National Airspace System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed
Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays (14-DEC-01,
GAO-02-185).
Initiatives to address flight delays include adding new runways
to safely accommodate more aircraft, and doing more to coordinate
efforts to adjust to spring and summer storms. Although most of
these efforts were developed separately, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has since incorporated many of them into an
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), which is designed to give more
focus to these initiatives. FAA acknowledges that the plan is not
intended as a final solution to congestion and delay problems.
The plan focuses on initiatives that can be implemented within 10
years and generally excludes approaches lacking widespread
support across stakeholder groups. The current initiatives, if
successfully carried out, will add substantial capacity to the
nation's air transport system. Even so, these efforts are
unlikely to prevent delays from becoming worse unless the reduced
traffic levels resulting from the events of September 11 persist.
One key reason is that most delay-prone airports have limited
ability to increase their capacity, especially by adding new
runways--the main capacity-building element of OEP. The air
transport system has long-term needs beyond the initiatives now
under way. One initiative would add new capacity--not by adding
runways to existing capacity-constrained airports, but rather by
building entirely new airports or using nearby airports with
available capacity. Another would manage and distribute demand
within the system's existing capacity. A third would develop
other modes of intercity travel, such as, but not limited to,
high-speed rail where metropolitan areas are relatively close
together. Because of increasing demands on the air transport
system or because of the need to meet security and other concerns
prompted by the recent terrorist attacks, the federal government
will need to assume a central role.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-185
ACCNO: A02555
TITLE: National Airspace System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays
DATE: 12/14/2001
SUBJECT: Air transportation operations
Airports
Commercial aviation
Strategic planning
Terrorism
FAA Airport Improvement Program
FAA Operational Evolution Plan
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-185
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
December 2001 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight
Delays
GAO- 02- 185
Page i GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Diverse Set of Initiatives Was Under Way to
Address Delays 8 Capacity to Be Added in Next 10 Years Will Likely Have
Limited
Effect in Keeping Delays From Rising to Previous Levels 16 Other Measures
Needed to Help Reduce Delays Are More Difficult
to Implement but May Be More Viable in Light of Recent Events 22 Conclusions
29 Recommendations 30 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 34
Appendix II Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays 36
Appendix III Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan 50
Category 1: Adding Airport Infrastructure 50 Category 2: Managing Demand 52
Category 3: Using Ground Alternatives 57
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 59 GAO Contacts 59
Acknowledgments 59
Tables
Table 1: Examples of Government Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays 9 Table
2: Examples of Airline Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays 10 Table 3:
Examples of Airport Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays 11 Table 4:
Projected Capacity Increases at the Most Delay- Prone
Airports 18 Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Table 5: List of Potential Measures- Not in the OEP- to Reduce the Airport
Capacity Gap 23
Abbreviations
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives ACI- NA Airports Council
International - North America ADS- B Automatic Dependent Surveillance -
Broadcast AIR- 21 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21 st Century ATC air traffic control AVOSS Aircraft Vortex
Spacing System DDTC Digital Display Taxi Clearance DOD Department of Defense
DOT Department of Transportation EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAA
Federal Aviation Administration FFP1 Free Flight Phase 1 FLIR Forward
Looking Infrared Radar GA general aviation GPS Global Positioning System
Page iii GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
HUGS Heads- Up Guidance System ILS Instrument Landing System ITWS Integrated
Terminal Weather System LAAS Local Area Augmentation System LAHSO Land- and-
Hold Short Operations MASSPORT Massachusetts Port Authority MII majority-
in- interest NAS National Airspace System NATCA National Air Traffic
Controllers Association NIMS National Airspace System Information Management
System NOCC National Operations Control Center OCC Operations Control Center
OEP Operational Evolution Plan OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation
PFC passenger facility charge PRM Precision Runway Monitor RNAV area
navigation SOIA Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach TAAP Tactical
Altitude Assignment Program TARGETS terminal area route generation,
evaluation and
traffic simulation TRACON Terminal Approach Radar Control
Page 1 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
December 14, 2001 The Honorable John McCain Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation United States Senate
Dear Senator McCain: In recent years, airline flight delays have been among
the most vexing problems in the national transportation system. They reached
unprecedented levels in 2000, when one flight in four was delayed. Although
bad weather has historically been the main cause of delays, a growing reason
has been the inability of the nation?s air transport system to efficiently
absorb all of the aircraft trying to use limited airspace or trying to take
off or land at busy airports.
Recent events- most notably the terrorist attacks on buildings in New York
City and Washington, D. C., using hijacked airliners, and the economic
slowdown that preceded these attacks- have changed the extent of the delay
problem, at least for the short term. With many airlines cutting their
flights by 20 percent or more, the air transport system is having less
difficulty absorbing the volume of flights. Whether the volume of flights
will continue at these lowered levels is unknown. However, it is likely that
a more robust economy and less public apprehension about flying will lead to
renewed demands on the air transport system. If so, concerns about delays-
and the actions being taken to address them- may once again command national
attention.
Addressing delay problems requires action by several sectors of the aviation
community because no single entity has the authority or ability to solve
delay- related problems. The federal government, especially through the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its parent agency, the Department
of Transportation (DOT), plays a major role by operating the nation?s air
traffic control system, distributing federal funding for airports, and
setting operating standards for commercial aircraft and airports. However,
the nation?s airports are primarily owned and operated by local units of
government, so that decisions about such steps as expanding airport capacity
are primarily local in nature. The nation?s airlines also play a key role.
Their business decisions have a strong effect on the volume and routing of
flights, the type and size of aircraft used, and the
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
degree to which aircraft are upgraded to take advantage of new technology.
You asked us to examine the aviation community?s efforts to reduce delays.
As agreed with your office, we focused our work on the following questions:
What initiatives are planned or under way by the federal government,
airlines, and airports to address flight delays? What effect are these
initiatives likely to have on reducing delays? What other options are
available to address delay problems?
Our work involved extensive consultation with various stakeholder groups in
the aviation community, including airlines, airports, local governments,
industry associations, employee organizations, federal regulatory agencies,
and aviation researchers. We contacted officials from DOT, FAA, 8 major
airlines, and 18 large airports that experience major congestion and delays
to identify the main initiatives planned or under way to address congestion
and delay problems. As we were conducting our work, FAA released a plan,
called the Operational Evolution Plan, incorporating many of these
initiatives, and we focused much of our remaining efforts on analyzing this
plan. Our gathering of information and FAA?s issuance of the Operational
Evolution Plan both occurred before the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, and the initiatives that actually move forward as well as the plan
itself are subject to change. To assess the likely impact that current and
planned initiatives will have on reducing delays, we relied on the extensive
body of work we have conducted on aviation over the past decade, the views
of FAA and other stakeholders, and evaluations and studies conducted by
other researchers. We used these same types of sources in identifying other
measures for addressing delay problems. Appendix I explains our scope and
methodology in more detail. Our work, which we conducted from October 2000
through October 2001, was done in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
The federal government, airlines, and airports have a diverse set of
initiatives under way to address flight delays. Examples of these
initiatives include adding new runways, finding new ways to safely
accommodate more aircraft in the skies, and doing more to coordinate efforts
to adjust to spring and summer storms. Although most of these efforts were
developed separately, FAA has since incorporated many of them into a plan,
called the Operational Evolution Plan, which is designed to give more focus
to these initiatives. FAA acknowledged that the plan is not intended as a
final Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
solution to congestion and delay problems. The plan focuses on initiatives
that can be implemented within 10 years and generally excludes any
approaches that lack widespread support across stakeholder groups. FAA acts
as the plan?s coordinator, though the various stakeholders continue to
retain responsibility for individual initiatives. FAA has made a good start
in implementing the plan and believes that the steps taken to date have had
some effect in the delay reductions that occurred in the first 6 months of
2001.
The current initiatives, if successfully carried out, will add a substantial
amount of capacity to the nation?s air transport system. Even so, these
efforts are unlikely to prevent delays from becoming worse unless reduced
traffic levels following the September 11 terrorist attacks persist over the
long term. One key reason is that a number of the most delay- prone airports
have limited ability to increase their capacity, especially in the form of
adding new runways- the main capacity- building element of the Operational
Evolution Plan. Many of the most delay- prone airports, such as La Guardia,
Newark, Kennedy, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, would find it
difficult to build an additional runway either because they are out of room
or they would face intense local opposition. Persistent delays at key
airports such as these will continue to act as ?choke points? that slow air
traffic moving throughout the system. Thus, the system will have difficulty
handling growth, even if this growth is considerably less robust than what
was forecasted before the terrorist attacks. If growth should match the
earlier, very robust forecasts, the delay problem will only be more
pronounced.
The air transport system has long- term needs that require attention beyond
the initiatives currently under way. Other measures exist- some perhaps made
more viable by the recent terrorist attacks. These measures consist of three
main types. The first involves adding new capacity- not by adding runways to
existing capacity- constrained airports, but rather by building entirely new
airports or using other nearby airports that have available capacity. The
second involves ways to manage and distribute demand within the system?s
existing capacity. Examples include limiting the number of takeoffs and
landings during peak periods or limiting the ability of aircraft, other than
those operated by airlines, to use especially crowded or sensitive airports
(under current law, all aircraft have equal access to even the largest
airports). The third involves developing other modes of intercity travel,
such as, but not limited to, high- speed rail where metropolitan areas are
relatively close together. These measures would require extensive change;
may conflict with the interests of one or more of the key stakeholder
groups; and, in many cases, would be costly.
Page 4 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
With the rising need to consider these three measures, either because of the
increasing demand on the air transport system or because of the need to
develop options that meet security and other concerns prompted by the
terrorist attacks, the federal government will need to assume a central
role. This role should include identifying the measures that are most
appropriate for individual situations, framing the discussion, and moving
forward with the best solutions. DOT has recognized the need for more and
better long- range planning on the potential use of such measures, but its
efforts are currently just in the beginning stages of development. The
current hiatus in air traffic growth represents an opportunity for such
planning to take place.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Transportation begin a more
extensive evaluation of initiatives to address flight delays, including
intermodal solutions, such as high- speed rail where appropriate, and a
dialogue with the aviation community and other transportation stakeholders
as a basis for developing a comprehensive blueprint for addressing the long-
term needs of the nation?s air transport system.
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. In
responding, both DOT and FAA officials generally concurred with the facts as
presented in the draft report. They also provided some technical
clarifications, which have been incorporated. Neither agency commented on
the report?s conclusions or recommendations.
In 2000, an unprecedented number of delays and cancellations in commercial
airline flights occurred. At 31 of the nation?s busiest airports, 28 percent
of the domestic flights arrived late. 1 Certain flights were almost always
late; for example, in December 2000, 146 regularly scheduled flights were
late 80 percent or more of the time. The percentage of delayed flights
declined to 24 percent in the first 6 months of 2001. According to FAA and
others, the decline likely reflected various factors, such as better
weather, fewer flying passengers because of the economic slowdown, a
1 In the past, there was no single, agreed- upon definition of delay,
resulting in markedly different figures about the extent of the problem. To
the degree possible, our figures are based on the definition used by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a DOT agency. Under this definition, a
flight is late when it arrives at the gate 15 minutes or more after its
scheduled arrival time. (Canceled flights are also included.) In March 2001,
FAA?s Administrator announced that FAA would also adopt this definition. Our
figures are based on domestic flights of the nation?s 10 largest airlines
(United, American, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, US Airways, Continental,
TWA, America West, and Alaska). Background
Page 5 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
strike that idled one carrier?s aircraft for several months, 2 a reduced
demand on the system, and actions taken to better manage the nation?s
airways. The September 11 terrorist hijacking of four commercial airliners
has further contributed to a drop in air passengers and scheduled flights,
with major airlines cutting the number of flights by 20 percent or more and
one carrier, Midway Airlines, ceasing operations entirely.
Although recent events may have moved airport congestion off center stage as
a major national issue, delays remain a pervasive problem, in part because
of the interdependence of the nation?s airports. The effect of delays can
quickly spread beyond those airports where delays tend to occur most often,
such as New York?s La Guardia, Chicago O?Hare, Newark, and Atlanta
Hartsfield. Delays at such airports, particularly those with large numbers
of flights, can quickly create a ?ripple? effect of delays that affect many
airports across the country. For example, flights scheduled to take off for
such airports may find themselves being held at the departing airport
because there is no airspace to accommodate the flight. Similarly, an
aircraft late in leaving the airport where delays are occurring may be late
in arriving at its destination, thus delaying the departure time for the
aircraft?s next flight. The September 11 attacks may also have added a new
dimension to delays because the more thorough screening of airline
passengers at ticket counters and security check points now takes additional
time. So far, FAA and airlines have addressed this issue by telling
passengers to arrive earlier for their flights and to be prepared for longer
processing times. Whether additional security will affect the timeliness of
aircraft flights has yet to be determined.
Delays have many causes, but weather is the most prevalent. Figures compiled
by FAA indicate that weather causes about 70 percent of the delays each
year. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of capacity 3 -that
is, the inability of the air transport system to handle the amount of
traffic seeking to use it. 4 Capacity can be measured in a variety
2 The strike affected Comair, a regional subsidiary of Delta Air Lines,
grounding its airplanes for nearly 3 months. Comair, which is based at
Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky International Airport, operated 119 aircraft
when the strike began.
3 In this report, our use of the term ?capacity? refers to both types of
measures- takeoffs and landings at airports, and the number of aircraft that
can be safely managed when they are in the air.
4 Besides weather and capacity, other causes for delay include air traffic
control equipment problems (such as radar problems), runway closures (such
as for construction), and a variety of other miscellaneous reasons.
Page 6 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
of ways. At individual airports, one measure is the maximum number of safe
takeoffs and landings that can be conducted in a given period, such as 15
minutes or 1 hour. FAA has established such a capacity benchmark at each of
31 of the nation?s busiest airports. 5 FAA?s data on capacity and demand at
these airports show that even in optimum weather conditions, 16 airports
have at least three 15- minute periods each day when demand exceeds
capacity. Weather and capacity problems are often linked, because bad
weather can further erode capacity. For example, some airports have parallel
runways that are too close together for simultaneous operations in bad
weather. When weather worsens, only one of the two runways can be used at
any given time, thereby reducing the number of aircraft that can take off
and land. FAA?s data show that in bad weather, 22 of the 31 airports have at
least three 15- minute periods when demand exceeds capacity. Another measure
of capacity, apart from the capacity of individual airports, is the number
of aircraft that can be in a given portion of commercial airspace. For safe
operations, aircraft must maintain certain distances from each other and
remain within authorized airspace. If too many aircraft are trying to use
the same airspace, some must wait, either on the ground or en route.
FAA?s most recent long- term growth projections, which date from before the
September 11 terrorist hijackings, anticipated considerable growth in demand
for air travel. FAA projected that the number of passengers served by U. S.
airlines would rise by more than 40 percent, to more than 1 billion annually
by 2010. What effect, if any, the terrorist hijackings will have on long-
term growth still remains to be seen. To accommodate the increased number of
passengers it was projecting, FAA expected airlines to increase the size of
the total fleet by about 2,600 jets- an increase of about 50 percent. 6 The
fastest- growing segment of the fleet is expected to be smaller aircraft
called regional jets- that is, jets with 32 to 70 seats but generally with
ranges of 1,000 miles or more. As we have pointed out in previous work, the
growing use of regional jets in addition to turbojet aircraft currently
flying has already added to congestion and delays, according to published
studies and experts, but the precise amount has
5 Together, these 31 airports accounted for almost 70 percent of all
enplanements (paying passengers) in 1999. 6 Estimates of future passenger
and aircraft growth are based on FAA forecasts made in 2001. They are
subject to change on the basis of economic and other factors.
Page 7 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
not been determined and likely varies from airport to airport. 7 Besides
airlines, other parts of the aviation community are also likely to place
increasing demands on the air traffic system. FAA expected increases of
about 50 percent in the number of cargo aircraft and the number of smaller
general aviation 8 jets, such as corporate jets and jets operated by air
taxi or charter services. Some industry analysts have suggested that in the
wake of the terrorist hijackings, corporations may make increasing use of
such jets, which often use the same airports as those used by airlines.
All three groups that are most heavily involved in addressing delay- related
problems- federal agencies, airlines, and airports- have important roles. As
the agency in charge of the air traffic control system, FAA has the lead
role in developing technological and other solutions to airspace issues. FAA
and DOT are also an important source of funding. Through the Airport
Improvement Program, FAA provided $1.95 billion in grants to airports in
fiscal year 2000, and through its Facilities and Equipment appropriation, it
pays for such things as improvements to the air traffic control system. FAA
and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) monitor access
rights to airports as well as the landing fees that airports can charge. FAA
also grants authority for airports to levy passenger facility charges (PFC),
9 which were a source of more than $1.5 billion in revenue for airports in
calendar year 2000. Airlines and airports are also important decisionmakers
and funding sources. For example, changes in air traffic control technology
may require airlines to make substantial investments in new technology for
their aircraft. However, the recently enacted $15 billion federal assistance
package for the airline industry illustrates the airlines? dire financial
conditions, particularly after the events of September 11. Accordingly,
airlines may have a difficult time making investments in air traffic control
technology for their aircraft. Similarly, while infrastructure improvements
such as new runways often receive federal support, much of the funding is
raised at the local level.
7 Aviation Competition: Regional Jet Service Yet to Reach Many Small
Communities
(GAO- 01- 344, Feb. 14, 2001). 8 FAA considers general aviation to be all
aviation other than scheduled airlines or military aircraft. 9 PFCs were
first instituted in 1992. With FAA approval, airports can collect up to $4.
50 per enplaned passenger. These charges are collected as part of the price
of an airline ticket.
Page 8 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Government, airlines, and airports have undertaken a wide range of
initiatives to address flight delays and increase the capacity of the air
transport system. The stakeholders we contacted- DOT and FAA, 8 airlines,
and 18 of the most delay- prone airports- identified 158 separate
initiatives under way. 10 Earlier this year, FAA issued the Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP), which is designed to give more focus to some of the
diverse initiatives under way. FAA?s role, in addition to continuing to
spearhead the initiatives for which it is directly responsible, is to act as
overall coordinator for implementing the OEP. FAA believes that the OEP
actions already implemented have contributed to the reduction in flight
delays experienced in the first 6 months of 2001. Challenges still lie ahead
in other areas, such as introducing new technology, adding new runways,
funding billions of dollars of investment, and developing ways to help
measure what the efforts are accomplishing.
The initiatives cited by DOT and FAA, airlines, and airports include steps
for addressing both weather- related and capacity- related delays.
Considerable efforts were under way to address weather- related problems,
which is the major cause of delays. For example, to deal with the problems
arising from thunderstorms and other severe weather in the spring and
summer, FAA launched a program called Spring/ Summer. Among other things,
this program led to daily telephone conference calls between FAA and airline
officials to discuss weather and other conditions that might affect the
smooth flow of air traffic. The program also led to a new effort to predict
severe weather affecting aircraft. Examples of initiatives directly related
to capacity included an individual airport?s plans to build new runways,
taxiways, or gates; airlines? efforts to adjust schedules to relieve
congestion at some hubs; and FAA?s efforts to seek greater use of Canadian
and military airspace. Some initiatives dealt with both weather and
capacity. For example, FAA is testing a system that would allow the use of
satellite navigation for landing approaches in all types of weather
conditions. This system, if successful, will allow airports to operate at
higher capacity in bad weather.
To an extent, the initiatives begun by each of the three stakeholder groups
have different emphases. FAA and DOT initiatives emphasize improving
10 The information regarding initiatives at DOT, FAA, airlines, and airports
was gathered before September 11, 2001. We recognize the drop in air travel
following the terrorist attacks may result in some of the initiatives being
scaled back or even set aside. Diverse Set of
Initiatives Was Under Way to Address Delays
Government, Airlines, and Airports Started a Variety of Initiatives on Their
Own
Page 9 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
the ability to handle more aircraft in the air, airline initiatives
emphasize making adjustments to airline operations, and airport initiatives
emphasize increasing the capacity for more takeoffs and landings through
more runways and other infrastructure. The initiatives that stakeholders
cited are summarized briefly below; appendix II contains a detailed list of
the initiatives and their status.
DOT and FAA officials identified 29 initiatives under way at their agencies.
These initiatives can be grouped into three categories- adding capacity to
the system, identifying specific problems contributing to delays, and
identifying ways to better manage and coordinate responses to delays. Table
1 provides examples of each category. Some of these initiatives were
completed, such as a benchmarking study to provide a better indication of
the number of takeoffs and landings that can be supported at 31 of the
busiest airports in the national airport system. However, most of the
initiatives were ongoing or long- term projects. Some, such as reevaluating
what is being done to deal with severe spring and summer weather, will be
done annually or as needed. Longer term efforts include redesigning the
airspace surrounding major metropolitan areas and developing technology that
allows greater use of existing runways in low- visibility conditions.
Table 1: Examples of Government Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays Type of
initiative Examples
Enhancing capacity Implementing new procedures, such as allowing selected
flights to operate at lower, less- congested altitudes.
Developing new technology, such as improved satellite navigation
capabilities that enable aircraft to travel closer together. Identifying
problems and solutions Developing benchmarks for better determining how
many takeoffs and landings can be supported at various airports. Managing
delays Improving communication between key airline and air
traffic control officials through multiple conference calls each day to
examine weather and other delay factors and work out solutions for
congestion in the national airspace system.
Source: GAO analysis of agency information.
Initiatives identified by the eight airlines generally fell into one of
three categories- scheduling, weather and dispatch, and testing of new
technology. (See table 2 for examples.) In some cases, these initiatives
were tied to those of other stakeholders. For example, the main technology-
testing initiatives involved airline participation in the DOT and FAA
Initiatives
Airline Initiatives
Page 10 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
government initiatives previously discussed. Most of these initiatives were
ongoing or long- term projects.
Table 2: Examples of Airline Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays Type of
initiative Examples
Scheduling Moving flights to off- peak times at hub airports to reduce
airspace and ramp congestion during peak hours.
Adjusting flight times throughout the route network to reflect actual gate-
to- gate departure and arrival times. Weather and dispatch Investing in
meteorological technology to assist in poor weather
planning and turbulence avoidance. Developing technology that allows
dispatchers to produce new flight plans for flights that are already aloft.
Testing technology Participating in FAA- sponsored efforts to identify
arrival routes
and improve aircraft flow at a hub airport. Testing new approaches for
linking data between airplanes and air traffic control.
Source: GAO analysis of airline information.
The 18 delay- prone airports we contacted identified a wide range of
initiatives that varied from airport to airport, reflecting such differences
as the relative amount of congestion and the airport?s ability to add
infrastructure. Although each airport had a different set of concerns
regarding delays, the initiatives generally fell into three areas: new
runways and taxiways, terminals and gate space, and new technology to
promote efficient use of the airport. (See table 3 for examples.) As with
initiatives for the two other stakeholder groups, most of these projects
were still in process when we completed our review. Airport Initiatives
Page 11 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Table 3: Examples of Airport Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays Type of
initiative Examples
Runways and taxiways Building new runways and extensions to existing
runways.
Building new taxiways. Adding high- speed exits from existing runways.
Terminals and gate space Adding terminals and/ or gates.
Changing gate leasing arrangements to allow maximum flexibility during high-
demand periods. New technology to promote efficient airport use Funding new
FAA- developed weather information system.
Installing additional navigational aids. Installing new runway monitoring
systems for greater runway use in low- visibility conditions.
Source: GAO analysis of airport information.
FAA designed the OEP to provide a more focused and more coordinated approach
to congestion and delay problems. The previously described initiatives were
generally begun independently rather than as a collaborative response to a
systemwide problem. Although FAA previously had made efforts to develop more
coordination and cooperation among the stakeholder groups, 11 the OEP was
FAA?s attempt to align its activities with those of other stakeholder groups
using such approaches as collaborative decisionmaking, specific timelines
for completing actions, and designation of accountability. The OEP does not
replace or eliminate the previously described initiatives; rather, it
incorporates many of them into ?operational solutions? designed to address
specific goals. Responsibility for the various actions is still shared among
the various segments of the aviation community. As the overall coordinator
for this effort, FAA faces challenges in ensuring a consistent funding
stream for the federal government?s portion of the activities and developing
performance measures that will help gauge the extent to which these
operational solutions are reducing delays.
11 For example, FAA took steps to involve aviation community stakeholders in
various planning efforts and individual programs, and it also published
numerous plans, such as the annual Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan, which
combined various FAA projects into one document. FAA?s Operational
Evolution Plan Attempts to Bring Greater Focus to Stakeholders? Efforts
Page 12 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
The OEP focuses on four goals, each with a set of operational solutions. The
four goals and the types of operational solutions included for each goal are
as follows:
Increasing arrival and departure rates. Increasing the number of flight
arrivals and departures during a given period is an effort to keep pace with
demand at many key airports. Fifteen of the nation?s busiest airports suffer
from insufficient capacity to meet peak demands, according to FAA. The plan
proposes seven solutions to increase the arrival and departure rate,
including building new runways and coordinating efficient surface movement.
Increasing flexibility in the en route environment. This goal is aimed at
easing congestion in the air and providing more operating flexibility for
pilots. En route congestion occurs, according to FAA, because routes are
tied to ground- based navigational aids, controller workloads are limited by
manual monitoring of aircraft, and current aircraft separation standards do
not account for advances in aircraft capability. The plan proposes eight
solutions, including reducing aircraft separation; working collaboratively
with users to manage congestion; and providing access to additional
airspace, such as military operating areas.
Increasing flexibility en route during severe weather. Thunderstorm
activity- especially around busy airports- can cause problems for aircraft
that are en route. The inability to predict the precise location, movement,
and severity of hazardous weather can hamper air traffic managers and pilots
alike. Improved equipment and procedures could better pinpoint weather
characteristics and their impacts and lead to improved flight management and
ultimately fewer delays. The plan proposes solutions to provide better
hazardous weather data and to respond effectively to hazardous weather.
Maintaining airport arrival and departure rates in all weather conditions.
A significant portion of delays occur when local airport weather reduces
arrival and departure rates. The plan calls for maintaining a constant rate
of aircraft arrivals and departures, regardless of weather conditions. To
meet this goal, the plan proposes such solutions as reconfiguring runways,
developing ways to safely space aircraft closer together, and maintaining
runway use in reduced visibility.
The OEP?s operational solutions incorporate most of the separate initiatives
identified by the stakeholder groups. FAA officials emphasized that the OEP
is subject to change, including revisions as a result of the The OEP
Incorporates Many
Existing Initiatives
Page 13 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
September 11 terrorist activities. The OEP?s operational solutions do not
include all types of actions that have been advanced as possible solutions
to the delay problem. FAA acknowledged that the OEP was not meant to be an
end- all that would solve all delay problems, but was instead a more limited
document dealing with near- term operational solutions. The solutions
included in the OEP have widespread support across stakeholder groups and do
not include any initiatives for which FAA could not obtain consensus from
key aviation stakeholders. In addition, FAA specifically limited the types
of measures included in the OEP to those that (1) will add new capacity and
(2) can be implemented within 10 years. For example, the OEP?s operational
solutions include new runways that airports like Seattle- Tacoma and
Lambert- St. Louis currently expect to complete by 2010. The OEP does not
include all measures that have been advanced as possible solutions to the
delay problem, such as new airports or high- speed ground transportation
alternatives. The OEP also does not include administrative, regulatory, or
market- based approaches that are largely for the purpose of managing
existing capacity more efficiently, such as setting limits on the number of
flights that could be flown to and from specific airports.
FAA has made a good start in developing the OEP and in taking the initial
efforts to implement it. FAA followed a highly collaborative process in
developing the plan. It encouraged input from stakeholders in a variety of
ways, circulated drafts to various segments of the industry for comment, and
revised those drafts to reflect the comments received. The final plan,
issued in June 2001, establishes timelines for individual components of the
plan and includes actions and decisions required by the different
stakeholders. Lines of accountability have also been established within FAA.
For example, a team of senior FAA personnel, chaired by the Acting Deputy
Administrator, is to lead the implementation and be responsible for setting
priorities, monitoring benefits and methods for measuring improvements, and
engaging the aviation community leaders in key decisions. 12
FAA officials believed that actions under way were already having an effect
on reducing delays. During the first 6 months of 2001, 24 percent of major
airlines? flights arrived 15 minutes or more after their scheduled
12 The OEP also establishes lines of responsibility for the specific
improvements anticipated. This responsibility is assigned to the heads of
seven FAA units that are responsible for the various outcomes. Although Off
to a Strong Start,
the OEP Will Need to Meet Several Key Challenges
Page 14 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
arrival at 31 of the nation?s busiest airports, compared with 28 percent
during the first 6 months of 2000. FAA officials believe that a combination
of factors is responsible for this drop, including much more favorable
weather conditions during the spring of 2001. They also cited the Spring/
Summer initiative, which addresses weather issues resulting from spring and
summer storms, as an example of a collaborative effort among airlines and
various FAA organizations that helped reduce the amount of delays. Another
effort they cited was the choke- points initiative, under which FAA made
aircraft routing changes, added technology, changed procedures, and modified
traffic management strategies to reduce the impact of congestion in seven
highly congested areas in the national airspace system.
Many of the actions included in the OEP, including those that will add the
most capacity, are still under way. Security and other concerns raised in
light of the September terrorist attacks may have some effect on the
initiatives. For example, initiatives allowing pilots greater flexibility in
determining their route of flight or to use restricted military airspace
will be affected by increased security concerns. Apart from concerns raised
over the terrorist attacks, FAA and other stakeholders face the following
challenges on several key fronts in implementing the actions in the OEP:
Introducing new technology. A number of the OEP?s efforts center on
introducing new technology to allow aircraft to take off, travel, and land
more closely together. For example, FAA is testing a satellite navigation
system that would allow for instrument landings in all weather conditions.
Our past reviews have shown that over the past two decades, FAA has
encountered numerous problems in introducing new technologies, with many
projects running years behind schedule. Because of the size, complexity,
cost, and problem- plagued past of FAA?s modernization programs, we have
designated these programs as a high- risk information technology investment
since 1995. 13 The continued risks are sizable, in part because many
technology- related projects under the OEP are still a number of years from
being fully developed and will need to be integrated with existing
technology. For example, we recently reported that FAA will
13 See, for example, Air Traffic Control: Role of FAA?s Modernization
Program in Reducing Delays and Congestion (GAO- 01- 725T, May 10, 2001) and
High- Risk Series: An Update (GAO- 01- 263, Jan. 2001).
Page 15 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
face a technical challenge in ensuring that the components of its Free
Flight initiative can work with other air traffic control systems. 14
Overcoming barriers to building new runways. FAA estimates that 50 to 55
percent of total capacity to be added under the OEP will come from runway
projects at 15 of the nation?s 31 busiest airports, such as Detroit,
Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Atlanta. Six of these runways are currently
under construction; the rest are in some stage of the planning, design, and
review process. The process of planning and building a runway typically
takes 10 years under the best of circumstances, and some of the projects
still face legal challenges from local groups opposed to the projects
because of environmental and other concerns.
Obtaining sufficient funding. Successful implementation of actions
included in the OEP hinges on the availability of funding from several
sources, including FAA, airlines, and airports. The full cost of the OEP is
unknown. FAA estimates that over the period of 2001 to 2010, its portion of
the cost will be about $88.5 billion-$ 11.5 billion in federal funding for
facilities and equipment, and $77 billion in operations to deliver services.
To help make this funding available, FAA officials told us they were
adjusting priorities and developing future budget requests around the plan.
Other significant funding will need to come from airlines and airports. For
example, before benefits of new air traffic control technology can be fully
realized, aircraft must receive new equipment. As the recent economic
slowdown and the terrorist attacks have shown, the airline industry is
subject to periods of profit and loss. If new equipment comes on- line at a
time when airlines think they cannot afford to buy it, the planned benefit
may not materialize. Similarly, infrastructure projects at airports usually
require a substantial amount of local funding. Adding a runway at a major
metropolitan airport, for example, could cost $1 billion or more, only part
of which is federally funded. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, some
airports have already begun to reevaluate expansion plans and capital
expenditures, reportedly in response to concerns about increased
expenditures for security and declining airline and passenger fees to pay
for improvements.
14 Free Flight is a project for giving pilots greater freedom to select
their own flight path and speed. See National Airspace System: Free Flight
Tools Show Promise, but Implementation Challenges Remain (GAO- 01- 932, Aug.
31, 2001).
Page 16 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Establishing accountability through performance indicators. The OEP
recognizes that, along with designating who is to be responsible for each
action, performance indicators are needed to assess what the action is
accomplishing. For example, under the Free Flight initiative, FAA has
established direct routings 15 as one performance indicator and set a goal
of increasing these routings by 15 percent in the first year of
implementation. At this early stage of the OEP, FAA is still in the process
of developing most performance indicators. Having sound performance
indicators is of particular importance if funding becomes limited, because
these indicators can help determine which actions are likely to yield the
best results for the dollars expended and where to redirect resources should
doing so become necessary.
If fully implemented, the actions to be taken under the OEP will add
substantially to the system?s capacity but are unlikely to keep delays from
rising again unless air traffic remains at substantially lower levels than
anticipated over the long term. If the industry rebounds to the point that
FAA?s earlier projections about air traffic growth turn out to be correct,
many of the busiest airports will be unable to keep pace with rising demand,
even with their increased capacity. If the recovery is less robust, the
system still will have difficulty because a number of delay- prone airports
have limited ability to expand their capacity to meet even modest increases
in demand. Many of the most delay- prone airports have already run out of
room for adding other runways or will soon run out of room to do so. These
delay- prone airports cause delays that ripple throughout the system. If
problems at these airports are not alleviated, this ripple effect will
continue, causing delays at airports that may have addressed their own
capacity problems. Finally, competitive pressures within the airline
industry may still lead airlines to continue using operations strategies
that are vulnerable to delays. These pressures currently motivate airlines
to schedule flights that fully use available air transport system capacity
during those times of day in which they perceive consumers most want to fly.
At delay- prone Newark International Airport, for example, after one airline
recently decided to reduce schedule delays by trimming the number of peak-
hour flights, rival airlines quickly responded by adding more peakhour
flights of their own.
15 Direct routings allow pilots to take the most direct route to their
destinations, rather than routes typically used in the airspace system.
Capacity to Be Added
in Next 10 Years Will Likely Have Limited Effect in Keeping Delays From
Rising to Previous Levels
Page 17 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Even if all OEP actions are successfully completed, key airports in the
system will likely lose ground in their ability to meet demand. Under the
growth projections made before the terrorist hijackings, FAA forecasted that
between 2001 and 2010, demand would increase faster than capacity at 20 of
the nation?s 31 busiest airports. For these airports, the ability to make
significant headway in adding capacity is primarily related to one factor-
adding a runway. FAA estimates that the 14 airports adding a runway by 2010
will see capacity increases averaging 34.9 percent. By contrast, the 16
airports not adding a runway will see a capacity increase averaging 6.3
percent. 16
FAA expects that at least half of the capacity gain from OEP initiatives
will come from the new runways included in the plan. Some industry sources
have suggested that even more runways should be built by 2010, saying that
50 miles of new runways at the top 25 delay- prone airports- the equivalent
of 1 runway at each airport- would solve the system?s capacity problems.
Airport stakeholder groups are calling for streamlining the procedures and
reducing the time necessary for approving runways, which now takes at least
10 years to plan and complete. Proposed legislation has been introduced in
the Congress to help shorten this process. 17
Relying on adding runways to increase capacity at busy metropolitan
airports, however, will likely have a limited effect over the long term.
Some airports can accommodate additional runways, but many cannot. Denver
International Airport is an example of a location with substantial expansion
potential. Located in a sparsely populated area away from the metropolitan
area, the airport has ample room to add capacity. The airport is currently
building a new 16,000- foot runway to add to its five existing runways and
can accommodate six more runways in its present configuration. By contrast,
other airports, such as Los Angeles, Washington Reagan National, La Guardia,
and San Francisco have little capacity to expand and would find it difficult
to build even one more runway, either because they lack the space or because
they would face
16 A new 7, 800- foot runway opened at Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport in October 2000. FAA estimates that this airport will see a 60-
percent capacity increase between 2001 and 2010.
17 The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633) would, among other things,
eliminate duplicative requirements in the environmental review process; it
would also make certain projects, designated as National Capacity Projects,
ineligible for federal funding if the airport does not initiate its planning
and environmental review process for these projects in a timely manner. Many
Airports Cannot
Significantly Expand Capacity
Page 18 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
intense opposition from adjacent communities. For this reason, many airports
will likely face delay problems even if demand turns out to be much lower
than FAA projected.
Of particular concern are key delay- prone airports- that is, those airports
that experience the highest number of delays per 1,000 flight operations
(takeoffs and landings). The seven airports that experienced the highest
rate of delays in 2000 are shown in table 4. Among these, Chicago O?Hare
indicates that it can add another runway, although it too faces intense
opposition if it attempts to do so. 18 FAA?s April 2001 Benchmarking Study
concluded that of these seven airports, all but Boston Logan would still
have significant passenger delays in 2010, largely because the gains in
capacity during this decade will be relatively low. For example, according
to FAA projections, the three New York airports- La Guardia, Newark, and
Kennedy- will experience relatively small capacity gains during this decade-
just 7 percent for Newark and 3 percent each for the other two airports.
Table 4: Projected Capacity Increases at the Most Delay- Prone Airports
Airport
Ranking by delays per 1,000 operations
(2000) Projected percentage
increase in capacity through 2010
New York - La Guardia 1 3% Newark International 2 7 Chicago O?Hare
International 3 12 San Francisco International 4 3 Boston Logan
International 5 4 Philadelphia International 6 11 New York - Kennedy
International 7 3
Source: FAA?s Operational Evolution Plan.
Even for airports where a runway addition is possible, other factors make
that alternative less desirable. Cost is one such factor. Some airports are
surrounded by development that is extremely difficult and expensive to
displace. For example, a new 9,000- foot runway currently under
18 Boston Logan has a runway under construction; Philadelphia completed a
runway in 1999. FAA?s projections included both of these runways. However,
the runway at Boston Logan is to reduce delays in certain runway
configurations and is not expected to increase the optimum capacity of the
airport. The Philadelphia runway is only 5,000 feet in length and was
designed for smaller and slower aircraft.
Page 19 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
construction at St. Louis- Lambert Field will cost an estimated $1.1
billion, in large part due to the required displacement of over 2,000 homes,
businesses, churches, and schools around the airport. Similarly, a new
9,000- foot runway under way at Atlanta Hartsfield will cost an estimated
$1.3 billion, again largely due to the costs of relocating structures and
highways. By contrast, the new 16, 000- foot runway at Denver- where ample
open land is available- will cost just $171 million.
Another factor is the expansion potential over the longer term. Even if many
airports like Atlanta Hartsfield, Chicago O?Hare, and St. LouisLambert Field
are able to add another runway or reconfigure existing ones, continued
growth in air traffic would mean that the airports would need to expand once
again. At some point, these locations will have to consider other
alternatives because the cost of adding another runway will be too expensive
and environmentally unacceptable. For those locations where capacity is
constrained and options to add runways are limited or nonexistent, that time
has already come.
Because the airports in the national system are so interdependent, continued
shortfalls in capacity at key airports over the long term will likely
perpetuate the delay problem throughout the entire system. The system?s
interdependency comes from the hub- and- spoke routing pattern under which
most airlines operate. Under this pattern, airlines schedule many flights to
arrive at one airport (the hub) from other cities on their network (the
spokes) during a short period of time. While the aircraft are on the ground,
passengers transported to the hub connect to flights going to their final
destination. These groups of arrivals and departures happen several times a
day. This approach allows an airline to serve more cities than it could
through a ?point- to- point? approach that does not use a hub as a transfer
point.
The interdependency inherent in this hub- and- spoke approach sets up a
ripple effect in which delays at a hub can quickly affect not only flights
to and from that airport, but also flights throughout the entire network.
This ripple effect is illustrated by a scenario that is based on actual
operations reported by FAA?s research and development center. In the
scenario, a demand/ capacity imbalance at Newark International Airport
resulted in a backup of five aircraft trying to land at the airport. These
aircraft had to be kept in holding patterns above the airport until they
could land. Because of the backup, FAA?s New York en route center (which
controls air traffic going in and out of Newark and other area airports)
notified the adjoining Cleveland en route center that it could not accept
more aircraft bound for Continued Capacity
Shortfalls at Key Airports Will Affect the Broader Air Transport System
Page 20 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Newark until the aircraft in holding patterns around Newark were able to
land. As flights began to back up, many aircraft were affected, whether or
not they had Newark as their specific destination, because they were also
seeking to use part of the backed- up airspace. Within 20 minutes, the delay
in landing these 5 planes at Newark affected as many as 250 flights, some as
far away as the West Coast.
Thus, continued difficulties at some hubs can have repercussions at airports
that have successfully addressed their own local capacity problems. Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport offers a good example. In 2000, Phoenix put
an additional runway into service, and the airport now has sufficient
capacity to allow flights to take off on time. However, the airport ranks
among the top 15 in the United States for flight delays. According to
airport officials, most of the delays at Phoenix are the result of delays
and cancellations at other airports- circumstances unrelated to the capacity
at Phoenix.
Competition in the airline industry is another factor that may limit the
effect that new capacity will have on reducing delays. Competition may have
such an impact because it encourages airlines to take maximum advantage of
capacity during the times that offer the greatest advantage. Capacity at an
airport is relatively constant throughout the day because the airport
theoretically can handle the same number of takeoffs and landings each hour.
However, airlines are generally motivated not to stretch out their schedules
throughout the day, but rather to concentrate their operations in certain
peak periods. One reason airlines follow this practice is that they
establish schedules that try to maximize what they perceive consumers want,
such as flights that leave early and late in the business day. Another
reason airlines follow this practice is that in order to conduct efficient
hub- and- spoke operations, they try to schedule as many flights as possible
to arrive at the hub airport at about the same time and then to depart at
about the same time a short while later. By doing so, they minimize the
amount of time that transferring passengers have to spend waiting for their
connecting flights.
There are ample illustrations of the ways in which these competitive
pressures lead airlines to make decisions that can potentially worsen delay
problems, rather than reduce them. For example:
When the opportunity came to submit applications for new flights operating
in and out of La Guardia Airport, an airport that has had delay problems for
years, airlines submitted proposals to add more than 600 Effect of Added
Capacity
May Be Negated as Airlines Seek to Use Added Capacity to Their Competitive
Advantage
Page 21 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
flights. 19 Airline officials said they did so because of consumer demand
for service to and from New York.
To help reduce delays at Newark International Airport, Continental
Airlines began using larger aircraft on some routes, allowing the airline to
reduce the number of scheduled flights. However, several other airlines soon
filled the vacated slots with flights of their own.
As Continental Airlines did in Newark, United Airlines began using larger
aircraft and scheduling fewer flights to help address persistent delays in
San Francisco. Here, too, other airlines soon filled the vacated slots.
Airlines make their decisions after considering many factors, so examples
such as these cannot be taken as clear signals of what they will choose to
do in the future, especially during the current slowdown in passenger
demand. However, one scenario that must be considered is that these
competitive pressures will quickly fill any openings that are considered to
be economically advantageous. In this sense, the added capacity may mirror
what transportation engineers and the traveling public have often noted
about adding new highways in congested areas- that is, the additional
capacity quickly induces more people to drive, thereby leaving traffic
conditions little better than they were before.
19 The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st
Century, Public Law 106- 181, phased out slots at La Guardia Airport by 2007
and allowed for immediate exemptions from the slot rules for new entrant
airlines and flights serving small communities. Within a short time, the
airport was overwhelmed with applications from airlines asking for
exemptions for over 600 flights to and from the airport. Because the
requests far exceeded the capacity of La Guardia, FAA, in cooperation with
the airport, developed a temporary lottery to allocate a limited number of
slots while a study of marketbased and administrative alternatives was
undertaken. Until further notice, FAA has indefinitely suspended the latter
study because of the reduction in aircraft operations at La Guardia
following the terrorist attacks on September 11.
Page 22 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Because OEP actions will likely not be sufficient on their own to resolve
the delay problem over the long term, aviation stakeholders and policymakers
will likely have to consider additional measures to enhance capacity and
alleviate delays. A range of other measures is available, such as building
new airports or developing alternative ground transportation systems. These
measures are not new, but they have received rather limited attention
relative to incremental steps that are being taken, largely because they
require more extensive change that could conflict with the interests of one
or more key stakeholder groups, such as airlines or local communities. Some
of these measures, such as transportation alternatives like high- speed
rail, may have become more viable in light of security and other
considerations stemming from the recent terrorist hijackings. With the
rising need for considering these measures, the Congress and DOT will need
to assume a central role in identifying which measures are most appropriate
for given situations, framing the discussion about them, and moving forward
with the best solutions.
Other measures- not now part of the OEP- exist as potential solutions to
alleviate delays. These measures, which have been cited by various
researchers and policy organizations over the last decade, basically fall
into three categories. The first category involves various other measures
for adding airport infrastructure besides adding runways to existing
airports, such as building new airports or using nearby underdeveloped
regional airports. The second category involves approaches to better manage
and distribute air traffic demand within the system?s existing capacity.
These include administrative and regulatory actions, such as limiting the
number of takeoffs and landings during peak traffic periods or restricting
the types of aircraft allowed to land, and market- based approaches, such as
charging aircraft higher fees to land at peak times than at slack times. The
third category includes developing alternative modes of intercity travel
other than air transportation, such as high- speed rail. Table 5 provides a
brief explanation of each of these measures, and appendix III contains more
detailed information on each measure. Other Measures
Needed to Help Reduce Delays Are More Difficult to Implement but May Be More
Viable in Light of Recent Events
Variety of Other Measures Could Meet Capacity Needs
Page 23 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Table 5: List of Potential Measures- Not in the OEP- to Reduce the Airport
Capacity Gap Measures Brief explanation Category 1: Adding airport
infrastructure
Building new airports in metropolitan areas. This measure involves new
airports within metropolitan areas to provide additional capacity,
especially where the existing airport has little expansion potential. This
measure has recent limited use since only two major new airports- at Dallas-
Fort Worth and Denver- have been built in large metropolitan areas since
1973. Developing ?wayports.? A network of 4 to 10 wayports across the
nation, each located on the
fringe of or outside of a major congested metropolitan area, would serve
mainly as transfer points for passengers connecting to other locations but
also as cargo, mail, and maintenance facilities. This measure has not been
used. Developing regional airports. Existing regional airports located
within 50 miles of metropolitan hubs
would be developed to take advantage of unused system capacity. This measure
has seen limited use around major hub airports. A system of regional
airports exists in the Los Angeles area and is being contemplated at several
airports surrounding Boston Logan Airport.
Category 2: Managing demand
Adopting market- based approaches. This measure involves setting airport
landing fees to bring flight demand into line with available capacity. This
approach could involve setting higher landing fees during peak traffic
periods in an attempt to get airport users to use alternative airports,
alter their flight schedules, or fly larger aircraft. This approach is not
in place at any major U. S. airport, although it is being considered at La
Guardia Airport. Using administrative and regulatory approaches. Government
regulators, airlines, or airports would manage demand
through (1) restrictions on the number of takeoffs and landings (slots)
during peak traffic periods, (2) voluntary flight schedule adjustments to
even out peak periods of demand, (3) restrictions on the use of smaller
aircraft at busy airports, and (4) more flexible policies governing airport
gate access and airlines? control over airport capital development projects.
Two of these measures- slot control and voluntary schedule adjustments- are
being used to a limited degree at a few U. S. airports, such as Newark
(voluntary schedule adjustments) and New York?s La Guardia and Kennedy
airports (slot control).
Category 3: Using ground transportation alternatives
Building high- speed, intercity ground transportation. Building high- speed
ground transportation (e. g., rail) between populous cities within 200 miles
of each other may free up capacity at congested airports by reducing the air
traffic demand at those locations. Such trains could travel at speeds of 200
mph or more. Technologically, high- speed rail has proven successful in
Europe and Asia; efforts are under way in the United States to develop high-
speed rail in several designated corridors. Connecting nearby airports with
high- speed ground transportation. Using high- speed ground transportation
to connect congested airports
with underused airports nearby could accommodate passenger transfers within
the current hub- and- spoke system. This measure has not been done in the
United States.
Source: GAO analysis of previous studies.
Page 24 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
The applicability of any particular measure is likely to vary by location,
considering the circumstances at each major airport. There is no ?one-
sizefits- all? solution; rather, substantially reducing delays will probably
require a combination of measures spread out over time. For example, the
airspace surrounding the greater New York metropolitan area is perhaps the
most congested airspace in the nation. The three major airports in the area
(La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy), which currently are among the nation?s
most delay- prone airports, are expected to experience substantial air
traffic growth during this decade. But these airports have very limited
expansion potential, largely because they cannot realistically build new
runways. Building new airports or developing regional airports to serve the
area may be long- term solutions, but they will likely take many years to
materialize. In the meantime, other short- term measures would need to be
considered as passenger demand increases, such as ways to use existing
facilities more efficiently. This is the direction that FAA and the New
York/ New Jersey Port Authority, which owns and operates the three area
airports, were moving before the drop in passenger demand following the
events of September 11. FAA and the Port Authority had been considering
market- based and administrative approaches for La Guardia but have
temporarily suspended deliberations on this issue. Because major airports in
other locations may face different circumstances than the New York airports
face, they may need an entirely different set of solutions to address flight
delays.
While these other measures may hold promise for addressing capacity
problems, adopting any of them is likely to be a more daunting challenge
than implementing initiatives in the OEP. Accomplishing the OEP?s
initiatives will not be easy, but the opportunity for success is enhanced
because FAA has the support of major aviation stakeholders on nearly all of
the initiatives. 20 By contrast, gaining consensus on any of these other
measures will be much more difficult because they change the nature of the
system to the degree that each one could adversely affect the interests of
one or more key aviation stakeholder groups- including passengers; air
carriers; and aircraft operators, airports, and local communities. For
example:
20 The exception is adding runways at airports where, although airports are
moving forward with these projects, they face substantial opposition in some
nearby communities that consider themselves adversely affected. Adopting
Other Measures
Is Likely to Be More Difficult Than Implementing Initiatives in the OEP
Page 25 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Large infrastructure projects, such as new airports that are located in
metropolitan areas, could create major controversy. Such projects are often
opposed by adjacent communities that are fearful of noise, displacement, or
other environmental concerns. Also, finding suitable sites for such projects
in crowded metropolitan areas- with enough land that is compatible with
other potential land uses- may be difficult. Airlines may oppose some types
of infrastructure projects if they fear that the projects would adversely
affect them. For example, an airline with a dominant market position at a
major hub airport may oppose building an additional airport nearby because
the dominant carrier may view it as an opportunity for their competitors to
enter the market in that area.
Administrative, regulatory, and other measures for managing the demand for
existing capacity could generate opposition from various sources as well.
Airlines may oppose such measures if they perceive that these measures would
restrict their choices in determining rates, schedules, and aircraft sizes-
all of which could affect their profits and competitive status relative to
other airlines. Smaller communities may also oppose such measures, fearing
that commercial air service to and from their airports may be reduced or
curtailed because airlines would react by choosing more profitable routes
for the limited number of airport slots available.
Cost, a factor to be weighed in adding runways to existing airports, is also
an important consideration when building a new airport. For example, the
last major new airport- the Denver International Airport completed in 1995-
cost almost $5 billion to build. This cost would have been greater had the
airport been located closer to the city, but since it was located on open
land away from established communities, the costs of noise mitigation and
other land- use issues were minimized. Also, the construction of fast- rail
service in populated metropolitan corridors is likely to be costly. For
example, Amtrak estimates the cost to construct fast- rail service in
federally designated, high- speed corridors and the Northeast Corridor of
the United States will be about $50 billion to $70 billion.
Although these measures for the most part have not received widespread
consideration, some have come into play in limited situations. Where this
has been the case, the wide disagreement among stakeholders regarding the
best course of action illustrates the extent of controversy that can be
present in weighing the various measures. Here are several examples:
Page 26 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
In Chicago, where additional airport capacity has been under consideration
for years, an intense debate has ensued regarding whether to build a new
airport south of Chicago or add runways to O?Hare, which is located in an
area of dense development. The city, which owns and operates O?Hare,
recently unveiled a $6.3 billion plan that includes adding and relocating
runways. The two dominant airlines at O?Hare- United and American- and
several congressional members favor this plan. Illinois, several communities
adjacent to O?Hare, and other congressional members opposed the additional
runways at O?Hare due to environmental and land- use concerns and instead
favored building a new airport to be built at Peotone, Illinois, located
about 35 miles southwest of downtown Chicago.
Atlanta is planning a $5.5 billion upgrade to Hartsfield International
Airport, including adding a fifth runway at a cost of about $1.3 billion.
The airport is constrained by adjacent highways and development, making
modifications expensive. At a recent national meeting of airport executives,
Atlanta?s Aviation General Manager for Hartsfield Airport was asked why a
new airport located north of the city- on a large tract of land outside of
Atlanta that is already owned by the city- was not considered more seriously
as an alternative to the expansion project. He cited the unlikely financial
backing of the airport?s dominant carrier- Delta Airlines- as the major
barrier to considering an option other than adding capacity at Hartsfield.
In Los Angeles, the master plan for the Los Angeles International Airport
calls for (1) reconfiguring and extending its runways and adding taxiways to
increase capacity and (2) shifting a larger percentage of the area?s air
traffic to surrounding regional airports, such as Orange County?s John Wayne
Airport, Ontario, and Burbank- Glendale. The city also proposes high- speed
rail service from Los Angeles International to facilitate the use of
surrounding airports. Local officials and several Members of Congress favor
no expansion at Los Angeles International and shifting even more flights to
the outlying airports. At the same time, the outlying airports must overcome
existing limitations. For example, the terminal at BurbankGlendale does not
meet FAA standards (too close to the runway) and needs to be replaced, but
city officials in Burbank have indicated they will oppose a new terminal.
The Ontario Airport is limited by the state to 125,000 operations annually.
Also, significant interest has been shown in using the former Marine Corps
Air Station at El Toro, but its use has been opposed by local factions
because of noise and other concerns; FAA and others also have concerns about
the runway configuration there because of mountainous terrain around the
airport.
Page 27 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Lambert Field in St. Louis is undertaking a major runway project, which-
at $1.1 billion- is one of the most costly runway projects of any currently
under way nationwide. Mid- America Airport- which the federal government has
spent about $216 million to develop 21 over the last decade- is located
about 24 miles from St. Louis, has modest but new terminal facilities, and
has two runways (8,000 feet and 10,000 feet) capable of accommodating the
largest aircraft in operation today. The only airline serving the airport in
2001 discontinued service at Mid- America in early December 2001. American
Airlines, which has a major hub in St. Louis, supports the runway expansion
project at Lambert, rather than using the facilities at Mid- America.
Although consideration of these other measures is likely to be
controversial, developments stemming from the September terrorist attacks
may make some of them more viable. For example, a shift in public opinion in
favor of ground transportation for relatively short trips (150 to 300 miles)
may make high- speed rail a more viable option for some high- density
corridors, despite the cost and the dislocation it would bring for
communities where new, better rail lines would need to be built. Similarly,
the need for greater security controls on air traffic flying in sensitive
locations, such as Washington, D. C., and New York City, may increase
support for some administrative solutions, such as limiting the extent to
which corporate jets and other general aviation aircraft can use airports
that are already crowded because of commercial airline flights. In 2000,
smaller general aviation aircraft and unscheduled air taxi service accounted
for about 44 percent of the air traffic at Washington Reagan National
Airport and about one- third of all traffic at La Guardia.
If satisfactory progress in addressing airline delays could be made through
the initiatives in the OEP, the existing federal effort, spearheaded largely
by FAA, might be sufficient. However, needed solutions, both short and long
term, appear likely to include measures not included in the OEP. Because
these measures are more controversial and include modes of transportation
other than aviation, the federal government- particularly DOT- will need to
take an expanded role.
21 Since its development at Scott Air Force Base, Mid- America has received
$156 million in grants from FAA through the Airport Improvement Program and
the Military Airport Program. The Department of Defense has also provided
$60 million to relocate a large housing complex from the airport grounds.
Addressing the Full Range
of Measures Means Greater Involvement by DOT as a Strategic Planner
Page 28 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
DOT has recognized the need for more long- range strategic planning on air
transport system issues and has efforts under way to address this need. For
the most part, these efforts are currently on hold in the aftermath of the
September 11 terrorist attacks because FAA has focused its immediate efforts
on other matters. One effort that continues, however, began in mid2001 when
DOT?s Deputy Secretary convened a working group- comprised of senior
officials within the Department- to address aviation congestion, delays, and
competition issues. Specific goals, responsibilities, and the scope of the
working group were still being developed. On August 21, 2001, FAA and OST
began another effort when they published in the
Federal Register a request for comments on market- based solutions for
relieving flight congestion and delays. This request is part of a DOT effort
to collect data and conduct an analysis of market- based pricing at
airports. The request asked respondents to set aside consideration of the
current legal framework in suggesting ways that demand management may be
used as one component of a delay- reducing strategy. The comment period for
this notice was to have closed on November 19, 2001. However, given the
decline in air traffic after September 11, DOT has suspended the closing
date for comments. Once DOT has a better understanding of the long- term
impact of the events of September 11, they will publish a new closing date
for comments.
Although actions like these are positive steps toward alleviating airport
congestion and flight delays, what is still missing is a long- term plan or
blueprint to guide the development of the entire national air transport
system. Various researchers and policy organizations have suggested the need
for such a plan and have recommended that it involve several critical steps,
including the following:
A thorough assessment of all potential measures and their applicability to
the various circumstances and needs of each region. The advantages and
disadvantages of each measure and the barriers to implementation would be
clearly delineated.
Close collaboration among airlines, airports, and other key stakeholder
groups.
Legislative, regulatory, and administrative actions needed to implement
the plan.
An innovative investment strategy, including federal incentives and
leverage needed to encourage the use of recommended measures. Choosing many
of the measures is the prerogative of local governments,
Page 29 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
airports, and airlines, but the federal government can influence the
stakeholders? decisionmaking using a variety of financial, administrative,
and regulatory means. For example, although average aircraft size is
determined by individual airlines, the government can help shape these
decisions by allowing changes in landing fees and airport restrictions at
selected locations to encourage the use of larger aircraft at crowded
airports or encourage smaller aircraft to use nearby airports that have
excess capacity. 22 Similarly, the federal government can provide additional
funding for targeted options, such as enhancing reliever airports, or make
financing of airport infrastructure contingent on stakeholders? support of
other options deemed beneficial.
To date, few of these elements have been included in DOT?s planning efforts.
Except for the effort to study market- based solutions for relieving delays,
DOT at this time does not have plans to perform detailed analyses of other
potential solutions, such as new airports and alternative ground
transportation, in the context of a strategy for increasing national
airspace capacity. Such analyses are a critical prerequisite to developing a
blueprint for guiding the development of the air transport system, according
to others who have studied this area. Also, the direction and planned
outcome of DOT?s strategic planning efforts are unclear. DOT has not
decided, for example, whether- as part of its strategic planning- to develop
a blueprint of potential measures that are needed to address the capacity
needs in specific locations (e. g., a set of measures for addressing
problems in the crowded Northeast or long- range alternatives in locations
where incremental additions to existing airports are growing more limited).
FAA?s Operational Evolution Plan is a positive step in addressing needed
capacity- enhancing actions. But if the recent economic slump and the
challenges posed by the September 11 terrorist attacks turn out to be only a
temporary pause in the growth of air traffic, the plan will fall far short
of meeting the system?s growing needs. Unless passenger traffic remains at
the current reduced levels over the long term, which seems unlikely, bolder
more controversial measures- such as new airports and administrative and
market- based approaches- will have to be considered. Exploring such
measures is important because many of the nation?s key
22 By law, all aircraft- general aviation, corporate, and air carriers- have
equal landing access rights. This applies to small and large aircraft alike.
When they land, regulations require that airports charge them in a
nondiscriminatory, reasonable basis- typically, on the landed weight of each
aircraft. Conclusions
Page 30 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
airports cannot significantly add to their capacity. Eventually, even
airports that either currently have enough capacity or can perhaps add a
runway to increase capacity will have to consider other measures such as
these.
While the nation?s attention is now justifiably focused on many other issues
of aviation safety and security, now is also a good time to begin laying the
groundwork for considering these additional delay- reducing measures. The
current drop in air traffic represents an opportunity to develop plans for
keeping the air transport system ahead of the curve of potential future
growth. A carefully considered blueprint is needed to guide future actions
for the next 20 years and beyond. Selecting a set of measures to solve the
nation?s flight delay problem involves difficult choices with considerable
impact on the interests of the various stakeholder groups- the flying
public, airlines, airports, and nearby communities. In addition, because of
the interdependence of airports in the system, a national perspective is
needed- one that considers the needs of the entire system while also
considering the individual needs and circumstances of various locations. For
some parts of the country, these unique needs and circumstances may require
considering intermodal solutions, such as high- speed rail as an alternative
to air travel.
DOT and the Congress both have key roles to play in bringing about needed
changes to sustain a safe, sound, properly managed, and affordable air
transport system. Because of the breadth of its management of all
transportation modes, DOT is in a unique position to lead this effort. DOT?s
recent efforts are a start toward developing such a strategic planning
effort, but additional steps will be needed to provide the kind of necessary
blueprint for the future. DOT needs to work closely with the Congress in
formulating its approach, because ultimately the Congress may have to make
difficult choices that will please some stakeholders and displease others.
Now is the time to begin these efforts in earnest.
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation include the following as
part of DOT?s current strategic planning for airspace capacity:
An evaluation of the capacity- enhancing measures (including the measures
we discuss in this report) that are not in the OEP, such as building new
airports, managing air traffic demand, and using other modes identified for
increasing capacity. The evaluation should be done in the context of the
situations or locations where such options would be most applicable
considering key airport characteristics, circumstances, and expansion
Recommendations
Page 31 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
potential. Barriers and potential legislative actions should be delineated
for each measure.
Collaboration and discussions- similar to the efforts made in formulating
the OEP- on prospective measures with airlines, airports, and other key
players in the aviation community.
A blueprint for effectively addressing capacity issues and reducing delays
in the nation?s air transport system. This blueprint, which would be a guide
for future development of the system, should focus on both short- term (less
than 10 years) and long- term (10 to 40 years) measures needed and address
the specific measures applicable for each critical location as a means for
achieving a viable national system. Where necessary, this blueprint should
also consider addressing aviation delay problems by using other modes of
transportation, such as high- speed rail.
An innovative investment strategy, which includes an analysis of potential
incentives that the federal government can bring to bear to encourage
aviation stakeholders to adopt measures identified in the blueprint.
Consideration should be given to financial incentives, such as targeting
more funds to certain kinds of projects or types of airports, as well as
incentives that would involve modification of existing regulatory and
administrative requirements, such as allowing changes in the methods of
determining landing fees.
We provided a draft of this report to DOT and FAA for their review and
comment. The two agencies generally concurred with the facts presented in
the draft report. They provided some technical clarifications, which we have
incorporated into this report where appropriate.
Neither agency specifically commented on the draft report?s conclusions and
recommendations; for the most part, they did not discuss the additional
measures that we recommended for consideration in developing a blueprint for
future capacity enhancement. FAA did provide comments on one of the
measures- the wayport concept. FAA said a panel of DOT and FAA experts had
examined the near- term benefits of the wayport concept in the late 1980s.
The panel concluded in 1990 that wayports would provide little or no benefit
at the time because new hubs were not needed and airlines would be unwilling
to use them. In its response, FAA also noted that airlines jealously guard
their transfer functions and have ambitious expansion plans at their current
hubs to meet future demand. Because wayports would mainly be transfer points
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 32 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
for passengers, FAA said, the absence of originating passengers would lead
to relatively low concessions and would mean airports would have to charge
higher landing fees and rents to remain fiscally sound.
As we indicated in this report, we remain impartial as to which measures are
the best ones to adopt in any long- term plan for the air transport system.
However, we are concerned that FAA?s response misses a key point: in the
long term, a successful strategy requires a careful look at measures other
than expanding current hubs. Because so many key airports are severely
restricted in their ability to add runways, other options must figure into
long- term plans, even if they appear to have little merit in the short
term. The panel may or may not have been correct in deciding that wayports
were not desirable in 1990, but since then, dramatic changes have occurred
in the system, such as rapidly escalating costs for and increasing local
opposition to new runway construction at crowded hub airports. In addition,
the rapid growth of regional airlines, regional jets, passenger
enplanements, and cargo and express mail services have changed the aviation
environment. In light of these changes and the conditions and circumstances
that are likely to exist in the air transport system in the next 40 years
and beyond, we believe all of these measures, including wayports, deserve a
fresh look.
The judgments and decisions that are eventually rendered about these
measures also need to be rooted in an in- depth, data- rich analysis. In
this regard, FAA?s current position about wayports appears lacking. For
example, FAA has performed no quantitative analyses or conceptual modeling
to support its conclusion about the impact of wayports on airport revenues
and fees and airline competitiveness. In the years since the DOT/ FAA panel
examined the wayport concept, three major studies performed by reputable
aviation experts outside FAA have concluded that wayports merit further
study. Like us, these experts have not endorsed wayports but have called for
developing more detailed information to make a sound decision. In the end,
developing a meaningful blueprint to enhance capacity for the 21 st century
will require an expansive vision, a clear understanding of the realities
facing the air transport system, and a sound evaluative approach that
considers a broad range of possible solutions.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after
the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of the report to
the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal Aviation
Page 33 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Administration; and interested Members of Congress. Copies will be made
available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 3650. Appendix IV lists key contacts and contributors to this
report.
Sincerely yours, Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D. Director, Physical
Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 34 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity
Planning Needed
We examined efforts made by aviation stakeholders to reduce airline flight
delays. Our efforts concentrated on three questions: (1) What initiatives
are planned or under way by the federal government, airlines, and airports
to address flight delays? (2) What effect are these initiatives likely to
have on reducing delays? (3) What other options are available to address
delay problems?
To determine what initiatives were planned or under way by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), we
primarily spoke with program- level officials. To obtain a preliminary list
of efforts, we reviewed congressional hearings, examined FAA and DOT
publications, viewed FAA and DOT Web sites, reviewed academic and research
studies, and read articles in the aviation press. From the list compiled
from these sources, we held teleconferences and discussions with officials
directly responsible for the programs leading the efforts. These included
representatives from the offices of Free Flight Phase 1; System Capacity;
and Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance. We also asked these
officials and higher level officials to provide any other initiatives not on
our preliminary list.
To learn about airline initiatives, we contacted the Air Transport
Association and the Regional Airline Association to discuss approaches to
reducing flight delays. In addition, we obtained contacts at the airlines
from these organizations and held discussions with representatives from
American, Atlantic Coast, Atlantic Southeast, Continental, Delta, Federal
Express, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways to discuss inhouse
efforts to address flight delays.
To learn about airport initiatives to reduce delays and add capacity, we met
with representatives of the Airports Council International - North America
and obtained the names and contact information of the council?s members who
were responsible for addressing delay issues. On the basis of this
information, we held discussions with representatives of airports in
Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas- Ft. Worth, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami,
Minneapolis- St. Paul, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh,
San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. We also visited Atlanta Hartsfield,
Boston Logan, Chicago O?Hare, Dallas- Ft. Worth, MinneapolisSt. Paul, New
York Kennedy and La Guardia, and Newark airports.
To examine the extent to which the initiatives will likely reduce flight
delays, we reviewed congressional hearings, examined FAA statistics on
demand and capacity growth, and held discussions with FAA and DOT officials.
We also reviewed studies critiquing actions under way and Appendix I: Scope
and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 35 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity
Planning Needed
planned as well as forecasts on future airline activity and demand. We
obtained FAA data on demand and capacity growth at different airports and
followed up with FAA officials to obtain additional insight on their reports
and data. We used reports from such organizations as the Transportation
Research Board and San Francisco International Airport, and we also used
articles in journals that described trends in air traffic demand and how
current initiatives impacted those trends. We reviewed congressional
hearings at which representatives of federal agencies, airlines, and
airports reported how different efforts would affect delays. We also
contacted aviation experts affiliated with the Airport Consultants Council,
which is an airport industry consulting trade association, to discuss the
impact of these initiatives.
To learn of other options available to address delays, we went to a large
variety of sources. Using information from more than a decade of work that
we had conducted on air transportation issues, as well as information we
obtained in our work for this particular study, we identified a broad range
of studies conducted by various researchers. We also reviewed assessments of
these options by FAA, airports, and the DOT Office of the Inspector General.
We also discussed these options with FAA officials as well as with various
interest groups to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 36 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status Federal government
procedures and technology - Department of Transportation
Study of demand management techniques A presidential directive issued on 12/
7/ 00
directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to (1) study market- based congestion pricing and other
demand management solutions to reduce delays and (2) undertake a policy
analysis of how these solutions might be implemented, their potential
impact, and any statutory impediments.
Ongoing. In a June 12, 2001, Federal Register
notice, FAA requested comments on demand- management options that could be
used to replace the temporary administrative limits on aircraft operations
at La Guardia. Comments were due on October 12, 2001; however, FAA has
indefinitely suspended this review.
In an August 21, 2001, Federal Register
notice, DOT requested comments on using market- based approaches to relieve
flight delays and congestion at busy airports. Comments were due on November
19, 2001; however, DOT has indefinitely suspended this review. Task force on
short- term accommodation of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21 st Century (AIR- 21) slot exemptions at La Guardia
Airport
FAA, DOT, and the New York/ New Jersey Port Authority, working
collaboratively, implemented an interim procedure to reallocate (on a
lottery basis) schedule slots to airlines at La Guardia.
Completed. FAA has reallocated 159 AIR- 21 slots to 13 carriers under an
interim plan that became effective on 1/ 31/ 01.
Federal government procedures and technology - Federal Aviation
Administration
FAA air traffic organization An executive order issued on 12/ 7/ 00
established a ?performance- based organization? within FAA that is designed
to increase the efficiency of the air traffic control (ATC) system.
Ongoing. FAA is developing an implementation plan and conducting a
nationwide search for a chief operating officer.
National Airspace System (NAS) operational evolution plan FAA and MITRE are
developing a 10- year
plan to address long- term, system capacity issues and solutions for
airports, airlines, and the federal government.
Ongoing. FAA completed version 3.0 of the operational evolution plan, which
was released in June 2001. National airspace redesign This is a long- term
initiative to reconfigure
NAS airspace routing and use, thereby improving system efficiency. Short-
term efforts focus on relieving congestion at critical ?choke points? in the
Northeast.
Ongoing. Completion of the NAS redesign project is expected by the end of
fiscal year 2006. To date, seven choke points in the Northeast have been
identified by a group of airlines, FAA management, and the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). Twenty- one action items were
identified to address problems at the choke points, of which 11 have been
implemented. All action items should be completed by 7/ 31/ 02. National
traffic management evaluation A team of FAA and Air Transport Association
representatives visited 34 air traffic facilities between July 19 and August
6, 1999. Participants evaluated air traffic management throughout these
facilities.
Completed. The team identified 165 action items related to individual
facilities, FAA?s Command Center, and the NAS. The items were completed by
7/ 28/ 00.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 37 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
Spring/ Summer 2000 evaluation of air traffic Beginning in late 1999, FAA
began studying
ways to reduce delays for spring/ summer 2000 and beyond. Action items
focused on improving communications between FAA and airlines, using
available airspace more efficiently, using new technologies, establishing a
strategic planning Web page for FAA?s Command Center, and providing realtime
weather information to users.
Ongoing. The procedures to address these action items were implemented in
March 2000, and a formal evaluation was completed in December 2000. Actions
were taken to improve procedures for spring/ summer 2001, with an emphasis
on additional training of FAA and aviation users. This evaluation will be
conducted annually. Spring/ Summer Tactical Altitude Assignment Program
(TAAP) FAA is engaged in a pilot program involving
120 city- pairs to test the feasibility of allowing aircraft to operate at
lower, less congested altitudes.
Ongoing. Test results have been positive, and FAA has reached an agreement
with NATCA on proposed procedural changes. After completing training for
controllers and pilots, TAAP was implemented at some facilities following a
formal testing period. Spring/ Summer convective forecasting This effort was
undertaken to improve the
ability to predict severe weather, ultimately resulting in better aircraft
routing. It (1) collects weather information from the National Weather
Service, airlines, and 20 central weather service units and (2) develops a
collaborative convective forecast product, which is disseminated to FAA and
user facilities.
Ongoing. The collection and dissemination process is in place. FAA has
evaluated efforts from the year 2000 and has implemented changes and
conducted training for the upcoming convective season. These efforts will be
evaluated annually.
Spring/ Summer use of Canadian airspace This initiative is designed to
enhance the use
of Canadian airspace by U. S. air carriers through (1) new procedures for
the automatic transfer of flight plan data between FAA and NavCanada ATC
facilities and (2) an updated structure of overflight fees for airlines
using Canadian airspace.
Ongoing. FAA has implemented procedures to ensure that NavCanada ATC
facilities have adequate ATC staff before U. S. planes are routed over
Canadian airspace. This effort has already helped relieve congestion at the
Cleveland and Minneapolis centers. FAA and NavCanada are currently
discussing expanded use of Canadian airspace and overflight fees. Spring/
Summer centralized operational authority This is an effort to improve
communications
among FAA?s Command Center, its ATC facilities, and airlines to smooth the
flow of flights in the NAS.
Completed. FAA?s Command Center holds several teleconferences daily with ATC
managers and air carriers to discuss weather conditions and other factors
causing delays at specific locations and to determine appropriate solutions
for congestion in the NAS. Spring/ Summer use of military airspace FAA and
the Department of Defense (DOD)
are studying the potential for the expanded use of DOD- designated airspace
for commercial purposes. The initiative involves using new military airspace
routes along the East Coast, improving procedures to reduce the effect on
NAS operations from military
Ongoing. DOD is releasing some airspace for commercial use at certain times
of the day, mainly in areas east of the Mississippi. Discussions are
continuing on further use of military airspace by commercial carriers.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 38 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
operations in the Buckeye Military Operations Area (located in the Ohio
Valley), and centralizing information on special- use airspace. Airport
capacity studies This is a long- term initiative with FAA, airport
operators, and aviation industry groups forming airport capacity design
teams at various airports to identify and evaluate alternative means,
including procedural and technological innovations, and to enhance existing
airport capacity to handle future demand.
Ongoing. Several reports have been issued. Since 1998, capacity reports or
tactical initiative studies have been produced for six airports. Three more
studies are in progress.
Airport capacity- benchmark arrival and departure throughput FAA analyzed
the capacity of 31 key airports
in the NAS. Completed. In April 2001, FAA released its final
report on all of the airports that it studied. Airport capacity- Aviation
System Capacity Improvement This program is designed to focus government
and industry efforts on specific enhancements (e. g., traffic flow and
hardware problems) needed to improve the free flow of traffic in the NAS.
Ongoing. FAA has identified Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport for a
demonstration project which started in fiscal year 2001. The project will
look at expanding the use of flight management systems and global
positioning system (GPS) capabilities to accommodate additional traffic
resulting from the construction of a new runway. Military Airport Program
This program provides financial assistance to
civilian sponsors of military airfields that are converted to civilian or
joint military- civilian use to enhance airport system capacity and reduce
flight delays. AIR- 21 authorized adding 3 airports to the program (from 12
to 15 participants).
Completed. FAA selected three new airports on 1/ 8/ 01.
Mather Air Force Base as a backup airport for Sacramento International?s
cargo and general aviation (GA) traffic
March Air Force Base as a backup airport for Los Angeles International?s
cargo traffic
Gray Army Airfield as a joint- use commercial service (primary) airport
for Killeen, Temple, and Fort Hood, TX Free Flight Programs a Free Flight
(Phase 1) began in 1998 to make
ATC less restrictive by using new technology and improved procedures. During
Free Flight Phase 1, b FAA plans to deploy various decision support tools at
its facilities and selected airports.
Ongoing. ?Free flight? tools are being used at select locations throughout
the system and results are being evaluated. Phase 1 is scheduled for
completion in 2002.
Safe Flight 21 This federal government and industry effort was initiated to
evaluate and validate the capabilities of advanced communications,
navigation, and surveillance technologies to improve airport safety,
capacity, and efficiency. Airport moving map displays in the cockpit will
improve surface situational awareness for pilots; other technology will
enable pilots and controllers to approach ideal
Ongoing. Two years of operational demonstrations and flights were successful
in Alaska and the Ohio Valley region. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS- B) c services are now being provided in the Bethel, AK, area
and test infrastructure has been established in Memphis, TN, and Louisville,
KY.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 39 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
aircraft- to- aircraft separations to land aircraft more efficiently.
Additional operational demonstrations
and evaluations are planned. A preferred ADS- B link technology will be
selected in 2001. En- route Automation Modernization This effort involves
the replacement of legacy
software and interfaces that make up the flight data processing and radar
data processing automation systems.
Ongoing. This program began in early 2000 and completion is targeted for
2008. Funding in fiscal year 2001 is for initial analyses and a functional
audit for the program. Airway Facilities Enhancements Three facilities-
related initiatives to address
flight delays:
National Operations Control Center (NOCC) to coordinate information
between the Command Center and the field
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS), an information system to
collect and deliver NAS information
Three regional Operations Control Centers (OCC) to coordinate and
prioritize NAS equipment (surveillance, communications, navigation, and
telecommunications); operations; and management actions within their domains
Ongoing. NOCC opened at the Command Center in March 1999. Deployment of NIMS
is expected in 2003 and completion is expected in 2005. The three regional
OCCs opened in June 2001, and full capabilities are expected to be in place
in 2003.
Streamline and accelerate the development and implementation of navigation
procedures
This initiative focuses on consolidating and streamlining the development
and approval of navigation procedures and routes. On a test basis, FAA and
carriers are using the terminal area route generation, evaluation, and
traffic simulation (TARGETS) tool to create area navigation (RNAV) arrival
and departure procedures.
Ongoing. TARGETS is being tested at eight major airports, and FAA expects to
distribute the process and tools to other airports in the future.
Aviation System Performance Metrics This initiative focuses on developing
meaningful operational performance measures to help manage the NAS and
improve operational efficiency. Through a designated reporting system, 10
participating carriers provide FAA with times for taxi- out, takeoff, on-
ground, and taxi- in data at 21 airports. FAA then provides these data to
its ATC facilities and to airports and airlines.
Ongoing. Data have been generated and disseminated since January 2000, but
the system is still being validated. FAA is developing 18 new metrics
related to the Command Center?s operations- 11 have been agreed upon by FAA
and the airlines, and the remaining 7 are still being examined. Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS) Satellite Navigation When operational, LAAS is
expected to yield
the high accuracy, availability, and integrity needed for category I, II,
and III precision approaches (instrument landings) in all weather
conditions. If successful, FAA plans to purchase up to 160 LAAS
installations (46 category I and 114 category III). Also, LAAS can increase
the use of existing airports that currently are not available due to
restricted areas or approaches.
Ongoing. Using a LAAS test prototype, FAA has flown over 240 approaches with
a Boeing 727 and a Falcon 20 aircraft. FAA expects to have at least one
category I LAAS installed and authorized for public use by 2002 and a
category III LAAS available by late 2005. Full deployment of LAAS is
scheduled to begin in 2002 and be completed by 2010.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 40 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status Improving environmental
approval process - Federal Aviation Administration
Streamline and expedite environmental reviews for airport capacity projects
This project will identify environmental delays,
streamline environmental procedures, and expedite Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) for major runway projects at large hub primary airports.
Ongoing. In April, FAA submitted its Report to Congress on the environmental
review of airport improvement projects. FAA will assign an EIS team of
experts to each new major EIS and improve interagency environmental
coordination at state and federal levels. It will also increase
environmental resources through new hires in the Airports Office,
reimbursable agreements with airports to fund expedited EISs, and amendments
of existing third- party contracts for more consultant support. FAA also
plans to reduce the amounts and types of environmental documentation
required and to issue a ?best practices? guide.
Improving environmental approval process - American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE) and Airports Council International- North America (ACI-
NA)
Expedited Airport System Enhancement The goal of this proposal is to speed
runway construction and other critical expansion projects at the nation?s
most congested airports by both streamlining and expediting current
environmental reviews.
Ongoing. AAAE and ACI- NA introduced the legislative proposal to the
Congress and the administration in March 2001.
Airline initiatives
American Airlines and American Eagle Major improvements recently completed
or under way include:
Assigning (isolating) specific aircraft to a limited number of hub routes
to minimize the domino effect of delays at one hub on another hub
Testing the prototype of AVOSS, a wake turbulence detection system, at
Dallas- Fort Worth International Airport
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect the longer gate-
to- gate departure and arrival times being experienced
Reviewing and adjusting the schedule of American Eagle operations to
minimize crowding in ramp areas
Testing of data- link capabilities between aircraft and ATCs
Completed.
The isolation policy has been implemented at Chicago O?Hare.
AVOSS was tested at Dallas- Fort Worth International Airport with positive
results. Ongoing.
American?s flight times (as well as those of American Eagle) are reviewed
continuously and revised with published schedules.
Ramp operations are continuously reviewed to improve operational
efficiency.
Data- link capabilities are being tested on four of American?s 767
aircraft serving European destinations; FAA tests are planned for the Miami
Center in 2002 with over 24 of American?s 737- 800 aircraft. Continental
Airlines Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Adjusting flight schedules at Newark to even out travel peaks
Adjusting the level of service to some small and medium- sized cities to
relieve congestion in some of their hubs
Completed.
Adjustments to Continental?s flight schedules at Newark were made in 2000.
Service adjustments were made in 2000.
The airline was successful in
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 41 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
Collaborating with FAA and the Port Authority on new equipment at Newark
and other New York metropolitan area airports
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departure and arrival times
obtaining the Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) prototype at Newark,
which benefits all New York area airports. Ongoing.
Continental?s nationwide flight times are reviewed six times each year and
adjusted as necessary. Delta Airlines and Atlantic Southeast Airlines
Major improvements recently completed or under way include:
Coordinating between Delta and Atlanta ATC to increase capacity at its
Atlanta hub through schedule changes for Delta and its commuter affiliates
Assigning (isolating) specific aircraft to a limited number of hub routes
to minimize the domino effect of delays at one hub on another hub
Adjusting the schedule structure at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport for spring
2001 to even out travel peaks
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departure and arrival times
Installing Heads- Up Guidance System (HUGS) on its aircraft as a
navigational aid during poor visibility weather conditions
Completed.
Coordination has occurred with the ATC to improve capacity at the Atlanta
hub, and Delta has rescheduled propeller aircraft traffic outside of jet
arrival and departure banks to improve flow.
Delta has assigned (isolated) specific aircraft to specific city- pair
routes each day to minimize the domino effect of delays at any single major
airport.
Adjustments to Delta?s schedule were made in early 2001. Ongoing.
Delta?s flight times (as well as those of owned subsidiaries ComAir and
Atlantic Southeast) are reviewed continuously and revised four times each
year.
Delta?s new 737- 800 aircraft and the regional jets for ComAir and
Atlantic Southeast are being delivered with the HUGS installed. The MD- 88
fleet will be retrofitted in the future. Federal Express (FedEx) Major
improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Canceling service to La Guardia
Installing LAAS at Memphis for GPS arrivals
Investing in HUGS and forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) for operations
in poor visibility weather conditions
Participating in Safe Flight 21 to identify special arrival routes to
improve aircraft flow at Memphis
Completed.
FedEx cancelled its service to La Guardia in 1999 and is confining its New
York operations to Newark, JFK, and Stewart. Ongoing.
LAAS at Memphis is operational, and FedEx has equipped one aircraft with a
GPS landing system for testing GPS approaches.
Research continues on the use of HUGS and FLIR.
Operational evaluation of Safe Flight 21 surface situational awareness
applications conducted in 2001, and additional demonstrations at Memphis are
planned for 2002. Northwest Airlines Major improvements recently completed
or
under way include:
Investing in technology for the meteorological department to assist in
poor
Completed.
Northwest?s meteorological department began using turbulence avoidance
systems to plan alternative
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 42 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
weather planning and turbulence avoidance
Participating extensively in FAA?s spring/ summer initiative through its
internal Strategic Planning Team
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departure and arrival times
Providing additional service to satellite airports around the Boston area
routing. Ongoing.
Northwest?s Strategic Planning Team will continue to work with FAA to
establish procedures.
Northwest?s flight times are adjusted eight times each year.
Service levels have risen at Manchester, NH, and Portland, ME, in the last
year. Southwest Airlines Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Flying into and out of congested airports during periods of low demand
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departure and arrival times
Developing an in- house flight planning system using Jeppesen data and on-
line weather information to provide flight planning documentation to pilots
Developing the position of air traffic specialist for the dispatch office
to interface with the FAA Command Center
Using less congested airports around metropolitan areas and withdrawing
from San Francisco International Airport
Forming the in- house Punctuality Team to study on- time performance and
find ways to reduce delays and cancellations
Exploring ways to use data- links to provide more accurate, timely
information to pilots
Completed.
Schedule revisions were incorporated into the January 2001 schedule for
the most congested airports served by Southwest. The schedule published in
June 2001 reflected additional revisions.
Termination of service at San Francisco International Airport occurred on
3/ 5/ 01. The business approach at Southwest is generally designed to serve
outlying airports.
In- house flight planning system was implemented in 1997.
The air traffic specialist position was filled in December 2000. Ongoing.
Flight times are continuously reviewed, and revisions are incorporated
into published schedules.
Recommendations from Southwest?s Punctuality Team will be submitted on a
periodic basis.
Studies of data- link use are still in progress. United Airlines and
Atlantic Coast Airlines (United Express)
Major improvements recently completed or under way include:
Assigning (isolating) aircraft between specific city- pairs to minimize
the impact of delays at a single airport on other routes in the system
Revising ramp parking assignments for regional aircraft at Dulles
International Airport to reduce taxi times
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departure and arrival times
Using Digital Display Taxi Clearance (DDTC) at Dulles to digitally provide
taxi times and routes to the cockpit
Attempting to reintroduce Land- and- HoldShort Operations (LAHSO) at
O?Hare to increase runway capacity
Completed.
Aircraft have been isolated in a limited number of markets.
The strategic parking plan at Dulles has been implemented, reducing taxi
times for regional aircraft by up to 50 percent. Ongoing.
Flight times are continuously reviewed, and revisions are incorporated
into published schedules.
The experience with DDTC was successful; attempts are under way to get
similar systems installed at other locations.
United is working with FAA, NATCA, and the Air Line Pilots Association to
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 43 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
agree on the use of LAHSO at O?Hare. US Airways Major improvements recently
completed or
under way include:
Isolating aircraft routes that pass through Philadelphia and La Guardia to
isolate systemwide delays
Developing a ?slot- swapping? model to reduce specific flight and overall
system delays
Deploying surface movement technology at congested airports to reduce
ground congestion and taxi times.
Increasing the number of available backup aircraft from 11 to 16
Redesigning the schedule structure and reducing service at its
Philadelphia hub to match departure and arrival activity to the capacity of
the airport
Adjusting flight times throughout its system to reflect actual gate- to-
gate departures and arrivals
Developing aloft technology for dispatchers to revise the flight plans of
flights that are already en route
Obtaining larger Airbus A- 321 aircraft to reduce frequency in selected
markets
Working with FAA, airport managers, and ATC personnel to implement new
technology to enable dual landings on parallel runways during poor weather
conditions
Pursuing initiatives with FAA regarding air traffic and airspace
management
Implementing 21 additional initiatives to improve schedule reliability,
including severe weather recovery plans, aircraft use improvements, crew
scheduling, navigation capabilities, and other technological investments
Completed.
Philadelphia and La Guardia aircraft are isolated to the extent possible.
An improved slot- swapping system was implemented to enable US Airways?
air traffic manager to make decisions more quickly.
The surface movement advisor technology has been installed at
Philadelphia.
Additional backup aircraft were added in August 2000.
Changes to the Philadelphia schedule structure were implemented in June
2001. Ongoing.
Flight times are reviewed continuously, and revisions are incorporated
into published schedules.
Aloft technology capability is planned for implementation in 2002.
The first A- 321 aircraft began service in February 2001, with more
deliveries planned through the end of the year.
Philadelphia?s precision runway monitor is installed and certified, but is
not in operation. Work for similar technology at the Pittsburgh and
Charlotte hubs is ongoing.
US Airways is in the process of implementing 21 additional initiatives to
improve schedule reliability; it continues to work with FAA on air traffic
and airspace management.
Increasing airport physical capacity
Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport Major improvements recently
completed or under way include:
Reconstructing runway 9R- 27L
Constructing and expanding taxiways
Upgrading runway and taxiway intersections to facilitate movement of long
wheelbase aircraft
Installing an Interference Monitoring and Direction Finding System to
reduce radio frequency interference
Constructing a new fifth runway Completed.
Runway reconstruction was completed in 1999. Ongoing.
Taxiway N5 and angled exit taxiway M14 are scheduled for completion in
2002; runway 8R taxiway will be completed and taxiway L will be extended in
2003.
Intersection upgrades scheduled for completion in 2002.
The interference monitoring system will be active in 2002.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 44 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
EIS for the new runway was issued in September 2001; it is scheduled for
completion in 2005. Boston Logan International Airport Major improvements
recently completed or
under way include:
Adding a second ground control station to aid controllers
Implementing a new gate- leasing policy- airlines must ?use or lose?
Constructing a new 5, 000- foot runway for turboprops
Promoting the use of regional airports to reduce flight demand at Logan
Adding a centerfield taxiway Completed.
The ground control station is currently operational on an as- needed
basis.
The ?use or lose? policy is in effect for US Airways, American, Delta, and
United. Ongoing.
The new runway and centerfield taxiway are undergoing environmental
review.
Efforts to promote regional airports began approximately 4 years ago;
Massachusetts is spending $500,000 in 2001 for a public marketing campaign.
Chicago O?Hare International Airport Major improvements recently completed
or
under way include:
Initiating the World Gateway Program, which includes construction of 2 new
terminals, the reconstruction of 2 concourses (adding 20 to 30 gates), and
the extension and reconfiguration of taxiways
Undertaking the Chicago Airport System Strategic Capacity Initiative to
share costs with FAA for installation of navigation aids and surface
movement management systems.
Ongoing.
The World Gateway Program is currently under environmental review and is
scheduled for completion in 2008.
The technology initiative is under FAA review; equipment installation is
expected to be completed in 2006.
Dallas- Fort Worth International Airport Major improvements recently
completed or under way include:
Using an ongoing capacity enhancement design team to develop capacity-
enhancing options
Employing new navigation and communication technologies to shorten flight
times
Removing runway restrictions to allow greater use of regional jets
Constructing a new runway Ongoing.
The capacity enhancement team meets monthly.
New navigation and communications technologies are being installed and
tested.
Removal of runway restrictions is under environmental review.
The design layout for the new runway is being reviewed.
John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York) Major improvements recently
completed or
under way include:
Studying jet blasts to more precisely determine the minimum intervals
between aircraft departures and arrivals
Constructing an ?air train? between JFK Airport and Manhattan/ Long Island
that will relieve congestion at La Guardia
Upgrading a runway to category II/ III
Improving the southwest quadrant taxiway
Installing a new precision runway monitor (PRM) to increase landing
efficiency
Completed.
The jet blast study has been completed and separations have been reduced.
Ongoing.
The ?air train? will connect with the N. Y. subway system and commuter
rail by 2002 and make a second connection by 2003.
The runway upgrade is in design testing.
Taxiway improvements are under
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 45 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
Obtaining Port Authority funding of the ITWS
Creating an ongoing capacity enhancement task force
Working with FAA to redesign airspace over New York to reduce operating
restrictions and conflicts with other area airports
design.
Construction of the PRM began in June 2001 and is scheduled for
commissioning in mid- 2002.
The Port Authority is currently funding a prototype ITWS while FAA
develops a production system that is planned for installation in 2002.
The task force meets quarterly.
The airspace redesign is planned for completion by 2007. La Guardia
International Airport (New York)
Major improvements recently completed or under way include:
Collaborating with FAA to implement a ?slot lottery?
Strengthening the runway deck to accommodate larger aircraft
Removing obstacles to the runway to increase aircraft weight restrictions
and increase passenger capacity
Obtaining Port Authority funding for the ITWS
Using an ongoing capacity enhancement task force
Working with FAA to redesign airspace over New York to reduce operating
restrictions and conflicts with other area airports
Completed.
The slot lottery became effective on 1/ 31/ 01.
Deck strengthening has been recently completed.
A major obstacle was recently removed. Ongoing.
The Port Authority is currently funding a prototype ITWS while FAA
develops a production system that is planned for installation in 2002.
The task force meets quarterly.
The airspace redesign is planned for completion by 2007.
Lambert- St. Louis International Airport Major improvements recently
completed or under way include:
Adding two high- speed exits for the north parallel runway
Building a new terminal with12 new gates
Installing a PRM to enable the use of two runways during bad weather
conditions
Installing a converging runway display aid to assist controllers during
the worst weather conditions
Building a new, third parallel runway
Maintaining control of gates at the new terminal to ensure maximum
flexibility
Completed.
The high- speed exits were added in 1999.
The new terminal opened in 1998.
The PRM was installed in 1999.
The converging runway display aid is operational. Ongoing.
The new runway should be completed in 2005.
The airport is maintaining control of the gates as they are added.
Las Vegas McCarran International Airport Major improvements recently
completed or under way include:
Relocating the threshold on one runway to eliminate crossing of the
airport?s two runways.
Adding 10 more gates.
Adding an infield taxiway to improve movements to the north and south
Ongoing.
FAA has approved the relocation of the threshold and is now working with
the Air Transport Association to obtain concurrence from the airlines.
The additional 10 gates will be operational in 2004.
The taxiway addition is being designed and has an estimated completion
date of late 2003. Los Angeles International Airport Major improvements
recently completed or
under way include:
Developing a new airport master plan with the preferred option to increase
runway
Ongoing.
The preliminary EIS was released in January 2001 and was out for public
comment from 1/ 18/ 01 through
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 46 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
separation
Adding 50 to 75 gates
Encouraging the use of the nearby Ontario Airport to reduce congestion at
Los Angeles International Airport
7/ 26/ 01. The project is to be completed by 2015.
The master plan for Los Angeles International Airport and the EIS plan are
being revised to reflect the addition of gates.
To encourage the use of Ontario Airport, Los Angeles International Airport
is supporting an application by United Parcel Service for freight service
from Ontario to China. Miami International Airport Major improvements
recently completed or
under way include:
Adding a new 8,600- foot runway
Replacing the spoke- shaped concourse with a linear terminal to ease
ground movements to gates and adding 32 to 33 commuter gates
Constructing a new international concourse with 14 gates
Reconfiguring the north/ south taxiway to create a midfield hold pad to
add more hold space and ease ground congestion
Ongoing.
The runway has received its environmental approvals, and its design is
complete. Scheduled completion date is mid- to- late 2002.
The new linear terminal is scheduled for completion in 2006.
The design for the international concourse is scheduled for completion by
2007.
The hold pad should be completed in 2003. Minneapolis- St. Paul
International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Building a new runway
Building a new terminal with up to 16 new gates and expanding an existing
terminal to add 12 to 13 mainline gates and 29 regional jet gates
Maintaining control of the gates at the new terminal to ensure maximum
flexibility
Reconfiguring taxiways to avoid runway crossings
Improving deicing pads to allow simultaneous deicing of up to six aircraft
at the ends of the runways
Ongoing.
The new runway should be completed in December 2003.
The new terminal was opened in May 2001, and the existing terminal
expansion should be completed in 2002.
The airport is maintaining control of gates at the new terminal as they
are built.
The taxiway reconfiguration should be completed in December 2003.
The deicing pads should be completed in December 2003. Newark
International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Extending a runway
Constructing a new ATC tower
Removing runway obstacles to allow the increased use of the crosswind
runway
Introducing new approach procedures
Obtaining Port Authority funding for ITWS
Establishing an ongoing capacity enhancement task force
Working with FAA to redesign airspace over New York to reduce operating
restrictions and conflicts with other area airports
Completed.
The runway extension was completed in 1999. Ongoing.
A new tower is under construction by FAA.
Proceedings to remove the obstacles are under way.
New approach procedures are under development.
The Port Authority is funding a prototype ITWS while FAA develops a
production system that is planned for installation in 2002.
The task force meets quarterly.
The airspace redesign is planned for completion by 2007.
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 47 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
Philadelphia International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Constructing a new 5, 000- foot runway for commuter and GA aircraft
Adding a new visual approach to runway 27L to increase the number of
aircraft able to land
Installing a PRM system
Adding a new deicing pad capable of deicing seven aircraft simultaneously
Constructing 2 new terminal buildings- an international terminal that will
add 12 widebody gates and a commuter terminal that will add 38 gates; an
expansion to a third concourse will add 4 more gates
Construction of two new ramp control towers
Participating with an ongoing capacity enhancement task force
Collaborating with FAA on airspace redesign
Completed.
The new runway became operational in December 1999.
The visual approach was first used in 1999. Ongoing.
The PRM is installed and certification is expected by the end of 2001.
The deicing pad will be completed in late 2001.
The international terminal should be completed in early 2002, and the
commuter terminal was completed in June 2001. Four additional gates on
concourse D will be completed in late December 2001 or early 2002.
The first ramp control tower was completed in July 2001, and the second
should be operational by the end of 2001.
The capacity task force meets every 3 months.
The airspace redesign group meets approximately every 2 months, and the
redesign of airspace is scheduled to be completed in about 5 years. Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Adding a new 7,800- foot runway
Reconstructing and extending two major runways
Widening and adding taxiways
Adding concourses and gates in existing and new terminals
Eliminating hangars for GA aircraft and offering GA hangars at nearby
reliever airports on a priority basis
Constructing a new combined Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
facility and tower to allow installation of a PRM system and the Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement System
Relocating GA fixed based operators to the south side of the airport
Increasing the number of instrument landing systems (ILS)
Completed.
The new runway became operational in October 2000. Ongoing.
Runway reconstruction will be completed by 2002.
Taxiway improvements will be completed by 2002.
The new terminal will be completed in 2008.
Most GA hangars were removed in June 2000; the remaining hangars should be
removed as replacement space becomes available.
The tower and TRACON projects are under discussion with FAA.
Relocation of fixed based operators? facilities is scheduled for
completion in 2002.
The remaining ILS is to be added with runway reconstruction. Greater
Pittsburgh International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Adding a centerline, touchdown zone, and guard lights to a crosswind
runway to reduce aircraft separation
Improving taxiway lighting
Rebuilding and rehabilitating taxiways to Completed.
The runway lighting was completed in 2001.
The taxiway lighting improvements were completed in 2001. Ongoing.
Taxiway E is being planned and will
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 48 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
reduce hold short and deicing delays
Adding a fourth runway be completed in 2002. Taxiways F and P were
completed in 2001.
Taxiway Y was completed in summer 2000.
The new runway is in the early planning stage. San Diego International
Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Lengthening the main taxiway
Constructing a new concourse with 10 additional gates
Ongoing.
The taxiway will be completed in 2002.
The new concourse is undergoing environmental review and is scheduled for
completion by 2005. San Francisco International Airport Major improvements
recently completed or
under way include:
Concluding a voluntary agreement with United Airlines to refine its flight
schedule
Introducing a PRM and a simultaneous offset instrument approach (SOIA)
Realigning a runway to provide full capacity operations in all weather
conditions
Completed.
The refined schedule with United Airlines was implemented in November
2000. Ongoing.
Installation of the PRM and the SOIA is under way.
The runway reconfiguration is undergoing environmental analysis. Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport Major improvements recently completed or
under way include:
Constructing an additional runway
Replacing an old concourse and adding seven gates
Ongoing.
The runway is undergoing environmental review and construction is
scheduled for completion in 2006.
The new concourse is scheduled for completion by 2003.
Miscellaneous initiatives with indirect impact - Federal Aviation
Administration
Challenger Session 2000 This November 2000 seminar brought together aviation
community participants to exchange views on approaches to reduce flight
delays.
Completed. A transcript of the seminar proceedings was prepared and made
available on the Internet.
Miscellaneous initiatives with indirect impact - Department of
Transportation
?Best practices? for improving the air travel experience The Office of the
Secretary of Transportation
(OST) initiated this project to identify (1) the ?best practices? used by
airlines and airports to improve consumer access to flight information and
(2) the services that minimize the adverse effects of flight delays and
cancellations on consumers.
Completed. A report on best practices was released in October 2000.
Recommendations of the Air Carrier OnTime Reporting Advisory Committee DOT
initiated this committee to address
requirements in AIR- 21 that the Department take steps to consider changes
to current ontime reporting by airlines (14 CFR part 234) to provide clear
information to the public about the nature and the sources of flight delays
and cancellations.
Completed. The initial recommendation was sent to the Secretary on 11/ 29/
00. In accordance with the recommendations of the task force, OST and FAA
staff are now informally working with the industry to test the reporting of
categories of sources of delays and cancellations. Ultimately, a rulemaking
will be required to implement AIR- 21?s requirement to modify part 234 to
include the nature and
Appendix II: Initiatives by DOT, FAA, and Selected Airlines and Airports to
Address Flight Delays
Page 49 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Initiative sponsor and description Objective Status
sources of flight delays and cancellations.
Plane Talk fact sheet This document provides consumers with information to
help them reduce their chances of encountering flight delays and assist them
in coping with delays.
Completed. This document was issued on 11/ 2/ 00 and is available on the
Internet and in hard copy. It is the latest in a series of fact sheets for
air travelers, which are issued by DOT?s Aviation Consumer Protection
Division. Enhanced information regarding carrier rankings in terms of flight
delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints in connection with DOT?s
monthly Air Travel Consumer Report
This monthly report provides consumers with information to make a more
informed choice when making a flight reservation.
Completed. This information is now provided in DOT?s monthly Air Travel
Consumer Report available on the Internet.
a ?Free flight? is defined as a safe and efficient operating capability
under instrument flight rules in which the pilots have the freedom to select
their flight path and speed. Air traffic restrictions are only imposed to
ensure separation between planes, keep an airplane from exceeding an
airport?s capacity, prevent unauthorized flight through special use
airspace, and ensure flight safety. Restrictions to correct the identified
problem are limited in extent and duration. Any activity that removes
restrictions represents a move toward free flight. b Free Flight Phase 1
(FFP1) provides for the limited deployment of five initial core
capabilities- User
Request Evaluation Tool, traffic management advisor, passive Final Approach
Spacing Tool, collaborative decisionmaking, and surface movement advisor- to
manage risk while incrementally providing early benefits to users. FFP1 is
chartered to implement capabilities that provide early, measurable benefits
to the aviation community and provide a vital impetus to the agency?s use of
free flight. c ADS- B uses satellite navigation to enable aircraft to
broadcast such information as identification,
position, altitude, velocity, and intent. This broadcast information may be
received and processed by other aircraft or ground systems via data- links
to improve situational awareness, the ability to avoid conflicts,
surveillance, and management of air and ground traffic.
Source: GAO analysis of agency, airline, and airport data.
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 50 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Presented below are additional details about each of the seven measures
listed in table 5 of this report. Also shown is additional information from
previous studies that have examined- and in some cases advocated- one or
more of these measures.
This measure, which involves adding new airports in metropolitan areas to
augment existing congested airports, has the potential to profoundly impact
the capacity of the entire system, according to past studies. These studies
say that building new airports in congested metropolitan areas holds perhaps
the greatest promise for providing the capacity needed to meet rapid
passenger growth. Also, multiple airports in certain areas, like those that
exist in New York and the greater Los Angeles area, each have their own
full- service patterns and can offer passengers convenience and improved
accessibility. However, past studies were not optimistic about the
probability that many new airports will materialize, given a number of
formidable barriers, which include (1) finding a suitable site that does not
conflict with other potential uses of the land, (2) overcoming concerns
about noise and other environmental problems in sensitive areas, (3)
providing adequate landside access (e. g., roads), (4) justifying the large
investment required to build a new facility, and (5) gaining the support and
financial backing from incumbent airlines.
Several past studies have discussed the development of a new type of
airport, called ?wayports,? which differ from conventional airports in that
they are further removed from large metropolitan areas and serve a special
purpose. Under the wayport concept, such airports would be developed- either
by using existing underused regional airports and former military bases or
by building new airports- to supplement the current capacity needs of
congested or capacity- constrained major hubs. Wayports are envisioned to be
potentially large facilities- located on the fringe of or away from large
metropolitan areas and near smaller cities (100,000 to 200,000 population)-
that would serve mainly as transfer points for longdistance air travel
routes. Except for nonstop service from one city to another (called ?city
pairs?), all flights would connect at these points to accomplish passenger
transfer. As envisioned, service between these transfer points could be
supplied either by large aircraft or by Appendix III: Description of Delay-
Reducing
Measures Not Included in FAA?s Operational Evolution Plan
Category 1: Adding Airport Infrastructure
Measure 1: Add New Airports in Metropolitan Areas With High Traffic Volume
Measure 2: Develop a New Type of Airport to Serve as Transfer Points
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 51 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
conventional aircraft operating on a high- frequency schedule. Connection
between wayports and major cities in the region could be provided by short-
haul aircraft or high- speed ground transportation, such as rail or highway.
Wayports would be regional multimodal transportation hubs offering
connections to surrounding cities by whatever means of transport that would
be cost- effective. They would also serve as cargo and mail handling
centers.
Building wayports may not face the degree of opposition that building new
airports would- especially from local communities- because wayports would be
further away from large urban centers. Also, some studies have suggested
that wayports would be less costly than comparable airports built in major
metropolitan areas, could provide more open competition among airlines, and
would likely result in less airspace congestion because of their location
further away from congested metropolitan areas. However, the wayport concept
has never been tried and gaining acceptance from airlines, sponsoring
authorities, and affected communities might prove difficult.
This measure involves the creation of more regional airports at underused
airports located about 50 miles from congested metropolitan airports. Many
such underused facilities already exist throughout the nation. These
regional airports could be used in two scenarios. Under one scenario, the
regional airports would be similar to wayports, except on a smaller scale.
They would be used mainly for transfer passengers, particularly at large,
congested hubs that have a large percentage of transfer passengers. Under
the second scenario, a network of regional airports located around a major
congested hub would take origin and destination passengers diverted from the
large hub. The regional airports around Boston Logan Airport are an example.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (MASSPORT), which operates Logan, is
working with state aviation directors and transportation agencies to make
more efficient use of regional airports around Logan, including Manchester
(New Hampshire), Worcester (Massachusetts), and T. F. Green (Providence,
Rhode Island), to steer millions of new origin and destination passengers to
these airports by 2010. All of these regional airports are within an hour?s
drive of Logan. Mid- America Airport near St. Louis is another example of a
potential candidate for a regional airport for St. Louis- Lambert Field- a
major hub for American Airlines. Located just 24 miles from downtown St.
Louis, Mid- America is a joint- use civilian and military facility colocated
with Scott Air Force Base. It has two, wellspaced runways over 8,000 feet
long; it has substantial excess capacity. Measure 3: Develop
Regional Airports That Are Underused
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 52 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Regardless of which scenario is used, the implementation of this measure
could provide needed system capacity and accommodate some of the growth in
air travel over the short term without adding significantly to the
congestion and delay now experienced at the busiest metropolitan airports,
according to past studies. Also, the cost to upgrade and expand the existing
facilities would likely be less than new airports and possibly somewhat less
than wayports. To the extent that regional airports were located in less
densely populated areas, concerns with noise and conflicting land use may be
less than at large metropolitan airports. Like the previous two measures,
however, this measure would require at least one airline to commit to
incorporating a regional airport into its long- range hubbing service
system. Similarly, the airport must secure the financial resources necessary
to develop the airport to its full capacity.
This measure relies on market forces to redistribute flight demand and
allocate existing airport resources efficiently. Past studies and current
literature suggest that the current airport access policies and the approach
for determining landing fees have created some incentives that lead to the
inefficient use of existing capacity at many congested airports. Two
policies in particular have been cited as influencing airline behavior in
this regard. The first policy deals with an aircraft?s access to airports,
the second with the fees that airports can charge for landing. By law, all
aircraft- corporate and other general aviation aircraft, cargo carriers, and
airlines- have equal landing access rights. This applies to small and large
aircraft alike. When they land, laws and regulations require that airports
charge the aircraft operators in a nondiscriminatory, reasonable basis-
generally on the landed weight of each aircraft. 23 Although this fee
structure is fine for noncongested airports, it can have profound
consequences at congested ones. Some economists and industry representatives
contend that these policies allow airlines- which are driven by competitive
pressures and profit- maximizing motives- to
23 Weights of different types of aircraft are based on manufacturers?
specifications; airplanes are not weighed upon arrival or departure from an
airport. Fees are charged only for landings; there are no takeoff fees.
Category 2: Managing
Demand Measure 1: Adopt MarketBased Mechanisms
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 53 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
overschedule flights at busy airports during peak hours and use smaller
aircraft and more frequent flights to meet passenger demand. They also
contend that the current system provides little incentive for airlines or
general aviation aircraft to use other nearby airports that have underused
capacity.
Two market- based methods are most commonly mentioned to alter the behavior
of airlines and passengers at congested airports to better ensure that
existing capacity is used efficiently- differential pricing and auctions.
Adopting a differential pricing approach would mean that landing fees would
be higher at times when demand exceeded the availability of landing slots
and lower at other times. An auction approach would allow airports to
periodically auction a fixed number of takeoff and landing slots- equal to
the airport?s capacity- to the highest bidders. For example, an airport, in
conjunction with FAA, could determine its perquarter- hour takeoff and
landing capacity, and a competitive bidding process among carriers could
determine fees during each period. The two methods differ to a degree in the
simplicity of implementation and the certainty they would provide about
congestion levels. Of the two, differential pricing is the simpler to
implement, but this method provides less certainty about congestion levels.
Auctioning takeoff and landing slots provides greater certainty about
congestion levels, but entails a more complex design and may be more costly
to operate.
Because of increased congestion and delays at some airports, airport
managers and FAA were seriously studying this option before September 11,
2001. For example, FAA and the New York/ New Jersey Port Authority were
studying market- based and administrative solutions for use at La Guardia to
bring demand and airport capacity into alignment and reduce delays. It was
anticipated that some form of demand management approach would be adopted
there sometime next year. However, citing the significant decrease in
operations at La Guardia following the terrorist attacks, FAA has suspended
this study.
Proponents of a market- based approach cite several advantages, namely that
(1) this approach will bring about needed changes without artificial or
forced administrative or regulatory changes, (2) the costs of implementing
it are relatively modest, and (3) increased revenues derived from various
forms of congestion pricing can be used by airports to fund needed capital
development projects. Critics say this approach could increase passenger
ticket prices; reduce access for financially weaker small carriers; and
adversely affect service to small communities, which would be less likely
than large cities to retain their service to the capacity- constrained
airports.
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 54 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Past studies have mentioned a number of administrative and regulatory
methods to manage flight demand. These methods include maintaining or
expanding slot restrictions, adjusting airline flight schedules, diverting
smaller aircraft to reliever airports, using larger aircraft at congested
airports, and developing more flexible gate access policies. Each method is
described below.
Since 1969, four airports- La Guardia, JFK International, Washington Reagan
National, and Chicago O?Hare- have operated under a slot system, whereby the
number of flight operations is capped and takeoff and landing rights (slots)
are allocated administratively. 24 Such systems are often done through
grandfathering, a lottery, or some other nonmarket mechanism. These slots
have been somewhat effective in controlling delays at these airports.
However, provisions in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21 st Century (AIR- 21) would eliminate the slot system at three
of these airports by 2007. At La Guardia, AIR- 21 provided immediate
exemptions from the slot system for flights by new entrants and flights
serving small communities. Almost immediately, the airport was overwhelmed
with applications for over 600 new flights to and from the airport. Because
the requests far exceeded the capacity of La Guardia, FAA in cooperation
with the airport implemented a temporary lottery to allocate a limited
number of slots and requested that a study of marketbased alternatives be
completed. However, due to the reduction in aircraft operations at La
Guardia following the terrorist attacks this year, FAA has delayed this
study until the long- term impact of September 11 on traffic at La Guardia
is better understood.
Researchers have concluded that slot systems can be effective in controlling
congestion at busy airports, but they also note that potentially slot
systems can pose barriers to competition and adversely affect service to
smaller communities, which are two important congressional concerns.
An alternative to using slot systems is to have airlines make voluntary
flight schedule adjustments to even out periods of peak demand. In an
attempt to reduce congestion, some airlines have recently done this on their
own in limited situations. However, they are prohibited by antitrust
provisions of current law from discussing flight schedules with other
airlines. Two bills before the Congress (H. R. 1407 and S. 633) would allow
24 Newark International Airport was among those airports chosen for slot
restrictions in 1969. Newark abandoned the slot system in 1970. Measure 2:
Using
Administrative or Regulatory Methods
Using Slot Restrictions Adjusting Airline Flight Schedules
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 55 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
air carriers to discuss voluntary flight schedule changes at congested
airports to reduce delays. 25
The ability of airlines to agree on schedule adjustments to even out peaks
in air traffic at crowded airports is uncertain. Historically, critics point
to the failure of airline scheduling committees that existed for the same
purpose in the 1970s and 1980s. The committees- made up of airlines serving
the four slot- controlled airports- worked reasonably well before
deregulation in 1978, but afterwards the committees found it increasingly
difficult to agree on voluntary adjustments. Deregulation brought fierce
competition and a sizable drop in passenger fares, a corresponding growth in
passenger demand, and increased profit opportunities. This caused airline
overscheduling during congested times to satisfy passenger demand and
maximize profits. As experience has shown, voluntary flight schedule
adjustments by one airline can create slots for other airlines to add to
their schedules.
This measure would require much of the general aviation aircraft (including
corporate aircraft) and aircraft involved in air taxi service to shift from
congested airports to nearby reliever airports, which are underused.
Currently, smaller aircraft account for at least 25 percent of all air
traffic at most of the congested airports in the nation- many of which have
expensive runway projects under way. For example, general aviation aircraft
and air taxi flights at four severely capacity- constrained airports, La
Guardia, Kennedy, Philadelphia, and Boston Logan, account for about 31, 34,
41, and 46 percent of the total operations at each airport, respectively.
Diverting smaller aircraft away from congested metropolitan airports to
reliever airports could free up capacity for use by larger commercial air
traffic. For example, congestion pricing mechanisms implemented at Boston
Logan in 1988 and the three New York airports (Kennedy, Newark, and La
Guardia) in 1968 produced sizable results. Much of the general aviation
aircraft abandoned Logan for secondary airports, and delays at Boston Logan
dropped. After a $25 premium fee was imposed for peakhour use of runways at
the three New York airports, general aviation
25 S. 633 would allow only DOT to convene a meeting of the airlines to
discuss schedules. The FAA Administrator would chair the meeting and serve
as an intermediary between the airlines for any delay- reduction offers.
Diverting Smaller General
Aviation and Other Aircraft to Reliever Airports
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 56 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
aircraft use dropped 30 percent. 26 Adopting this kind of measure on a
nationwide basis would likely require a change in the law that requires
airports to provide equal access to all aircraft.
Through regulatory means, this measure would require airlines to fly larger
aircraft into congested airports that are currently being served with
smaller aircraft. Currently, airlines decide the size of aircraft to fly on
their routes. The average size of aircraft serving airports today is getting
progressively smaller, because airlines are using smaller aircraft and more
frequent flights to meet passenger preferences. For example, in 1999, there
were actually 10 fewer seats per aircraft, on average, than in 1993. In
2000, at La Guardia, one of the most congested airports in America, 5
percent of the passengers traveled on 25 percent of the planes- a reality of
the incentives to which the airlines are reacting.
Flying larger aircraft (that were full or nearly full) into congested
airports could allow airlines to accommodate more passenger growth and
potentially decrease flight frequencies, which ultimately could decrease
delays and improve the use of existing facilities at crowded airports.
However, the unilateral imposition of administrative restrictions by
airports on the size of aircraft allowed into congested airports could
violate provisions of current laws that require airports to allow equal
access to all aircraft. Implementation would likely require a change in such
statutory provisions.
This measure would require altering contractual arrangements or use
agreements between airlines and airports, which specify the air carriers?
use of the airports? facilities. The nature and longevity of two agreements
in particular- gate leasing arrangements and majority- in- interest (MII)
clauses- can potentially result in the inefficient use of airport facilities
and may prevent the airport from undertaking capacity- enhancing capital
projects. The terms of gate leasing arrangements can be particularly
critical in ensuring the efficient use of airport capacity. By law, airports
are forbidden from denying an air carrier reasonable access to airport
facilities. However, some large commercial airports have long- term
?exclusive use? agreements with airlines for most of their gates, which
means that even if a gate is not in use, no other airline can use it without
26 These congestion pricing mechanisms at Boston Logan Airport were found to
be illegal by a federal district court because, among other things, they had
a discriminatory effect on smaller aircraft. In addition, the Department had
ruled, as an outcome of an administrative proceeding, that the landing fees
at Boston Logan were illegal. Using Larger Aircraft
Developing More Flexible Gate Access Policies
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 57 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
permission from the signatory airline. According to DOT, this practice is
contrary to the legal requirement for reasonable access. By locking up all
of the gates, even if they are underused, airlines can limit capacity at
affected congested airports, and, if prevalent at a number of airports, can
effectively limit the capacity of the entire system. Restrictive practices
at exclusive use gates are becoming less prevalent also due to the passenger
facility charge (PFC) program requirement that competitive access must be
ensured at a carrier?s exclusively leased gates if that carrier uses
PFCfinanced gates. Modification of MII clauses is equally important in
ensuring that future capacity can be realized. Current MII clauses give
dominant airlines at an airport ?veto? power, in effect, over large capital
projects that can increase capacity.
Encouraging or even requiring airports to develop more flexible, shorter
term gate and MII agreements is a way to better ensure that existing airport
capacity is enhanced. 27 However, this practice would not be doable
immediately in many cases, since use agreements between airlines and
airports are usually long- term contracts. Airports cannot unilaterally
renegotiate shorter or more flexible agreements until these long- term
agreements expire.
Unlike other measures that concentrate on enhancing capacity through airport
improvements, this category of measures would enhance airport capacity by
providing alternative transportation modes to move passengers from one
location to another.
This measure would involve developing high- speed ground transportation,
such as rail, between large metropolitan cities. A portion of a congested
airport?s capacity may be freed up by diverting some shorter distance travel
demand to high- speed ground transportation. As an alternative to air
travel, this measure would be focused mainly on high- density routes of 200
to 500 miles. DOT has designated 11 high- speed rail corridors in U. S.
locations, such as the Northeast, California, Chicago, and the Pacific
Northwest. Work is under way at several locations, most notably in the
Northeast Corridor, and, when completed, could provide viable
27 In accordance with AIR- 21 and its newly required competition plans for
airports, DOT has required airports to describe how they would make
exclusive use gates available to requesting carriers and how they might
modify their MII clauses so that signatory carriers could not impede or
delay competition- enhancing capital construction projects. Category 3:
Using
Ground Alternatives Measure 1: Build HighSpeed Intercity Ground
Transportation
Appendix III: Description of Delay- Reducing Measures Not Included in FAA?s
Operational Evolution Plan
Page 58 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
alternatives to air travel, thereby alleviating the pressure on the air
transport system.
High- speed trains have been used successfully in Europe and Asia and have
proven to be viable alternatives for air travel in some cases. For example,
the French Railway company recently initiated service between Paris and
Marseilles via a high- speed train; this service reduces the travel time for
the 500- mile trip from 5 to 3 hours by rail. The train is expected to
siphon off as much as one- fourth of the 2.5 million passengers who travel
by air between these cities each year. Already, one airline serving this
route has discontinued its service between the two cities due to the added
competition of the new rail service.
Although this measure has been tried successfully in Europe and Asia, its
cost- effectiveness and technical feasibility in this country have not been
demonstrated. For example, trains on Amtrak?s Metroliner service between New
York and Washington, D. C., travel up to 125 miles per hour for portions of
the trip. However, Amtrak?s estimate of the cost to fully develop the
federally designated high- speed rail corridors and the Northeast Corridor
is $50 billion to $70 billion over 20 years. Whether ridership will be
sufficient to cover this cost is unknown. In the end, competitive rates and
comparable portal- to- portal travel time would be keys to the success of
this alternative.
Another possible application of high- speed ground transportation is to
facilitate passenger movement between airports or from city centers to new
airports located on the fringe or outside of the metropolitan area. For
example, in the long term, MASSPORT plans to connect Boston Logan
International Airport to five nearby regional airports by ground
transportation, using Logan for long- haul flights and the regional airports
for short- and medium- haul flights. One study also suggested that highspeed
surface transportation could help the development of wayports, since it
would provide links to major cities in the region served without imposing a
burden on the airspace and runways at the wayport. Like the previous
measure, the cost- effectiveness of such systems would have to be
demonstrated in the context of an overall regional airport system to
increase capacity. Measure 2: Provide HighSpeed
Ground Transportation Connections for Airports
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 59 GAO- 02- 185 Long- Term Capacity Planning Needed
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph. D. (202) 512- 3650 Randall B. Williamson, (206)
287- 4860
In addition to those named above, Karyn I. Angulo, Jonathan Bachman, Steven
N. Calvo, Jay Cherlow, JayEtta Z. Hecker, David Hooper, Christopher M.
Jones, Joseph D. Kile, Steven C. Martin, LuAnn Moy, and Stanley G. Stenersen
made significant contributions to this report. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and
Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments
(390001)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO E- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and
complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
Products.?
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013
To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
258- 4066
GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system).
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***