. We put caps on those
airports and the amount of air traffic that could fly in there.
We worked collaboratively with the airlines to try and spread
the traffic over the day to minimize those peak hours.
This summer you have seen us particularly focus on using
weather tools to try and minimize how much weather impacts the
amount that those airports can handle on bad weather days. You
have seen us do things like put in accelerated ground radar
called the ASDE-X that will help with looking at some of the
ramp delays and the staging, getting in and out of gates more
quickly and to be better able to use those.
Mr. Duncan. I have to tell you that when I Chaired this
Subcommmitee, we went out to Seattle to hold a hearing about a
proposed new runway there. We were met with over 1,000
demonstrators against that runway. In fact, in the building
where we were, they couldn't fit everybody in so the testimony
was piped outdoors to where several hundred of the
demonstrators were. When somebody would say something they
liked, there was about a one or two second delay and then they
would cheer. When they said something they didn't like, there
would be about a two second delay and then we would hear all
these boos coming from outside.
But I will never forget how controversial that runway was.
So you have brought it back to mind, though, when you just
breezed over it quickly and said you have opened a runway in
Seattle. Boy, sometimes those things are very controversial.
Mr. Scovel?
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Duncan, the airport infrastructure
improvements that Ms. LoBue did mention have been significant
factors in reducing congestion and delays between Washington
Dulles, Chicago, and the Sea-Tac runway that you mentioned.
They have improved the number of operations nationally that can
be conducted by hundreds of thousands each year. So they are
very significant.
I would like to pick up on something that Assistant
Secretary Fornarotto mentioned a few minutes ago. That was the
Department's rulemaking efforts. I would like to give great
credit to the Department for some finalized rules that it
completed in the last year. It increased airlines' baggage
liability limit and it doubled the amount of compensation for
passengers who get involuntarily bumped. It has also
strengthened the requirements by regulation for air passengers
with disabilities. The proposed rulemaking that is now under
consideration--and the Department is reviewing comments--takes
further steps forward.
However, I would take issue with what the Department
proposes on one point. I would urge the Subcommmitee and the
Department to do more, in fact. The proposed rule would require
airlines to adopt contingency plans that would specify, among
other things, the maximum tarmac delay that a flight could
incur before the airline must meet passengers' essential needs.
It would also require that passengers be deplaned if they are
held for long periods of time on the tarmac. We think that
provision in fact should go further.
It should define what constitutes the extended period of
time when passengers' essential needs will be met. We would
also suggest to the Committee and the Department that a range
on delay durations is appropriate before passengers must be
deplaned. Many of the major carriers who belong to ATA
themselves have specified in their customer service plans an
upper limit of 5 hours before deplaning. What the Department or
this Subcommmitee might consider in that range sounds to us
certainly appropriate.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. Let me ask you this: One
day I hear people say the economy is improving and the next day
I hear it is not improving. Where are we in regard to passenger
traffic and what do you expect over these next few months? Have
you seen the numbers bumping up some? The planes that I fly on
don't seem to be as crowded as they were a year or two ago. Do
we know anything or have any guesses about that?
Ms. Fornarotto. We can get that information for you in
terms of the actual numbers. We are more than happy to provide
that to you.
Mr. Duncan. Okay.
Mr. Scovel. I have some information, sir. It is information
that we have gleaned from the airlines themselves. As you know,
the number of arrival flights was down last year from September
through the end of this March by about 10 percent. The airlines
are scheduling now for the summer. We anticipate from looking
at their schedules that the number of flights will be down
another 4 to 5 percent. So the airlines anticipate in their
business plans that the number of passengers will be down.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. LoBue?
Ms. LoBue. That is consistent with our forecast. We come
out with a national forecast each March and we also agree that
we see it down 5 percent overall over the system. There are
some pockets where it is down even more, places with
discretionary travel like Las Vegas. We are seeing places like
New York, O'Hare, and Atlanta where still demand is staying
strong. So it varies but overall you are seeing the economy
take an effect.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I guess I will pose this
to anyone who would like to respond to it. Several months ago
we had hearings trying to ready the legislation that will be on
the Floor tomorrow. We talked all about a passenger's bill of
rights or what have you. I noticed that you are considering a
chronically delayed flight as an unfair and deceptive practice.
I would like to know under what circumstances you are
considering that.
I had more concerns that FAA wasn't doing its job in terms
of oversight than I had for late flights. Many times the
weather has a great deal to do with the late flights. I can
appreciate the attention given to that but we are in that
weather now to some degree in my area where I fly, and I would
rather be on the ground waiting somewhere when the turbulence
is going on.
How do you separate that from making sure that the planes
are safe, that you can understand the mechanics, and that you
have some type of code sharing? How do you do oversight for
that?
Ms. Fornarotto. In terms of chronically delayed flights,
the standard our Enforcement Office currently uses a delay of
more then 15 minutes on more than 70 percent of the operations
per quarter. Within the rulemaking, we do propose changes and
we are currently evaluating them. I know the IG has recommended
some changes; I know passenger rights groups have recommended
some changes.
In terms of your safety question, without a doubt--FAA can
chime in if they want to--but without a doubt we are very
consistent that planes are not to take off unless conditions
are safe and that all the safety checks before takeoff occur
before aircraft take off.
Ms. Johnson. Do you do an analysis of the lateness? I don't
know what is considered chronic. How do you determine what is
chronic and what kind of analysis do you do?
Ms. Fornarotto. Currently our Enforcement Office uses the
standard of more than 15 minutes on 70 percent of the flights
within a quarter of a calendar year. So that is the standard
our Enforcement Office uses to move forward on enforcement
actions. There have been some proposed changes to that. We are
working through that through the notice of proposed rulemaking.
Ms. Johnson. I was not impressed with Mr. Barattini
[phonetic] or whatever his name was. I questioned him a number
of times. He didn't have any idea what was going on at FAA. I
hope that will change under this new Administration and that
you will give more attention to your oversight.
There were many complaints, not having necessarily to do
with passengers but with how that Agency is run, how it was a
revolving door of people going to work for the airlines and
getting by. I want to see a report that that has changed. Thank
you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We often notice
differences in the flight delay statistics that the IG Office
presents, the numbers that FAA presents, and its contractors.
Are you guys aware of those differences and can you help
explain perhaps the discrepancy?
Mr. Scovel. If I could, Mr. Boozman, good afternoon. There
are differences in flight delay statistics primarily between
FAA and my office. FAA uses a subset of airlines and a subset
of causes, and it uses as its measure the flight plans that
airlines file for each flight. Our office uses a somewhat
different set. We look at all carriers, all causes, and as our
measure we compare actual performance to what the airline
published to consumers in advance as what its flight intentions
would be.
I can understand why FAA takes the route it does. Of
course, it is looking for areas of operations where it has
influence. So when it looks for causes of delay, it is looking
for causes that can be linked to its own operation of the NAS.
That is entirely appropriate. Our office has taken a different
tack, however. We think that U.S. decision makers and certainly
the flying public as consumers are more interested in the
overall picture in delays.
The two methods can result in significant differences. For
the 7 or 8 months that ended in March 2009, FAA, for example,
reported an on-time performance of 88 percent under their
measure. By our measure, the on-time percentage was 78 percent.
So there are significant differences.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. LoBue. If I could also clarify, the Inspector General
is absolutely right that we do have a data source, we call it
OPSNET, Operations Network, that our air traffic system folks
use on a daily basis to see how the system worked yesterday.
But we also do look at the same data sources that the IG looks
at. We do look at the BTS data that is collected by the
Department. We compare that to the operations planning data and
try to keep that in sync.
I will assure you that the testimony today and FAA's
portion of that is all consistent with the same data sources
that both the Department and the IG looks at. So we have been
paying attention over the last year as we have had these
conversations on delay statistics to make sure that we do use
consistent data sources. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. That is very helpful.
We have another issue that has come up, especially with the
summer traffic and things. I am from Arkansas and the Arkansas
delegation has asked in the past--there is a reorganization
going on with the Memphis tower and that reorganization has
been underway--what we ask is that it go ahead and be really
defined fully once the new FAA administration is put into
place. As a result of the delegation asking, that was delayed
until I think in June. But I would just request that it go
ahead and continue to be delayed since things have run a little
bit late, that the final process be then.
I am the senior Republican Member in the delegation. My
wife reminds me I am also the junior Member in the delegation
since I am the only Republican. But it really is a very
bipartisan thing. So again, that would be helpful if you guys
could review that. We appreciate your help. We appreciate all
you guys do and really look forward to working with you this
Congress. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Fornarotto, you
are currently undergoing a proposed rule relating to
chronically delayed flights as an unfair and deceptive
practice. I am wondering what the penalty is for violating this
rule should it go into effect.
Ms. Fornarotto. At this point, our Enforcement Office uses
a standard as I said to Ms. Johnson. It is 15 minutes or more--
--
Ms. Hirono. No, I wasn't asking about the standard. I
wonder, what is the penalty? What happens if you violate an
unfair and deceptive practice rule?
Ms. Fornarotto. So if you fall under the chronically
delayed standard that we currently use, our Enforcement Office
will send a notice to the carrier based on whatever flights,
whether that carrier has one flight or 10 flights, for that
quarter. They get a warning to see if they can get it fixed in
that next quarter. If it is still not fixed in the subsequent
quarter, we then will take enforcement action. An airline can
be fined $27,500 per violation.
Ms. Hirono. Per violation? Have you ever imposed such fines
on any airline?
Ms. Fornarotto. I don't have that information but we can
get that for you.
Ms. Hirono. Do you currently have other instances or
certain conditions and situations that are already by rule
deemed an unfair and deceptive practice?
Ms. Fornarotto. We do. We have a variety of issues that
fall under unfair and deceptive practices. I can give you a
recent example: When airlines started charging baggage fees, we
said that it needed to be transparent. People needed to know
what those fees were up front. We told airlines where they had
to put that information so consumers were aware of those fees
because we did consider that an unfair and deceptive practice
should that information not be public and transparent and
things of that nature. So that is just an example of something
else that would fall under that. If you want more specifics, we
can get that for you.
Ms. Hirono. Actually, I would be very interested to know
those kinds of conditions that are deemed unfair and deceptive
with regard to passenger and customer service and those kinds
of areas. I don't need it for every other thing. Then I would
be interested to know what kind of enforcement actions have
been taken. How many times have fines been imposed versus
warning letters and all of that?
To the extent that a lot of the information that has to do
with how you assess airline performance is vis-a-vis customer
complaints, how easy is it for customers to complain when they
encounter situations that are really irritating and/or
otherwise not satisfactory?
Ms. Fornarotto. Basically, they can go to the web. We have
an address at airconsumer.dot.gov. They can go right on the
website and file a web-based complaint. It gets sent
immediately to our Enforcement Office for them to take a look
at. I was actually just on the website over the weekend and
then today to make sure everything was up and running. It is
very easy; it is very easily formatted for consumers.
There is also our DOT headquarter address, which I can
provide to the Subcommmitee for the record, and a (202)
telephone number where people can call in as well.
Ms. Hirono. Wouldn't it be even easier if the airlines just
passed out a piece of paper with this kind of information on
it? Because of course I have experienced various kinds of
delays and everything else but I have never filed a complaint.
But if someone were to give me a sheet of paper there, I would
probably fill it out. That might give you a more accurate
picture of what is really going on. Would that even be
contemplated?
Ms. Fornarotto. We can definitely take a look at that.
Again, in the context of the NPRM we are taking all
recommendations by passenger rights groups, by the IG, and by
Members. You guys have spoken through the provisions in the FAA
Reauthorization Bill. So we are taking all of that into
consideration as we move forward towards a final rule.
Ms. Hirono. I think we should make it as easy as possible
for passengers to opine, especially when you use that as a
basis for making some changes and contemplating rules changes.
Mr. Scovel mentioned that perhaps in this proposed rule you
should be more specific as to the limits for the delays, et
cetera, in terms of hours. Would you consider that a reasonable
suggestion? Would you think about that?
Ms. Fornarotto. All of that would be in the context of the
notice of proposed rulemaking so I can't speak specifically to
it. But I can say that we take the IG recommendations very
seriously. We are taking those into account as we move forward
on the proposed rulemaking.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. You are welcome. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is I
suppose addressed actually to any of you. A Member from
California this week asked me if I was on the Aviation
Subcommmitee. She told me what I can only tell you is, in my
view, a shocking revelation. She told me that another Member
had a similar experience. This was a Member who was supposed to
land in California. She landed in California, in Oakland, and
she was told that they didn't have enough fuel to get to her
last stop. I don't remember if it was L.A. or San Francisco.
She said there were no inordinate weights, just the normal kind
of weight. Could you explain how that could possibly happen?
Ms. LoBue. I know once the high price of fuel hit, that
airlines looked at what the weight of the planes were and how
best to economize. That said, I think they are incentivized to
be as safe as possible. So it is surprising that you would find
a situation like that.
Those are the kinds of instances we would want to know
about. If you have particulars, I think we would love to have
more conversation with you. We take those items very seriously
because they do go directly to air traffic safety. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Well, this is a very careful and responsible
Member. I am going to suggest that she direct this to you,
particularly since she said there was another Member who had a
similar experience.
Incentivizing for safety is not good enough. The notion of
running out of fuel under what were not abnormal conditions--
even given what frankly is a lot of sympathy that I have for
the airlines--really casts doubt upon your oversight. I will
see to it that you get that information.
Could I ask you, are pilots on commuter aircraft trained in
the same way as pilots on larger aircraft? Don't all speak at
once.
Ms. LoBue. I will talk to that. In the early 1990s, the FAA
put in a number of rules and worked toward one level of safety
for regional air carriers and main line air carriers. I think
we have looked at the Colgan air tragedy as a great loss, but
some of the information that came out at the NTSB hearing
raised issues that we will be looking at.
Ms. Norton. Are they trained in the same way or not today?
Ms. LoBue. They have the same regulations and the same
requirements.
Ms. Norton. And the same qualifications?
Ms. LoBue. And the same qualifications. That said, there
are differences. You tend to get less experienced pilots at the
regional airlines, with them moving up in degree to the main
lines as they get more experience.
But that is an area we will be looking at very closely. Our
designate for Administrator testified yesterday that that is an
area he is very much focused on. He intends to look at it very
closely.
Ms. Norton. Well if they are going to move up, they
obviously should not be moving out without having comparable if
not exact qualifications. The more we learn, the more we are
inclined to believe that was a preventable tragedy. We are used
to tragedies that cannot be prevented in the airlines. I am
extremely sympathetic with those. But this is very troubling.
Since 9/11, the Nation's capital, capital in many ways of
the world, has been without both helicopter and general
aviation service for all intents and purposes. Only a few years
ago before the present majority came to power, only when the
last majority was in power and there was wholesale agreement
within the Committee did we get any return of general aviation
service. That was only after the Chairman of the Full Committee
in this very room threatened contempt on the officials--I
believe they may have been FAA officials--who kept double
talking the Committee.
Now what we have is essentially a signal to the world that
seven or eight years, whatever it turns out to be, after 9/11
we are not capable of protecting our capital and thus have this
kind of service. Before 9/11, there were 200 general aviation
flights a month. That is what you might expect in the national
capital region that not only contains the entire Federal
presence but one of the highest producing parts of our economy.
Maybe we ought to have less of that because of climate change,
but that obviously is not what has happened here.
In response to the Committee, we got what can only be
called an insult to the Committee. They said okay, you want
general aviation in the Nation's capital, this is what we are
going to do. They imposed the kinds of regulations on general
aviation that in essence thumbed its nose at the Committee.
Anyone coming in on a general aviation flight has to carry a
Federal Marshall, of whom there are very few available. They
have to stop someplace away from the capital at another port
that they call a gateway. They have to have armed guards
onboard, which calls for huge amounts of paperwork.
So the Nation's capital has gone from 200 flights per month
to 200 per year. In essence, the Federal Government through
regulation has deliberately shut down general aviation in the
Nation's capital. Meanwhile, those parts of the Country where
one might imagine general aviation flights might be most
hazardous were up and running within days of 9/11. New York
City was relieved of any restrictions within days. Despite its
world famous skyscrapers, it has aviation virtually every
single minute. How can you account for this treatment of the
Nation's capital so many years after 9/11?
Ms. LoBue. We work our regulations in accord with the
Department of Homeland Security. I understand the impact on GA.
I think the FAA over the years has been very much an advocate
of general aviation and the benefits that it gives to the
Federal economy. To the extent that we can help work with the
Department of Homeland Security and TSA towards this issue, we
look forward to engaging with the Committee.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you to do this: That is too general
an answer to be helpful. I understand that you may not have
expected this question. My staff has been told that there
exists a time line, which may mean an actual revision. Could I
ask that within the next 14 days you get to the Chairman of
this Subcommmitee a copy of the time line for returning general
aviation to Ronald Reagan Airport?
Ms. LoBue. I will look into that and try to expedite it.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Ms. Norton. You sure hit on some
key points for me, too. I appreciate your questions.
Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have got some easy
ones here.
I would like to make sure that our airlines are instructing
our pilots in how to use their microphones back to the
passenger area. Oftentimes I can't understand them so I don't
know whether they are tired, don't care, or what. So that would
help us, the consumers, a great deal.
Also, I don't know whether to imprison the people who are
designing the seats on some of our aircraft. Or should we have
a national contest to come up with comfortable seating? Since
it is a quasi-monopoly and a privilege given to the airlines to
serve our public, they really have no voice. I think a question
was asked about how to voice a complaint. I think all of us
that have been on the airlines have no idea who designed some
of the seats given how long we have had to sit in them.
On deplaning, I think you need to be aware that there are
probably 15 percent, or even as high as 20 percent, on some
flights who are clinically claustrophobic. This is not a
complaint that they are making idly. These are people who have
panic disorders who are completely in control. They have
probably geared up and sucked up and got on that airplane. To
have someone that is insensitive to their wait I think is
intolerable. I don't think we should tolerate it as a Country,
nor should we allow an industry to serve us that is not
sensitive to that.
I know the bottom line is important but I think this is
also very, very important. You are going to get some reactions
from some of your passengers that are going to make the
headlines. It is going to be through no fault of their own.
They just can't control themselves. I am a physician, by the
way, by training so I am sensitive to that.
The other thing is how often do we culture the vents and
the air for Methicillin-resistant Staph, resistant TB, and
other infectious diseases and mold on our airlines? Is it done
randomly or is it done consistently? Is it reported?
Ms. Fornarotto. I don't know the answer and neither does
Nancy. But we will get that information back to you very
shortly.
Mr. Griffith. If we are not doing that, I think it would be
a good idea. We are so mobile today and it wouldn't take very
much for something to occur that we could probably prevent with
some very easy Microbiology 101. That would be a big help.
The other thing is our regional airlines and our regional
pilots that are maybe young up-and-coming major pilots, do they
go by the same sleep days flying that all pilots go by? Or are
they more loosely regulated?
Ms. LoBue. We do have one level of safety. The regulations
on fatigue and flight and duty time do apply equally. That
said, obviously in light of what happened with Colgan, we will
be looking at those issues very closely.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Griffith.
Here at this time I want to thank the panel very much. I
appreciate your preparation and your time. I look forward to
getting the information back that was asked for. Thank you very
much. Have a good day.
I would like to invite the second panel to the table. I
notice the friendly atmosphere at the table. That is good. We
like that. Welcome to the table. And without a lot of ado, Mr.
Meenan, we will start off with you. We appreciate your being
here.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; JAMES M.
CRITES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, DALLAS/FORT
WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND MEMBER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES AND AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH
AMERICA; PATRICIA A. FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO; AND KATE HANNI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG, COALITION FOR AIRLINE
PASSENGERS BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Meenan. Mr. Boswell, thank you very much. We appreciate
the opportunity to appear today.
As both my written testimony and the testimony from the
first panel make clear, the airline industry is making
measurable, steady progress in dealing with customer service
concerns. All of the trends that we look at are headed in the
right direction. That translates into improving customer
service.
The progress has come for a variety of reasons, not least
of which has been the intensive carrier focus on on time
performance and the development of programs to constantly
monitor delays and alert top management to extended periods of
extended delay. These programs, along with the companion effort
to develop contingency plans that Mr. Crites will be discussing
in more detail, have gone a long way toward meeting the needs
of our customers.
We know, of course, that there continue to be rare
situations in which prolonged delays do occur. We appreciate
and indeed share the frustrations of passengers on those rare
delayed flights that we all read about in the newspapers or see
on TV. There are some who would call for legislation or
regulation to prohibit these thankfully rare events. We think
that would be a mistake. As I mentioned, we are making
measurable progress. With some 20,000 flights a day, more than
six million a year, we clearly cannot afford to manage by
anecdote. Nor do we think it wise to legislate or regulate by
looking only at anomalies.
The people who are closest to the situation tell us that
hard deadlines to return a flight to a terminal or otherwise
deplane passengers are going to result in more rather than
fewer inconvenienced passengers. We believe them and we think
you should as well. My written testimony describes in more
detail why that is the case. We know too that the key drivers
of delays, misconnected baggage, missed and canceled flights,
and all the other ills of the system are bad weather and system
congestion.
We recognize too that a slumping economy and reduced
transportation demand have temporarily removed some of the
stresses from the system. In effect, what we have now is a
brief window of opportunity to expedite the deployment of our
long overdue modernized air traffic management system. We think
it is possible to get NowGen, as we call it, substantially in
place in the next three to four years.
Again as my written statement discusses, by making about
five new technologies and the procedures to allow them to
really deliver system capacity a key national priority, we know
that system performance along with beneficial results for
customers and the environment can be dramatically and
permanently improved. Even after the economy and transportation
demand come back. If we do not act now, though, we know we will
all be deeply frustrated.
You also asked to hear a bit about the industry's response
to the recent H1N1 flu outbreak. While airlines and the FAA are
not in the public health business, we work very hard to protect
the health of our employees and our customers. With the very
first reports of the outbreak, we were communicating constantly
with the CDC as well as other Government agencies. We worked
with the airports and our international partners to ensure a
coordinated response following CDC's established protocols for
infection control.
The airlines stocked hand sanitizers, increased the supply
of masks for use with sick passengers, and took other common
sense health precautions consistent with CDC guidelines.
Equally important, we began communicating with our passengers
and our employees all the information we were receiving from
the CDC and the WHO.
Finally, I wanted to take just a moment to comment on an
absolutely ludicrous suggestion by some in the airport
community that the limited experience that some airlines have
had in generating ancillary revenues recently have left them
somehow awash with cash and justify a massive 26 percent tax
increase in the form of an increased PFC charge, a passenger
facility charge. The fact that carriers have had some limited
success with modest new revenue generation does not change the
fact that the airlines have lost $36 billion from 2001 through
2008. Data just coming out the other day indicated that 2008
losses alone amounted to some $9.5 billion.
It is worth remembering that at the core, aviation is all
about the profitable sale of air transportation. At some point,
the airlines that drive this economic engine that sustains
Government services, airports, and a wide share of the Nation's
economy have got to make the kind of sustained earnings
necessary to support their cost of capital. If that does not
occur, the future is going to look very dark not just for the
airlines but for our economy in general. An increased PFC is
not the place to start improving the situation.
Thank you. I will look forward to responding to your
questions.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Mr. Crites?
Mr. Crites. Mr. Boswell, good afternoon and thank you for
inviting me to participate in this hearing.
I am here today to provide insight into airport contingency
planning. I would like to begin by saying that safe flight is
accomplished through a close, industry-wide partnership with
communication, collaboration, and coordination across all
service providers. Contingency planning is no different.
Whether an emergency is caused by weather or a contagious
disease, there is a need to have all service providers open for
business and openly partnering to address passengers' needs.
In reality, it has been largely left to the airlines and
FAA to accomplish this task. However, there are critical
services that can only be provided by the other aviation
stakeholders such as airports, TSA, CBP, concessionaires, and
ground transportation providers.
The good news is that the aviation industry developed a
model contingency plan to address this issue through the DOT
Tarmac Delay Taskforce, which we have implemented at DFW. First
off and most importantly, the plan calls for airport service
providers to simply stay open for business. The same holds true
for TSA and CBP as the situation warrants. Second, the plan
calls for all stakeholders to share and integrate their
contingency plans to ensure that all parties are aware of what
is occurring and to enable mutual support in addressing
passengers' needs. Finally, it calls for partnering between the
airlines and airports for the ground handling and deplaning of
passengers to avoid the types of unacceptable situations that
have been experienced by passengers stranded on aircraft.
Diverted flights are called out for special attention. The
plan recommends that the FAA and airlines avoid diverting
international arriving flights to airports lacking CBP
resources. Once again, all stakeholders are expected to be open
for business to properly receive and process flights. This
includes the ability to degate or properly ground handle the
aircraft and to provide concessions support and TSA and CBP
passenger screening as may be required.
DOT earlier this year issued an NPRM for enhancing
passenger protections by requiring airline contingency plans. I
would offer that airline plans should include a requirement to
coordinate their plans with all airports at which they provide
scheduled or charter service.
I would now like to talk to the value of this partnership
as it relates to the emergency response to contagious disease
outbreaks or pandemics. First, extensive partnering has been
developed and effectively deployed at the local airport level
to address diseases such as SARS, bird flu influenza, Ebola,
and the like. Additional partners are brought to the table,
including CDC and local public health officials, to provide
effective real time and tailored response guidance. This
expanded team currently addresses a wide variety of medical
concerns including yearly flu season disease outbreaks.
This system was placed in action on April 28 at BWI Airport
when an AirTran flight arriving from Cancun had two individuals
onboard exhibiting flu-like symptoms. AirTran contacted BWI
officials who activated their emergency plan. This included
contacting the CDC quarantine station in Washington, D.C. While
the two individuals were found not to have the H1N1 flu, it did
show that the system worked.
Can we do better? Absolutely. While public health issues
vary greatly, a process for aligning stakeholders at a level
similar to that developed in the model contingency plan I just
spoke to does not yet exist. However, I do know that DOT is
working with ACI-North America, ATA, and IATA as well as CDC
and DHS on developing just such a plan. In summary, the
challenge is to ensure everyone is open for business and
continuously communicating, collaborating, and coordinating
their efforts to address any and all passenger needs.
In closing, I want to thank you for your support of the
funding necessary for airports to be able to finance necessary
safety and capacity infrastructure. Your support of the
increase in the PFC user fee as well as the increase in AIP
funding is greatly appreciated. Also, as Chairman of the
Aviation Group for the Transportation Research Board, I want to
express my sincere appreciation to this Subcommmitee which
helped to create and fund this highly effective airport
cooperative research program.
Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Ms. Friend?
Ms. Friend. Thank you, Mr. Boswell. As the world's largest
flight attendant union, we do appreciate having the opportunity
to testify at today's hearing. As the front line employees
responsible for the safety and security of the aircraft cabin,
we provide a unique perspective on these issues.
I would first like to focus on the topic of emergency
contingency planning. The recent health emergency surrounding
the spread of the H1N1 virus once again brought air travel and
the spread of infectious disease to the forefront of Government
and public attention.
By nature of our work, flight attendants come in contact
with hundreds and possibly thousands of passengers every day.
We are keenly aware of our role in the possible transmission
and prevention of a disease during a public health emergency.
Our interest is not only to protect our members from exposure,
but also to minimize the possibility of our members
inadvertently spreading the disease.
In this most recent public health emergency and in previous
outbreaks such as SARS in 2003, we called on the FAA to issue
directions to airlines that would minimize the risk of exposure
to flight attendants and to do our part to prevent the spread
of an infectious disease. This year, AFA-CWA sent a letter to
the FAA in the very early days of the H1N1 virus outbreak. We
requested that the FAA issue an emergency order to all U.S.
carriers requiring them to take immediate and specific steps.
Among those steps were requirements that the airlines
provide flight attendants with non-latex gloves and masks; that
the airlines allow flight attendants with flu-like symptoms
themselves to call in sick without risk of discipline; that
they require airlines to develop, implement, and enforce
passenger screening standards as recommended by the WHO, the
CDC, or the relevant national health official; and that they
require all U.S. airlines flying to and from Mexico to have
operative, potable water systems, soap, and sanitary towels in
place for hand washing during flight operations.
The FAA's response was totally unsatisfactory and
unfortunately most carriers did not implement these basic and
effective steps during the outbreak of H1N1. Instead, the
airline management in this Country seems more concerned about
the appearance and views of flight attendants as marketing
tools rather than our proper role as safety and security
professionals. The health of flight attendants and the
traveling public should not be subject to the marketing
concerns of airline management.
In order to minimize the threat posed by a public health
emergency, several permanent and mandated steps must be taken
to mitigate that threat:
First, we believe it is necessary to provide and apply
OSHA-like or basic OSHA workplace safety and health protections
to the aircraft cabin workplace. OSHA protections would provide
an excellent benchmark for reacting in a proactive manner
during public health emergencies.
Another permanent step that can be taken immediately
relates to the aircraft's onboard water supply. It is not
uncommon for crew and passengers to find an inoperable lavatory
on a flight, which limits timely access for flight attendants
and passengers to properly wash their hands. We advocate that
at a minimum each class of service in the aircraft must have at
least one operational lavatory for an aircraft to be allowed to
operate.
We also believe that aircraft for both international and
domestic flights must contain adequate supplies of alcohol-
based gel per recommendations of the CDC. This will help to
reduce the spread of disease and infections when onboard
facilities are inadequate.
I will turn now to the outlook for summer travel. As I sit
here today, Mr. Chairman, I have decades of experience working
in this industry. As much as I would love to say that there is
a magic wand that we can wave and make the summer travel season
flawless, unfortunately we all know that is impossible. The
load factors will increase, particularly as capacity is
reduced. Mother Nature will cook up the inevitable summer
storms. The aircraft will stack up on runways and circle above.
Each summer and during other weather events throughout the
year, we hear the horror stories. We get it. We get it because
we are there, too.
The voluntary measures by airlines and the attempts to
enact so-called passenger bill of rights legislation are simply
band-aid approaches to a much larger systemic problem that
plagues our Nation's aviation system. The solution often
referred to as NextGen needs to be rebranded as NowGen as the
work to update our air traffic control system must be done as
quickly and safely as possible. Any passenger bill of rights,
no matter how well intended, will not solve the complex air
traffic control problems until we upgrade the outdated
equipment that currently cannot properly handle aircraft
traffic or plan for predictable summer storms.
In the current environment, our sympathy for a passenger
bill of rights is tempered by what we know will occur if such
legislation is enacted. The Nation's flight attendants will
become trapped between Federal mandates and management's
inability or unwillingness to follow the law. The Nation's
flight attendants will be put in a no-win situation when the
mandates are not followed. Management is not the cabin having
to explain the violations, but we are. The airport authorities
are not onboard to explain why gate space or facilities are not
available and why extended taxiway waits are occurring.
We believe that the best solution for flight attendants,
passengers, and the aviation industry is for the House and
Senate to follow the lead of this Committee and pass the FAA
Reauthorization legislation now so that work can begin to fix
the real problems this beleaguered industry faces.
Again, I thank the Committee for giving us this
opportunity. I would enjoy answering any questions that you may
have.
Mr. Boswell. We thank you. Ms. Hanni?
Ms. Hanni. Thank you, Mr. Boswell, Ranking Member Petri,
and Members of the Committee. On behalf of FlyersRights.org, I
thank you for inviting me again to appear at this hearing on
consumer rights.
We appreciate the airline passenger rights provisions you
have included in House of Representatives 915: The FAA
Reauthorization Act and we recognize the improvements that you
made compared to last year's bill. But let us not break our
arms patting ourselves on the back for requiring that airlines
provide basic human necessities like food, water, temperature
controls, and working bathrooms, not when passengers are being
stranded still on the tarmac for seven, eight, or even nine
hours.
Within just the past few weeks, Air Canada and three other
Canadian airlines have voluntarily instituted a 90 minute limit
on tarmac delays. That is because a very tough, no nonsense
Canadian airline passenger bill of rights is currently making
its way through Parliament that would limit tarmac strandings
to one hour. The bill is C-310. The author of the bill, Jim
Maloway, is Member of Parliament and is actually here with us
today to witness my testimony. The other is Bruce Cran, who is
the President of the Consumer Association of Canada. They are
working very hard to get their bill passed.
Here at home, though, the FAA Reauthorization Bill leaves
it up to the airlines themselves to decide when we will be able
to get off the plane and back to the terminal. There are no
uniform limits at all.
Last month in Philadelphia, a blind 62 year old former
interpreter for the European Union was dragged off a plane in
handcuffs just for asking why the aircraft was still sitting on
the tarmac and how long it would be there. Paying passengers
deserve to know they won't be sitting on the tarmac for nine
hours.
We do want to acknowledge the provision you added requiring
that airports receiving international flights have contingency
plans for dealing with stranded aircraft. It is about time. Too
often passengers returning from international flights have been
stranded on arrival for hours at a time. But absent a plan
regarding the airlines to allow the passengers off, the airport
plans will be moot.
Just last month, our hotline received a call from a
passenger onboard Delta Flight 510 coming in from the Turks and
Caicos, bound for Atlanta but diverted to Columbia, South
Carolina because of a thunderstorm. He and his family sat on
the Columbia tarmac for almost six hours with no food, no
water, and rest rooms that had stopped working. His two year
old had not eaten in 10 hours. After getting off the plane, the
130 or so passengers were herded into a concrete subterranean
room with 20 chairs for almost 140 people. There they stayed
for another hour, all because the airport and the airline
lacked adequate plans for dealing with an incoming
international flight.
Here is what FlyersRights.org believes ought to be included
in the FAA Reauthorization Act this year: We want a single,
enforceable, industry-wide limit on the amount of time
passengers can be held onboard an aircraft on the tarmac. We
call it a right of deplanement. Passengers call it basic common
sense. We also want a requirement that airlines produce
contingency plans for international flights landing at domestic
airports. Airport contingency plans alone are not enough, as we
saw with Flight 510.
I ask you to think of the people who have contacted
FlyersRights.org in the last month. A 72 year old woman, a
diabetic, was stuck on the Austin tarmac on a diversion for
four hours without food or water. Her daughters, frightened to
death, were trying to find out where she was. She also has
early stage Alzheimer's. A blind man was hauled off to a
Philadelphia jail just because he asked how long the airline
was going to keep him on the tarmac.
Just try to imagine eight or nine hours in a sealed tube
with the screaming children, the people in coach in the middle
seats, and the business people who miss appointments and
productive time. For them, these are not the friendly skies. It
is time they treated the American flying public like paying
customers, not like cattle.
I would like to address the frequency with which this
happens. It is a daily occurrence that planes sit for three
hours or more. Data provided from 2008 showed 1,320 flights
that sat for three hours or more on the tarmac. That is 132,000
people who sat for more than three hours on the tarmac last
year.
James May testified a few days ago that the economic loss
to passengers due to flight delays is $41 billion a year. That
seems to me like a double whammy to the flying public who is
already smarting from the economy.
Thank you very much for letting me testify. I will look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you for being our conscience. Let me
just make a quick comment. I think everybody is trying hard.
Ms. Hanni. Pardon?
Mr. Boswell. I think everybody is trying hard. I appreciate
what you have brought to us. We all have a great respect for
the men and women of the cockpit. We should. Our lives are in
their hands. But I will tell you, I have just as great an
appreciation for those flight attendants that put up with us,
the public. They are a great bunch. They try hard. There are
things we can do better and I think we are working at it.
Mr. Duncan, I know you have some things to do. I would like
to offer you some time.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I have a group of people waiting
for me out there in the waiting room so I won't ask any
questions. But I would like to say that several years ago I
heard on the NPR news that the Russian Aeroflot system
sometimes had delays as long as four days. A plane wouldn't fly
and then they would say come back tomorrow. We are so fortunate
to have the aviation system that we have in this Country. It is
the best in the world.
Now, everybody should always be trying to do better and to
do more. If you lose the desire to improve, it is sad for you
and for the people you work for. But there is a human nature
tendency that if people have 99 good flights and one bad one,
the one they will tell everybody about is the bad one.
I fly and for many years now I have flown at least a couple
of times a week, sometimes more. I am amazed. In fact, I think
it is miraculous how many of these flights arrive on time. I am
amazed that we have so many millions and millions of not only
passengers that arrive on time and safely, but that we have all
these hundreds of millions of bags with just a tiny percentage
that are lost.
I think it is good that people are here pointing out some
problems and ways that things can improve. But I also think we
need to realize that we have by far the best aviation system in
the world. We need to be a little more grateful and
appreciative of what we have instead of just always blasting
away at everything. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Well, I thank you for those remarks. At the
same time, Mr. Duncan, I think that if you and I had to put up
with a three or four year old for eight or nine hours on a
tarmac we would probably be asking for help. Anyway, I
appreciate that, too.
Mr. Meenan, ATA participated in that national taskforce
which established guidelines for airlines and airports by
developing model contingency plans. Do all airlines have
contingency plans in place? Were they updated to reflect the
recommendations of the taskforce?
Mr. Meenan. All of our members do have contingency plans in
place and they are, in fact, updated all the time.
After the recent Delta incident, they went back and updated
that plan once again. There were plans in place for dealing
with the arriving international flight at that particular
airport. Unfortunately, the airport had been reconfigured
during the period between when the plan was made and when the
diversion occurred.
These are now being updated on an annual basis to make
absolutely positive that we can deal with these situations as
they arise.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. You state that the airlines have
been ``able to draw on well established practices to provide
medical attention to ill passengers and crew, and to report
communicable diseases to public health officials.'' Would you
elaborate on that?
Mr. Meenan. In the immediate aftermath of the reporting of
the H1N1 flu, we went into constant communication with the CDC
and with a whole cadre of Government agencies that were
involved with that. We also were communicating as I said with
the airport community, with the international aviation
community, and with our employees to get the best possible
information out there as quickly as possible. We worked at not
being unduly alarming but at the same time dealing responsibly
with these issues. We think it was quite successful.
In the after action assessment of things, there were
obviously some plans that were put in place following SARS that
expected a longer period of preparation to be available to the
United States to deal with these threats. It is clear that that
piece of the plan needs to be rethought. That is going on right
now as well.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much. Mr. Crites, the DFW many
years ago--I will date myself, I was instructing at the
helicopter school over at Mineral Wells--I watched that plan
starting to develop. It is quite an operation. You do have a
lot to deal with and I appreciate it very much.
But in your testimony you discussed the contingency
planning guidelines document that came out of DOT's taskforce.
To what extent has industry implemented these guidelines? Maybe
some of the rest would like to comment as well.
Mr. Crites. Thus far, sir, DFW hosted a number of
workshops. We invited all of our airports that serve as
diversion airports to DFW Airport to participate in that. What
came from that is that all of those airports have developed
response plans as it relates to an integrated fashion.
Atlanta has also held a workshop. I know that L.A. and
Pittsburgh are also going to be hosting these things to develop
and implement these plans. But I do not believe that it has
been fully implemented throughout the system yet.
Mr. Boswell. Ms. Friend, did the airlines provide
appropriate guidance to flight attendants on H1N1?
Ms. Friend. They passed on the link to the CDC website.
That is essentially what they did. Some were better than
others.
We actually conducted a survey of the 20 airlines we
represent asking them three specific questions. Were they
permitted to use non-latex gloves for the collection of
essentially trash and used items? Did management have a relaxed
disciplinary policy for flight attendants who thought they
might be suffering some flu-like symptoms? And were they
willing to accommodate schedule adjustments for pregnant and/or
immune compromised flight attendants?
The overwhelming response to numbers two and three was
absolutely not. There was some limited response to number one,
the reason being that airline management seems to think that
flight attendants protecting themselves by the use of non-latex
gloves would frighten the passengers. So most of them did not
give permission for that even when flying into the high risk
areas in Mexico.
That is why we have repeatedly asked the FAA to mandate
these sorts of provisions. We can't count on our employers to
voluntarily do it.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. Ms. Hanni, you mentioned serving on
the DOT's taskforce on lengthy tarmac delays. What was your
role on this taskforce? Would you elaborate on that please?
Ms. Hanni. Yes. I was a member of the taskforce, appointed.
My role was to represent the consumer side. I was the only
nonprofit consumer advocate on the taskforce, and I believe
there were 36 members. It was a learning experience for me. I
had not been on a taskforce before so I didn't really know what
to expect in the end result.
One thing I would like to say is that Jim Crites was a
leader who came in with brilliant ideas, frameworks, and
structures and a true understanding of how to actually solve
some of the problems that we are discussing. He has implemented
at Dallas/Fort Worth exactly what he thought could be done and
believes is possible.
There are a lot of airports that have not adopted it. That
is why we saw what we saw at Columbia, South Carolina and
especially with some of the celebrated international flights
like the K'taka Airlines flight and AeroMexico. Many of those,
they simply didn't have a way to get the passengers off and put
them in a sterile room.
On the taskforce, the one olive branch that was offered was
by TSA. They actually did a presentation for us where they said
they would allow the airports and encourage the airports to
have three things available: one, a sterile room where they can
deplane international passengers on a diverted flight, two,
that those people will be able to be accompanied out of the
room and back to go to the rest rooms and get food for
themselves, and three, that they will be able to be replaned
without having to go through security again. They very strongly
recommended that all of the airports adopt that, especially if
they are airports that get diverted flights, that receive and
are on the list to receive them.
So we are a little discouraged that more airports haven't
done what Jim has done. He has been very proactive and is a
leader in the area of the airports actually having plans that
work.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Meenan, do you have any comment to make on
what she just said?
Mr. Meenan. As I said, our airline members all have
contingency plans in place which they update on a regular
basis. They work with the airports that they serve to make sure
that those contingency plans are effective at those airports.
As to whether or not each of the airports has an independent
contingency plan, I really am not in a position to comment at
this point.
Mr. Boswell. Okay, just for conversation, some of us, I
know some people even here in this Congress, don't have a heart
problem but we might have a physical need. There is no way they
are going to sit out there for more than two or three hours at
the most before they have got to have some kind of facilities.
If the bathrooms are plugged up and so on, what do you tell
that person? Do you have to declare an emergency to get a step?
Is there any way they can get off the airplane and get back
into the terminal?
Mr. Meenan. Under the contingency plans that we have in
place today, if a flight is delayed for a prolonged period on
the order of two or three hours, most of the carriers do offer
the opportunity to deplane if that is at all possible. They
also make accommodations onboard to provide necessities for the
passengers right now.
There have been a lot of stories about all these
nonfunctioning lavatories that basically have not proven to be
the case when we have examined them in more detail.
The fact is that what we are concerned about is not the
contingency plans. We believe those are out there. Carriers are
making hard calls on their own to determine when a plane should
come back in from the runway if necessary. The problem is if we
impose an absolute deadline of, say, three hours. Carriers are
then going to manage so as not to violate that deadline. So you
are going to start seeing airplanes coming in at two hours and
15 minutes or two hours and 45 minutes so that they don't break
the three hour rule.
What will happen then is we will have substantially more
cancellations; we will have substantially more passengers we
are unable to accommodate on the next scheduled flight; we will
have people waiting in airports or in the city where the
airport is located potentially for days when they could have
gotten out. The airline is in the best position to know if that
flight has a fairly good potential to take off before three
hours and 25 minutes.
What we are trying to avoid is a legislated or regulated
hard deadline. It is going to make the system less user
friendly rather than more user friendly.
Mr. Boswell. Well, I can say from a frequent flyer
situation, it really helps for the crew to keep you informed
factually, not otherwise.
Mr. Meenan. We are in absolute agreement.
Mr. Boswell. Well, I think we will bring this discussion to
a close. I want to thank all of you for your participation and
your work. I think we will just keep working at this.
I enjoyed seeing the Washington Post article, Airlines Post
Rare Improvement in Customer Survey. That is a good sign. At a
University of Michigan study, airlines have shown improved
levels of care towards the passengers they have retained with
satisfaction in service levels rising 3.2 percent. I bet Ms.
Hanni would like to see it raised a little higher.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hanni. We all would.
Mr. Boswell. We all would. Thank you very much. This
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Subcommmitee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9955.110