Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 26, 2005 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

SYSTEM 

Initiatives to Reduce Flight 

Delays and Enhance 

Capacity are Ongoing but 

Challenges Remain 

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

GAO-05-755T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-GAO-05-

755T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald 

Dillingham (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-GAO-05-755T, a report 

to a report to Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

May 26, 2005

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and 

Enhance Capacity are Ongoing but 

Challenges Remain 

Several initiatives to address flight delays and enhance capacity are ongoing. 

Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA’s February 2005 Operation 

Evolution Plan, which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency of 

the national airspace system at 35 of the busiest airports in the United 

States. New runways opened in the last 6 years at the Phoenix, Detroit, and 5 

other airports. Seven more runways are scheduled to open by the end of 

2008. Congress and FAA also streamlined the process for building runways. 

In addition to building runways, several other initiatives were implemented. 

For example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase high altitude 

routes in the contiguous United States and Alaska. To reduce flight delays at 

some of the delay-prone airports, FAA is limiting the number of takeoffs and 

landings during peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare 

and is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La 

Guardia. 

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity 

remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for the initiatives mentioned 

above; their successful implementation is predicated on the availability of 

funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and airports. Another 

challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity at delay-prone 

airports, such as New York La Guardia, which have little capacity to expand 

and would find it difficult to build even one more runway. 

Other options to address delay problems include adding new capacity by 

building new airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las 

Vegas, and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another 

option is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as high-speed rail, 

where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These options may 

conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder groups; and, in 

many cases, would be costly. 

Flight delays totaled over one million in 2004 

Source: FAA.

Since the unprecedented flight 

delays in 2000, a year in which 

one in four flights were delayed, 

our aviation system has been 

adversely affected by many 

unanticipated events—such as 

the September 11th terrorist 

attacks, and Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)— 

that significantly reduced the 

demand for air travel. However, 

demand for air travel is 

rebounding. For example, the 

number of passengers traveling 

by air increased from 642 million 

in 2003 to 688 million in 2004. 

Flight delays have been among the 

most vexing problems in the 

national transportation system and 

are defined by the Department of 

Transportation as instances when 

aircraft arrive at the gate 15 

minutes or more after scheduled 

arrival time. In 2004, one in five 

flights were delayed primarily at 

New York La Guardia and Chicago 

O’Hare. Delays at these airports 

have consequences for the rest of 

the system. GAO’s testimony 

addresses the following questions 

that pertain to flight delays and 

enhancing capacity: (1) What 

initiatives are ongoing by the 

federal government, airlines, and 

airports to address flight delays and 

enhance capacity? (2) What are 

some of the challenges in reducing 

flight delays and enhancing 

capacity? (3) What other options 

are available for reducing flight 

delays and enhancing capacity? 
Page 1 GAO-05-755T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss flight delays and capacity 

issues in the national airspace system. Since the unprecedented flight 

delays in 2000, a year in which flight delays totaled 1.4 million and one in 

four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been adversely affected 

by many unanticipated events—such as the September 11 terrorist attacks, 

the Iraq war and associated security concerns, and Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)— that significantly reduced the demand for 

air travel. However, that demand for air travel is rebounding. For example, 

the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in 

2003 to 688 million in 2004. FAA estimates that by 2015 there will be as 

many as one billion travelers per year in the United States. 

The current rebound in air travel has been a significant factor in a 

resurgence of flight delays today. Flight delays have many causes. 

Historically, the major cause of flight delays has been bad weather. For 

example, seventy percent of the flight delays from 2000 to 2004 were 

weather-related. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of 

capacity—that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle 

the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Changes in the composition of the 

aircraft fleet—including the airlines’ greater reliance on regional jets with 

an average of 49 seats— has also increased the number of aircraft in the 

national airspace system, which has placed greater demand on the system. 

Besides airlines, other parts of the aviation community are also likely to 

place more demands on the national airspace system. For example, 

corporations may make increasing use of their corporate jets, which often 

use the same airports and airspace as those used by airlines. 

Flight delays have also been among the most vexing problems in the 

national airspace system and are defined by the Department of 

Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or 

more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, the number of flight delays 

totaled over 1.4 million and almost one in five flights were delayed 

primarily at New York La Guardia, Newark International, Chicago O’Hare, 

and Atlanta Hartsfield. Because these are some of the busiest airports in 

the country, their delays generally have significant ramifications for the 

rest of the national airspace system. Our nation’s airspace system is a 

critical engine of economic growth that facilitates the safe and efficient 

movement of people and goods around the globe, consequently flight 

delays and capacity issues have significant ramifications. According to the 
Page 2 GAO-05-755T 

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, 

consumers stand to lose $30 billion dollars annually if people and products 

do not reach their destinations within expected time periods. The Air 

Transport Association also reports that flight delays in 2004 cost the 

airline industry an estimated $6.2 billion in direct operating costs (e.g. 

pilots, flight attendants, and fuel). 

My statement today updates our 2001 report entitled: National Airspace 

System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction 

in Flight Delays1

 and addresses the following questions: 

• What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government, airlines, and 

airports to address flight delays and enhance capacity? 

• What are some of the challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing 

capacity? 

• What other options are available to address flight delays and enhance 

capacity? 

To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from 

FAA, Airports Council International, and Air Transport Association on the 

status and impact of initiatives to reduce flight delays that were identified 

in our December 2001 report. We performed our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary: 

• Several initiatives to reduce flight delays, such as those shown in figure 1, 

and enhance capacity are ongoing. 

 1

U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Airspace System: Long-Term Capacity 

Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays, GAO-02-185 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 14, 2001). 
Page 3 GAO-05-755T 

Figure 1: Illustration of Flight Delays 

Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA’s February 2005 Operation 

Evolution Plan which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency 

of the national airspace system and focuses on airport congestion, air 

traffic management flow efficiency, en route congestion, and terminal area 

congestion at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States.2

 FAA 

acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate 

solution to congestion and delay problems. Also, over the last the six 

years, new runways were opened at the Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami, 

Cleveland, Houston, and Orlando airports, which provided those airports 

with the potential to accommodate about one million more annual 

operations (take-offs and landings). Seven more runways and one runway 

extension are scheduled to open by the end of 2008 with the potential to 

accommodate 889,000 more annual operations. In addition to building 

runways, several new systems or technologies were implemented. For 

example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase available high 

altitude routes which gives pilots and air traffic controllers more choices 

so that aircraft can fly more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient 

 2

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

Source: FAA.
Page 4 GAO-05-755T 

altitudes. FAA is also pursuing some additional solutions for flight delays 

that are not in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone 

airports such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is also 

exploring administrative and market-based options. For example, FAA is 

considering auctioning off landing and take off rights and using congestion 

pricing at New York La Guardia and limiting the number of takeoffs and 

landings during peak periods at Chicago O’Hare. 

• A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity 

remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for many of the initiatives 

mentioned above; their successful implementation is predicated on the 

availability of funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and 

airports. However, since 2000, the financial condition of the aviation 

industry has changed significantly. Many structural changes, such as the 

growth of the low cost carriers which led to lower average fares and 

external events (e.g. global recessions and a steep decline in business 

travel) have caused a dip in demand for air travel and resulted in sharp 

decreases in airline industry revenue and the amount of revenues flowing 

into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.3

 FAA expects that over the next 

four years there may be an $8.2 billion dollar gap between its costs and 

revenues. In 2004, the airline industry losses totaled $14 billion and the 

industry is expecting similar losses in 2005, which will make it difficult for 

them to equip their aircraft with some of the new air traffic control 

technology, according to Air Transport Association officials. 

• Other options are available to address delay problems. One option is to 

add new capacity—not by adding runways to existing capacityconstrained airports, but rather by building entirely new airports. 

According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas, and San 

Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another option is to 

develop other modes of intercity travel, such as, but not limited to, highspeed rail where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These 

options may conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder 

groups, and, in many cases, would be costly. 

Although recent events may have moved airport congestion off center 

stage as a major national issue, delays remain a pervasive problem, in part 

because of the interdependence of the nation’s airports. The effect of 

 3

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund help funds the development of a nationwide airport 

and airway system and air traffic control facilities. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-755T 

delays can quickly spread beyond those airports where delays tend to 

occur most often, such as New York La Guardia, Chicago O’Hare, Newark 

International, and Atlanta Hartsfield. Delays at these airports can quickly 

create a “ripple” effect of delays that affects many airports across the 

country. For example, flights scheduled to take off from these airports 

may find themselves being held at the departing airport due to weather or 

limited airspace. Similarly, an aircraft late in leaving the airport where 

delays are occurring may be late in arriving at its destination, thus delaying 

the departure time for the aircraft’s next flight. 

Delays have many causes, but weather is the most prevalent. Figures 

compiled by FAA indicate that weather causes about 70 percent of the 

delays each year. Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of 

capacity—that is, the inability of the national airspace system to handle 

the amount of traffic seeking to use it. Capacity can be measured in a 

variety of ways. For example, at individual airports, one measure is the 

maximum number of takeoffs and landings that can be conducted in a 

given period, such as 15 minutes or 1 hour. In our 2001 report, we noted 

that FAA had established such a capacity benchmark at each of the 31 of 

the nation’s busiest airports.4

 FAA’s data on capacity and demand at these 

airports showed that even in optimum weather conditions, 16 airports had 

at least three 15-minute periods each day when demand exceeded 

capacity.5

Weather and capacity problems are often linked, because bad weather can 

further erode capacity. For example, some airports have parallel runways 

that are too close together for simultaneous operations in bad weather. 

When weather worsens, only one of the two runways can be used at any 

given time, thereby reducing the number of aircraft that can take off and 

land. FAA’s data in 2001 showed that in bad weather, 22 of the 31 airports 

had at least three 15-minute periods when demand exceeded capacity. 

Another measure of capacity, apart from the capacity of individual 

airports, is the number of aircraft that can be in a given sector of the 

airspace. For safe operations, aircraft must maintain certain distances 

from each other and remain within authorized airspace. If too many 

aircraft are trying to use the same airspace, some must wait, either on the 

ground or en route. 

 4

FAA updated its capacity benchmark report in 2004. 

5

The current OEP includes 35 of the busiest airports in the U.S. 
Page 6 GAO-05-755T 

Addressing flight delay problems also requires action by multiple aviation 

stakeholders because no single entity has the authority or ability to solve 

delay-related problems. The federal government, especially through the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its parent agency, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT), plays a major role by operating the 

national airspace system, distributing federal funding for airports, and 

setting operating standards for all aircraft and airports. Airports and 

airlines are also important decision makers and funding sources. The 

nation’s airports are primarily owned and operated by local units of 

government, so that decisions about such steps as expanding airport 

capacity are primarily local in nature. Airlines’ business decisions have a 

strong effect on the volume and routing of flights, the type and size of 

aircraft used, and the degree to which aircraft are upgraded to take 

advantage of new technology. 

Several initiatives to reduce flight delays and enhance capacity are 

ongoing. These initiatives which FAA, the airlines, and the airports are 

implementing are incorporated into FAA’s major capacity-enhancing 

effort: the Operation Evolution Plan (OEP). The OEP is a rolling 10-year 

plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system 

and focuses on airport surface infrastructure, and technological and 

procedural initiatives at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. 

FAA acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not intended as the ultimate 

solution to congestion and delay problems. Responsibility for the various 

initiatives is still shared among the various segments of the aviation 

community. In February 2005, FAA published version 7 of the OEP and 

organized it into the following four quadrants: 

Airport Congestion. The Airport Congestion quadrant focuses on capacity 

enhancements for the airport surface. One of the most effective ways to 

increase capacity is to build runways; however, it takes an average of 10 

years from the time planning begins for a runway until it is commissioned. 

To help expedite the process for building runways, Congress and FAA 

streamlined the environmental review phase of the runway process. In 

addition, according to FAA, over the last six years, seven new runways 

were opened at Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami, Cleveland, Houston, and 

Orlando airports which provided those airports with the potential to 

accommodate about one million more annual operations (take-offs and 

landings). Seven more runways and one runway extension are included in 

the OEP and are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. These runways are 

expected to provide those airports with the potential to accommodate 

889,000 more annual operations in the system, as shown in figure 2. 

A Number of Initiatives to 

Reduce Flight Delays and 

Enhance Capacity Are 

Ongoing 
Page 7 GAO-05-755T 

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

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

In addition to the runways listed in the OEP, nine more projects are in the 

planning or environmental stages, including one new runway, three airfield 

reconfigurations, one runway extension, and three new airports in major 

metropolitan areas. FAA also has additional flight reduction activities that 

are not included in the OEP. To reduce flight delays at some of the delayprone airports, such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is 

exploring administrative and market based options. For example, FAA is 

LambertSt. Louis

Philadelphia

Orlando Houston

Miami

Denver

Phoenix

Minneapolis/

St. Paul

SeattleTacoma

Planned runway opening

Runway opened

Source: MapArt.

December 2003

February 2008

June 2006

November

2006

September 2003

October 2005

April 2006

December 2001

December 2005

October 2000

November 2008

October 2003

December 2002

August 2004

December 1999

December 2007

September 2003

Charlotte-Douglas

Cincinnati/

North Kentucky

Boston

Logan

Detroit

Cleveland

Atlanta

Hartsfield
Page 8 GAO-05-755T 

considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La 

Guardia and is currently limiting the number of scheduled arrivals during 

peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare. 

Air Traffic Management Flow Efficiency. This quadrant focuses on new 

technology and procedures to optimize the flow of traffic and maximize 

system throughput which may allow better control and utilization of 

current airspace. Included is the Collaborative Convective Forecast 

Product which is a graphical forecast of potential convective activity areas 

(i.e. thunderstorms) for use in the strategic planning and management of 

air traffic. It is intended to provide advance planning for long haul flights 

and allows for schedule predictability based on 2-, 4-, and 6-hour forecasts. 

This tool is most useful during the severe weather avoidance procedures 

season, which is from March to October. Another program is Collaborative 

Decision Making, which is a joint government/industry initiative. 

Collaborative decision making focuses on electronic data exchange; 

optimized airspace utilization; shared planning and decision-making; and 

post-analysis reporting. In addition, the Traffic Management Advisor, 

which is in operation at eight air route traffic control centers, is an 

automated decision support tool, is intended to provide controllers and 

traffic management coordinators more information on airport arrival 

demand and available capacity for making decisions on aircraft spacing. 

En Route Congestion. Although the flying public is impacted by delays at 

the airports, many times this occurs in the en route areas as the airways 

become congested. The tools in this quadrant reduce delays and 

contribute to time and fuel savings for the vast majority of airspace users. 

One of the tools currently in use is reduced lateral (side-to-side) 

separation may provide space for additional routes between current city 

pairs or allow for new direct routes. Reduced longitudinal (nose-to-tail) 

separation may provide more opportunities to add flights without 

incurring delays. For domestic flights, Domestic Reduced Vertical 

Separation Minimum was implemented in fiscal year 2005 in the 

contiguous United States and Alaska and adds six additional flight levels 

between existing flight levels. The User Request Evaluation Tool which 

was installed at l7 air route traffic control centers and is operational at 13 

air route traffic control centers, allows controllers to predict aircraft-toaircraft and aircraft-to-airspace conflicts, which allows them to construct 

alternative flight paths. Airspace redesign projects also provide significant 

capacity improvements. For example, new routes added as part of the 

High Altitude Redesign increased en route throughput form the Pacific 

Northwest into the San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles Basin areas. 
Page 9 GAO-05-755T 

Terminal Area Congestion. Terminal airspace is a critical component in 

the efficient use of airport capacity. In instances where volume has 

increased and the current airspace structure is the limiting factor, 

redesigning arrival and departure procedures, including the addition of 

Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance procedures, will 

allow more efficient use of constrained terminal airspace. Also, by 

applying existing technology with new procedures may provide instrument 

approaches to nearly all runways greater than 5,000 feet and under a wider 

range of meteorological conditions that are insensitive to airport surface 

traffic. Area navigation procedures provide flight path guidance from the 

runway to the en route airspace with minimal instructions given by air 

traffic controllers. As a result, routine controller/pilot communications are 

reduced, which frees time to handle other safety-critical flight activities. 

Other key benefits include more efficient use of airspace, with improved 

flight profiles, resulting in significant fuel efficiencies to the airlines. 

Additional solutions for increasing capacity in this arena are Time Based 

Metering which is used in conjunction with Traffic Management Advisor,6

became operational at seven air route traffic control centers. By 

optimizing the flow of aircraft from the en route to the terminal area, Time 

Based Metering with Traffic Management Advisor may help an airport to 

efficiently use the full capacity of its runways which increases acceptance 

rates as well as peak throughput. An air traffic management tool called 

Integrated Terminal Weather System which provides full color graphic 

displays of essential weather information to promote the safety, capacity, 

and efficiency of air traffic control operations was also implemented at 

Boston Logan, Denver International, and Minneapolis-St. Paul airports in 

2004. According to FAA, the plan is to install the production version of 

Integrated Terminal Weather System at the New York terminal radar 

control facility in 2006. 

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity 

remain. A daunting challenge that FAA and other aviation stakeholders 

will have to address is funding the various initiatives that are designed to 

address flight delays and enhance capacity. The successful 

implementation of many of these initiatives is predicated on the 

 6

Traffic Management Advisor provides an aircraft arrival schedule in the en route and 

terminal units and produces meter lists for controllers that display that estimate optimal 

arrival times. 

Challenges in Reducing 

Flight Delays and 

Enhancing Capacity 

Remain 
Page 10 GAO-05-755T 

availability of funding However, since 2000, which is to date the worst year 

in history for delays, the financial condition of the aviation industry has 

changed significantly. A number of structural changes within the airline 

industry, such as the growth of the Internet as a means to sell and 

distribute tickets, the growth of the low cost airlines, and fare reductions 

by legacy carriers, all transformed the industry and led to lower average 

fares. These lower fares have resulted in lower ticket taxes and less 

revenue into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In addition, a series of 

largely unforeseen events, including the September 11 terrorist attacks, 

war in Iraq and associated security concerns, SARS, global recessions, and 

a steep decline in business travel seriously reduced the demand for air 

travel and resulted in sharp decreases in airline industry revenue. 

Consequently, FAA expects that over the next four years there may be a 

multi-billion dollar gap between its costs and revenues. According to one 

aviation expert, this gap could have consequences that would increase air 

traffic delays. For example, FAA’s Facilities and Equipment account, 

which provides funding for modernizing the air traffic control system and 

improving its reliability, capacity, and efficiency, was reduced by 15 

percent in fiscal year 2005 and the President’s 2006 budget proposes to 

reduce it by 20 percent in fiscal year 2006. These are the funds that are key 

to the national airspace system’s future ability to handle demand and to 

minimize delays. For example, to provide the $4.4 billion needed for its 

major system acquisitions while remaining within its budget targets 

through fiscal year 2009, FAA has made significant cuts elsewhere in its 

capital funding plans. Specifically, FAA eliminated all of the $1.4 billion 

that it had set aside for what it calls the “architecture segment.” These 

funds would have been used to perform about two years’ worth of early 

research on new programs before they are mature enough to receive 

formal Joint Resources Council approval.7

 FAA also made significant 

reductions in planned investments for facilities—an action that runs 

counter to its reported need to refurbish or replace its physical 

infrastructure. Thus, even if all OEP initiatives are implemented the 

national airspace system is expected to fall behind demand, resulting in an 

increase in congestion and delays over the 10-year period of the OEP. 

FAA’s Management Advisory Council estimates that passengers would 

experience 63 percent more total delay hours in 2012 than they did in 2000. 

 7

The Joint Research Council is a FAA executive body consisting of associate and assistant 

administrators, acquisition executives, the chief financial officer, the chief information 

officer, and legal counsel. The council determines, among other things, whether an 

acquisition meets a mission need and should proceed. 
Page 11 GAO-05-755T 

In contrast, FAA states that if all of the OEP initiatives are implemented, 

delays will be maintained at or below the flight delay levels in 2000. 

However, FAA also stated that capacity at some airports will not keep 

pace with demand and in these cases delays will get worse over time 

because not all airports have improvements planned. In 2004, the airline 

industry losses totaled $9 billion and the industry is expecting similar 

losses in 2005, which will make it difficult for them to equip their aircraft 

with some of the new air traffic control technology, according to Air 

Transport Association officials. 

Another important challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing 

capacity at delay-prone airports, such as those shown in table 1, some of 

which have little capacity to physically expand and would find it difficult 

to build even one more runway, either because they lack the space or 

would face intense opposition from adjacent communities. 

Table 1: Most Delay-Prone Airports in 2004 

Airport Delays per 1,000 operations 

Chicago-O’Hare 97

Atlanta Hartsfield 72

Newark International 70

Philadelphia International 58

New York La Guardia 56

Houston International 36

Washington Dulles International 36

San Francisco International 32

New York John F. Kennedy 27

Source: FAA. 

Although eight runways were opened during the last six years and seven 

new runways are scheduled to be opened by the end of 2008, only three 

(Atlanta Hartsfield, Philadelphia International, and Houston International) 

of the nine airports that experienced the highest rate of delays in 2004 will 

receive new runways. Because these delay-prone airports can cause delays 

that ripple throughout the system, other airports that have increased their 

own capacity could still experience delays. For example, in 2000, Phoenix 

Sky Harbor International put an additional runway into service, and the 

airport had sufficient capacity to allow flights to take off on time. 

However, the airport ranked among the top 15 in the United States for 

flight delays. According to airport officials, most of the delays in Phoenix 

were the result of delays and cancellations at other airports—
Page 12 GAO-05-755T 

circumstances unrelated to the capacity at Phoenix. FAA also projects that 

the three New York-area airports—La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy—

will experience relatively small capacity gains during this decade—just 7 

percent for Newark and 1 percent each for the other two airports. 

In addition to addressing the capacity needs of the most delay-prone 

airports, FAA, airlines, and airports will also have to address the emerging 

capacity needs of new metropolitan areas in the South and Southwest. 

Among those metropolitan areas FAA believes will need additional 

capacity by 2013 are Tucson, AZ; Austin-San Antonio, TX; and South 

Florida. 

Other options — not in the OEP — exist as potential measures to address 

capacity needs as shown in table 2. These options, which have been cited 

by various researchers and policy organizations over the last decade, 

basically fall into two categories. The first category involves measures for 

adding airport infrastructure besides adding runways to existing airports, 

such as building new airports or using nearby underdeveloped regional 

airports. The second category includes developing alternative modes of 

intercity travel other than air transportation, such as high-speed rail. 

Other Options Could Help 

Address Capacity Needs 
Page 13 GAO-05-755T 

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

Options Description 

Category 1: Adding airport 

infrastructure 

Building new airports in metropolitan 

areas. 

This measure involves new airports within metropolitan areas to provide additional 

capacity, especially where the existing airport has little expansion potential. This measure 

has recent limited use since only two major new airports—at Dallas-Fort Worth and 

Denver—have been built in large metropolitan areas since 1973. 

Developing regional airports. Existing regional airports located within 50 miles of metropolitan hubs would be developed 

to take advantage of unused system capacity. A regional approach is in place at several 

airports including Boston Logan and is being contemplated in other areas such as New 

York and Los Angeles. 

Category 2: Using ground 

transportation alternatives 

Building high-speed, intercity ground 

transportation. 

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

miles of each other may free up capacity at congested airports by reducing the air traffic 

demand at those locations. Such trains could travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. 

Technologically, high-speed rail has proven successful in Europe and Asia; efforts are 

under way in the United States to develop high-speed rail in several designated corridors. 

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

airports nearby could accommodate passenger transfers within the current hub-and-spoke 

system. This measure has not been done in the United States. 

Source: GAO analysis of previous studies 

The applicability of any particular option is likely to vary by location, 

considering the circumstances at each major airport. There is no “one-size 

fits- all” solution; rather, substantially reducing delays will probably 

require a combination of options spread out over time. For example, the 

airspace surrounding the greater New York metropolitan area is perhaps 

the most congested airspace in the nation. The three major airports in the 

area (La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy), which currently are among the 

nation’s most delay-prone airports, are expected to continue to experience 

substantial air traffic growth. But these airports have very limited 

expansion potential, largely because they cannot realistically build new 

runways. Building new airports or developing regional airports to serve 

these airports are long-term solutions that will likely take many years to 

materialize. In the meantime, other short-term options would need to be 

considered as passenger demand increases, such as ways to use existing 

facilities more efficiently. This is the direction that FAA and the New 

York/New Jersey Port Authority, which operates the three area airports, 

were moving before the drop in passenger demand following the events of 

September 11. 
Page 14 GAO-05-755T 

As demand and delay are once again increasing, the FAA and Port 

Authority are reevaluating a regional approach to addressing these issues. 

As noted earlier, FAA and the Port Authority are also considering marketbased and administrative approaches, such as auctioning off landing and 

take-off rights and congestion pricing for La Guardia. However, the 

airlines oppose auctions because of the uncertainty regarding number of 

slots and gates that they might receive. The airlines also, to a lesser 

degree, oppose market-based mechanism such as congestion pricing 

because of concerns over who would have responsibility for the revenue 

generated. Because major airports in other locations may face different 

circumstances than the New York airports face, they may need an entirely 

different set of solutions to address flight delays. 

Options— such as building new airports, developing regional airports, or 

using ground transportation alternatives —are likely to be a more daunting 

challenge than implementing initiatives in the OEP. Implementing the 

OEP’s initiatives will not be easy, but the opportunity for success is 

enhanced because FAA has the support of major aviation stakeholders on 

nearly all of the initiatives. By contrast, gaining consensus on any of these 

other options could be much more difficult because they change the 

nature of the system to the degree that each one could adversely affect the 

interests of one or more key aviation stakeholder groups—including 

passengers; air carriers; and aircraft operators, airports, and local 

communities. For example, 

• Large infrastructure projects, such as building new airports that are 

located in metropolitan areas, could create major controversy. Such 

projects are often opposed by adjacent communities that are fearful of 

noise, displacement, or other environmental concerns. Also, finding 

suitable sites for such projects in crowded metropolitan areas—with 

enough land that is compatible with other potential land uses—may be 

difficult. Airlines may oppose some types of infrastructure projects if they 

fear that the projects would adversely affect them. For example, an airline 

with a dominant market position at a major hub airport may oppose 

building an additional airport nearby because the dominant carrier may 

view it as an opportunity for their competitors to enter the market in that 

area. In addition, some airlines are concerned about the need to divide 

their hub resources between the current airport and a new airport. 

• Administrative, regulatory, and other measures for managing the demand 

for existing capacity could generate opposition from various sources as 

well. Airlines may oppose such measures if they perceive that these 

measures would restrict their choices in determining rates, schedules, and 
Page 15 GAO-05-755T 

aircraft sizes—all of which could affect their profits and competitive status 

relative to other airlines. Smaller communities may also oppose such 

measures, fearing that commercial air service to and from their airports 

may be reduced or curtailed because airlines would react by choosing 

more profitable routes for the limited number of airport slots available. 

• Cost, a factor to be weighed in adding runways to existing airports, is also 

an important consideration when building a new airport. For example, the 

last major new airport—the Denver International Airport completed in 

1995—cost almost $5 billion to build. This cost would have been greater 

had the airport been located closer to the city, but since it was located on 

open land away from established communities, the costs of noise 

mitigation and other land-use issues were minimized. Also, the 

construction of fast-rail service in populated metropolitan corridors is 

likely to be costly. For example, Amtrak estimates the cost to construct 

fast-rail service in federally designated, high-speed corridors and the 

Northeast Corridor of the United States will be about $50 billion to $70 

billion. 

In summary, the initiatives implemented by FAA, airlines, and the airports 

might help to reduce flight delays and increase capacity in the national 

airspace system in the short term. However, FAA and other aviation 

stakeholders continue to face a number of challenges in reducing delays at 

the most delay-prone airports and developing long term solutions for 

enhancing capacity. Addressing these challenges is perhaps more difficult 

today in comparison to in 2000 because a number of issues have 

exacerbated the situation. Chief among them is funding these initiatives 

during a time when the federal government and the aviation industry are 

experiencing significant fiscal problems. Consequently, keeping up with 

the economy’s increasing demand for air transportation services will 

require a tremendous amount of planning; making some tough choices 

about which initiatives, both short-term and long-term, to pursue; and 

efforts to ensure that such initiatives are adequately funded. 

For further information on this testimony please contact Dr. Gerald 

Dillingham by email at dillinghamg@gao.gov or Tammy Conquest at 

conquestt@gao.gov. Alternatively, we can be reached by phone at (202) 

512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include 

Colin Fallon, Simon Galed, David Hooper, Maureen Luna-Long, Richard 

Scott, Laura Shumway, and Nicolas Zitelli. 
Page 16 GAO-05-755T 

1. Atlanta Hartsfield International 

2. Baltimore-Washington International 

3. Boston Logan International 

4. Charlotte/Douglas International 

5. Chicago Midway 

6. Chicago O’Hare International 

7. Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky 

8. Cleveland-Hopkins International 

9. Dallas-Fort Worth International 

10. Denver International 

11. Detroit Metro Wayne County 

12. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

13. George Bush Intercontinental 

14. Greater Pittsburgh International 

15. Honolulu International 

16. Lambert St. Louis International 

17. Las Vegas McCarran International 

18. Los Angeles International 

19. Memphis International 

20. Miami International 

21. Minneapolis-St Paul International 

22. New York John F. Kennedy International 

Appendix I: List of 35 Airports in the Federal 

Aviation Administration’s Operation 

Evolution Plan, February 2005 
Page 17 GAO-05-755T 

23. New York LaGuardia 

24. Newark International 

25. Orlando International 

26. Philadelphia International 

27. Phoenix Sky Harbor International 

28. Portland International 

29. Ronald Reagan National 

30. Salt Lake City International 

31. San Diego International Lindbergh 

32. San Francisco International 

33. Seattle -Tacoma International 

34. Tampa International 

35. Washington Dulles International 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER