[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3883-3886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1698]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 3883]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. OST-95-248, formerly Docket 50053; RIN 2139-AA00]

14 CFR PART 234


Amendments to the On-Time Disclosure Rule

AGENCY: Office of Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Secretary is withdrawing its rulemaking proposal 
to revise the on-time flight performance reporting requirements. The 
Department had proposed to re-establish the exclusion of flights 
delayed or cancelled due to mechanical problems. This withdrawal of the 
rule is taken in response to comments made to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking by consumer groups, safety experts and various airlines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Stankus or Clay Moritz, Office 
of Airline Information, K-25, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
20590-0001, (202) 366-4387 or 366-4385, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 26, 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration 
(``RSPA'') issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') (60 FR 
29515; June 5, 1995) seeking public comments on the proposal to revise 
the on-time flight performance reporting requirements by re-
establishing the exclusion of flights delayed or cancelled due to 
mechanical problems. The NPRM also sought comments on (1) the 
retroactive application of the proposal, (2) the collection and 
publication of flight completion data, and (3) the filing frequency of 
the data collection.
    Shortly, after the RSPA issued the NPRM, its Office of Airline 
Statistics was transferred to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
(BTS). BTS renamed the office the ``Office of Airline Information'' 
(OAI). OAI administers the on-time flight reporting program.
    Comments to the NPRM were received from eight air carriers (America 
West, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest 
Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Air Lines, and USAir); three 
labor unions (the Air Line Pilots Association, the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and Southwest Airlines 
Pilots' Association); seven consumers groups (American Automobile 
Association, Aviation Consumer Action Project, Best Fares Magazine, 
Consumers Report Magazine, International Airline Passengers 
Association, J.D. Power and Associates, and the National Consumers 
League); one research group (Aviation Foundation); one state agency 
(Michigan Department of Transportation); and 19 individuals, which 
include three pilots and one mechanic. Also, letters to DOT Secretary 
Pena from Representatives Luther and Oberstar, Senator Pressler and the 
House of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure co-signed by Congressmen Duncan, Shuster, Costello, 
Weller, DeFazio, LaHood, Lipinski, Bachus, Clement, Seastrand, Kim, and 
Ewing were placed in the docket.
    The issues addressed by the comments were safety, consumer 
interest, publication of a completion factor, reporting frequency, cost 
of reporting, and restatement of prior data. Each of these issues is 
discussed below under separate captions.

Safety

    The American Automobile Association (AAA) has over 37 million 
members and operates approximately 900 accredited travel agency 
locations. AAA does not believe that any air carrier would cut safety 
to gain a perceived marketing advantage. According to an informal 
survey by AAA travel agencies, flight delays were low on the list of 
air passenger concerns.
    The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) believes the inclusion of 
mechanical delays and cancellations creates a conflict between safety 
and on-time performance. ALPA cites the report ``Zero Accidents--A 
Shared Responsibility,'' prepared by a group of safety experts, that 
reporting mechanical delays and cancellations could intimidate 
maintenance personnel and encourage unsafe practices. ALPA wrote, 
``While airlines and their employees will always consciously place 
safety ahead of on-time performance, the rule as amended in September, 
1994--to include mechanical delays in the on-time reports--raises the 
potential of a conflict between one-time performance and the commitment 
to safety.''
    American Airlines believes that DOT should continue requiring 
airlines to report mechanical delays and cancellations as they have 
done since January 1995 without any impact on safe operations. American 
said that there has not been any reported instance where a pilot or 
mechanic was pressured to compromise safety, since American and other 
airlines did not change their safety-related dispatch of aircraft. By 
letter dated April 21, 1995, the chief safety officers of American, 
Delta, United and USAir advised Secretary Pena that airline employees 
would not compromise safety because of on-time reporting 
considerations. They stated that reporting mechanical delays and 
cancellations creates an incentive for air carriers to improve their 
mechanical performance through the use of spare aircraft and parts, 
mechanic staffing, scheduling practices, fleet decisions, etc.
    In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Robert W. Baker, American's 
Executive Vice President--Operations, stated ``No mechanic would 
jeopardize the lives of customers and fellow workers, as well as his or 
her career to give us a possible boost in a DOT dependability 
statistic.'' He went on to state that if the industry were now sending 
out unsafe aircraft to avoid delays, that fewer delays would be 
reported. However, the incidence of delays has not decreased.
    In a letter to Secretary Pena, the Aviation Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure stated, ``Including mechanical delays 
may actually enhance safety by giving airlines an incentive to keep 
their aircraft in top condition to avoid mechanical problems.'' 
Moreover, since mechanical delays and cancellations have been included 
in the carriers' reports, there is no evidence that safety

[[Page 3884]]

has been impaired. A correlation to reporting mechanical-related delays 
is the reporting of weather-related delays. The subcommittee stated 
that it knows of no instances where an airline employee avoided deicing 
an aircraft, flew in dangerous weather conditions or engaged in risky 
behavior in order to improve on-time performance. ``Given the 
competence and integrity of aviation workers, we cannot believe that 
any of them would put on-time performance ahead of human life.''
    Delta Air Lines states that there is ``no safety issue associated 
with on-time reporting.'' Delta refutes Northwest's claim that, during 
a January 1995 safety conference, there was ``unanimous'' agreement 
that reporting mechanical delays and cancellations have negative safety 
implications. Delta along with American, United and USAir represent 
68.4 percent of revenue passenger miles and 58.5 percent of departures 
among reporting carriers. These four carriers have confidence in the 
integrity of their pilots and mechanics that ``they would not 
compromise safety to make an on-time goal.''
    Since there is no evidence that any airline or employee has ever 
compromised safety to achieve an on-time flight, Delta questions DOT's 
logic for singling out mechanical delays for exclusion from the 
reporting system. Delta believes that mechanical delays should be 
treated in the same manner as weather delays, fueling delays and 
deicing delays, since they all involve an element of employee judgment.
    Mr. Jeffrey R. Grunow believes U.S. air travelers are intelligent 
consumers and do not need the benevolent protection of the government 
on this issue. One of the FAA's roles is to monitor the maintenance of 
aircraft. Maintenance delays should remain in the on-time reports.
    International airline Passengers Association (IAPA) believes that 
the consumer should know if an airline is ``suffering many mechanical 
delays, it may be an early sign of financial distress or retention of 
older aircraft too long.'' Also, IAPA believes in the integrity of the 
professional mechanics, flight crews and cabin crews to operate in a 
safe manner. If DOT is concerned that a mechanic would take improper 
action to improve a carrier's on-time performance, it should impose 
substantial fines or criminal sanctions for such an act.
    The international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 
(IAMAW) strongly supports the exclusion of mechanical delays and 
cancellations from on-time reporting. It states that interests of 
airline safety cannot be subordinated to the carriers' competitive need 
to improve on-time performance percentages. IAMAW stated that safety 
experts believe that ``inclusion of mechanicals intimidates maintenance 
personnel and encourages potentially unsafe practices.''
    Mr. Darryl Jenkins, a visiting scholar at George Washington 
University, does not believe that safety will be adversely impacted by 
the reporting of mechanicals. However, if the Department believes 
otherwise, then delays due to weather should not be included in on-time 
performance report because dispatchers face a conflict between on-time 
performance and safety.
    State of Michigan Department of Transportation believes including 
mechanical delays and cancellations could compromise safety. Airline 
personnel may feel compelled to send out an aircraft with mechanical 
problems to maintain on-time performance records.
    Northwest Airlines contends that the inclusion of mechanicals may 
compromise safety by placing undue pressure on maintenance personnel 
and increase the likelihood of human error. Northwest states that the 
elimination of mechanicals from the Department's on-time reporting 
system ranked among the top five safety recommendations of the Aircraft 
Maintenance Procedures and Inspections Workshop at the 1995 Aviation 
Safety Conference. Northwest stated, ``including mechanical delays in 
on-time reporting may well have an impact on the safety of our system. 
There is no legitimate reason for assuming any additional safety risk 
for the sake of more pristine on-time performance data. We can and 
should choose to eliminate this risk.''
    Southwest Airlines believes the only practical means of resolving 
the inherent conflict between on-time performance and safety is 
reinstitution of the exclusion for mechanical problems. Because on-time 
rankings are widely reported in the media, they have become an 
important component in airline advertising.
    The Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) states that the 
inclusion of mechanicals puts added pressure on an employee to get a 
job done properly and in a timely manner. SWAPA recommends that DOT 
take the safe and proven action of not reporting mechanicals.
    TWA believes that there is a serious risk that operating personnel 
will feel pressured by the on-time reporting requirements to release 
aircraft faster, and that the risk of error will be increased by such 
pressure.
    United Air Lines states that including mechanicals in its on-time 
reports for the first several months of 1995 has not otherwise affected 
United's operation or its commitment to safety. Passenger safety is 
still the most important responsibility of air carriers. For the 
Department to second-guess its earlier decision to include mechanical 
delays and cancellations and now reverse itself can only cause 
consumers and the airline industry, generally, to question the 
Department's credibility.
    USAir (now US Airways) states that there is no evidence to support 
the argument that on-time reporting statistics affect safety or 
maintenance practices. Excluding mechanical delays rewards carriers 
that choose to operate with older, less reliable aircraft, or with less 
rigorous preventive maintenance programs.
    Mr. Ed Wayman, an accountant with piloting experience, says that he 
always takes the safe course when it comes to flying, and this goes 
double when he has family along. He believes that mechanicals should be 
reported so that he and others can make more informed decisions.
    Mr. Roger White, a pilot and airline consumer, believes that no 
pilot is going to take an aircraft with a questionable mechanical 
defect. No airline will survive if it intimidates mechanics into 
releasing non-airworthy aircraft. Too many people are involved in the 
process to say that one person alone can allow an unsafe aircraft to 
fly.
    Representative Oberstar states, ``The purpose of the [on-time] 
reporting was to encourage airlines to modify their behavior, not take 
risks. For that reason, mechanical delays, which are beyond the control 
of the carriers, wisely were not included in the counts.'' 
Representative Oberstar adds, ``Mechanical delays are beyond the 
control of the carriers. It is critically important to safety that such 
delays be honored until the repairs are made. No good public purpose is 
served by giving an airline a black mark for fixing an airplane.'' 
Representative Oberstar argues that the Department should remove 
mechanical delays from the reports.

Consumer Interest

    AAA stated that flights delayed or cancelled because of mechanical 
problems should be included in the air carrier on-time performance in 
order to provide the most reliable and accurate information to the 
consumer.
    American and Delta believe that the inclusion of mechanical delays 
and cancellations is pro consumer, allowing

[[Page 3885]]

the consumer to know his overall chance of receiving on-time service.
    Delta believes that if mechanical delays are excluded, the 
Department should limit the exclusion to the one flight where the 
mechanical occurred. The Department should not allow carriers to reap 
an unintended windfall by permitting exclusions of downline delays 
which may be only tenuously related to the initial event.
    The National Consumers League, International Airline Passengers 
Association, Aviation Foundation, Best Fares, Consumer Reports Travel 
Letter, Aviation Consumer Action Project and JD Power Associates filed 
a consensus statement. Their main concern is that the traveling 
consumers receive ``reliable, accurate, complete, and consistent 
information to make sound travel decisions.'' They believe that 
carriers must report their mechanical delays and cancellations to have 
reliable, accurate, complete, and consistent data.
    Donald J. Arndt, a business traveler, wants more informative data 
to help when making travel decisions. Delays should be reported in five 
categories: weather, mechanicals, airline-induced, taxi delays, and 
other (passenger-induced, no fault of air carrier). If DOT drops 
mechanical delays and cancellations from the data, it should just stop 
providing the information. Mr. Arndt stated, ``The main problem we have 
today is the amount of lying that goes on with airline information.''
    Peter Bentley requests that DOT not exclude mechanical delays and 
cancellations. He believes exclusion would distort the on-time results 
in favor of the least efficient airlines and be detrimental to the 
airlines that do not inconvenience their customers and still maintain 
safe aircraft.
    The Aviation Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
believes that on-time performance data provide important information to 
consumers that would lose value if certain types of delays were 
excluded.
    Mr. Roy L. Farrelly, a pilot from Delta Air Lines, states that 
excluding mechanical delays would make the reports useless.
    Ms. Laurie Fitch, Mr. Joseph M. Grohsan, Ms. Wendy Jaquez, Mr. 
Kenneth R. Kirkwood, Mr. G.L. Krayniak, Mr. Daniel C. Palmer, Mr. Gary 
Reed, and Mr. William M. Patterson filed separate comments. They want 
total, accurate information to make travel decisions. They support the 
inclusion of mechanical delays in the on-time statistics.
    IAPA would like the reason for flight delays to be identified. Some 
delays are caused by weather, by the air traffic control system or by 
the airlines. ``Any accurate system of on-time reporting should give 
higher grades to the airline that gets its passengers to its 
destination, rather than the airline that has a mechanical, cancels a 
flight and strands the passengers.'' Excluding mechanical delays from 
on-time reporting ends up penalizing a carrier that serves its 
passengers by getting them to their destination by using a backup 
aircraft when it has a mechanical problem.
    Mr. Darryl Jenkins wrote, ``In reality, the Department has failed 
to appreciate the power of information in the hands of the consumer. 
Information that is incomplete, unreliable and inaccurate--such as is 
being proposed--only sustains poor performance and reinforces 
marketplace inefficiencies.''
    Mr. Keith. Johnson, a pilot from United Airlines, supports the 
exclusion of mechanical delays and cancellations. He also believes that 
carriers like United, Delta and American are at a disadvantage because 
they use the latest technology that records their takeoff and landing 
times automatically. Northwest and Southwest use manual input, which 
Mr. Johnson believes can work to those carriers' benefit.
    National Consumer League asks that DOT provide complete information 
about airline on-time performance. Excluding mechanicals is basically 
unfair. An airline that encounters a few weather delays, which are 
unavoidable, loses out in the on-time rankings to another carrier that 
misses the bad weather but has many flights delayed and canceled 
because of mechanical problems, because mechanical problems are not 
part of the calculation. By excluding mechanicals, DOT penalizes the 
very airlines that have chosen to put in place aggressive preventive 
maintenance programs.
    Mr. Craig Searls says that it is very important to business 
travelers to assess the probability of arriving at their destination 
on-time. He believes most delays are caused by the weather, mechanical 
problems and system operation delays. The weather can be estimated from 
the newspapers, but the only way to assess the likelihood of mechanical 
problems is through DOT's on-time performance reports.
    United Air Lines believes that including mechanical delays avoids 
the differences in how airlines categorize mechanical delays, and 
provides uniform and complete public disclosure. Excluding mechanicals 
skews the data and produces an inaccurate assessment of air carrier 
performance.
    USAir believes that excluding mechanicals would be a real 
disservice to consumers because it paints an inaccurate picture of 
carriers' performances.
    Mr. James Whelan, an aircraft maintenance professional with 30+ 
years of experience, states that maintenance delays are part of an 
airline's overall on-time performance and should be included in the 
statistics.
    Mr. White wants to know what percentage of all flights arrive on-
time, not just the ``good flights'' or those that do not have a 
mechanical problem.
    Autre E. Wilson and Betty S. Wilson filed a joint comment. They 
believe mechanicals should be included in the on-time performance 
reports to provide the public with a real picture of airline 
performance. Air traffic controllers at St. Louis Lambert International 
Airport are frequently cited as the cause of airline delays when, in 
fact, the actual cause is an air carrier that operates many older jet 
aircraft.

Publication of a Flight Completion Factor

    American believes that mechanicals should be included in the 
completion percentage even if they are excluded from the on-time 
percentages. DOT could require air carriers to tag those flights which 
are to be excluded from dependability reporting due to mechanical 
problems. DOT would then have comprehensive data to compute an accurate 
departure-completion percentage for each airline, as well as the 
ability to audit carrier compliance with the rules governing mechanical 
exclusions.
    Delta believes the Department should collect and publish the 
overall scheduled completion rates for all carriers, which is the ratio 
of total domestic flights scheduled to total domestic flights 
completed. Nonscheduled and extra-section flights should be excluded 
because the numbers of such operations vary from carrier to carrier and 
from season to season and would distort the percentages. Delta believes 
publishing a completion factor would reward carriers that incur the 
cost of having spare aircraft and crew available.
    IAPA believes that airline passengers should have information on 
the actual number of flights completed by an airline compared to the 
number of flights scheduled. All flights should be included regardless 
of the reason for cancellation, i.e., mechanical or weather problems.
    Northwest and Southwest support the publication of completion 
percentages so long as mechanicals are excluded and

[[Page 3886]]

airlines will not be forced to incur any significant additional burden 
or cost. They believe the reasons for excluding mechanicals from the 
completion percentages are the same for excluding mechanicals from the 
on-time reports. Northwest believes that the completion percentage 
should be based on the number of scheduled departures completed rather 
than the number of scheduled miles completed.
    The National Consumer League believes that one of the deficiencies 
in DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report is the failure to include 
information on which carriers most often complete their scheduled 
flights.
    TWA believes that the publication of a completion percentage will 
provide useful information to consumers but, because the information is 
already available in reports filed with DOT, no further submissions 
should be required of carriers.
    United believes that DOT can readily publish a completion factor 
from the data that is now reported. However, if mechanicals are once 
again excluded, United see no benefit of only reporting weather and air 
traffic-control related cancellations.
    USAir states that a completion percentage should be based on the 
number of scheduled flights completed compared to its number of 
scheduled flights. Using T-100 data would skew the data, because extra 
section flights would cause a carrier's completion percentage to be 
overstated.

Reporting Frequency

    American and Delta believes that less frequently reporting would 
not reduce reporting burden and support monthly reporting.
    Northwest believes that significant savings to the airlines, CRS 
operators and the Department could be realized by the change to 
quarterly submissions.
    Southwest states that less frequent reporting would not 
significantly reduce the burden on carriers or increase the usefulness 
of the information to consumers, who receive more current information 
by monthly, rather than quarterly reports.
    TWA supports the continuation of monthly reporting. TWA states that 
since carriers will still have to collect on-time performance data, it 
will not make any difference whether they submit the data monthly or 
quarterly. There is no significant saving from less frequent reporting.
    United Air Lines prefers monthly reporting, because consumers 
benefit from having the most recent and reliable information on which 
to base their purchasing decisions.

Cost of Reporting

    Delta states that it is less costly to report under the current 
system where carriers report all domestic scheduled passenger flights.

Resubmission of Prior Data To Exclude Mechanicals

    Northwest supports the retroactive application of the mechanical-
based exclusion in order to preserve the integrity and consumer 
usefulness of the Department's historical on-time data.
    While United Air Lines believes that airlines should continue to 
include mechanicals in their on-time performance, if the Department 
decides to exclude them, then the airlines should refile past reports 
for the intervening months to ensure that all monthly data are 
comparable and consistent.

Determination

    Based on the reporting experience since 1995, the Department has 
decided to withdraw its notice of proposed rulemaking. There have been 
no incidents where a carrier operated a flight with an unairworthy 
aircraft to improve its on-time flight performance. The requirement to 
report mechanicals may create a market-based incentive for airlines to 
improve preventive maintenance procedures and to have readily available 
back-up flight crews and aircraft. Title 15 CFR Part 234 does not 
specify an on-time flight performance standard that carriers must meet. 
Rather, the carriers' reports provide consumers with information on 
carrier performance, which the consumer may use in carrier selection.
    The Department compared the carrier rankings for the calendar year 
1994 with calendar year 1995. The former period excludes mechanical 
delays and cancellations, while the latter period includes all flights. 
With the exception of two carriers, on-time performance percentages 
were lower in 1995. The lower on-time percentages can be attributed, in 
part, to the elimination of the mechanical exclusion. We believe the 
1995 reports are a more truthful portrayal of air carrier performance.
    Because we are continuing current practice, there is no need for 
collecting and publishing flight completion data. The carriers 
expressed little interest in reducing filing frequency so we are, 
therefore, not making any change.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 1999.
Rodney Slater,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-1698 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-U