National Airspace System: Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and
Enhance Capacity are Ongoing but Challenges Remain (26-MAY-05,	 
GAO-05-755T).							 
                                                                 
Since the unprecedented flight delays in 2000, a year in which	 
one in four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been	 
adversely affected by many unanticipated events--such as the	 
September 11th terrorist attacks, and Severe Acute Respiratory	 
Syndrome (SARS)--that significantly reduced the demand for air	 
travel. However, demand for air travel is rebounding. For	 
example, the number of passengers traveling by air increased from
642 million in 2003 to 688 million in 2004. Flight delays have	 
been among the most vexing problems in the national		 
transportation system and are defined by the Department of	 
Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15  
minutes or more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, one in	 
five flights were delayed primarily at New York La Guardia and	 
Chicago O'Hare. Delays at these airports have consequences for	 
the rest of the system. GAO's testimony addresses the following  
questions that pertain to flight delays and enhancing capacity:  
(1) What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government,	 
airlines, and airports to address flight delays and enhance	 
capacity? (2) What are some of the challenges in reducing flight 
delays and enhancing capacity? (3) What other options are	 
available for reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity?	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-755T					        
    ACCNO:   A25199						        
  TITLE:     National Airspace System: Initiatives to Reduce Flight   
Delays and Enhance Capacity are Ongoing but Challenges Remain	 
     DATE:   05/26/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Air traffic control systems			 
	     Air transportation 				 
	     Airlines						 
	     Airports						 
	     Commercial aviation				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Travel						 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Air travel 					 
	     FAA Operation Evaluation Plan			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-05-755T

     

     * Background
          * A Number of Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance
            Capacity Are Ongoing
          * Challenges in Reducing Flight Delays and Enhancing Capacity
            Remain
          * Other Options Could Help Address Capacity Needs
     * Appendix I: List of 35 Airports in the Federal Av
          * Order by Mail or Phone

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Testimony

GAO

    Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                          Transportation, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery    NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM                        
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 
Thursday, May 26, 2005     
                              Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance 
                              Capacity are Ongoing but Challenges Remain      
                              Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.        
                              Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues        

GAO-05-755T

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity are Ongoing but
Challenges Remain

  What GAO Found

Several initiatives to address flight delays and enhance capacity are
ongoing. Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA's February 2005
Operation Evolution Plan, which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and
efficiency of the national airspace system at 35 of the busiest airports
in the United States. New runways opened in the last 6 years at the
Phoenix, Detroit, and 5 other airports. Seven more runways are scheduled
to open by the end of 2008. Congress and FAA also streamlined the process
for building runways. In addition to building runways, several other
initiatives were implemented. For example, in January 2005, FAA
implemented the Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum which is
designed to increase high altitude routes in the contiguous United States
and Alaska. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone airports,
FAA is limiting the number of takeoffs and landings during peak periods at
New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare and is considering auctioning off
landing and take off rights at New York La Guardia.

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity
remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for the initiatives
mentioned above; their successful implementation is predicated on the
availability of funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and
airports. Another challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing
capacity at delay-prone airports, such as New York La Guardia, which have
little capacity to expand and would find it difficult to build even one
more runway.

Other options to address delay problems include adding new capacity by
building new airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago,
Las Vegas, and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another
option is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as high-speed
rail, where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These
options may conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder
groups; and, in many cases, would be costly.

                 Flight delays totaled over one million in 2004

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss flight delays and capacity
issues in the national airspace system. Since the unprecedented flight
delays in 2000, a year in which flight delays totaled 1.4 million and one
in four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been adversely
affected by many unanticipated events-such as the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Iraq war and associated security concerns, and Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)- that significantly reduced the demand for air
travel. However, that demand for air travel is rebounding. For example,
the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in
2003 to 688 million in 2004. FAA estimates that by 2015 there will be as
many as one billion travelers per year in the United States.

The current rebound in air travel has been a significant factor in a
resurgence of flight delays today. Flight delays have many causes.
Historically, the major cause of flight delays has been bad weather. For
example, seventy percent of the flight delays from 2000 to 2004 were
weather-related. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of
capacity-that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle
the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Changes in the composition of the
aircraft fleet-including the airlines' greater reliance on regional jets
with an average of 49 seats- has also increased the number of aircraft in
the national airspace system, which has placed greater demand on the
system. Besides airlines, other parts of the aviation community are also
likely to place more demands on the national airspace system. For example,
corporations may make increasing use of their corporate jets, which often
use the same airports and airspace as those used by airlines.

Flight delays have also been among the most vexing problems in the
national airspace system and are defined by the Department of
Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or
more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, the number of flight delays
totaled over 1.4 million and almost one in five flights were delayed
primarily at New York La Guardia, Newark International, Chicago O'Hare,
and Atlanta Hartsfield. Because these are some of the busiest airports in
the country, their delays generally have significant ramifications for the
rest of the national airspace system. Our nation's airspace system is a
critical engine of economic growth that facilitates the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods around the globe, consequently flight delays
and capacity issues have significant ramifications. According to the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,
consumers stand to lose $30 billion dollars annually if people and
products do not reach their destinations within expected time periods. The
Air Transport Association also reports that flight delays in 2004 cost the
airline industry an estimated $6.2 billion in direct operating costs (e.g.
pilots, flight attendants, and fuel).

My statement today updates our 2001 report entitled: National Airspace
System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in
Flight Delays 1 and addresses the following questions:

     o What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government, airlines, and
       airports to address flight delays and enhance capacity?
     o What are some of the challenges in reducing flight delays and
       enhancing capacity?
     o What other options are available to address flight delays and enhance
       capacity?

To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from FAA,
Airports Council International, and Air Transport Association on the
status and impact of initiatives to reduce flight delays that were
identified in our December 2001 report. We performed our work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary:

o  Several initiatives to reduce flight delays, such as those shown in
figure 1, and enhance capacity are ongoing.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Airspace System: Long-Term
Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays,
GAO-02-185 (Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2001).

Page 2 GAO-05-755T

Figure 1: Illustration of Flight Delays

Source: FAA.

Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA's February 2005 Operation
Evolution Plan which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency
of the national airspace system and focuses on airport congestion, air
traffic management flow efficiency, en route congestion, and terminal area
congestion at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. 2 FAA
acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate
solution to congestion and delay problems. Also, over the last the six
years, new runways were opened at the Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami,
Cleveland, Houston, and Orlando airports, which provided those airports
with the potential to accommodate about one million more annual operations
(take-offs and landings). Seven more runways and one runway extension are
scheduled to open by the end of 2008 with the potential to accommodate
889,000 more annual operations. In addition to building runways, several
new systems or technologies were implemented. For example, in January
2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
which is designed to increase available high altitude routes which gives
pilots and air traffic controllers more choices so that aircraft can fly
more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient

See appendix 1 for a list of the 35 airports that are in the OEP.

altitudes. FAA is also pursuing some additional solutions for flight
delays that are not in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at some of the
delay-prone airports such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare, FAA
is also exploring administrative and market-based options. For example,
FAA is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights and using
congestion pricing at New York La Guardia and limiting the number of
takeoffs and landings during peak periods at Chicago O'Hare.

     o A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing
       capacity remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for many of the
       initiatives mentioned above; their successful implementation is
       predicated on the availability of funding from several sources,
       including FAA, airlines, and airports. However, since 2000, the
       financial condition of the aviation industry has changed
       significantly. Many structural changes, such as the growth of the low
       cost carriers which led to lower average fares and external events
       (e.g. global recessions and a steep decline in business travel) have
       caused a dip in demand for air travel and resulted in sharp decreases
       in airline industry revenue and the amount of revenues flowing into
       the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. 3 FAA expects that over the next
       four years there may be an $8.2 billion dollar gap between its costs
       and revenues. In 2004, the airline industry losses totaled $14 billion
       and the industry is expecting similar losses in 2005, which will make
       it difficult for them to equip their aircraft with some of the new air
       traffic control technology, according to Air Transport Association
       officials.
     o Other options are available to address delay problems. One option is
       to add new capacity-not by adding runways to existing
       capacity-constrained airports, but rather by building entirely new
       airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas,
       and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another option
       is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as, but not
       limited to, high-speed rail where metropolitan areas are relatively
       close together. These options may conflict with the interests of one
       or more key stakeholder groups, and, in many cases, would be costly.

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

3

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund help funds the development of a
nationwide airport and airway system and air traffic control facilities.

Page 4 GAO-05-755T

delays can quickly spread beyond those airports where delays tend to occur
most often, such as New York La Guardia, Chicago O'Hare, Newark
International, and Atlanta Hartsfield. Delays at these airports can
quickly create a "ripple" effect of delays that affects many airports
across the country. For example, flights scheduled to take off from these
airports may find themselves being held at the departing airport due to
weather or limited airspace. 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.

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-that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle
the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Capacity can be measured in a
variety of ways. For example, at individual airports, one measure is the
maximum number of takeoffs and landings that can be conducted in a given
period, such as 15 minutes or 1 hour. In our 2001 report, we noted that
FAA had established such a capacity benchmark at each of the 31 of the
nation's busiest airports. 4 FAA's data on capacity and demand at these
airports showed that even in optimum weather conditions, 16 airports had
at least three 15-minute periods each day when demand exceeded capacity. 5

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 in 2001 showed that in bad weather, 22 of the 31 airports had
at least three 15-minute periods when demand exceeded capacity. Another
measure of capacity, apart from the capacity of individual airports, is
the number of aircraft that can be in a given sector of the 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.

4

FAA updated its capacity benchmark report in 2004.

5

The current OEP includes 35 of the busiest airports in the U.S.

  A Number of Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity Are
  Ongoing

Addressing flight delay problems also requires action by multiple aviation
stakeholders 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
national airspace system, distributing federal funding for airports, and
setting operating standards for all aircraft and airports. Airports and
airlines are also important decision makers and funding sources. 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. Airlines' business decisions have
a strong effect on the volume and routing of flights, the type and size of
aircraft used, and the degree to which aircraft are upgraded to take
advantage of new technology.

Several initiatives to reduce flight delays and enhance capacity are
ongoing. These initiatives which FAA, the airlines, and the airports are
implementing are incorporated into FAA's major capacity-enhancing effort:
the Operation Evolution Plan (OEP). The OEP is a rolling 10-year plan to
increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system and
focuses on airport surface infrastructure, and technological and
procedural initiatives at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States.
FAA acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate
solution to congestion and delay problems. Responsibility for the various
initiatives is still shared among the various segments of the aviation
community. In February 2005, FAA published version 7 of the OEP and
organized it into the following four quadrants:

Airport Congestion. The Airport Congestion quadrant focuses on capacity
enhancements for the airport surface. One of the most effective ways to
increase capacity is to build runways; however, it takes an average of 10
years from the time planning begins for a runway until it is commissioned.
To help expedite the process for building runways, Congress and FAA
streamlined the environmental review phase of the runway process. In
addition, according to FAA, over the last six years, seven new runways
were opened at Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami, Cleveland, Houston, and
Orlando airports which provided those airports with the potential to
accommodate about one million more annual operations (take-offs and
landings). Seven more runways and one runway extension are included in the
OEP and are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. These runways are
expected to provide those airports with the potential to accommodate
889,000 more annual operations in the system, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Commissioned and Planned Runways, December 1999 to November 2008

Source: MapArt.

Note: Included in the planned runways is one runway extension project.

In addition to the runways listed in the OEP, nine more projects are in
the planning or environmental stages, including one new runway, three
airfield reconfigurations, one runway extension, and three new airports in
major metropolitan areas. FAA also has additional flight reduction
activities that are not included in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at
some of the delay-prone airports, such as New York La Guardia and Chicago
O'Hare, FAA is exploring administrative and market based options. For
example, FAA is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at
New York La Guardia and is currently limiting the number of scheduled
arrivals during peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare.

Air Traffic Management Flow Efficiency. This quadrant focuses on new
technology and procedures to optimize the flow of traffic and maximize
system throughput which may allow better control and utilization of
current airspace. Included is the Collaborative Convective Forecast
Product which is a graphical forecast of potential convective activity
areas

(i.e. thunderstorms) for use in the strategic planning and management of
air traffic. It is intended to provide advance planning for long haul
flights and allows for schedule predictability based on 2-, 4-, and 6-hour
forecasts. This tool is most useful during the severe weather avoidance
procedures season, which is from March to October. Another program is
Collaborative Decision Making, which is a joint government/industry
initiative. Collaborative decision making focuses on electronic data
exchange; optimized airspace utilization; shared planning and
decision-making; and post-analysis reporting. In addition, the Traffic
Management Advisor, which is in operation at eight air route traffic
control centers, is an automated decision support tool, is intended to
provide controllers and traffic management coordinators more information
on airport arrival demand and available capacity for making decisions on
aircraft spacing.

En Route Congestion. Although the flying public is impacted by delays at
the airports, many times this occurs in the en route areas as the airways
become congested. The tools in this quadrant reduce delays and contribute
to time and fuel savings for the vast majority of airspace users. One of
the tools currently in use is reduced lateral (side-to-side) separation
may provide space for additional routes between current city pairs or
allow for new direct routes. Reduced longitudinal (nose-to-tail)
separation may provide more opportunities to add flights without incurring
delays. For domestic flights, Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
was implemented in fiscal year 2005 in the contiguous United States and
Alaska and adds six additional flight levels between existing flight
levels. The User Request Evaluation Tool which was installed at l7 air
route traffic control centers and is operational at 13 air route traffic
control centers, allows controllers to predict aircraft-to-aircraft and
aircraft-to-airspace conflicts, which allows them to construct alternative
flight paths. Airspace redesign projects also provide significant capacity
improvements. For example, new routes added as part of the High Altitude
Redesign increased en route throughput form the Pacific Northwest into the
San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles Basin areas.

  Challenges in Reducing Flight Delays and Enhancing Capacity Remain

Terminal Area Congestion. Terminal airspace is a critical component in the
efficient use of airport capacity. In instances where volume has increased
and the current airspace structure is the limiting factor, redesigning
arrival and departure procedures, including the addition of Area
Navigation and Required Navigation Performance procedures, will allow more
efficient use of constrained terminal airspace. Also, by applying existing
technology with new procedures may provide instrument approaches to nearly
all runways greater than 5,000 feet and under a wider range of
meteorological conditions that are insensitive to airport surface traffic.
Area navigation procedures provide flight path guidance from the runway to
the en route airspace with minimal instructions given by air traffic
controllers. As a result, routine controller/pilot communications are
reduced, which frees time to handle other safety-critical flight
activities. Other key benefits include more efficient use of airspace,
with improved flight profiles, resulting in significant fuel efficiencies
to the airlines.

Additional solutions for increasing capacity in this arena are Time Based
Metering which is used in conjunction with Traffic Management Advisor, 6
became operational at seven air route traffic control centers. By
optimizing the flow of aircraft from the en route to the terminal area,
Time Based Metering with Traffic Management Advisor may help an airport to
efficiently use the full capacity of its runways which increases
acceptance rates as well as peak throughput. An air traffic management
tool called Integrated Terminal Weather System which provides full color
graphic displays of essential weather information to promote the safety,
capacity, and efficiency of air traffic control operations was also
implemented at Boston Logan, Denver International, and Minneapolis-St.
Paul airports in 2004. According to FAA, the plan is to install the
production version of Integrated Terminal Weather System at the New York
terminal radar control facility in 2006.

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity
remain. A daunting challenge that FAA and other aviation stakeholders will
have to address is funding the various initiatives that are designed to
address flight delays and enhance capacity. The successful implementation
of many of these initiatives is predicated on the

6

Traffic Management Advisor provides an aircraft arrival schedule in the en
route and terminal units and produces meter lists for controllers that
display that estimate optimal arrival times.

Page 9 GAO-05-755T

availability of funding However, since 2000, which is to date the worst
year in history for delays, the financial condition of the aviation
industry has changed significantly. A number of structural changes within
the airline industry, such as the growth of the Internet as a means to
sell and distribute tickets, the growth of the low cost airlines, and fare
reductions by legacy carriers, all transformed the industry and led to
lower average fares. These lower fares have resulted in lower ticket taxes
and less revenue into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In addition, a
series of largely unforeseen events, including the September 11 terrorist
attacks, war in Iraq and associated security concerns, SARS, global
recessions, and a steep decline in business travel seriously reduced the
demand for air travel and resulted in sharp decreases in airline industry
revenue.

Consequently, FAA expects that over the next four years there may be a
multi-billion dollar gap between its costs and revenues. According to one
aviation expert, this gap could have consequences that would increase air
traffic delays. For example, FAA's Facilities and Equipment account, which
provides funding for modernizing the air traffic control system and
improving its reliability, capacity, and efficiency, was reduced by 15
percent in fiscal year 2005 and the President's 2006 budget proposes to
reduce it by 20 percent in fiscal year 2006. These are the funds that are
key to the national airspace system's future ability to handle demand and
to minimize delays. For example, to provide the $4.4 billion needed for
its major system acquisitions while remaining within its budget targets
through fiscal year 2009, FAA has made significant cuts elsewhere in its
capital funding plans. Specifically, FAA eliminated all of the $1.4
billion that it had set aside for what it calls the "architecture
segment." These funds would have been used to perform about two years'
worth of early research on new programs before they are mature enough to
receive formal Joint Resources Council approval. 7 FAA also made
significant reductions in planned investments for facilities-an action
that runs counter to its reported need to refurbish or replace its
physical infrastructure. Thus, even if all OEP initiatives are implemented
the national airspace system is expected to fall behind demand, resulting
in an increase in congestion and delays over the 10-year period of the
OEP. FAA's Management Advisory Council estimates that passengers would
experience 63 percent more total delay hours in 2012 than they did in
2000.

The Joint Research Council is a FAA executive body consisting of associate
and assistant administrators, acquisition executives, the chief financial
officer, the chief information officer, and legal counsel. The council
determines, among other things, whether an acquisition meets a mission
need and should proceed.

Page 10 GAO-05-755T

In contrast, FAA states that if all of the OEP initiatives are
implemented, delays will be maintained at or below the flight delay levels
in 2000. However, FAA also stated that capacity at some airports will not
keep pace with demand and in these cases delays will get worse over time
because not all airports have improvements planned. In 2004, the airline
industry losses totaled $9 billion and the industry is expecting similar
losses in 2005, which will make it difficult for them to equip their
aircraft with some of the new air traffic control technology, according to
Air Transport Association officials.

Another important challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing
capacity at delay-prone airports, such as those shown in table 1, some of
which have little capacity to physically expand and would find it
difficult to build even one more runway, either because they lack the
space or would face intense opposition from adjacent communities.

Table 1: Most Delay-Prone Airports in 2004  
Airport                                        Delays per 1,000 operations 
Chicago-O'Hare                                                          97 
Atlanta Hartsfield                                                      72 
Newark International                                                    70 
Philadelphia International                                              58 
New York La Guardia                                                     56 
Houston International                                                   36 
Washington Dulles International                                         36 
San Francisco International                                             32 
New York John F. Kennedy                                                27 

Source: FAA.

Although eight runways were opened during the last six years and seven new
runways are scheduled to be opened by the end of 2008, only three (Atlanta
Hartsfield, Philadelphia International, and Houston International) of the
nine airports that experienced the highest rate of delays in 2004 will
receive new runways. Because these delay-prone airports can cause delays
that ripple throughout the system, other airports that have increased
their own capacity could still experience delays. For example, in 2000,
Phoenix Sky Harbor International put an additional runway into service,
and the airport had sufficient capacity to allow flights to take off on
time. However, the airport ranked among the top 15 in the United States
for flight delays. According to airport officials, most of the delays in
Phoenix were the result of delays and cancellations at other airports-

                Other Options Could Help Address Capacity Needs

circumstances unrelated to the capacity at Phoenix. FAA also projects that
the three New York-area airports-La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy- will
experience relatively small capacity gains during this decade-just 7
percent for Newark and 1 percent each for the other two airports.

In addition to addressing the capacity needs of the most delay-prone
airports, FAA, airlines, and airports will also have to address the
emerging capacity needs of new metropolitan areas in the South and
Southwest. Among those metropolitan areas FAA believes will need
additional capacity by 2013 are Tucson, AZ; Austin-San Antonio, TX; and
South Florida.

Other options - not in the OEP - exist as potential measures to address
capacity needs as shown in table 2. These options, which have been cited
by various researchers and policy organizations over the last decade,
basically fall into two categories. The first category involves 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 includes developing alternative
modes of intercity travel other than air transportation, such as
high-speed rail.

 Table 2: List of Potential Options-Not in OEP- to Reduce Airport Capacity Gap

    Options Description

Category 1: Adding airport infrastructure

Building new airports in metropolitan This measure involves new airports
within metropolitan areas to provide additional

areas. 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 regional airports. Existing regional airports located within 50
miles of metropolitan hubs would be developed to take advantage of unused
system capacity. A regional approach is in place at several airports
including Boston Logan and is being contemplated in other areas such as
New York and Los Angeles.

              Category 2: Using ground transportation alternatives

Building high-speed, intercity ground Building high-speed ground
transportation (e.g., rail) between populous cities within 200

transportation. 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-Using high-speed ground
transportation to connect congested airports with underused speed ground
transportation. 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

The applicability of any particular option is likely to vary by location,
considering the circumstances at each major airport. There is no "one-size
fits- all" solution; rather, substantially reducing delays will probably
require a combination of options 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 continue to experience
substantial air traffic growth. 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
these airports are long-term solutions that will likely take many years to
materialize. In the meantime, other short-term options 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 operates the three area airports,
were moving before the drop in passenger demand following the events of
September 11.

As demand and delay are once again increasing, the FAA and Port Authority
are reevaluating a regional approach to addressing these issues. As noted
earlier, FAA and the Port Authority are also considering market-based and
administrative approaches, such as auctioning off landing and take-off
rights and congestion pricing for La Guardia. However, the airlines oppose
auctions because of the uncertainty regarding number of slots and gates
that they might receive. The airlines also, to a lesser degree, oppose
market-based mechanism such as congestion pricing because of concerns over
who would have responsibility for the revenue generated. 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.

Options- such as building new airports, developing regional airports, or
using ground transportation alternatives -are likely to be a more daunting
challenge than implementing initiatives in the OEP. Implementing 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. By contrast, gaining consensus on any of these other
options could 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,

     o Large infrastructure projects, such as building 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. In addition, some airlines are
       concerned about the need to divide their hub resources between the
       current airport and a new airport.
          * 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.
     o 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.

In summary, the initiatives implemented by FAA, airlines, and the airports
might help to reduce flight delays and increase capacity in the national
airspace system in the short term. However, FAA and other aviation
stakeholders continue to face a number of challenges in reducing delays at
the most delay-prone airports and developing long term solutions for
enhancing capacity. Addressing these challenges is perhaps more difficult
today in comparison to in 2000 because a number of issues have exacerbated
the situation. Chief among them is funding these initiatives during a time
when the federal government and the aviation industry are experiencing
significant fiscal problems. Consequently, keeping up with the economy's
increasing demand for air transportation services will require a
tremendous amount of planning; making some tough choices about which
initiatives, both short-term and long-term, to pursue; and efforts to
ensure that such initiatives are adequately funded.

For further information on this testimony please contact Dr. Gerald
Dillingham by email at [email protected] or Tammy Conquest at
[email protected]. Alternatively, we can be reached by phone at (202)
512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include
Colin Fallon, Simon Galed, David Hooper, Maureen Luna-Long, Richard Scott,
Laura Shumway, and Nicolas Zitelli.

    Appendix I: List of 35 Airports in the Federal Aviation Administration's
                    Operation Evolution Plan, February 2005

reater Pittsburgh International
15. Honolulu International
16. Lambert St. Louis International
17. Las Vegas McCarran International
18. Los Angeles International
19. Memphis International
20. Miami International
21. Minneapolis-St Paul International
22. New York John F. Kennedy International
23. New York LaGuardia
24. Newark International
25. Orlando International
26. Philadelphia International
27. Phoenix Sky Harbor International
28. Portland International
29. Ronald Reagan National
30. Salt Lake City International
31. San Diego International Lindbergh
32. San Francisco International
33. Seattle -Tacoma International
34. Tampa International
35. Washington Dulles International

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

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. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

  PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***