U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–283 PDF 2006

MISHANDLED BAGGAGE: PROBLEMS

AND SOLUTIONS

(109–68)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 3, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Bryan, Charlotte, Acting Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector

Network Management, Transportation Security Administration .................... 9

Meenan, John M., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,

Air Transport Association .................................................................................... 9

Podberesky, Samuel, Assistant General Counsel, Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, accompanied by Michael

A. Cirillo, Vice President, Systems Operations Service, Air Traffic Organization ........................................................................................................................ 9

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 39

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 40

Marchant, Hon. Kenny, of Texas ............................................................................ 41

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 45

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 59

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Bryan, Charlotte ...................................................................................................... 33

Meenan, John M ...................................................................................................... 42

Podberesky, Samuel ................................................................................................. 47

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Reichert, Hon. David G., a Representative in Congress from Washington,

Bennett and Debra Healy, letter and supporting materials, May 4, 2006 ...... 60

(1)

MISHANDLED BAGGAGE: PROBLEMS AND

SOLUTIONS

May 3, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John J. Mica

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing of the

House Aviation Subcommittee to order. Welcome everyone this

morning.

The topic of today’s discussion is Mishandled Baggage: Problems

and Solutions. It should be a relatively short hearing, but it is an

important hearing on an issue that faces our passenger transportation system and the traveling public.

As I said, we have one panel of witnesses and we will hear from

them. We will have some opening statements by members as the

first order of business. I will proceed with mine and then we will

hear from other members, then we will hear from our panelists.

Again, welcome everybody.

This morning’s hearing will focus, as I said, on the growing problem of airline passenger baggage that is delayed, damaged, lost or

stolen. I think that is very important, particularly at this time, in

a few more weeks we will be entering the peak travel season which

will not only bring increased flight delays, we will have also more

problems with weather. But we will not only see those delays but

will also see increased problems with baggage.

The traveling public and our airlines unfortunately will experience, I believe, a baggage meltdown this summer, because again of

the confluence of some of these problems that I have cited.

Mishandled baggage has increased by 23 percent in the United

States from 2004 to 2005 to a rate of about 6 mishandled bag reports per 1,000 passengers. The vast majority of these complaints

are related to baggage that is unfortunately delayed.

Sometimes probably all of us have experienced first-hand the

frustration of having our bags delayed. In addition to customer inconvenience, mishandled baggage is also a huge financial drain on

the airlines, and as you know, many of those are struggling financially.

Mishandled baggage has also been estimated to cost the airline

industry worldwide $2.5 billion per year. If you calculate, a simple

calculation, we have about two-thirds of the world traffic, it is probably a $2 billion price tag for the United States carriers.
2

Airline passenger bags are mishandled because of again, weather, theft, human error and also sometimes because of the TSA

screening process. Nearly two-thirds of all baggage delays are

caused by transfer baggage mishandling. Bags often take longer to

reach a flight than passengers.

Normally airline schedules take some of these problems and timing into account. However, flight delays caused by severe weather,

air carrier maintenance, crew problems, air traffic control problems

or security delays, can and do reduce the actual time available to

make a connection, resulting in delayed baggage.

Unfortunately, a growing cause of baggage delay, something that

is under Federal command, is security screening. Unfortunately,

that problem is increasing. Last summer, passengers were left in

long security lines and backups and the baggage screening process

left baggage also sometimes far behind. For example, the July 4th,

2005 Washington Post had an article that said flights were routinely delayed last summer at Dulles Airport, as planes sat at the

gate waiting for passenger baggage to work its way through the

baggage screening process. At Fort Lauderdale airport, back in my

back yard, baggage and security delays caused chaos. At one point

we had near-riots because of problems with the bags, delayed passenger and baggage screening.

As planes fill to capacity this summer, I am afraid more baggage

turmoil is almost an inevitability. Screening delays such as these

can and should be eliminated, I believe, through better technology.

To date, and this is a remarkable figure, only 14 of our 429 commercial airports have installed inline automated high-tech baggage

screening systems.

Since the Transportation Security Administration was created in

2002, we have spent over $25 billion on a very expensive and laborintensive aviation security system. Despite this massive spending,

few Federal dollars have gone toward deploying and installing

inline explosive detection automated high-tech systems. Converting

to these high-tech inline explosive detection systems is important

for several reasons.

Really the most important reason we have those systems and

those required checks is detection of explosives and dangerous materials. The most important reason to have this high-tech equipment is that it is probably as good as it gets in terms of detection.

We have tested this system, some of the results are not public, but

I can assure you that the tests with these automated inline systems are phenomenal. And unfortunately it’s just the opposite

where you have labor-intensive hand screening of the checked baggage.

I believe that inline automated EDS systems also pinpoint

whether TSA or the air carrier is responsible for mishandling baggage, something we can’t do now.

While installation of inline explosive detection systems requires

a large up-front capital investment cost, it does significantly reduce

TSA’s operating costs, and those savings can pay for installation of

these systems in just a few years. Not only is automated bag

screening less costly, as I said, it performs the detection, again, our

primary purpose for this whole process, in a much better fashion.
3

These automated systems also don’t file worker comp claims, they

don’t call in sick and their work force doesn’t turn over rapidly.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. Last week I think some of you might have seen the

TSA article that was featured, I guess in USA Today, when they

brought to light that an astounding 24 percent of TSA staff turned

over, a turnover rate of 24 percent. Actually, that is a national average. If you start looking at the 29 airports that handle 75 percent

of our passengers, the rate is much higher. Not to mention those

that are out on workers comp and for other reasons not appearing

at work.

According to a March 2005 GAO report, TSA analysis showed

that installing inline EDS at nine airports that were covered by letters of intent would result in a savings to the Federal Government

of $1.26 billion over seven years, with the initial investment in the

systems recovered just in 1.07 years. So in just a little over a year

you could recover the cost of installation.

We currently employ 16,708 full-time equivalent TSA staff to

process checked baggage, or approximately 33 percent of TSA’s

work force. Simple math can tell you how much we could save, not

to mention we get better detection by using these systems.

According to TSA’s own analysis, inline EDS could reduce by 78

percent the number of TSA baggage screeners and supervisors required to screen checked baggage at the airports that they reviewed. Despite the operational cost savings TSA could derive from

installing inline detection systems, progress in installing such systems has been slow. To date, of the top 25 airports in terms of passenger enplanements, only 3 airports have fully converted to inline

EDS systems. At the current installation pace, according to my calculations it will take 18 years before inline systems and automated

checked baggage systems reach all our major airports.

The airlines also have a very significant role to play in mishandled baggage. In 1999, 14 major airlines agreed to implement

a 12-point customer service commitment, including a commitment

to on-time baggage delivery. And I remember some time after I

took over as Chairman, after February of 2001, before September

11th, we met and we had a public declaration that the airlines

would keep their public service commitment. We had that pledge

from them.

Last year, I asked the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General to assess how effective the airline customer service

commitment has been in improving customer service. I am told

that work is currently in progress. I look forward to receiving the

independent analysis and review by the Inspector General some

time in the near future.

I also look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses. I am

hopeful that this hearing can help us gain an understanding of the

cause of the mishandled baggage and hopefully we can also take

away from this hearing some solutions and recommendations to resolve this problem.

I am pleased now to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to thank you

for scheduling this hearing today. In particular, I want to thank
4

our colleague and a valued member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Boswell, who contacted us immediately back in March and requested

a hearing on this matter today. So I thank our colleague, Mr. Boswell.

Mr. MICA. I failed to give credit to Mr. Boswell. I am sorry it took

this long to get to this issue, but he is the prime motivator. I thank

him for bringing that to the Subcommittee’s attention.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have a formal statement which

I will enter into the record. But let me say that it has been widely

reported, both the foreign and domestic carriers collectively mishandled approximately 30 million bags out of approximately 3 billion checked last year in the United Sates alone. Approximately 3.6

million bags were mishandled in 2005. The Department of Transportation data indicate that the mishandling baggage rate has increased by 23 percent from 2004 to 2005. However, I think we have

to note that the current rate of mishandled baggage is only slightly

higher than it was in 2000, the last peak travel year before September 11th, but far better than it was in 1988, the first year that

the mishandled baggage reporting requirement was placed on the

industry.

While these numbers are relatively low, mishandled bags cost

airlines and the Federal Government increasingly more money.

RFID technology is one possible way to improve baggage handling.

Adopting technologies such as RFID tagging and bag reconciliation

systems to track baggage at various points throughout the bag’s

journey could mean fewer bags being handled manually and improve security. It has been estimated that it could save the aviation

industry an estimated $760 million per year.

Mr. Chairman, as you noted and have noted in the past, we have

had discussions both in hearings and with industry officials, we

need to get the technology out to the airports in order to improve

this system and also to improve security. You know that since September 11th, the TSA is the agency now responsible for inspecting

or otherwise handling checked baggage prior to the airlines boarding it on an aircraft.

I am pleased that we have a representative from TSA to discuss

what the agency is doing to cut down on mishandled bags, as well

as the process the passenger must go through if he or she discovers

that his bag has been mishandled or opened.

And I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses

today. Again, I thank you for calling the hearing and thank our colleague, Mr. Boswell, for requesting this hearing.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Boswell?

Mr. BOSWELL. After those nice words, maybe I shouldn’t say anything.

Thank you very much, both of you, for calling this hearing. It occurred to me when I saw the report that, I thought immediately

about the time I have had a misplaced bag, both domestic flight

and international. It causes a lot of stress and concern, it really

does. I would be curious, I don’t know if anybody would be willing

to participate or not, but I wonder how many in the room have ever

had their bag misplaced.

[Show of hands.]
5

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay, a lot of us.

So I think it is important that we take this information, and I

appreciate the Chairman’s remark, and try to find a solution. We’re

not here to point blame or anything. What is the solution and how

can we serve our public better? So that is what it is about.

But 30 million bags lost or stolen in 2005, with over 200,000, so

I am told, never reunited. Also, this report stated from SITA that

the problem of mishandled baggage was worsening on both sides of

the Atlantic. I do hear about this from constituents quite a bit.

With higher airfares and less convenience at airports today, passengers need to get better than 30 million lost bags. I think we

could agree on that.

In 2005, it was estimated that some 3 billion bags were checked

worldwide, 30 million were mishandled or lost. The U.S. DOT approximates 3.6 million were mishandled or lost. Whether you’re a

business or leisure traveler, I can think of no greater inconvenience

than arriving at your destination without your baggage when you

really need something that is in the baggage.

This problem means more and more passengers to forego checking their luggage and carrying them aboard for placement in overhead bins. Just think of ourselves, we fly every week, and I do that.

I try my best not to check, and I hadn’t really thought too much

about it. But I do try not to check, so consequently, I would guess

my Chairman and Ranking Member, you probably have clothes in

different locations that you would just as soon not have to have,

and probably wouldn’t if you could count on your bags being transported.

But it leads to delays in screening by the TSA, sometimes boarding the aircraft and in some cases I am told actual departure, and

I think I have seen that. So the system, or we, need to be held accountable. It is unacceptable.

As a strong supporter, and I feel that I am, I think I have demonstrated that in many ways, to the Chair and our Ranking Member, a strong supporter, a frequent customer of our airline industry,

I genuinely want our carriers to succeed. We all do. I requested a

hearing not to lay blame at the doorstep of the industry, but to investigate the root causes of the lost baggage problem, so that we

might work together to develop solutions to what is quite clearly

a major problem for passengers.

Compared to 1988, when the mishandled baggage rule went into

effect, today’s numbers, while somewhat better, are still unacceptable. The other problem relates to having no requirement as to

what specific type of mishandling had occurred. Were they lost, delayed, damaged, pilfered? The lack of a standardized system for labeling mishandled luggage is a problem itself. I would suggest a

more detailed report would be helpful, and proper assessment of

the data.

Mishandled baggage reports are kind of misleading, too, I think.

A single mishandled baggage report does not necessarily correspond to a single mishandled bag or a single passenger. One filed

report could cover multiple bags or family members. This is part

of the report that could possibly be refined.

I am told the number one reason for baggage delays, nearly twothirds, is transfer mishandling. This means it takes longer for the
6

baggage to reach the flight than for the passenger to reach the

same flight. Minimum connecting times for each individual airport,

largely based on transferring baggage established by the Air Transport Association, and the International Air Transport Association.

Perhaps these minimum connecting times should be reevaluated

and altered.

I am particularly concerned as to whether airline staffing requirements may be too thin to meet some peak baggage handling

demands. This is something we saw during the Christmas holiday

period of 2004 in two key hub airports. Lost or mishandled luggage

represents a badge of shame for all of us, everybody in the industry.

Today we will hear from a person tasked by the U.S. DOT for

enhancement for air travel consumer protection requirements. We

have been advised over 500 aviation consumer complaints are filed

with the DOT each month. Is it reasonable to conclude that this

number is not reflecting the true number of complaints? It remains

difficult for passengers to know the proper procedure to file a complaint. That is why I am developing a link on my Congressional

web site to assist constituents who wish to file a complaint with

the proper information.

The air carriers are struggling to see profitability, and they have

to have profitability. I don’t want to see passenger service compromised. There is surely a new business climate in store for our

travelers. Charges are being assessed for checked luggage, additional fees added for booking reservations over the phone, charging

extra for premium seats, expanding use of kiosks for checking in,

rather than in person, and even charging for soft drinks. All of this

leads me to question where passenger service really stands. Are all

the charges good only for airline profitability at the expense of passengers?

So I appreciate all of you being here today. Thank you for coming, and let’s share together, let’s find some solutions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Other members have opening

statements?

Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think

we should heed your remarks to open this hearing today particularly concerning TSA personnel. I think the turnover is unacceptable. And I think it could be at the root cause of many of the problems at our airports. And we need to find out the root causes of

this TSA personnel problem. Whether TSA sees this as a problem

or not is dubious at best.

I am anxious to hear from our panel members on the ways they

plan to work together to improve checked baggage handling. And

I look forward to a very interesting hearing. Checked baggage service is an integral part of customer service and can be a substantial

expense if not done correctly.

You have heard the figures from both the Chairman and the

Ranking Member of this February compared to last February,

which gives us a little hope. The numbers improved a little bit. But

then when we look at the overall numbers from year to year, we

have pause here.
7

So I want to say to the Chair and the Ranking Member, this is

part of a larger problem, I believe, dealing with personnel. And we

need to have a hearing devoted strictly to that. So I look forward

to hearing from the panelists.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. Norton?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess I

should thank Mr. Boswell, too, I guess every member of Congress,

because except for me, I think everybody, maybe a couple of other

members, gets on a plane. And it does say something that we don’t

simply have hearings on what immediately affects us. Indeed, we

have been devoting the time of this Committee, quite justifiably, to

an overarching issue, to the security issue.

But I believe if you asked the average American what most vexes

you, security or baggage handling, that baggage handling would

come first. Now, I don’t endorse that choice. But it goes to the everyday effect that this issue has on the average traveler who gets

on a plane. The Committee has spent most of its time on the overarching issues, I mentioned security, financial state of the airlines,

my goodness, worsened by the present gas crisis. They do have a

lot on their hands. But anybody who gets on a plane has a right

to believe that not only will she get there, her bags will get there,

too.

Now, this is a very timely hearing, Mr. Chairman, because we

are beginning the vacation period when many people will in fact be

getting on a plane. I think it’s very important to see where TSA

is right now this month before that period begins.

Now, I am the first to say that I feel for the baggage handlers.

I think it is a very hard job. And I think errors are inevitable. That

is why the whole move to some kind of technological fix would be

so important. I don’t think we should shoot the messengers or the

people who are down there trying to sort that baggage out, getting

it with the impatience that the American people show if they don’t

get their bags instantaneously when they get off. I have frankly

been impressed often by how much more rapidly the bags in fact

get to where we can pick them up. But of course, if you don’t get

to pick yours up, then real anguish sets in.

Mr. Chairman, if I may say so as well, this Committee’s work

was responsible for restarting general aviation at National Airport,

one of those hugely belated and unnecessarily belated matters. Of

course, what came into play was a monster of an unnecessarily

cumbersome, awkward, ridiculous system, gateways, as if somehow

we could not put together a way to get general aviation here safely

and protect what is also on the ground. At some point, Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to have to ask TSA and all those involved when we are going to get off of this system. The Committee

pressed and we no longer have to—

Mr. MICA. Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. I am glad you mentioned that, I don’t see the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes, we were discussing that

this morning. While staff and members are here, I would like to

have a meeting before we go out for Memorial Day, probably have
8

to be closed door, because there are security issues that get drawn

into this on the National reopening. I am not at all a happy camper

with what hasn’t taken place.

So I am glad you mentioned that. We have been distracted by

other priorities but it is absolutely certain that Mr. Costello and

others agree that we go back to that.

So we will do that, and I ask staff to schedule something before

we go out, and thank you again for raising it. I yield back.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Because

your work, the work of this Committee, was responsible for getting

it open in the first place. I don’t think we should let that rest what

we now have.

The work of this Committee in pressing to see whether it was

really necessary to make people, if you will forgive me, hold their

water a half hour before and after your coming into Washington finally resulted in people saying, you know what, I think there is

enough security all around so that we can treat people coming in

and out of Washington humanely, that is the only way I can put

it, for those who did not remember to take care of themselves in

time before getting on the plane.

In the same way, I think all the witnesses have heard the Chairman, we had to press so hard that the Chairman of the Full Committee threatened to hold those who were responsible in contempt

and then finally something happened.

I thank you very much for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, which I

think the American people will appreciate, particularly this season.

I very much thank you for the meeting you say you are going to

hold on general aviation at National Airport. Thank you very

much.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

If there are no further opening statements from members, we

will go ahead and proceed with our panel of witnesses.

Let me introduce our witnesses. We have Mr. Samuel

Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement

and Proceedings, with the Department of Transportation. I am told

he is accompanied by Mr. Michael Cirillo, Vice President of Systems Operations Service, of the Air Traffic Organization.

We have Ms. Charlotte Bryan, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Transportation Sector Management, with the Transportation

Security Administration. And Mr. John Meenan, Executive Vice

President and Chief Operating Officer of the Air Transport Association.

So I would like to welcome our witnesses, and if you have any

lengthy documents or material you would like to have added to

your statement, a request to the Chair would be appropriate.

With that, I will first call on Mr. Samuel Podberesky.
9

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL PODBERESKY, ASSISTANT GENERAL

COUNSEL, AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: MICHAEL A. CIRILLO, VICE PRESIDENT,

SYSTEMS OPERATIONS SERVICE, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION; CHARLOTTE BRYAN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR TRANSPORTATION SECTOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;

JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. PODBERESKY. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee

on Aviation, I am pleased to be able to appear before you to comment in airline mishandled baggage. With the Subcommittee’s approval, I would ask that my written testimony be included for the

record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. PODBERESKY. Some background on the functions of my office

may be useful to the Subcommittee in understanding our involvement with baggage issues. Our first priority is to enforce DOT’s

aviation requirements with the exception of those dealing with

safety and operational issues that are under the purview of the

Federal Aviation Administration.

The office also processes complaints received from the public regarding airline service, and publishes information to consumers, including a monthly air travel consumer report that contains useful

information for consumers on flight delays, complaints. That includes complaints to DOT about baggage service, mishandled baggage reports filed with airlines by passengers and over-sales.

With respect to baggage issues, there are two Department rules

that specifically address airline mishandled baggage. Fourteen

C.F.R. Part 234 is the first. It requires reporting of mishandled

baggage by each large air carrier. And 14 C.F.R. Part 254 is the

other, and it limits liability limits, minimum liability limits, for

lost, stolen, damaged or delayed baggage in domestic service.

Under Part 234, each large U.S. air carrier is required to report

to DOT monthly on the number of its domestic enplanements and

the number of mishandled baggage reports that have been filed

with the carrier by its passengers. Under Part 254, the Department

sets a floor on the liability limit that carriers may assert for lost,

stolen, damaged or delayed baggage. The current limit is $2,800

per passenger, and it will increase with inflation.

Maintaining a reasonable liability limit is an incentive for air

carriers to minimize the incidence of baggage mishandling. For

international travel, passenger baggage liability limits are generally governed by the Montreal Convention and are currently set

at about $1,460 per passenger.

I would next like to discuss possible trends in how carriers are

handling baggage. Table 1 in my written testimony examines yearly data since 2000. The calendar year rate of mishandled baggage

reports by passengers declined from 5.29 reports per 1,000 passengers in 2000 to 4.55 in 2001. In 2002, this rate declined again

to 3.84. Between 2003 and 2005, the rate has increased from 3.84

to 6.04.
10

However, even this recent rate of 6.04 is much lower than the

comparable figure for 1988, the first full year that these data were

collected. Some of the same trends I just mentioned are also observable in the complaints received by the Department directly

from consumers.

Table 2 of my written testimony is a tabulation of mishandled

baggage reports for the first quarter of 2004, 2005 and 2006. This

table shows that the rate of such reports declined from 6.72 in the

first quarter of 2005 to 6.24 in the first quarter of 2006. The data

for the individual months in the first quarter of 2006 shows that

the rate declined steadily from 6.92 in January to 6.08 in February

and to 5.81 in March, 2006.

As also noted in Table 1, the number of air carriers required to

file mishandled baggage data with the Department has varied over

time. We compared the 2000 data to the 2005 data for the nine carriers that appeared in both reports. While the rate of mishandled

baggage reports increased from 5.29 to 6.04 reports per 1,000 passengers between 2000 and 2005, the corresponding increase for the

nine airlines that appeared in both reports was only from 5.25 to

5.54, as is shown in Table 3.

There may be a relationship between on-time performance and

the rate of mishandled baggage reports. As shown in Table 4, system-wide on-time performance for the carriers that report this information improved nearly 5 percentage points from 2000 to 2001,

and nearly 5 points from 2001 to 2002. During that same period,

the rate of mishandled baggage reports declined from 5.29 to 3.84.

During the 2003-2005 period, on-time performance declined from

82 percent to 77.4 percent, and the rate of mishandled baggage reports rose from 4.19 to 6.04.

In addition, recent increases in mishandled baggage reports and

consumer complaints about baggage may result in part from the

particular difficulties experienced by U.S. Airways and ComAir

during the December holiday period. One-time anomalies are not

likely to be repeated on a regular basis. However, U.S. Airways’

baggage handling problems continued well into 2005 and may have

reflected labor issues.

In this regard, it should be noted that if U.S. Airways is removed

from Table 3, the change in the rate of mishandled baggage between 2000 and 2005 for the group of carriers that reported in both

those years goes from a slight increase to a slight decrease.

We would also observe that there is a significant variation

among carrier baggage data based on the nature of their operations. Table 5 shows this clearly. For example, in 2005, the mishandled baggage rate for Hawaiian Airlines was 2.9, while the rate

for Atlantic Southeast Airlines was 17.4. Carriers like Hawaiian,

with limited interlining, few or no commuter carrier affiliates and

smaller route systems generally have lower mishandled baggage

rates. Larger carriers with extensive hub and spoke networks and

numerous connections and the regional partners of such carriers

tend to have higher rates of baggage problems, since many baggage

delays and losses appear to occur during connections.

In conclusion, there can be variations over time and among carriers and baggage handling performance. The data available to us
11

do not appear to point to a systemic problem at this time. I would

be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will hold questions until after we

have heard from the other witnesses.

We have Charlotte Bryan, who is with the TSA. We recognize

her next.

Ms. BRYAN. Thank you. Good morning, Congressman Costello

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.

I am Charlotte Bryan, the Acting Assistant Administrator for the

Transportation Sector Network Management within TSA. TSA provides, TSNM, which I lead, provides a single focal point for our

stakeholders through ten modal general managers.

Prior to accepting this position, I spent 15 years working in aviation security. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before

you today on behalf of TSA to discuss the challenge of mishandled

baggage in our aviation system and TSA’s efforts to work with airlines to improve it.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which created

TSA, requires us to screen for explosives all checked baggage

placed on TSA-regulated commercial flights. Under this requirement, we screen approximately 1.3 billion pieces of checked baggage each year, using a variety of solutions, many custom-tailored,

to suit the needs of particular airport environments.

TSA assumes a limited role with respect to checked baggage handling. We are responsible for checked baggage from the time it is

presented for screening until the time it is cleared after screening.

Once checked baggage is screened and cleared, air carriers are responsible for transporting it to its final destination.

TSA generally has no role in prioritizing, sorting or transporting

checked baggage. As a result, the amount of time checked baggage

is under our control is relatively short, though it will vary depending on the operational conditions of the airport. In many cases, passengers have the opportunity to deliver checked baggage directly to

TSA and to observe it as it is screened and cleared and delivered

to the airline.

TSA has a solid track record when it comes to appropriately handling all forms of passenger property, including checked baggage.

Since we assumed responsibility for aviation security, more than 2

billion passengers have been screened, yet the number of planes alleging lost or damaged property is only approximately 84,000. The

incident of damage and loss attributable to TSA security operations

is less than 1 percent of passengers traveling through the system.

But we continue to work diligently to reduce delays, damage and

loss of property.

A certain amount of damage to bags and their contents unfortunately occurs because accidents happen and equipment malfunctions. In an effort to reduce the number of items damaged during

the screening process, TSA engages in trend analysis to develop

new training and handling techniques. TSA certainly regrets that

occasionally checked baggage and locks are damaged by secondary

screening. In the event that a bag must be forced open, TSA is not

responsible for broken locks or unavoidable damage caused by

opening a locked bag. Passengers can avoid this potential damage
12

by either leaving their bags unlocked or by using a TSA-recognized

lock.

We educate the traveling public about how to pack and secure

checked baggage through our web site, www.TSA.gov. The site provides links to sites that sell TSA-recognized locks.

Theft is a problem that affects all key players in the aviation industry, and unfortunately, TSA is not immune. We have a zero tolerance policy towards theft. Our transportation security officers are

held to the highest professional and ethical standards. Allegations

of misconduct are aggressively investigated, and when infractions

are discovered, offenders are swiftly removed from our agency’s employment.

Since August of 2002, of the tens of thousands that have served,

87 TSOs have been removed from employment for theft. Many of

the offending screeners were turned in by their fellow employees.

TSA also works with State and local law enforcement to ensure

that offenders are prosecuted. In an effort to further deter theft,

TSA is working to expand its use of closed circuit TV surveillance

of non-public areas where checked baggage is screened, in partnership with airport operators. If a passenger believes that his or her

property has been lost, damaged or stolen due to TSA action, they

are encouraged to contact TSA as soon as possible. Although a

claim maybe filed within two years of the event, the earlier a

claimant contacts TSA, the easier it will be to investigate and to

make a determination of the claim. Potential claimants can get information about filing claims from a number of sources, including

a toll-free customer contact center and our web site. These resources can provide potential claimants with the information and

forms necessary to file a claim.

TSA investigates and evaluates claims by verifying the underlying facts and contacting the claimant and other parties in possession of relevant information. When an investigation is complete,

TSA will approve the claim for full value, offer to settle the claim

at reduced value, or deny the claim in its entirety. Determinations

of negligence are based upon the evidence. A letter will be sent to

the claimant informing them of TSA’s decision. Claims are generally resolved within 90 days.

TSA has historically accepted or settled 40 percent of the claims.

If a claim is denied in full, the passenger can seek reconsideration

of the claim with TSA by providing additional information, or the

claimant can file a lawsuit in the appropriate U.S. district court.

State and local small claims courts have no jurisdiction over claims

against the Federal Government. To date, only 35 claims have resulted in Federal litigation.

TSA also encourages passengers to contact their air carriers and

review any applicable insurance coverage they may have. Since

February of 2002, we have received approximately 84,000 claims.

In 2006, claims have fallen dramatically, with the number of

claims during the first quarter of this year down by approximately

30 percent from the same time period a year ago, to an average of

about 1,800 a month. The average claim is settled for approximately $150.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I will be

pleased to respond to questions.
13

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will hear from our final witness,

which is John Meenan. He is with the Air Transport Association.

Welcome, and you are recognized.

Mr. MEENAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my

written statement be included in the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection.

Mr. MEENAN. I would like to preface my oral remarks today with

an apology. As a former baggage handler myself and a representative of the airline industry, I would like to apologize to everyone

who has ever lost or had a bag misplaced. We don’t like it happening.

Safety is always the airlines’ number one concern and priority.

But the quality of the customer experience is absolutely critical to

every airline’s business plan. The airlines are acutely aware that

baggage miscues can be frustrating and remembered long after dozens of other trips came off without a hitch. For that reason, the industry is not content that over 99 percent of bags arrive with the

passenger as promised. When we see an uptick in mishandled baggage reports or in any other measure of customer dissatisfaction,

the carriers take action.

In order to add a little perspective to your consideration, a few

facts might help. Last year, the U.S. airline industry carried 739

million passengers. That is the highest number since 2000. That

filled 77.6 percent of the seats on our aircraft. And each passenger

checked on average 1.2 bags.

Last year, too, we know the DOT reported mishandled bags rose,

reports rose from 4.9 per 1,000 passengers to 6. Now, although

going back to 1988 when the data was first reported, the 2005 data

is not out of line. The industry clearly wants to keep that rate as

low as possible. The rate was 5.0 in 1989 when we entered into our

Customers First program. It rose a bit with demand in 2000. In

2001, as traffic declined, the rate declined. And since 2001, as traffic has returned, unfortunately the rate has climbed with it.

What to do? Obviously look to the causes of baggage mishandling

incidents and adjust the process where necessary. For the most

part, that analysis and adjustment must and does take place at the

individual carrier level. Is it a staffing problem, is it at a particular

airport, is there an equipment problem, is there a scheduling problem? These issues are dealt with at each company, by each company, and each company closely monitors both its operations and

the DOT reports.

More broadly, at the industry level, are there steps to be taken?

There are many proponents today of new technology. The most popular idea being the introduction of radio frequency chips in bag

tags. The industry is engaged in a serious consideration of the

RFID approach. But the analysis is by no means complete.

Importantly, RFID technology does little to address the most

common cause of mishandling, and that is the fact that the bag is

not where it is supposed to be. We know where it is, it just isn’t

where it is supposed to be. So 60 percent of the mishandled bags

are a result of that issue which would not be addressed by RFID

technology. That said, the industry is still looking at the possibility

and the prudence of an investment, and we will take appropriate

action.
14

Other mishandling factors within the airlines’ control include

things like tagging errors, loading errors and space and weight restrictions. Each carrier tracks its operation and does its best to

deal with these issues. But in the aggregate, they really only

amount to about a single digit percentage point of the problem.

There are, however, two other significant factors in mishandled

baggage that are not within the control of the airlines. I point these

out not to shift responsibility, but just to give you a complete picture. We urge that all parties do everything within their control to

minimize passenger inconvenience. Here of course I am referring to

the air traffic control system and security issues impacting baggage

handling and schedule reliability.

As the members of this Committee know, the constantly increasing demands placed on our Nation’s air traffic control system

threaten aviation system gridlock in the foreseeable future and require a major overhaul of technology, procedures and funding.

Without dramatic change, mishandled baggage reports will simply

become a footnote to the economic harm that will be done to our

Nation’s economy.

Similarly, with regard to security measures, steps must be taken

to match screening capacity with public demand in an economically

responsible manner. Inline EDS may help at some airports, but experience to date shows that it is not a silver bullet to solve these

issues.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are all involved in these issues.

The ATA airlines are acutely aware of their responsibilities and are

working daily to meet them. We look forward to the continued cooperation with the Government in addressing those contributing

factors not within our control.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony and for each of the witnesses being with us and providing their opinion and outlook.

Let me now turn to some questions. I have a few. Maybe I could

ask ATA first. You said we had 739 million passengers last year,

I guess close to a record number or was it a record?

Mr. MEENAN. It is climbing.

Mr. MICA. What do you expect this year, and this summer?

Mr. MEENAN. We expect a dramatic uptick. I couldn’t give you

a precise number at this point, but clearly traffic is returning.

Mr. MICA. And did you say you were running at what percentage

of capacity?

Mr. MEENAN. Last year, the load factor was 77.6 percent. We expect it will be higher this year.

Mr. MICA. Probably into the 80s?

Mr. MEENAN. Possibly. We would like to see that.

Mr. MICA. Even with the higher prices, we might have a return

to the air.

Mr. MEENAN. We would like to see that.

Mr. MICA. We really don’t have a system, Mr. Podberesky, of differentiating the cause of mishandled baggage, do we?

Mr. PODBERESKY. The reporting that is required is just the number of mishandled baggage reports filed with carriers by passengers. It is not broken down by type of mishandling.
15

Mr. MICA. And that is part of our problem is trying to—Mr. Boswell, the reason he asked for this hearing was to try to find some

solutions. We don’t have some of the data we need. Anecdotally, I

do hear, and I have heard, of meltdowns at some locations with

TSA handling bags. And that is becoming more of a problem.

Part of the problem, I guess, too, Congress has put a cap on the

number of people that can be hired. So we have some limits, the

same limits we had last year we will have this year as far as net

numbers. We also have the turnover problem, which Mr. Pascrell

spoke to, and we heard the report last week, some airports 30, 40

percent turnover in personnel. But it appears, again, from reports

I am getting, that baggage is often not processed as far as screening to keep up with the flights. Is that something you are aware

of, Ms. Bryan, as a problem, and how are you trying to address it?

Ms. BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the latest air travel consumer

report that the Department produces. It shows for February, which

is the latest information I have, of over 500,000 reported operations, less than 0.9 percent were due to security delays. And of

course security delays can be—

Mr. MICA. I would have to go back to some of last year, last summer.

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. We had some very serious—and I can pick a time. But

we are heading for the summer. ATA has just reported that they

expect a record number of people to be in the air. You have a

record amount of turnover and vacancies in personnel. And we are

going to be processing more bags. I think you said on average 1.2

bags per person.

So if you do the math in processing these, are we going to be

ready this summer?

Ms. BRYAN. Perhaps I could talk about a few of the things that

we are doing. Retention is a top priority for TSA. We have recently

done several things. We have a work group focused specifically on

it. We just put out a bonus program for screeners that have been

on board for a year or more. We are developing additional grade

levels, a career path for our screeners so that we can keep them,

that they can see some possible future with TSA.

Of course, we have just introduced local hiring initiatives for our

FSDs. We have set up a group in headquarters to support them,

so that they have everything they need to hire and train and retain

those screeners. So it is a high priority and I think we have some

good efforts underway to support that.

Mr. MICA. I understand that. I was just mentioning to Mr.

Costello, I did meet with Mr. Hawley, and I understand that initiative really gets launched in May or this month?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. That gives me great concern, because any time you

launch anything in TSA, it does take a while for things to sort of

get in place and smooth out. So I just—I am very concerned about

this summer. I don’t know what the answer is, again, given some

of the constraints you’ve even been put under.

So let me just ask, the number of inline systems we have at

major airports, I said three. One is Boston, we have San Francisco,

and the top 25, 29, I guess we could get—Denver—
16

Ms. BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we had 14 full inline systems.

Mr. MICA. Here’s what they gave me, Logan, which is Boston,

Denver, San Francisco, that is it for the top 25 and full inline. We

have got some partial, a little bit at Baltimore-Washington, a little

bit at Dallas, a little bit at Newark, George Bush Intercontinental,

JFK. But that is it.

And I think of the top, well, Denver, I think they did theirs when

they did that entire system, didn’t they? I know Boston did their

own. And we are seeking reimbursement. And San Francisco has

been ongoing.

Is there any projection as to when we could get—29 airports handle 75 percent of the traffic and probably are the major hubs where

we have transfer. Any projections about inline?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir. In the near future we will have 23 additional inline or partial systems in place.

Mr. MICA. Can you define near future?

Ms. BRYAN. Two years.

Mr. MICA. Twenty-four months, okay. I don’t view that, as Mr.

Meenan said, as a silver bullet, but so far experience is that process is faster. I haven’t seen any of those systems file workers comp

claims, as I said, or the systems call in sick or the systems have

high turnover rates, except the baggage, they’re processing that

pretty fast. You’ve seen the classified results of the difference between handling the baggage and examining them by hand—

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA.—with labor-intensive versus the automated. Would

you say that the detection rate is off the charts in a positive fashion for the automated system and off the charts for failure for the

non-automated systems? We don’t have to discuss percentages of

failure for the labor-intensive, costly system.

Ms. BRYAN. Well, I would rather not say that, because I don’t

have that information.

Mr. MICA. Are you telling me you haven’t seen that information?

Ms. BRYAN. I have seen that information.

Mr. MICA. But you don’t want to comment on it?

Ms. BRYAN. No, sir.

Mr. MICA. Okay.

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you noted the issue of the cap, because I think that is an issue here as well. You also noted, as others did, about the turnover rate at TSA. It is troubling, and I am

glad to hear that TSA is attempting to do something about that.

But I do think that it is worth noting for everyone in the room

here is that, the turnover rate under the old system, before TSA

was created, was far greater than the turnover rate of TSA. If you

look at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, I don’t have the

statistics in front of me, but I would tell you that the turnover rate

at O’Hare was at least double or triple their turnover rate today

at TSA.

My question to you is, would you agree that the turnover rate

has an effect on the issue that we are examining here today, the

mishandled baggage? How does that play? What factor is the turn-
17

over rate at TSA in the problem that we are dealing with in mishandled bags?

Ms. BRYAN. Congressman, first I would like to say that I recall

turnover rates of over 400 percent with some of the carriers back

in the pre-9/11 days. I would think intuitively, certainly folks that

are working for us longer are going to be better trained and more

familiar with our procedures.

So I don’t have the data to support that, but intuitively, I would

think that that would be the case.

Mr. COSTELLO. You mention in your testimony that thus far in

2006, the passenger claims of mishandled baggage, that it has fallen dramatically. To what do you attribute that?

Ms. BRYAN. We are trying to educate the public and the screeners better. We have told the public, both on our web site, try not

to over-pack. You can open a bag and things fall out, they sometimes don’t get back in or they get damaged. Carry your valuables

or leave them at home. And we have ethics training for screeners,

and just better training for the screeners.

Mr. COSTELLO. I guess this probably would go to you from ATA,

but I would ask everyone on the panel. First, there are some problems, I guess, with RFID technology addressing this issue. This

hearing is billed as examining mishandled baggage problems and

solutions, and reading the testimony of our witnesses here today

last night and hearing your testimony today, I think we all have

identified the problem. But I haven’t heard a lot of concrete solutions here this morning. I wonder if you might comment on RFID

technology and any other solutions that you might propose today.

Mr. MEENAN. Mr. Costello, I think the solution, as I suggested

in my oral statement is, each carrier looking at its individual operation and determining where these incidents are occurring and addressing those incidents. It is often a staffing problem. It can be

an equipment problem. It can be a particular problem at a given

airport. But they are highly individualized issues.

RFID technology is an interesting concept. It is something that

we are certainly looking at. But it is not, despite what the vendors

have been trying to say, some panacea that is going to fix the problem of mishandled baggage. Because as I noted, over 60 percent of

the bags that are mishandled are not mishandled because we don’t

know where they are. They’re mishandled, we know where they

are, but they just aren’t where they are supposed to be. An RFID

chip isn’t going to help address that problem.

So we think this is really a very individual, carrier by carrier

sort of set of issues, and we are working to address that. I think

as the numbers demonstrate from 1988 on forward, this is truly a

manageable problem. We would, I think, make a mistake by overinvesting in technology and thinking that is going to fix it. Because

it is a day in and day out sort of affairs.

Mr. COSTELLO. Do any other witnesses want to comment on the

RFID technology or any other solutions?

Ms. BRYAN. I would like to add that we have asked the airlines

to help us prioritize bags. We are doing that pretty much on a local

level. We are working on software programs that will help increase

the throughput for our EDS systems. We have developed optimization teams that are reviewing schedules and equipment mixes,
18

ergonomics and operational conditions. So we are hoping that will

help.

Mr. PODBERESKY. The purpose of our mishandled baggage reporting rule, the original purpose and it is still the real purpose, is to

provide data that we use in rankings, in monthly rankings and

yearly rankings of carriers with respect to their handling of baggage. This is supposed to help consumers choose carriers based on

things that are important to them. We try to publicize this information. We may try harder to point out which carriers are doing

the best and which are doing the worst.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Dent?

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Podberesky, I have a question for you. You suggest that

there is a relationship between on-time performance and the rate

of mishandled baggage. What are the most common causes of flight

delays based on the data published in the air travel consumer report? And to the extent that these delays are due to weather conditions or air traffic control problems, what is the FAA doing to address these issues?

Mr. PODBERESKY. I will start with the two categories that are the

smallest. We require a reporting of I believe five categories. Security delays I believe are the smallest, and I believe the next smallest are extreme weather delays. Those are like thunderstorms closing airports for many operations.

The next three categories are all about in the same ballpark.

They account for somewhere between 4 and 7 or 8 percent of

delays. And they vary from month to month. Those categories are

carrier caused delays, which are primarily maintenance, but it

could be maintenance related, but it could be crew, flight and duty

time restrictions or other issues.

Another category is national airspace system, which involves the

air traffic control system, but also involves weather related issues,

not extreme weather, which impacts on the flow rates and other

issues in the air traffic control system. And the final category is

late-arriving aircraft. And late-arriving aircraft could involve any

one of the others as original causes of the delays.

With that, I will turn it over to Mike Cirillo, to see if he has anything he wants to add from the FAA perspective.

Mr. CIRILLO. The way we categorize delays, 70 percent are attributed to weather, and then 15 percent to volume, and then the remainder are other issues, or less than 1 percent are attributed to

equipment and the balance of the delays are other issues, such as

airport construction and things like that.

So what are we doing about that? In a good weather situation,

the volume delays are just a matter of balancing capacity with demand. So to increase capacity, those programs that you have all

heard about, such as required navigation performance and precision runway monitors and our wake turbulence research, for example, actually show pretty significant benefit in improving capacity

at airports.

As far as improvements in weather, we have some systems that

we are developing, corridor integrated weather system, which al-
19

lows us to better predict the movement of storms, and also the tops

of the system. We have a route availability planning tool that actually automates our route availability based on weather conditions.

And then this June, we are implementing the airspace flow program, which actually for us and our customers, which includes the

airlines, the business folks and the DOD, will describe an area of

constraints, which is most of the time weather, and better allow us

to route around it.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Pascrell?

Mr. PASCRELL. Ms. Bryan, do you think that, you referred to the

400 percent turnover before 9/11, that was a different situation

now, we have Federal employees. It’s a big difference.

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. And we had rent-a-cop then. We don’t have that

now.

Ms. BRYAN. Right.

Mr. PASCRELL. So you are comparing oranges and apples.

Would you agree with this statement, though, that information

concerning on-time records and what are the loss and damage rates

with that particular, with a particular airline, shouldn’t that information be readily available to passengers?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir, I think it should be.

Mr. PASCRELL. How would we educate passengers as to, so they

can make an educated decision as to which airline is trying, is moving in the right direction in protecting their property and getting

on and off the ground on time? How do we educate the public in

those things?

Ms. BRYAN. I would really rather defer to DOT.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Podberesky?

Mr. PODBERESKY. We publish an air travel consumer report every

month. It is put on our web site. It is probably, I believe as of now

it is the second most popular web site at DOT. It is one of most

popular web sites, I think, in the Government.

And on a monthly basis we provide flight delay information, very

detailed flight delay information, as well as mishandled baggage.

These include rankings of airports, of carriers.

Mr. PASCRELL. And that winds up in a newspaper sometimes?

Mr. PODBERESKY. We issue press releases each month, and USA

Today does publish—

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I’ve seen it.

Mr. PODBERESKY.—a good bit of that information.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Podberesky, let me respond to your answer.

I think that’s all well and good, by the way. Web sites certainly

serve a great purpose. What if we put that information on the ticket that you purchase?

Mr. PODBERESKY. That would create somewhat of a burden for

carriers. The information is also available to the passenger directly

for a specific flight when he makes a reservation.

Mr. PASCRELL. So you are telling us that the passenger, because

of what you do on the web, the passengers is usually aware of what

those percentages are, which are kept updated, I am sure, on the
20

web site? Do you think that’s true, that the passenger is aware of

that? Do you think the web site does the trick?

Mr. PODBERESKY. I believe it does for some passengers. But I

have also found that, for example, passengers making reservations

with an airline can, when they call the reservation agent, the reservation agent has the information in front of you to provide that

customer specific information for the prior month, for the specific

flight that the passenger is reserving.

From what we understand, not a lot of passengers avail themselves of that opportunity for information.

Mr. PASCRELL. Which is my point. Which is my point. So maybe

we ought to take a look at how we are educating the public and

the flying public to those facts and figures, so that they can make

an educated decision about that particular airline.

I want to ask you another question. Because checked baggage,

Mr. Podberesky, is processed by both individual airlines and the

TSA, a passenger whose baggage has been damaged or pilfered

must file two claims, one with TSA and one with the airline. To

me—educate me—sounds like a time consuming and duplicative

process for the consumer. Are there any plans to simplify or integrate the claims procedure?

Mr. PODBERESKY. My understanding is that TSA has been working with carriers over time to try to resolve issues having to do

with the interplay of their—

Mr. PASCRELL. Is that an issue?

Mr. PODBERESKY. When we get a complaint from a consumer or

a question of the consumer about what to do with respect to a baggage liability issue, we tell them to file a complaint with both.

Mr. PASCRELL. Ms. Bryan?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir, it is an issue. We have been working with

the carriers, but we have got a couple of stumbling blocks. Our

claims fall under the Federal Tort Act, and I believe the carriers

fall under the Contract of Carriage. I think they have 60 or 90 days

under the carriers, and they have up to 2 years under ours. So we

are looking at whether or not we need some legislative change.

Mr. PASCRELL. So maybe we are going in that direction, then?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. What do you think?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Cirillo, the FAA is currently in the midst of

an airspace redesign for our Nation’s major airports. We have been

talking about it for a long time. You folks have been going through

the painful attempts to make everybody happy. I don’t know how

you can do that.

But what if any effect will this have on flight delays and their

contribution to baggage mishandling, in your opinion?

Mr. CIRILLO. In my opinion, the design of the airspace is a key

component of the efficiency of the system. So we consider airspace

redesign as absolutely essential to the efficiency of the system.

Mr. PASCRELL. So this is what is being, these are things that are

being taken into account as we design a new system?

Mr. CIRILLO. Yes, sir.

Mr. PASCRELL. Okay. Have you reported to the Congress on those

factors, on how factors within airports and passengers have af-
21

fected your decisions about where airplanes go and how they approach airports and how they take off?

Mr. CIRILLO. I don’t know that the FAA has. I don’t have any

knowledge that we have specifically related to that subject.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Chandler?

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very few things are as frustrating as losing a bag. And I think

that any of us who have done much traveling through the air have

had that experience happen to them.

One thing that I am not clear about, and I would appreciate it

if you could just walk me through this process, how is a claim filed?

When you go the baggage area and you stand there and you wait

and the thing goes around and around and your bag doesn’t show

up. What do you do? From that point on, how does that process

work, if you could tell, just walk me through it in lay language.

Mr. PODBERESKY. I’ll try, in lay language, if your bag doesn’t

come off the conveyer belt, the next point in the process is that you

have to go to a baggage claim area, an office usually that the carrier has, or one of its affiliated carriers has that will then take the

claim, take down information, personal information about you or

the contact information, as well as detailed information about the

bags that are either missing or damaged or, if you know that an

item has been stolen, bag is open and you know that something is

lost, they will take that information right on the spot.

There are occasions where carriers will resolve a claim on the

spot. There are occasions where carriers will replace a bag on the

spot with a substitute bag, if a bag has been damaged.

Mr. CHANDLER. What does that depend on? Under what circumstances?

Mr. PODBERESKY. It depends on the carrier.

Mr. CHANDLER. What circumstances? It just depends on the particular carrier?

Mr. PODBERESKY. It depends on the particular carrier and its

own policies. Since the bulk of the problems with bags are delays,

usually what happens is you provide the carrier enough information about the bag, about your itinerary, the size of the bag, what

it looks like, color, and the carrier then puts a tracer out back on

the points that you have traveled on, looking for that bag.

Mr. CHANDLER. So there is a substantial difference in the policies

the different carriers have. I am one of these people that Mr.

Pascrell was talking about who has no idea what the difference in

the rates or the policies between one carrier and another.

Mr. PODBERESKY. I think the general policies are the same. On

occasion, a carrier will resolve minor claims with either a replacement bag or a cash voucher or travel voucher to resolve a minor

claim, like minor damage to a bag or an obviously lost item. That

makes up, I believe, a small percentage of what is happening.

With respect to delayed baggage, which is the primary mishandled baggage group, the general approach that I gave you, the

bag is then searched upline, from where you came from, along your

path. And once it is found, the carrier, just as a general rule will

then deliver that bag to you, to wherever you are going to be.
22

Mr. CHANDLER. Is there an average rate of time that it takes to

resolve a claim? Do you all have numbers on this? Can you answer,

Mr. Meenan?

Mr. MEENAN. I believe the average claim stays open for less than

24 hours. By far the vast majority of these bags turn up on the

next flight that is arriving from the destination you departed from.

The carriers also, there are minor variations between the way

the carriers handle these issues. But the fact of the matter is, there

is also sort of industry standardization in terms of how the messages are communicated, how the information flows back and forth

across the industry. I would say that by far the great majority of

carriers respond, they know this is a very frustrating experience.

They know that this is not something they want their customers

to be experiencing. And they go out of their way to try to accommodate as best as possible. They provide often short term payments

to get you over until your bag gets there, to get you the necessary

supplies. There are all sorts of different variables that go into each

individual case. But we do make our best effort to accommodate the

passenger.

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Ms. Berkley?

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for

coming. We appreciate your being here.

I represent Las Vegas, Nevada. McCarran Airport is the lifeline

to my Congressional district and its economic well-being. It is also

the fifth or sixth busiest airport in the Country. We will have 45

million visitors this year coming to McCarran, coming to Las Vegas

through McCarran. So half of those people will be coming through

the airport. McCarran Airport is very important to me.

I have two questions directed to Ms. Bryan, if I may. The first

one is, because all checked baggage must be screened by the TSA,

any problems in staffing levels or scheduling can directly lead to

the mishandling of baggage. McCarran has had longstanding issues

with the TSA, not giving us enough screeners and not matching the

screeners’ schedule to the actual peak times of airline business.

And let me give you an example. Las Vegas is a Monday through

Thursday, we have two peak times. Monday through Thursday we

have our convention and trade shows. They all leave on Thursday

afternoon. Thursday night come the tourists for the weekend and

they leave on Sundays. Now, there are obviously different schedules, but those are our peak times.

What can you do to help me get more TSA screeners, not only

more, but more at the appropriate peak times for McCarran Airport?

Ms. BRYAN. McCarran is one of our critical airports. As you may

know, two of the former FSDs now work in Washington, so we are

very familiar with McCarran. We are working very closely with

them, with Rosemary and some of the others there, on their needs.

I know there are still some issues about the numbers of EDS machines that we are going to put in line.

Ms. BERKLEY. That was my second question. They are desperate

for these machines.
23

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, and we are still negotiating that. We are looking

at part-time, full-time mixes. I know the acting FSD is working

very hard to come up with the right solution.

But let me assure you that it is on the front burner.

Ms. BERKLEY. May I ask, and I appreciate that, and I am glad

that you are so familiar with our problem. When do you think we

will be able to resolve this and when will you be able to contact

me and give me some idea of what is going on?

Ms. BRYAN. We have had three recent EDS machines installed.

Ms. BERKLEY. How many more do we need?

Ms. BRYAN. I don’t have that information, but I will find out. Our

director, our chief technology officer will be going out there on the

15th to discuss technological needs. And I know that they are down

76 screening officers. So as I said, we have a task force that is

working on local hiring. And I will go back and find out specifically

what they are going to do.

Ms. BERKLEY. May I ask you to contact me directly in the office,

so I can get that information to the McCarran people?

Ms. BRYAN. Absolutely.

Ms. BERKLEY. I am very grateful. Thanks a lot.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Boswell?

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being

called out by a deep concern with constituents, just on the other

side of the door.

I again appreciate your being here, and I am sorry I missed out

on some of the discussion. I certainly will read the record and I

have heard much of what has been said.

If guess I would address maybe about three points to Mr.

Podberesky. You gave us some data, but what steps have the airlines, in your view, taken since 1988 to improve their performance?

Number two, you said in your testimony that there may be a relationship between on-time performance and the rate of mishandled

baggage reports. You might say something about that. And also if

you would, you said in your testimony there is significant variation

among carriers’ baggage data based on the nature of their operation.

Would you comment on those items?

Mr. PODBERESKY. Yes. I would be pleased to. The carriers have

invested, over the last 20 or so years, what appears to be significant amounts of money to modernize their baggage handling systems. We all recall the old system where we used to have just these

bag tags that used to have the three letter codes of carriers, and

they were in these enormous boxes behind the counter and it was

pretty much left to the whim of the check-in agent as to whether

or not they pulled the right bag tag out to match to the ultimate

destination where you were going.

Nowadays you have these barcoded tags that are printed out by

computer that are printed off your reservation record, so there is

very little possibility of having the wrong tag applied to your bag.

I think that has improved things to a great extent.
24

That to me is the biggest area of improvement, some modernization by the carriers. Perhaps the ATA representative would like to

add to that after I address your two other points.

The relationship of on-time performance to baggage handling, my

testimony relates, it does discuss the last five years. It appears

over the last, since 2000, that there has been sort of a direct relationship that as on-time performance has gotten better, baggage

handling rates have gotten better, and as it has gotten worse, baggage handling rates have gotten worse. That relationship doesn’t

hold true during all periods of time. If we went back to the 1988,

1989, 1990 period, and from 1989 to 1990, on-time performance got,

I believe worse, and baggage handling went the other way. So it

is not a guarantee that that is always going to work that way.

And then among variations among carriers, I mentioned several

of the factors, the connections, which carriers have the most connections. There are also certain carriers that just carry more bags

than other carriers. If you have a shorter route system, if your average of your flights are shorter, then people are taking shorter

trips, they may not be carrying as many bags for these trips, they

may be doing more business travelers, fewer vacation travelers.

Other things, carriers that have significant international routing

systems will have, I believe will have a propensity to have more

baggage problems, because they have to deal with connections between international and domestic flights, which also throws Customs in, as well as variables relates to Customs, as well as variables related to TSA, having to rescreen the bags once the persons

leave the Customs area.

Other issues may be carriers that operate more regional jets,

those airplanes tend to have more bulk and weight issues. They

don’t have the size compartments and they can’t carry as heavy a

load as perhaps some of the bigger airplanes. So that may have an

impact also.

Mr. BOSWELL. Let me interrupt you just a second, my time is

running out. The information that you gain, is it shared with Mr.

Meenan and his group? Is there a sharing process going on so everybody can benefit?

Mr. PODBERESKY. Well, some of this information I just gave you

is information we get from airlines. We don’t get reports of that,

some if it is intuitive, common sense. But a lot of it is—

Mr. BOSWELL. From your vantage point, though, do you try to get

people to share? If you see the airline, whatever, has a good, better

system, that information is shared with the others?

Mr. PODBERESKY. No. We don’t do that. I think ATA does that

to an extent.

Mr. BOSWELL. Is that right?

Mr. MEENAN. That is absolutely correct. We have passenger service, baggage service committees that meet constantly and share information back and forth, as well as watching very closely the information that is shared with DOT.

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. Again, thank all of you, and thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25

Mr. Meenan, representing the airlines, and I know not individually, but there was at least one airline that had a, sort of like a

baggage heaven, which I have never understood, where they ended

up with all the goods that came out of people’s bags in this giant

sort of flea market place. I have seen press accounts of it.

Does that still exist? I have always been puzzled as to, there is

a limited universe of people who have lost bags and there is a limited universe of bags, and how we couldn’t reassociate people with

their belongings and they had to go to a flea market or wholesale

house or whatever it was. How is that?

Mr. MEENAN. It happens. The fact is that, it is in the airline’s

best interest to get that bag back to the passenger. But on occasion,

you go through the bag, you look for every means of identification,

you look for other ways to trace it back to the original owner, and

it just isn’t there. When that happens, you have to do something

with the—but it is a very minimal part of what actually goes on.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but there was some small town, I think it

was in Georgia—

Mr. MEENAN. I have seen the story.

Mr. DEFAZIO.—where the economy evolved around this. I always

found it odd. It seems that that might be, the RFID thing, I understand there is both expense in terms of tagging and the equipment

to read them.

On the other hand, people might be willing to pay for an RFID

tag that would not impose a cost on the airline and then the readers are not all that expensive. People do it with pets, they do it

with other things. Then we could not have to worry about the bags

that could never be reassociated with people, because we would

have permanent identification with it.

Mr. MEENAN. And as I said, there are a number of concepts that

are currently being reviewed. One of them I have heard mentioned

recently is the idea of embedding these tags in the bag itself. That

is a possibility. I will say that like everything else, though, we

want to make investments that are responsible and are going to

pay for themselves prudently. Right now, the business case for

RFID tags is highly debatable. We are looking at different ways we

might approach it.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ms. Bryan, do you have any statistics on the airports where, for instance, let’s use San Francisco, which has a fully

integrated inline system. Do we have a lowered number, lesser

number of complaints for damaged bags there?

Ms. BRYAN. Sir, our data does not—there is no correlation between the number of claims and the type of baggage system.

Mr. DEFAZIO. There is none?

Ms. BRYAN. There is none currently.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Looked for it, can’t find one?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is interesting, because you would think that

it might.

How are you doing on, I just asked this question over in Homeland Security last week, how are we doing on getting dedicated

baggage handlers who would be generally people who had not gone

through the training to be Federal security officers and would be
26

paid less, but could be like people who are set up better to handle

heavy bags day in and day out?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir, we are discussing that. Earlier I mentioned

a career path for our screeners. This would be at the low end of

that path. We are just looking at funding and some other issues

right now. But we are seriously considering it.

Mr. DEFAZIO. It just seems it would help with your, with the

issue of the workers comp claims and the time loss that results

from that.

The other issue would be on EDS. I am surprised that the EDS

systems, which requires a lot less handling and it seems to me

would preclude a lot of problems, that you can’t find statistically

that they work better. We know they work better for other things.

Where are we on issuing new letters of intent? You talked to Ms.

Berkley about her airport which has been in line for quite some

time. Are we anticipating any new letters of intent in the near future?

Ms. BRYAN. No, sir. The current 2006 and 2007 funding supports

reimbursement for the existing ones, but there is no plans for additional ones.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I wish TSA would push back against OMB

and the White House on this issue. We’ve shown, for instance, at

Portland, that we could save you, in a year and a half you would

get back your investment, and then thereafter forever you would be

saving money. So it is extraordinary to me, and I can’t blame this

all on the Administration, the Republican Appropriations Committee chairman played a big role in this when he arbitrarily slashed

the number of screeners we have, for whatever reason, and then

said, don’t worry, technology will take care of it, and then failed to

fund the technology.

So you can kind of do security two ways. One way is you’ve got

a lot of people, not very good technology. The old 20 year ago model

in Israel. Or you can have really good technology and few people.

And what we have is not enough people and not the right technology. It is really the worst of all possible worlds, both for security

and also for, ultimately, I think, for customer satisfaction and problems, as the Chairman pointed out, that we may bump into this

summer.

I just really wish, I know it is hard and it is not your call, but

I keep urging everyone I see from TSA, tell us honestly what you

need, you might lose your job, but hey, you will sleep better at

night knowing that you told us that we really needed better technology at the screening checkpoints.

Ms. BRYAN. As you might know, we delivered the EDS strategic

plan to the Congress earlier. We are working feverishly with our

industry partners on a cost sharing study that we are expecting to

be, the preliminary results to be delivered this summer. So we are

real anxious to get that. Thank you.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Just a couple of quick questions. You sort of surprised

me when you said 87 TSA personnel have been charged with theft.

Were all of those people, did they have the background checks completed or were some of the—do you have any statistics?

Ms. BRYAN. I don’t, and we can get back to you on that.
27

Mr. MICA. But I would imagine they would have all, to be online

working, they would have had to have the screening check done.

Ms. BRYAN. I believe originally they were not done for the original hires, but I am not sure that they ever done.

Mr. MICA. Was it 87 last year or total or what?

Ms. BRYAN. Total, sir.

Mr. MICA. What about the airline industry? How many folks

have you arrested? Do you have any statistics on that?

Mr. MEENAN. We do not have any statistics.

Mr. MICA. Can you get them? I have read a few, like I think they

had problems at JFK.

Mr. MEENAN. I don’t believe anyone tracks those numbers directly. We can do a LEXIS search and see what we can come up

with.

Mr. MICA. Okay. I just want to know the baggage handlers, I

don’t want to know about the CEOs and others who are taking

money. Just a bad joke.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. Oh, Mr. Costello wants those statistics.

But again, I was sort of shocked by that number. Also shocked

by your response to the gentlelady from Nevada. Now, I played the

game for moving TSA personnel, and I have been out to McCarran,

and we did the McCarran dance and all of that. She is still obviously having problems.

One of the problems it sounds like, you’ve got a 60 percent turnover in FSDs. Did you say there is an acting FSD at McCarran?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Okay, so you’ve gotten two now.

Ms. BRYAN. There were good people. We needed them in Washington.

Mr. MICA. But again, nobody in charge. When we devised this

system, we always thought there would be an FSD directing things.

And now we have the FSD and most of them have eight to ten administrative people on top of that. But now we have something for

them to do, because in May they are going to start hiring at the

local level.

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Okay, good.

The other thing, too, and I don’t know if ATA has this information, I asked staff to check it, if you can get it, the U.K. is the only

country that has total inline integrated checked baggage, automated processing of the baggage systems. I visited them shortly

after 9/11, and a lot of what we did is modeled after what they did.

They told me it took $4.5 billion in 7 years. I think they did 38 of

41 or 42 airports.

But I would be interested to check their baggage mishandled

rates with those—because we would have a country with all inline

systems. See if there is any difference just to see if there is anything we can gain from their experience.

Mishandled baggage, I had estimated, well, the information we

have worldwide is $2.5 billion. I just did a quick estimate that that

was 2005, and this is—who gave us that data? SITA? Okay.

What do you think the cost is to the U.S.?
28

Mr. MEENAN. We don’t have a solid number on that, and I would

mention that SITA is very interested in selling technology here.

Any time I find a vendor who is putting numbers out, I always look

at them skeptically.

Mr. MICA. Okay, well, what do you estimate? I mean, I am not—

Mr. MEENAN. That is a number that the carriers hold very tightly themselves. Obviously it has competitive implications.

Mr. MICA. You don’t disclose what you pay out in claims?

Mr. MEENAN. No, we don’t.

Mr. MICA. You don’t. Can you get that information for the Committee?

Mr. MEENAN. Let me do some checking and we will get back to

staff on that.

Mr. MICA. The other thing too is, now, I see TSA is telling me

that they are paying out money and claims, and she broke it down

into some small amounts. What is the total amount you paid out

in 2005?

Ms. BRYAN. Oh, let’s see. It’s about $2 million a year.

Mr. MICA. Okay, then the other thing is how do you determine,

and I have been told that there have been some discussions with

the airlines as to who is responsible for what amount. Now, TSA

requires the bag be open, unlocked, we have TSA people who they

have testified also have been stealing things from bags. Are you involved in, and again, the preliminary information I have is there

was some discussion or consideration of an agreement between the

airlines and TSA. What is the status of that and how are you going

to determine responsibility and equity in paying these costs? Or is

TSA stiffing the airlines? And $2 million does not sound like a lot.

That sounds like my wife’s claim for just her lost bag.

Mr. MEENAN. We have had extensive discussions on repeated occasions with TSA. As Ms. Bryan noted, there are some significant

difficulties in trying to bring two very different approaches to these

issues together.

Mr. MICA. I want to find out if you have more thieves than they

have. Maybe you could do it on a percentage caught basis.

Mr. MEENAN. I would mention that what has happened in the

real world is that there is a close working relationship between the

TSA claims people and the individual carrier claims people. They

communicate back and forth quite effectively.

Mr. MICA. Are you in the process of a formal agreement?

Mr. MEENAN. That I believe at this point is sort of in hiatus. But

in a real operating world, the day to day interaction between those

folks works pretty effectively.

Mr. MICA. Well, I have $2.3 million being paid out in 2005 by

TSA. Now, TSA, you said that you are looking at putting in video

cameras at your locations where they are doing a lot of that hand

processing and screening.

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Do you have a request in for money for that?

Ms. BRYAN. I don’t know.

Mr. MICA. Will you let us know?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. MICA. The other thing too is you said that of the 87 TSA employees that were found pilfering or stealing, that a significant
29

number—I don’t want to take words out of your mouth—were

turned in by other TSA employees?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Do you know how many, and maybe we should look

at some sort of a reward system or something as opposed to putting

in video cameras. I have been through the video cameras at Miami

airport and ports, and I saw what can be done to the video cameras. The employees know they are there. As opposed to some reporting system where there is some incentive to keep everybody

straight. Have you explored that?

Ms. BRYAN. I don’t think we have, but we can, and we will determine the number that were turned in by their fellow employees.

Mr. MICA. And then finally, we really, now, do we have a resolution system, when a claim is put in, is there any way of telling

what number are resolved back to the Department of Transportation? You don’t?

Mr. PODBERESKY. No, we don’t.

Mr. MICA. You basically pass it on to the airline.

Mr. PODBERESKY. We have two sets of data, the mishandled baggage report data, which is data that the carriers provide to us, and

those are the—

Mr. MICA. But we don’t know what the success rate is or the resolution rate?

Mr. PODBERESKY. No.

Mr. MICA. Now, back, I remember in a previous life back some

time when we started this process, and I was trying to help the airlines, because there were so many complaints and there wasn’t the

ability to even process them. Some of you may recall, we had complaints that they could not handle all the complaints that were

coming in. This is before 2001, I believe.

So we went to the appropriators and we got you, I think you had

30 staffers and you went up to 50. Now I heard you are back down.

Tell us what is taking place with the people who handle complaints. Do you have the personnel to handle the complaints? We

know we have a system in place in which we know there is no confirmation of resolution. But tell me where you are in handling complaints and the number of folks you have now.

Mr. PODBERESKY. We went from 16 to approximately 40 and we

are down to about 33 now.

Mr. MICA. Ah, high turnover rate.

Mr. PODBERESKY. Most of it has to do with budgetary, that’s a

budgetary issue.

Mr. MICA. I was teasing on that. Seriously, is that funded positions? How many FTEs do you have?

Mr. PODBERESKY. I think for this year we may be funded at

around 34.

Mr. MICA. So we are back to where we were? Because we were

up.

Mr. PODBERESKY. We are not all the way back. We went from 16

to 40. But if you recall, the main reason for the increase in staffing

were additional responsibilities that were given to us under AIR21, the main one being, having to do with civil rights issues. The

first one was we had to investigate every disability complaint we

received. The second was specific authority to investigate other
30

types of civil rights complaints and take enforcement action against

the airlines where appropriate.

Mr. MICA. Yes, I heard at one point you had 500 disability—

Mr. PODBERESKY. We get about 500 disability claims a year.

Mr. MICA. Is that about the same?

Mr. PODBERESKY. It is about the same. It is down a little bit from

2000, 2001. And last year, it has gone down a little bit. But the

numbers there are still fairly significant, it does take a lot of resources.

But with respect to complaints that we get about baggage, where

we see real problems in the sense of problems that we can resolve,

we will take action to try to get airlines—for example, if an airline

does not respond to a claim, if an airline takes too long to respond

to a claim, we will get involved. We won’t get involved if an airline

says that a pair of pants that was damaged is only worth $50 and

the passenger thinks it is worth $75. That is the kind of thing that

typically is handled in small claims court. It is not the kind of

issues that we get involved in. We don’t try to adjudicate claims.

Mr. MICA. So actually, it is not practical to have some sort of a

resolution reporting?

Mr. PODBERESKY. Not for those kinds of issues. We get involved

where we find practices at airlines that might be a problem. We

have had carriers that were applying interpretations, for example,

of our requirements like carriers would disclaim any responsibility

for consequential damages. For example, somebody has to buy

toiletries because their bags don’t arrive for a day. The carrier is

responsible for paying for that. And even reasonable expenses for

clothes, you know, that a person has to buy if the bags take a long

time to get to them. And if a carrier disclaims responsibility for

that, we will take action to ensure that they—

Mr. MICA. One of the other things, too, that I noticed, if you look

at the spike in the claims, some of the incidents with, I guess some

labor problems, U.S. Air had some problems, maybe some others.

There were some pretty significant mess-ups with baggage. And

you said that, I think one of you testified that that accounted for

a number of, well, spikes in the statistics.

Mr. PODBERESKY. That is correct.

Mr. MICA. Do we have any way to hold anyone accountable who

causes these delays? For example, it is nice for some of the baggage

handlers or whoever is effected to walk out or cause a problem.

There is no recourse or hasn’t been any for anyone who causes—

Mr. PODBERESKY. There is no recourse that the Government has.

Mr. MICA. And they are killing themselves, because the first

thing on every television screen is baggage delayed at such and

such an airline, who is already in financial difficulty. So passengers

walk away from that or cancel their reservations in droves. There

is a penalty that is paid, but nothing as far as recouping costs for

those actions.

Mr. PODBERESKY. Right.

Mr. MICA. Well, I think I have sort of milked this cow dry. Mr.

Costello, anything else? Mr. Boswell?

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions, but

I want to give the witnesses an opportunity if they want to add
31

anything, before we conclude the hearing. Anyone on the panel

want to?

Ms. BRYAN. I will. I would just like to say, we are very proud of

our claims program. We have put a lot of effort and work into it.

There is still work to be done. Passengers can file with both the

carriers and TSA as well. So we are trying to prevent fraudulent

claims. As Mr. Meenan said, we are bouncing names off each other

locally.

But I think it is a real good news story. We have our manager

here and we have a 24/7 claims operation and I think that he

should be commended for the hard work we have done in that area.

Mr. MICA. She stuck herself into that one for a question.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. Just a quick one. You are getting the claims and you

are getting claims. Do you have a system of running your dupes?

Ms. BRYAN. We are continuing to work on it.

Mr. MICA. Do you have a system?

Ms. BRYAN. Yes, sir, we do.

Mr. MICA. So when you get a claim, she gets notice and vice

versa?

Mr. PODBERESKY. When we get a complaint that in any way relates to a baggage problem with TSA, the issue is transferred to

TSA, is directed to TSA.

Mr. MICA. Okay, so you both know that there is a claim.

Mr. Boswell.

Mr. BOSWELL. Just to thank you again. I think this has been a

good exchange. I don’t know if we came up with a lot of solutions

or not, Mr. Chairman, but maybe we will go contemplate and come

back with some. Keep doing your best. That is all we can ask. The

American public wants you to do that, and I feel from listening to

you today you have your heart in it, so stay right after it. If there

is some tool that you need that you don’t have that we could help

with, I trust you will let us know.

Mr. MICA. I thank Mr. Boswell for requesting this hearing and

for Mr. Costello’s leadership on the issue. Thank you for providing

expert testimony today.

Like Mr. Boswell, I am not sure if we came up with any specific

remedies. It gives us a better idea of what is going on. I am not

very optimistic, quite frankly, for the summer. I think just the

numbers of people that we have handling baggage from a security

standpoint, the number of increased passengers we will see in the

air, add a little air turbulence of the summer and delays, and I

think we are looking for a meltdown with baggage, passenger baggage this summer, unfortunately.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, if we could ask, do you have any

knowledge, are the airlines planning on putting maybe more help

on during this peak period?

Mr. MEENAN. The airlines always plan for peak periods. We in

fact are doing it. I think one of our big concerns, obviously this

summer but longer term, is where we are going with this air traffic

control system. Because that from our perspective is where the real

problems lie. And what we are looking at is essentially gridlock in

the not too distant future if we don’t start moving on some of the

newer technologies.
32

Mr. MICA. That is an issue that is also pending before the Committee and the FAA. As you mentioned, too, in your testimony, a

manner in which to finance that. But that is a discussion that we

will continue and hopefully we will resolve that.

Again, I thank each of the witnesses for participating together,

and the members.

There being no further business before this Committee, this

hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65Æ