[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24287-24288]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  SHORTAGE OF AIRLINE PASSENGER SPACE

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the most serious issues facing our 
national air transport system is the shortage of space--both in the air 
and on the ground at key airports. We've seen this most clearly this 
past summer in the backups at Chicago O'Hare and in much of the 
airspace in the Northeast.
  Americans have developed a tremendous appetite for air travel for 
both leisure and business needs. In the last few years, with our 
economy so strong, the result has been an increasing number of packed 
planes all year round, especially during the peak summer travel season.
  But for many Americans trying to enjoy some vacation time, this 
summer was a season of discontent filled with bad weather, aging air 
traffic control systems and airline-employee difficulties. Countless 
Americans spent hours sitting on the tarmac at O'Hare waiting to take 
off, or sitting in the airport lounge, waiting for their planes to 
arrive. Thousands of Americans found themselves delayed, stranded and 
disappointed. A once-reliable system has become increasingly 
unreliable.
  Some of these events are unavoidable. Clearly, there are times when 
bad weather requires us to delay or cancel flights. But when an airport 
is near capacity, even the tiniest alteration in landing and takeoff 
timing can quickly turn into considerable delays.
  We've been seeing the warning signs for years. The National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission, chaired by the current Secretary of 
Commerce, Norm Mineta, warned us three years ago about our looming air 
travel crisis.
  In fact, the very first sentence of the Commission's report reads as 
follows:

       Without prompt action, the United States' aviation system 
     is headed toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the 
     century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen, it will 
     result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm the 
     efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our 
     position in the global marketplace.

  Mr. President, the future is now. As we have turned the corner into 
the 21st Century, the predicted air traffic control crisis is clearly 
upon us.
  I believe FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has done a terrific job. 
However, there are a number of steps that the FAA and the airlines must 
take--in both the short and long run--to modernize the air traffic 
control system and reduce congestion, particularly as it affects the 
heavily traveled northeast air corridors between New York, Boston, and 
Washington, DC, and Chicago and other key Midwestern airports.
  In the short term, the FAA needs to make better use of existing 
capacity. This means better communication between the FAA and airlines 
when bad weather ties up key airports and decisions must be made about 
reducing or rerouting air traffic. Right now, airlines have no 
coordinated plans on bad weather days, and they're left to guess 
whether their competitors will cancel or slow their flights or not.
  Now I recognize that airlines can't simply pick up the phone and talk 
to each other about capacity decisions. Such discussions would run 
afoul of our nation's antitrust laws. But Congress and FAA should 
consider whether they should grant some form of very limited immunity 
so that airlines can discuss with the FAA the most efficient way to 
cope with bad weather.
  Another short term solution involves alternative routings. I 
understand that the airlines, working cooperatively with FAA, have 
begun flying many routes at lower altitudes. This practice is costly 
since flying at lower altitude burns more fuel--but it should help 
increase airspace capacity. FAA also needs to explore the possibility 
of accessing airspace previously reserved for military use. Much of 
this military airspace can be made available to commercial operations 
on a short-term basis during severe weather.
  The FAA must also add additional air traffic controllers. And FAA 
must make sure that these controllers have the most modern, up-to-date 
tools available to do their jobs.
  The FAA needs to take full advantage of GPS technology to allow more 
direct routings between airports. FAA also needs to develop technology 
to allow pilots and air traffic controllers to communicate more 
effectively with each other. One such technology is advanced data links 
which could reduce controllers' workload and improve their ability to 
create and communicate alternative routines in severe weather. It would 
be far more accurate and efficient for many air traffic control 
commands to be given to pilots in written form. The airlines and the 
FAA are currently undergoing tests along those lines, but I believe 
they must move forward more quickly.
  Finally, we in Congress must continue to increase FAA research and 
operating budgets. We need to expand programs that examine the problems 
of aging aircraft. And we need to invest more in technologies that will 
give both pilots and air traffic controllers the very best equipment 
for making safe decisions. We've got to fully fund NASA aviation 
programs like the one designed to better detect wake-vortex trailing 
behind aircraft. Such technology can allow the FAA to narrow the 
decades old 7-mile separation standard and free up more airspace.
  But these actions alone will not be sufficient. Our current system 
can barely handle the roughly 600 million passengers that currently 
travel each year. Yet, it is projected that the system will need to 
handle an expected 1 billion annual passengers within the next decade. 
Indeed, our demand for air travel seems ready to overrun our over-
burdened system. In some cases, we do need to add additional runway 
capacity.
  Let's look specifically at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. 
O'Hare is a place that I--and hundreds of thousands of fellow Iowans 
who land or connect through there every year--know well. On a blue-sky 
day, it's one of the best, most efficient airports in America. However, 
when the rain clouds or thunderstorms roll in, O'Hare can become one 
gigantic travel obstruction.
  When O'Hare backs up, the result is a monumental ripple effect on the 
entire air traffic control system from Los Angeles to Boston. Because 
of its central location and population base, Chicago O'Hare has 
developed into the first or second largest hub airport in this country. 
It is the only hub that has two major airlines which maintain competing 
hub operations. This is good for the citizens of Chicago and Illinois, 
and it is also good for the people of Iowa and surrounding states that 
use O'Hare to connect to distant destinations.
  We in Iowa can connect to our final destinations through such hubs as 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati, St. Louis or Denver. However, the 
largest share of Iowans choose to go through O'Hare because it is the 
largest and most convenient hub for our citizens. O'Hare also provides 
far more international connections than those other airports. In fact, 
well over 50 airlines operate there. In the past 12 months, more than 
360,000 of my fellow Iowans have flown through O'Hare.
  So the problems at O'Hare are not just a Chicago issue, they are a 
Midwestern issue, and they are a national issue.
  This situation calls for immediate action. I strongly believe that 
the most important step we can take to begin to

[[Page 24288]]

alleviate our national airline crisis is to provide additional 
facilities for planes to land and take off at Chicago's O'Hare airport. 
I believe O'Hare should logically have additional parallel runways to 
provide expanded capacity.
  As we move into this new century, we need to ensure that the critical 
pathways of our air transport system are not encumbered by local 
disagreements, which constrain the needs of interstate commerce. In 
addition, if we want to foster increased competition between airlines 
and see continued service to O'Hare from the smaller commercial 
airports like Burlington and Waterloo in Iowa, and if we want to expand 
services to cities like Sioux City, then we must provide additional 
take off and landing space for new airlines.
  Some have suggested building a new airport south of Chicago to 
relieve the problems at O'Hare. I feel that this is a poor policy 
choice. This proposed new airport has yet to attract any airline 
tenants who would pay for it. Furthermore, this proposed airport would 
drain customers away from Chicago's Midway Airport, which is the 9th 
busiest airport in America and provides point to point flights to over 
50 cities. In addition, in order to build this new airport, we would 
have to take 24,000 acres of farmland out of production. Building 
another airport in Chicago does not solve our current problems at 
O'Hare.
  The solution is new runways at O'Hare. O'Hare certainly has the space 
for them. We know that building new runways is far more cost-effective 
than spending billions of dollars on a new airport. And new runways 
would mean an immediate reduction in delays at O'Hare. These new 
runways would allow simultaneous landings during all weather periods--
something the current configuration does not allow.
  Normally, in order for a runway to be built, approval must be granted 
by the operator of the airport--the City of Chicago in the case of 
O'Hare--and the FAA. However, under Illinois law, the Governor of 
Illinois, through his Department of Transportation, must also approve 
such a plan. Speaking as a friendly neighbor from Iowa, I am sending a 
letter to both Mayor Richard M. Daley and Governor George H. Ryan 
asking that they approve new runways in the interest of improving our 
entire national air transport system.
  While I am not privy to all of the local concerns surrounding O'Hare, 
I know that all airports confront noise mitigation problems. I also 
know that Chicago O'Hare has the best-funded and most extensive sound 
mitigation program of any airport in the country. I applaud the Mayor 
for that far-sighted undertaking. As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I offer my assistance to the Mayor and my distinguished 
colleagues from Illinois to ensure that appropriate Federal dollars are 
channeled into that effort.
  I would say to Governor Ryan, who, I understand, favors a new 
airport, that I do not see much in the way of Federal assistance for 
new airport construction in the foreseeable future. Airports today are 
built and/or rehabilitated by airport tenants and their passengers. I 
believe that the most efficient way to minimize our tax dollars is to 
maximize our current facilities and continue to upgrade our air traffic 
control system.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed overwhelmingly and the President 
signed, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century, commonly known as Air21. As many of my colleagues know, I 
worked closely with Senators Grassley, McCain, Hollings, Rockefeller 
and Durbin to draft the provision in the Air21 legislation that phases 
out the artificial slot-constraints at O'Hare by July 1, 2002. The 
intent of our effort was to increase small and mid-sized communities' 
access to the national air transportation system via O'Hare and to 
provide for increased competition at that premier connecting hub. This 
increased access is critical for business wishing to settle and grow in 
small and mid-sized communities.
  While we succeeded in eliminating the barrier posed by slots, it is 
clear to me that O'Hare's runway, gate, and terminal space constraints 
continued to keep small and mid-sized communities from fully realizing 
the benefits of the Air21 legislation. I was extremely pleased to hear 
about the substantial progress in Chicago's World Gateway program. This 
program calls for $3.2 billion in infrastructure investments over the 
next several years at O'Hare--including 20 new gates and 2 new 
terminals. My understanding is that the two major carriers at O'Hare--
United Airlines and American Airlines--have reached agreement with the 
City on this. I congratulate Mayor Daley on his work in bringing that 
agreement to closure. I also applaud American and United for their far-
sighted investment in O'Hare. I only request that every effort be made 
to accelerate that program and to assure that space is allocated to 
smaller aircraft that serve smaller cities so that small town America 
gets a fair shake.
  Without new runways, we will still be constrained by weather and air 
traffic control problems. It is time to remove this barrier to small 
and mid-sized community access to O'Hare. And it is time to expand our 
current national air traffic system in an effective, cost-efficient, 
cost-efficient way. We have neither the time nor the money nor the 
political will to build a new airport. Instead, we need to maximize the 
resources we already have. In the end, we may have to find a federal 
solution to this national problem.
  New runways would make O'Hare and our entire national air transport 
system run more smoothly. I am certain that the hundreds of thousands 
of Iowans and others across the country who travel through O'Hare each 
year would appreciate this improvement. As would all those whose travel 
plans to other hubs and destinations are upset because aircraft are 
tied up at O'Hare. There is no more efficient, effective solution to 
aircraft delays in the Midwest and much of the Northeast than providing 
additional runway capacity at O'Hare.

                          ____________________