United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation 

Operations, Safety, and Security, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate 

NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

SYSTEM 

DOT and FAA Actions Will 

Likely Have a Limited 

Effect on Reducing Delays 

during Summer 2008 

Travel Season 

Statement of Susan Fleming, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT 

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

 

GAO-08-934T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 15, 2008

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

DOT and FAA Actions Will Likely Have a Limited 

Effect on Reducing Delays during Summer 2008 

Highlights of GAO-08-934T, a testimony to Travel Season 

the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, 

Safety, and Security, Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate 

DOT data show that flight delays and cancellations have increased nationwide 

and especially in the New York region; however, the data provide an 

incomplete picture of the source of delay. Since 1998, the total number of 

flight delays and cancellations nationwide has increased 62 percent, while the 

number of scheduled operations has increased about 38 percent. Flight delays 

and cancellations in the New York region are even more pronounced. 

Specifically, since 1998, the number of flight delays and cancellations in the 

New York region has increased about 111 percent, while the number of 

operations has increased about 57 percent. DOT data on the sources of delays 

provide an incomplete picture. For example, in 2007, late arriving aircraft 

accounted for 38 percent of delays nationwide, but this category indicates 

little about what caused the aircraft to arrive late, such as severe weather. 

To reduce delays and congestion beginning in summer 2008, DOT and FAA are 

implementing several actions that for the purposes of this review GAO is 

characterizing as capacity-enhancing initiatives and demand management 

policies (see table). Some of these actions are already in effect, such as 11 of 

the 17 short-term initiatives designed to improve capacity at the airport or 

system level and the hourly schedule caps on operations at the New York area 

airports. The other actions are being developed but are unlikely to be in effect 

by this summer. For example, DOT and FAA are soliciting comments on the 

proposed rule to establish slot auctions at JFK and Newark until July 21, 2008. 

DOT’s and FAA’s capacity-enhancing initiatives and demand management 

policies may help reduce delay, but the collective impact of these actions on

reducing delay in 2008 is limited. For example, the benefit of the 17

initiatives—which range from efforts to reduce excessive spacing on final 

approach before landing to new procedures for handling air traffic during 

severe weather conditions—is generally expected to come from the initiatives’ 

combined incremental improvements over time and in certain situations. The 

demand management policies may have a more immediate but limited effect 

on delays since the caps at Newark and LaGuardia were set at a level that was 

generally designed to avoid an increase in delay over 2007 levels. For example,

the caps at Newark are set at a level that that is not expected to bring a delay

reduction as compared to delays in 2007. 

Status of DOT’s and FAA’s Actions to Reduce Delays and Congestion 

Action—capacity enhancing initiative Status

17 short-term operational and procedural initiatives 11 of 17 completed 

Coordination for use of military airspace In progress 

New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign Initiated, estimated completion 2012 

New York Airspace Czar Appointed 

Action—demand management policy 

Orders limiting scheduled operations at New York airports In effect 

Proposed rules on slot auctions at New York airports 

DOT & FAA are seeking and 

reviewing comments 

Amendment to Airport Rates and Charges policy Final policy issued July 8, 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT and FAA actions. 

Flight delays and cancellations have 

plagued the U.S. aviation system. 

According to the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), more than one 

in four flights either arrived late or 

was canceled in 2007—making it one

of the worst years for delays in the 

last decade. Delays and cancellations 

were particularly evident at certain 

airports, especially the three New 

York metropolitan commercial

passenger airports—Newark Liberty 

International (Newark), John F.

Kennedy International (JFK), and 

LaGuardia. To avoid a repeat of last

summer’s problems, DOT and the 

Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) have worked with the aviation 

industry over the past several months

to develop and implement several 

actions to reduce congestion and 

delays for the summer 2008 travel

season. 

This testimony addresses (1) the 

trends in the extent and principal 

sources of flight delays and 

cancellations over the last 10 years,

(2) the status of federal government

actions to reduce flight delays and 

cancellations, and (3) the extent to 

which these actions may reduce 

delays and cancellations for the 

summer 2008 travel season. This

statement is based on an analysis of

DOT data on airline on-time

performance, a review of relevant

documents and reports, and

interviews with officials from DOT, 

FAA, airport operators, and airlines, 

as well as aviation industry experts 

and associations. DOT and FAA 

provided technical comments which 

were incorporated as appropriate. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-934T. 

For more information, contact Susan Fleming 

at (202) 512-2834, or flemings@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on the federal 

government’s efforts to reduce aviation congestion and delays for this 

summer’s travel season. In recent years, flight delays and cancellations 

have plagued the U.S. aviation system. According to the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), more than one in four flights either arrived late or 

were canceled in 2007, affecting approximately 163 million passengers and 

making it one of the worst years for delays in the last decade. A recent 

report by the Senate Joint Economic Committee found that collectively, 

passengers were delayed 320 million hours in 2007 and estimated that 

domestic flight delays last year cost as much as $41 billion to the U.S. 

economy.1

 Delays were particularly evident at certain airports, especially

those in the New York region. For the past 10 years, the three principal 

New York metropolitan commercial passenger airports—Newark Liberty 

International (Newark), John F. Kennedy International (JFK), and 

LaGuardia—have often ranked at or near the bottom of DOT’s lists of 

airport on-time arrivals and departures. Since one-third of aircraft in the 

national airspace system move through the New York area at some point 

during a typical day, delays in this region can have a disproportionate 

impact on delays experienced throughout the rest of the system. 

Consumer complaints and media coverage of airline service problems, 

combined with congressional hearings on these issues, have recently put 

flight delays in the spotlight. Most aviation industry experts believe that 

substantial gains in reducing aviation congestion and delays can be 

achieved in the long term through investment in airport infrastructure, 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) technologies,2

and/or more efficient pricing of the nation’s aviation infrastructure. 

However, to avoid a repeat of last summer’s delays, DOT and its operating

agency, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have worked with the 

aviation industry since the fall of 2007 in an effort to develop and 

implement several near-term actions to reduce delays for the summer 2008 

travel season. 

 1

Senate Joint Economic Committee, Your Flight Has Been Delayed Again: Flight Delays

Cost Passengers, Airlines and the U.S. Economy Billions. (Washington, D.C.: May 2008). 

2

NextGen represents a transformation to a new air traffic control system that will use 

satellite-based technologies and new procedures to handle the increasing volume of air 

traffic while further improving safety and security. 

Page 1 GAO-08-934T 
My testimony today addresses (1) the trends in the extent and principal 

sources of flight delays and cancellations over the last 10 years, (2) the 

status of federal government actions to reduce flight delays and 

cancellations by the summer of 2008, and (3) the extent to which these 

actions may reduce delays and cancellations for the summer 2008 travel 

season. To determine trends in the extent and sources of delays, we 

analyzed DOT data on airline on-time performance, including sources of 

delays, by airport and for the entire airspace system, for 1998 to 2007.3

 To 

assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed agency officials about 

data quality control procedures, reviewed relevant documentation, and 

electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with 

completeness or accuracy. We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this report. We also reviewed relevant 

documents and reports and interviewed DOT and FAA officials, airport 

operators in Boston, New York, and Chicago, major commercial airlines, 

and aviation industry experts and associations on the status and potential 

impact of the federal government’s actions to reduce delays. Although its 

scope covers the national airspace system as a whole, our work especially

focuses on the New York region because of the New York area airports’ 

persistent problems with flight delays and cancellations and the federal

government’s actions focused on reducing delays in this region. We 

conducted our work from December 2007 to July 2008 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the study to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our study objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

DOT data show that flight delays and cancellations have generally 

increased over the last decade, but the data provide an incomplete picture 

of the full extent and sources of delays. Since 1998, the number of airline 

flight delays and cancellations has increased about 62 percent nationwide, 

while the number of scheduled operations has increased about 38 percent, 

Summary 

 3

14 C.F.R. § 234.4, “Reporting on on-time performance,” requires domestic air carriers that 

account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenues to submit 

scheduled domestic flight performance data to DOT. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 234.2, 234.3. The

number of reporting carriers has varied from 10 in 1998 to 20 in 2007. According to DOT, 

the data represent about 70 percent of all scheduled departures while servicing about 90

percent of all domestic passengers.

Page 2 GAO-08-934T 
according to DOT data.4 While flight delays occur throughout the entire 

national airspace system, the flight delay trends in New York area are even 

more pronounced. For example, since 1998, the number of flight delays 

and cancellations in the New York region has increased about 111 percent, 

while the number of operations has increased about 57 percent. Although

DOT data provide information on trends in flight delays and cancellations, 

they do not show the full extent of delays and cancellations. For example, 

DOT data do not reflect passengers’ experiences with missed connections

resulting from delayed or oversold flights, because DOT tracks flight 

delays, not passenger delays. Additionally, DOT data provide some 

information on the source of delays, but they do not provide a complete 

picture. For example, according to DOT data, 38 percent of delays in 2007

were assigned to the late arriving aircraft category, which means that the 

previous flight using the same aircraft arrived late, and caused the 

subsequent flight to depart late. However, this category does not provide 

the original source of delay for the late arriving aircraft, such as a severe 

weather condition. In the New York region, the data for 2007 show that 

national aviation system delays—a category that encompasses a broad set

of circumstances, which are all attributed to FAA’s ability to manage 

traffic at the airport or airspace level—accounted for nearly 58 percent of 

all New York delays, as compared to approximately 28 percent 

systemwide. This disparity reflects the New York area’s greater level of 

congestion as compared to the rest of the country.

To address delay and cancellation problems beginning in summer 2008, 

DOT and FAA are implementing several actions intended to reduce delays 

that we have categorized as capacity-enhancing initiatives and demand 

management policies. Capacity-enhancing initiatives are intended to 

increase the efficiency of existing capacity by reducing delays and 

maximizing the number of takeoffs and landings at an airport, while 

demand management policies influence demand through administrative 

measures or economic incentives. Under capacity-enhancing initiatives, 

FAA has implemented 11 of its 17 short-term initiatives designed to better 

use existing capacity at the airport or system level; begun working to 

improve coordination with the Department of Defense (DOD) for the use 

of military airspace; initiated the first phase of the New York, New Jersey, 

and Philadelphia metropolitan area airspace redesign (New York-New 

 4

DOT defines a delay as any flight that departs from or arrives at a gate 15 minutes or more

after its scheduled gate departure or arrival time as shown in the airline’s reservation 

system.

Page 3 GAO-08-934T 
Jersey-Philadelphia Airspace Redesign); and appointed a New York 

Airspace “Czar” to coordinate regional airspace issues and projects. DOT 

and FAA have also initiated several demand management policies—most 

notably, imposing new hourly schedule caps on operations at Newark and 

JFK, which join already existing caps at LaGuardia. Other demand 

management policies are either still in draft form or have just been issued, 

and therefore, are unlikely to be in effect by this summer. These policies 

include an amendment to the 1996 Policy Regarding the Establishment of 

Airport Rates and Charges (Rates and Charges policy)—which, among 

other things, clarifies the ability of airport operators to establish a two-part 

landing fee structure based on operations and aircraft weight—and 

proposed rules on “slot auctions” that would lease the majority of New 

York area airport operations (slots) to incumbent airlines and then would 

help to develop a market for those slots by annually auctioning a limited 

number of slot leases.5

Collectively, DOT’s and FAA’s capacity-enhancing initiatives and demand

management policies will likely have a limited effect on reducing delays 

this summer compared to last year. DOT’s and FAA’s capacity-enhancing 

initiatives have the potential to reduce delays by improving the efficiency

of existing capacity, but the effect will likely be fairly small. For example, 

the benefit of the 17 operational and procedural initiatives—which range 

from efforts to reduce excessive spacing on final approach before landing 

to new procedures for handling air traffic during severe weather 

conditions—is generally anticipated to come from the initiatives’ 

combined incremental improvements over time and in certain situations. 

DOT and FAA have not analyzed the potential near-term delay reduction 

benefit of the other capacity-enhancing initiatives, but airlines, airport 

operators, and aviation associations and experts that we spoke with 

expect these initiatives to have a fairly small impact on reducing delays for 

this summer. DOT’s demand management policies—specifically, the 

hourly schedule caps at LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark—may have a more 

immediate, but still a limited, effect on reducing delays because the caps at 

Newark and LaGuardia were set at a level that was generally intended to 

avoid any worsening of delays over 2007 levels and the caps at JFK were 

set to get a 15 percent reduction in average departure delays over 2007 

levels. For example, Newark’s cap of 81 hourly operations was set at a 

level to avoid delays beyond those experienced in 2007 but is not 

estimated to reduce delays from 2007 levels. Finally, other interrelated 

 5

A slot equates to one takeoff or landing at the airport. 

Page 4 GAO-08-934T 
factors besides government actions, such as the financial state of the

aviation industry, increasing jet fuel prices, and the downturn in the 

economy, could lead to fewer delays in 2008, but the effects of these 

factors on aviation congestion and delays are uncertain. DOT and FAA 

provided technical comments on the statement which were incorporated

as appropriate. 

The national airspace system is a complex, interconnected, and 

interdependent network of systems, procedures, facilities, aircraft, and 

people that must work together to ensure safe and efficient operations. 

DOT, FAA, airlines, and airports all affect the efficiency of national 

airspace system operations. DOT works with FAA to set policy and

operating standards for all aircrafts and airports. As the agency 

responsible for managing the air traffic control system, FAA has the lead

role in developing technological and other solutions to airspace issues. 

FAA also provides funding to airports. The funding that major airports 

receive from FAA to make improvements at the airports is conditioned on 

open and nondiscriminatory access to the airlines and other users,6

 and 

the airlines are free to schedule operations at any time throughout the day, 

except at airports that are subject to limits on scheduled operations. The 

airlines can also affect the efficiency of the airspace system by the number 

and types of aircraft that they choose to operate. 

Background 

As we have previously reported, measuring the capacity of the airspace 

system and achieving its most efficient use are both difficult challenges 

because they depend on a number of interrelated factors.7

 The capacity of 

the aviation system is not a simple measurable element—in addition to 

being related to airports’ infrastructure, capacity is affected at any given

time by such factors as weather conditions and airline flight schedules. 

For example, because some airports have parallel runways that are too 

close together for simultaneous operations in bad weather, the number of 

aircraft that can take off and land is reduced when weather conditions 

worsen. Achieving the most efficient use of the national airspace system is

 6

According to 49 U.S.C. § 47107, an airport that has received federal funding is required to

be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination. 

7

GAO, Air Traffic Control: Role of FAA’s Modernization Program in Reducing Delays

and Congestion, GAO-01-725T (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2001), and National Airspace 

System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight 

Delays, GAO-02-185 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2001).

Page 5 GAO-08-934T 
contingent on a number of factors, among them the procedures that FAA 

uses to manage traffic, how well FAA’s air traffic control equipment 

performs, the proficiency of the controllers to efficiently use these 

procedures and equipment to manage traffic, and how much users are 

charged for the use of the airspace and airports. 

FAA has had a long history of attempting to address congestion by 

managing demand through administrative controls. FAA began 

establishing limits on the number of takeoffs and landings at five 

airports—Chicago O’Hare International, Newark, JFK, LaGuardia, and 

Washington Reagan National—in 1968. The High Density Rule, as it was 

known, instituted limits, or caps, on the number of takeoff and landings of 

the incumbent airlines serving each of the these airports.8

 DOT lifted the 

restrictions at Newark in 1970, and in 2000, with the passage of the 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR-21), caps on operations were to be eliminated at Chicago O’Hare by 

July 2002, and at LaGuardia and JFK by January 2007.

9

 AIR-21 also 

immediately exempted certain types of aircraft from the caps, a change 

that resulted in unanticipated increases in demand, especially at 

LaGuardia. In 2000, airlines took advantage of AIR-21’s small regional jet

exemptions and rapidly initiated a large number of new flights to and from 

LaGuardia. FAA chose to impose a moratorium on additional flights at 

LaGuardia in November 2000 to limit delays and reduced flights at 

LaGuardia to a level consistent with the airport’s capacity under optimal 

weather conditions. On the basis of this experience and FAA’s inability to 

adopt a final congestion management rule for LaGuardia,10 FAA issued a 

December 2006 order to maintain the cap of 75 hourly scheduled 

operations at LaGuardia until a final rule can be adopted. Chicago O’Hare 

also experienced increased operations after its caps were eliminated, 

prompting FAA to again limit operations at the airport beginning in spring

2004 through a series of voluntary agreements and ending with a new rule

in late summer 2006. These caps on Chicago O’Hare’s operations are 

 8

33 Fed. Reg. 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968), 14 C.F.R. part 93, subpart K. 

9

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), 

Pub. L. No. 106-181, Section 231, 114 Stat. 108, Apr. 5, 2000. 

10Since the High Density Rule at LaGuardia was set to expire on January 1, 2007, in August 

2006, FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing the continuation of the 

cap on hourly operations at the airport as well as a new method for allocating capacity. See 

71 Fed. Reg. 51360 (August 29, 2006). The industry’s response to the proposed new 

allocation method was universally negative, and FAA was unable to complete its 

rulemaking in time for the expiration of the High Density Rule. 

Page 6 GAO-08-934T 
effective through October 2008, which coincides with the scheduled 

opening of the airport’s new runway in November 2008. 

In response to the near-record delays in summer 2007, which followed the 

expiration of the High Density Rule for the New York airports and 

increasing volumes of domestic air traffic, DOT convened a special 

aviation rulemaking committee (New York ARC) in the fall of 2007 

specifically to address delays and other airline service issues in the New 

York metropolitan area. The New York ARC, which consisted of 

stakeholders representing government, airlines, airports, general aviation 

users, and aviation consumers, was tasked with identifying available 

options for changing current policy and assessing the potential impacts of 

those changes on airlines, airports, and the traveling public. The New York 

ARC had three specific objectives: (1) to reduce congestion, (2) to allocate

efficiently the scarce capacity of New York area airports, and (3) to 

minimize the disruption associated with implementing any of the 

suggested improvements. The New York ARC issued its findings and 

options for reducing congestion to the Secretary of Transportation in 

December 2007.11 One of the committee’s working groups assessed 77 

operational improvement initiatives for the New York area and identified 

key items to focus on within the list of 77, such as reducing excess spacing

on final approach when landing. 

 11Aviation Rulemaking Committee, “New York Aviation Committee Report,” December 

2007, available at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/FinalARCReport.pdf. 

Page 7 GAO-08-934T 
Nationwide, according to DOT data the annual number of domestic airline 

flight delays and cancellations has increased about 62 percent (from 1.2 

million to 2.0 million), while the annual number of scheduled flights has 

increased about 38 percent (from 5.4 million to 7.5 million) since 1998. In 

the New York area, the trend is even more pronounced, as the number of 

domestic flight delays and cancellations at the three main commercial 

airports has increased about 111 percent, while the number of domestic 

operations has increased about 57 percent since 1998. 

DOT statistics indicate that 2007 was the second worst year on record for 

U.S. airlines’ on-time performance, and the trends in the percentage of 

flight delays and cancellations appear to be worsening.12 As shown in 

figure 1, about 20 percent of flights in the system were delayed and nearly

3 percent were canceled in 1998, compared to about 24 and 2 percent in 

2007, respectively.13 The data also show that flight delays and cancellations 

have been steadily increasing since 2002, although the percentage of 

cancellations in 2007 is still lower than it was from 1998 through 2001. 

However, cancellations have become more problematic in recent years as

the airline industry is now operating with fewer empty seats on flights. As 

a result, passengers on canceled flights must wait longer to be rebooked,

and in some cases may be forced to spend the night before resuming travel

the next day. 

Data Show That 

Delays and 

Cancellations are 

Increasing, but 

Provide an 

Incomplete Picture of 

the Extent and 

Sources of Delays 

 12As of December 2007, 18 U.S. airlines with at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled 

service passenger revenues reported on-time performance data each month to DOT’s

Bureau of Transportation Statistics; two additional airlines voluntarily reported this 

information. A flight is counted as on time if it departed or arrived within 15 minutes of its

scheduled gate departure or arrival times as shown in the airlines reservation system. All 

canceled and diverted flights count against the airlines’ on-time performance. According to

DOT, the on-time performance rate of 72.6 percent in 2000 was the worst rate for any year 

since 1995, when DOT began collecting comparable data. 

13In addition, a small percentage of domestic flights are diverted and land somewhere other

than the scheduled destination. Diversions accounted for 0.23 percent of all flights in 2007, 

according to DOT data. 

Page 8 GAO-08-934T 
Figure 1: Trends in Percentage of Late Arriving and Canceled Flights—Systemwide

(1998-2007) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percentage of flights

Year

Canceled flights

Late arrivals

Source: DOT.

Flights delays are also becoming longer. According to DOT data, the 

average length of a flight delay increased from more than 49 minutes in 

1998 to almost 56 minutes in 2007, an increase of nearly 14 percent 

throughout the system. Despite this relatively small increase in average 

flight delay length, far more flights were affected by long delays in 2007 

than in 1998. For example, the number of flights delayed by 180 minutes or 

more increased from 25,726 flights in 1998 to 64,040 flights in 2007, or 

about 150 percent. In addition, DOT’s data indicate that the number of 

flights in which an aircraft has departed the gate, but remained for an hour 

Page 9 GAO-08-934T 
or more on the ground awaiting departure, has increased over 151 percent 

since 1998.14

Because the entire airspace system is highly interdependent, delays at one 

airport may lead to delays rippling across the system and throughout the 

day. This delay propagation appears to be increasing and leading to more 

delays in the system overall. For example, researchers at George Mason 

University’s Center for Air Transportation Systems have found that 46 

percent of delays in the system in 2007 were caused by flight delays 

occurring earlier in the day. Flight delays in the New York metropolitan 

region also appear to have a disproportionate impact on delays 

experienced throughout the rest of the airspace system. During a typical 

day, approximately one-third of the aircrafts in the national airspace 

system move through the New York airspace. According to preliminary 

research conducted by the MITRE Corporation for FAA, an average of 40 

percent of the flight delays in the system are from delays that originate in

the New York metropolitan area.15

Compared to the rest of the country, where flight delays and cancellations 

have been steadily increasing, the magnitude and upward trend of the 

problem in the New York region is greater than the rest of the airspace 

system. For example, over a third of all flights in the New York 

metropolitan region in 2007 were delayed or canceled, according to DOT 

statistics.16 Figure 2 shows that the percentage of late arriving and 

canceled flights at each of the three major New York area airports was 

considerably higher than the systemwide averages. Since 2003, the

 14Effective October 1, 2008, DOT will require airlines to report additional data elements to 

provide consumers with a more accurate portrayal of arrival and tarmac delays. Currently,

airlines report only the scheduled departure and arrival times and no actual times for 

canceled flights, which do not provide a complete picture of tarmac delays for flights that

are canceled, diverted, or experience gate returns. Under the new rule, airlines will be 

required to report actual gate departure, total time away from the gate, and the longest 

single period away from the gate to close gaps in DOT’s data. See 73 Fed. Reg. 29426 (May 

21, 2008) for the final rule.

15According to the MITRE Corporation, the 40 percent figure was calculated using DOT

data from January and July 2007 and FAA data from July 2007. 

16Additionally, flight delays and cancellations have been problematic at other major 

airports, including Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Boston Logan International

Airport, among others. For example, according to DOT data, in 2007, 36 percent of flights

were either delayed or canceled at Chicago O’Hare, while 31 percent of flights were either

delayed or canceled at Boston Logan. 

Page 10 GAO-08-934T 
percentage of late arriving and canceled flights has been increasing faster

in the New York area than in the rest of the system. 

Figure 2: Annual Percentage of Late Arrivals and Cancellations at New York Airports compared to the Entire Airspace System

(1998-2007) 

Percentage of flights

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.

Year

Newark

JFK

LaGuardia

System

Note: In this figure, the percentage of delays and cancellations has been combined. The system data

include the three New York area airports. 

Since 1998, the New York area’s three major airports have often been

among the airports with the lowest on-time performance records. In 2007,

DOT reported that LaGuardia, Newark, and JFK had the lowest on-time 

performance rates among major domestic airports, followed by Chicago 

O’Hare International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, and 

Boston Logan International Airport. Table 1 shows the ranking of major 

airports by the lowest on-time arrival performance in 2007. 

Page 11 GAO-08-934T 
Table 1: Ranking of Major Airports by Lowest On-Time Arrival Performance (2007)

Ranking Airport Percentage on time

1 LaGuardia 58.48

2 Newark 59.45

3 JFK 62.84

4 Chicago O’Hare International 65.88

5 Philadelphia International 66.54

6 Boston Logan International 69.68

7 San Francisco International 69.75

8 Miami International 70.99

9 Charlotte Douglas International 71.30

10 Seattle-Tacoma International 71.43

All major airports average 73.03

Source: DOT. 

Note: “Major airports,” as defined by DOT, consists of the 32 airports serving 1 percent or more of the 

airline industry’s domestic scheduled service passengers. 

While DOT data show that the trends in delays and cancellations are 

getting worse, current on-time performance data do not capture the full 

extent of delays and cancellations or the extent to which passengers’ 

average travel times have increased in recent years. For example, airlines 

have, in many cases, opted to lengthen scheduled flight times to enhance 

on-time results, particularly along heavily congested and frequently 

delayed routes. DOT data do not account for the increased average flight 

times that are masked by these schedule changes. Also, available DOT 

data may not necessarily reflect passengers’ experience of delay because 

DOT tracks flights, not passengers. Passengers can experience delays to 

their trips because of missed connections resulting from delayed or 

oversold flights or lengthy delays due to flight cancellations—elements 

that are not measured in current statistics. According to a recent study by

George Mason University, roughly one in four passengers experienced a 

passenger trip delay in 2007 and the average duration of delay experienced 

by these passengers was 1 hour 54 minutes, an increase of 24 minutes over 

2006.

17 In addition, the study found that the average delay for passengers 

 17George Mason University’s passenger trip statistics are estimates based on DOT data and 

other sources, and represent the average amount of trip delay expected by passengers on a 

large sample of flights. See Lance Sherry and George Donahue, “U.S. Passenger Trip Delay

Report,” Center for Air Transportation Systems Research, George Mason University, April 

2008, available at http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu. 

Page 12 GAO-08-934T 
on canceled flights was 11 hours in 2007. Passenger delays are affected by 

record-level airline load factors (percentage of seats occupied on aircraft),

which result in fewer available empty seats on subsequent flights for those 

passengers who experience canceled flights. According to DOT’s Air 

Consumer Report, flight problems involving cancellations, delays, or 

missed connections were the number one consumer complaint in 2007. 

DOT Data Provide an 

Incomplete Picture of the 

Sources of Delays 

The data collected by DOT on the sources of delays provide information 

about where delays occur and what causes them, but the data are 

incomplete. The primary purposes for collecting these causal data are to

inform the traveling public and categorize delays and cancellations so that 

the parties most capable of addressing the causes of delays and 

cancellations can take corrective action. Since 2003, airlines have reported

the cause of delay to DOT in one of five broad categories: late arriving 

aircraft, airline, national aviation system, extreme weather, and security. 

• Late arriving aircraft means a previous flight using the same aircraft 

arrived late, causing the subsequent flight to depart late. In 2007, 

approximately 38 percent of delays were assigned to this category. 

• Airline delays include any delay or cancellation that was within the 

control of the airlines, such as aircraft cleaning, baggage loading, crew 

issues, or maintenance. Roughly 29 percent of the delays in 2007 were 

attributed to airline delays. 

• National aviation system delays and cancellations refer to a broad set of 

circumstances affecting airport operations, heavy traffic volume, and air 

traffic control. This category also includes any nonextreme weather 

condition that slows the operation of the system, such as wind or fog, but

does not prevent flying. The national aviation system accounted for about

28 percent of delays in 2007. 

• Extreme weather includes serious weather conditions that prevent the 

operation of a flight. Examples of this kind of weather include tornadoes,

Page 13 GAO-08-934T 
snow storms, and hurricanes. In 2007, nearly 6 percent of delays were 

assigned to extreme weather.18

• Security accounted for less than 1 percent of delays in 2007. Examples of 

security delays include evacuation of an airport, reboarding due to a 

security breach, and long lines at the passenger screening areas. 

Since 2003, despite the increasing number of delays, there have been no 

significant changes in the trends of these sources of delay. Figure 3 shows 

the DOT-reported sources of delay in 2007. 

 18Weather delays are captured in several categories, and according to DOT, a true picture of

total weather-related delays requires several steps. First, DOT combines the extreme

weather delays with weather delays from the aviation system category. Second, DOT

performs a calculation to determine the weather-related delays included in the late arriving

aircraft category. Airlines do not report the causes of the late arriving aircraft, but DOT 

makes an allocation using the proportion of weather-related delays and total flights in the

other categories. Adding the weather-related delays to the extreme weather and aviation 

system weather categories results in weather’s share of all flight delays. DOT estimates that 

about 44 percent of flights were delayed by weather in 2007. 

Page 14 GAO-08-934T 
Figure 3: DOT-Reported Sources of Delay—System, 2007 

Note: Total may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

The distribution of delay by source is very different in New York than for 

the country as a whole and reflects the New York area’s greater level of

congestion. For example, national aviation system delays account for 

nearly 58 percent of all delays in New York as compared to approximately 

28 percent for the country as a whole in 2007 (see fig. 4). As noted earlier, 

the three major New York area airports have experienced more than a 50 

percent increase in traffic levels since 1998, while runway capacity at 

these airports has not changed. As a result, FAA must resort to a 

complement of traffic management initiatives, such as ground delay or 

flow control programs, which are used to restrict the flow of traffic and, 

accordingly, lead to delays.19

6%

28%

29%

38%

Source: DOT.

0.2%

Security

Late arriving aircraft

Airline

National Aviation System

Extreme weather

 19FAA has traditionally used ground delay programs to control air traffic volume to airports 

where the projected traffic demand is expected to exceed the airport’s capacity for a

lengthy period of time. Under a ground delay program, FAA decreases the rate of incoming

flights into an airport by holding a set of flights destined for that airport on the ground.

According to FAA, the most common reason for the implementation of a ground stop or

ground delay program is adverse weather. 

Page 15 GAO-08-934T 
Figure 4: DOT-Reported Sources of Delay—Average of the Three New York Area 

Airports, 2007

Note: Total may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding 

For several reasons, the data provide an incomplete picture of the 

underlying causes of delays. First, the DOT-reported categories are too 

broad to provide meaningful information on the root causes of delays. For

example, delays attributed to the airlines could consist of causes such as a 

late crew, aircraft maintenance, or baggage loading, but these more 

specific causes are not captured in DOT data.20 Second, the largest source 

of systemwide delay—late arriving aircraft, which represents 38 percent of 

the total delay sources (as fig. 3 shows)—masks the original source of 

delay. For example, the original source of delay for a late arriving aircraft 

may be the result of other sources—such as a severe weather condition, 

the airline, security, or the national airspace system—or a combination of 

one or more of these sources. Finally, the data do not capture what many 

economists believe is the fundamental cause of much of the flight delays—

a mismatch between the demand for and capacity to provide aviation 

14%

4%

58% 24%

Source: DOT.

0.1%

Security

Late arriving aircraft

Airline

National Aviation System

Extreme weather

 20GAO is currently conducting an analysis of crew scheduling problems and the extent to

which they may lead to delayed or canceled flights. 

Page 16 GAO-08-934T 
services. While the data provide airlines’ view of the reason that particular

flight segments were delayed, DOT does not report data on the extent to

which flights are simply overscheduled in particular places at particular 

times relative to the capacity of the airports and air traffic control system 

to provide aviation services. The DOT Inspector General analyzed airline 

schedules at 15 airports and found that 6 of the airports had flights 

scheduled either at or over maximum airport capacity at peak hours of the 

day during the summer of 2007.21 When this is the case, assigning the cause 

of delay to one of the five DOT categories masks that the fundamental 

cause is this mismatch of demand for and supply of these services. 

DOT and FAA are implementing several actions intended to reduce flight

delays beginning in summer 2008.22 Due to the high proportion of delays at 

the three major New York area airports and their effect on the rest of the 

airspace system, many of these actions are specifically designed to 

address congestion in the New York area. For purposes of our discussion, 

we grouped the various actions into one of two categories—capacityenhancing initiatives and demand management policies—both of which 

are intended to reduce flight delays. Capacity-enhancing initiatives are 

intended to increase the efficiency of existing capacity by reducing delay 

and maximizing the number of takeoffs and landings at an airport. By 

contrast, demand management policies influence demand through 

administrative measures or economic incentives. Some of these capacityenhancing initiatives and demand management policies will be fully or 

partially implemented by summer 2008, but others will not be completed 

or even initiated until later this year or beyond. 

DOT and FAA have announced multiple capacity-enhancing initiatives 

designed to reduce delays in the New York region for this summer and 

beyond. In general, adding substantial new airspace system capacity is 

DOT and FAA Are 

Implementing Actions 

Intended to Reduce 

Delays 

 21DOT Inspector General. Status Report on Actions Underway to Address Flight Delays

and Improve Airline Customer Service. CC-2008-058. (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2008). 

22Other efforts are currently under way to improve the air travel experience for customers.

For example, airlines and airport operators are working to develop plans to better 

coordinate procedures for responding to extended tarmac delays, and DOT formed a task 

force to explore these issues. Also, a new bumping rule was announced in April 2008. See

73 Fed. Reg. 21026 (April 18, 2008). The rule is not designed to reduce cancellations or 

delays, but rather, requires airlines to double the maximum compensation to those who are 

involuntarily bumped from their flight. 

Page 17 GAO-08-934T 
costly and time consuming.23 Thus, in March 2007, DOT and FAA convened

a workgroup that identified 17 short-term initiatives that better utilize 

existing capacity at the airport or system level through procedural and 

other changes in airport and airspace operations and could be completed

by summer 2008. Eleven of the 17 short-term initiatives have been 

completed, and FAA plans to implement the remaining initiatives, which 

require more planning and coordination, by September 2008.24 See 

appendix I for a list of the 17 short-term initiatives and their status. The 

initiatives range from new procedures and reroutes for handling air traffic 

during severe weather conditions to efforts to reduce excessive spacing on 

final approach before landing, and to an airspace flow program that allows 

New York departures to move more freely while delays are redistributed 

to airports within the region. In addition to the 17 short-term initiatives, 

other capacity-enhancing initiatives are under way. These include 

improving coordination with DOD for airlines’ use of military airspace and

redesigning the airspace around the New York, New Jersey and 

Philadelphia metropolitan area.25 FAA is in the process of drafting letters 

of agreement that would help establish more formal processes for 

communicating with DOD for the release of specific portions of military 

airspace on an as-needed basis. In December 2007, FAA initiated the first 

phase of the planned 5-year implementation of the airspace redesign, with 

new departure headings at Newark and Philadelphia airports.26 In April 

 23For example, NextGen improvements to the air traffic control system are estimated to 

cost $25 billion and will not be completed until 2025. Adding runway capacity at airports is 

also expensive and time consuming—for example, the third runway at Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport is estimated to cost $1.1 billion - $1.2 billion dollars and is scheduled

to take at least 16 years to complete. 

24In addition to the short-term initiatives, FAA is working to implement the list of 77 

initiatives adopted by the New York ARC. This list includes most of the 17 short-term 

initiatives. FAA reported that to date, 17 of the 77 initiatives have been completed, 30 are

expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2008, and 40 should be completed by the

end of fiscal year 2009. FAA noted that the remaining initiatives are longer term or are

being analyzed for feasibility and establishing priorities. 

25GAO is currently conducting a review of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

Metropolitan area airspace redesign and plans to issue a report in July 2008. According to

FAA, the purpose of the airspace redesign is to increase the efficiency and reliability of the 

airspace structure and air traffic control system, thereby accommodating growth while 

enhancing safety and reducing delays in air travel. Thus, the airspace redesign is intended 

to increase the efficiency and reliability of the air traffic system, and is included as a

capacity-enhancing initiative for the purpose of this discussion. 

26FAA will increase the number of departure headings air traffic controllers can assign to 

aircraft during takeoffs, and adjust the routes air traffic controllers can assign aircraft 

during their final approach to an airport. 

Page 18 GAO-08-934T 
2008, FAA appointed a New York Airspace “Czar”—whose official title is 

Director for the New York Area Program Integration Office—to coordinate

regional airspace issues and projects. Table 2 lists the capacity-enhancing 

initiatives and their status. More detailed information on the actions—

including descriptions, geographic focus, and status—can be found in 

appendix II.

Table 2: Capacity-Enhancing Initiatives and Their Status 

Capacity-enhancing initiatives 

Action Status

17 short-term initiatives 11 of 17 initiatives completed 

Coordination for use of military airspace In progress 

New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace 

redesign 

Initiated, estimated completion 2012 

New York Airspace Czar Appointed

Source: GAO analysis of DOT and FAA actions. 

DOT and FAA have also introduced demand management policies—most 

notably, hourly schedule caps on takeoffs and landings at the three major 

New York area airports—to its pool of delay reduction efforts. DOT and 

FAA believe that caps on scheduled operations are necessary at some 

airports where available capacity cannot meet demand. The caps are 

currently in place to limit scheduled operations at all three major New 

York area airports, with hourly scheduled operations capped at 81 at both

JFK and Newark, and at 75 at LaGuardia. The most recent caps at JFK and 

Newark are scheduled to be in place until October 2009.27 At LaGuardia, a 

December 2006 order maintained caps that had been in place since 

November 2000.28 The institution of caps, however, does not necessarily 

mean that total operations at each of the three airports will decrease. For

example, at JFK, the total number of daily scheduled operations will 

increase by 50 flights per day over summer 2007 levels, when no caps were 

in place, but scheduled operations will be spaced more evenly throughout 

the day in an attempt to minimize peak period congestion. 

 27See 73 Fed. Reg. 3510 (January 18, 2008) for the final order on the caps at JFK and 73 Fed.

Reg. 8737 (February 14, 2008) for an amendment correcting technical errors in this order. 

See 73 Fed. Reg. 29550 (May 21, 2008) for the final order on the Newark caps. 

2865 Fed. Reg. 69126 (Nov.15, 2000). This was extended through December 31, 2006. 70 Fed.

Reg. 36998 (June 27, 2005). 71 Fed. Reg. 248 (Dec. 27, 2006). 

Page 19 GAO-08-934T 
Two other demand management policies under way include an amendment to

the Rates and Charges policy and proposed rules to establish slot auctions at

all three New York area airports. The amendment to the Rates and Charges

policy clarifies that airport operators may establish a two-part landing fee

structure, consisting of both an operation charge and an aircraft weight-based

charge, and include rule changes that would expand the costs congested

airports could recoup through airfield charges.

29 The proposed slot auctions 

for the three New York area airports would lease the majority of operations 

(takeoffs and landings, or slots) to incumbent operators and help develop a

market by annually auctioning off leases for a limited number of slots during 

the first 5 years of the rule.

30

These two demand management policies are being developed, but it is 

unlikely that they will be in effect by this summer. DOT and FAA just recently 

announced the final Rates and Charges policy amendment, so it is unlikely the 

policy will have an impact this summer. Furthermore, existing use and lease

agreements between airlines and airport operators could prevent any changes 

to rates and charges for many years, until existing lease agreements expire. 

DOT and FAA are currently reviewing comments for the proposed rule to

establish slot auctions at LaGuardia and will be collecting comments on the

proposed rule to establish slot auctions at JFK and Newark until July 21, 2008; 

thus it is unlikely the final rules will be issued during the summer. Table 3 lists 

the demand management policies and their status. More detailed information 

on the actions—including descriptions, geographic focus, and status—can be

found in appendix II. 

 29A final amendment to the Rates and Charges policy was issued on July 8, 2008, but as of 

July 11, 2008, it has not been published in the Federal Register. The proposed amendment 

can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 3310 (January 17, 2008). The amendment to the Rates and 

Charges policy adopts a definition for a congested airport that contains two categories of 

congested airports, one relating to existing congestion and the other to future congestion.

In the amendment, DOT defines a congested airport first as an airport that accounted for at 

least 1 percent of all delayed aircraft operations in the United States and at an airport listed 

in table 1 of the FAA’s Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004, in accordance with 49

U.S.C. § 47175. Second, DOT will consider an airport congested in the future if it is 

forecasted to meet a defined threshold level of congestion in the Future Airport Capacity 

Task 2 study, with the exception of those airports congested for the first time in 2025. DOT

and FAA assert that airports already have the authority to adopt a two-part landing fee and 

the Rates and Charges policy clarifies this authority. 

30See 73 Fed. Reg. 20846 (April 17, 2008) for the supplemental rulemaking on slot auctions

at LaGuardia. See 73 Fed. Reg. 29625 (May 21, 2008) for the notice for proposed rulemaking

on slot auctions at JFK and Newark. 

Page 20 GAO-08-934T 
Table 3: Demand Management Policies and Their Status 

Demand management policies

Action Status

Order limiting scheduled operations at JFK Caps in effect since March 30, 2008 

Order limiting scheduled operations at Newark Caps in effect since June 20, 2008 

Orders limiting scheduled operations at 

LaGuardia

Caps in effect since December 2006 

Rulemaking on slot auctions—LaGuardia DOT and FAA are reviewing comments

Rulemaking on slot auctions—Newark, JFK DOT and FAA are seeking comments

Amendment to Rates and Charges policy Final policy issued July 8, 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT and FAA actions. 

DOT’s and FAA’s capacity-enhancing initiatives have the potential to 

reduce congestion and thereby avoid delays, according to FAA and 

stakeholders we consulted, but the effect will likely be limited for the 

summer 2008 traveling season. DOT’s and FAA’s demand management 

policies—in particular, caps on scheduled operations at all three New 

York area airports—are expected to have some delay avoidance impact in

the near term. DOT and FAA set the caps at Newark and LaGuardia at a 

level intended to avoid an increase in delays above that experienced in 

2007 and set the caps at JFK to generate a 15 percent reduction in average 

departure delays over 2007 levels. The projected impact of the various 

actions undertaken by DOT and FAA is also expected to be muted because 

several will not be in place until next year or beyond. Finally, other 

mitigating economic factors could lead to fewer operations in 2008, which 

might also lead to fewer delays. 

Although DOT and FAA have not analyzed the potential near-term benefit 

of the capacity-enhancing initiatives, FAA officials and stakeholders that 

we spoke with anticipate that the capacity-enhancing initiatives will 

generally have a positive, but fairly small, impact on reducing delays in the 

near term. For example, while FAA has not analyzed the estimated impact 

of the 17 short-term initiatives, aviation stakeholders, including airport 

operators, airlines, and aviation industry associations, believe that these 

initiatives will have a positive impact in summer of 2008. However, most 

think the initiatives—when taken together—will result only in incremental

improvements and in certain situations and alone will not provide 

sufficient near-term gains to accommodate the peak hour schedules at the 

New York area airports’ current or forecast levels of demand. 

Furthermore, given that the final plan for coordinating the use of military 

DOT’s and FAA’s 

Actions May Help 

Reduce Delays, but 

the Extent of Delay 

Reduction in Summer 

2008 Will Likely Be 

Limited 

Page 21 GAO-08-934T 
airspace is still under development, the potential impact of this effort 

remains unknown. However, airlines agree that increasing use of military 

airspace through advanced coordination holds promise, and the release of

military airspace over recent holiday weekends has been beneficial.31

Finally, although the impact of the newly appointed aviation czar is also 

unknown, some airlines and New York airport operators have supported 

the appointment of a czar, but also expressed concern that the czar, who is 

currently lacking a dedicated budget or staff, will not have sufficient 

authority to direct and coordinate delay reduction efforts across FAA and 

DOT offices. 

Of the capacity-enhancing initiatives, FAA has estimated the potential 

future delay reduction benefits of one—the New York-New JerseyPhiladelphia Airspace Redesign. FAA estimates that the airspace redesign 

will result in a 20 percent reduction in national airspace system delays for 

the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia study area airports as compared to 

taking no action. According to FAA, estimated delay reduction will vary by 

airport and will be achieved only once the redesign has been fully 

implemented. The airspace redesign, scheduled to be completed in 2012, is

highly controversial because residents living in affected areas have raised

concerns about potential increases in aircraft noise and other 

environmental effects. 

Demand management policies, which do not require long-term 

investments, will likely have a more immediate but similarly limited effect

on relieving congestion and reducing delays. Because of increasing 

congestion at JFK and Newark, in the fall of 2007, FAA used models to 

analyze the airlines’ proposed 2008 summer schedules and determine 

potential future delays at these airports and the effect of caps.32 The 

proposed summer schedules submitted by the airlines for these airports 

 31FAA can currently use sections of military airspace on an as-needed basis and has had 

advanced coordination with DOD for use of military airspace over the Christmas and 

Thanksgiving travel season in 2007 and again over the Memorial Day and Fourth of July 

weekends in 2008. The current efforts under way are to further establish processes and 

procedures for advance coordination on a more regular basis. 

32FAA worked with the MITRE Corporation to develop models and capacity analyses to set 

capacity limits at each of the three major New York area airports. Since the expected delay 

reduction impact of a cap is dependent upon the level at which a cap is set, when setting a

cap, policymakers face a tradeoff between how much delay they are willing to accept and 

the number of operations the airlines are allowed. For example, higher constraint levels 

allow more operations during good weather, but may significantly increase delays during 

inclement weather. 

Page 22 GAO-08-934T 
would have constituted substantial scheduling increases over summer 

2007. On the basis of these proposed schedules, DOT and FAA set the caps 

at JFK at a level that is projected to decrease average departure delays by 

15 percent over 2007 levels. However, the caps at LaGuardia and Newark 

are set at a level to avoid an increase in delays over 2007 levels. For 

example, at Newark, FAA estimates about a 23 percent reduction in the 

average delay per operation relative to a situation with no cap. Newark’s 

caps were designed to ensure that delays did not get significantly worse in 

2008 based on the airlines’ proposed summer schedules and the potential

for increased operations diverted from JFK. Thus, the caps at Newark are 

not expected to bring a delay reduction benefit as compared to delays 

experienced in 2007. At LaGuardia, which already had caps in 2007, FAA 

estimated that the long-term implementation of caps would reduce delays 

by 32 percent as compared to no cap.

Caps at the New York area airports will help the region avoid additional 

delays in the near term, but there are also policy trade-offs to consider. In 

general, FAA, airlines, and aviation experts have stated that when 

available capacity cannot meet demand, managing operations at the 

airport level is necessary to reduce congestion and limit delays in the short 

run. FAA noted that imposing caps is an effective, but not efficient, way to

reduce delays. Airlines generally support caps as a short-term solution for 

addressing congestion at the New York airports because of the worsening 

delays at these airports. FAA stated that some airlines may support caps at 

airports they already serve because caps generally protect incumbent 

airlines and limit competition from airlines that are interested in beginning

service at these airports (or new entrants). However, some airport 

operators strongly oppose flight caps because they state that caps could 

constrain the economic growth of the surrounding region. In addition, 

some airport operators and aviation experts are concerned that using caps 

as a long-term solution can mask the need for capacity enhancements and 

shift the focus away from important long-term solutions that may provide 

a more lasting solution to the delay problem. 

The proposed slot auction rules for the three major New York area 

airports are currently out for comment and will not be implemented by 

this summer, but even if they were in place, they would not directly reduce 

delays. DOT and FAA intend the slot auctions to help create a market for 

slots in the New York area that allows new entrants better access to the 

airports and encourage airlines currently holding slots to place a greater 

value on the use of their slots. By itself, a slot auction will not reduce 

delays. But DOT and FAA believe that by helping to reveal the economic

value of slots, the policy may help to develop a more robust secondary 

Page 23 GAO-08-934T 
market for slots, which will, in turn, lead to greater efficiency in their 

allocation and use. DOT and FAA believe that doing so may increase the 

size of aircraft used at the airports and thereby increase the number of 

passengers served. The proposed rules for the three New York area 

airports include different slot auction options. Only one of the two options 

for LaGuardia would have a direct delay reduction impact. Specifically, 

this option would require approximately 18 slots to be retired over 5 years, 

and would result in an estimated 1 minute of delay reduction for each 

takeoff and landing at the airport.33 One slot auction proposal for Newark 

and JFK would reallocate 10 percent of eligible capacity via annual 

auctions over 5 years, and FAA would retain the net auction proceeds for 

use on unspecified capacity improvements in the New York area. The 

second slot auction option at JFK would reallocate 20 percent of eligible

slots over 5 years, and the net auction proceeds would be granted to the

carrier whose previously held slots were auctioned. Under this option, 

carriers whose slots are returned for auction would not be allowed to bid 

on their own slots. Some airline officials and airport operators stated that 

airlines have made substantial investments at these airports that would be 

diminished if they lose operating rights. Airlines and New York airport 

operators strongly oppose the proposed slot auctions because they do not 

think that FAA has the legal authority to implement these auctions. 

The potential impact of the Rates and Charges policy— a policy that is 

unlikely to be implemented by this summer because the final notice was 

only announced on July 8, 2008— was not analyzed by DOT and FAA. 

However, DOT and FAA assert that, if implemented, the amendment to the 

Rates and Charges policy may help to reduce congestion, and thus delay,

by encouraging airlines to use larger aircraft and schedule fewer 

operations during peak usage hours. Some airport operators support this 

policy because it provides them with more flexibility in setting landing 

fees and another option for addressing delays, but the extent to which 

airports can or will implement the policy is unknown. Some airlines, 

airport operators, and aviation experts assert that an airport’s 

implementation of a two-part landing fee under the Rates and Charges 

policy may not reduce delays because the policy requires these fees to 

 33The second option for the LaGuardia slot auction does not retire any slots. As a result,

this option does not result in a direct delay improvement.

Page 24 GAO-08-934T 
remain revenue neutral.34 In other words, for congested airports, the policy 

will not enable the differential between peak and off-peak prices to be 

large enough to change airline behavior while adhering to revenue

neutrality. Some airlines and airport operators opposed the amendment 

because they think that it could discriminate against airlines whose fleets 

include mostly small aircraft because the amendment creates a fee 

differential for small to medium-sized aircraft while having a negligible

effect on larger aircraft. Airlines and certain airport operators also 

expressed concern that under such a policy, service to small cities would 

be dropped because carriers would favor using larger aircraft to serve 

larger cities. Several airlines stated that the Rates and Charges policy does 

not address the bigger problem of lack of capacity in the airspace system. 

Finally, other interrelated factors beyond government initiatives, such as 

the financial state of the aviation industry, increasing jet fuel prices, and 

the downturn in the economy, may also result in fewer delays during 2008, 

but their impact is uncertain. The Air Transport Association expects a 1 

percent reduction in the number of passengers for the summer 2008 travel 

season as compared to the 2007 summer travel season, and many airlines

are planning more substantial reductions in capacity and schedules for the 

fall and winter 2008 seasons. Economic conditions, rising fuel costs, and

airline initiated capacity cuts could affect demand for air travel or 

available capacity in the coming months. These factors also reduce 

congestion and, accordingly, delays and could make it difficult to 

determine how much of the delay reductions, if any, might be attributed to 

the capacity-enhancing initiatives or demand management policies 

planned for summer 2008. 

In closing, DOT and FAA should be commended for taking steps to reduce 

mounting flight delays and cancellations for the 2008 summer travel 

season. However, delays and cancellations this summer could still be 

significant given the likely limited impact of DOT’s and FAA’s actions. 

Capacity-enhancing initiatives can provide some limited benefit in the near 

term, but they do not fundamentally expand capacity. Demand 

 34The amendment to the Rates and Charges policy states that the revenue generated from 

the two-part landing fee structure is not to exceed the allowable costs of the airfield. In 

other words, any airport that implements the two-part landing fee would be required to

structure the fees such that the total revenue raised is no more than the level of revenue

that would have been raised under a simple weight-based landing fee. That is, the landing 

fee structure must be “revenue neutral.” 

Page 25 GAO-08-934T 
management policies, especially those that artificially restrict demand—

like schedule caps—may limit increases in delays, but should not be 

viewed as a meaningful or enduring solution to addressing the 

fundamental imbalances between the underlying demand for and supply of

airspace capacity. The growing air traffic congestion and delay problem 

that we face in this country is the result of many factors, including airline 

practices, inadequate investment in airport and air traffic control 

infrastructure, and how aviation infrastructure is priced. Addressing this 

problem involves difficult choices, which affect the interests of 

passengers, airlines, airports, and local economies. If not addressed, 

congestion problems will intensify as the growth in demand is expected to

increase over the next 10 years. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Susan Fleming at 

(202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions 

to this testimony include Paul Aussendorf, Amy Abramowitz, William 

Bates, Jonathan Carver, Jay Cherlow, Lauren Calhoun, Delwen Jones, 

Heather Krause, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and Maria Wallace. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 26 GAO-08-934T 
Page 27 GAO-08-934T 

Appendix I: New York Short-Term Initiatives 

17 Short-Term Initiatives to Enhance Capacity in the New York Area 

Action Description Status

1. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)–Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) Daily 

Planning Teleconferences

Daily planning teleconferences to provide a common 

situational awareness for customers—such as airlines, 

airport operators, the military, and general aviation—on 

the planned daily operations at JFK. 

Completed 

2. Simultaneous Approaches to Runways 31L/R at JFK Simultaneous runway approaches to 31L/R will allow 

approximately 4 to 6 more aircraft to land on this runway 

configuration when weather conditions are classified as

instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). 

Completed 

3. Accessing J134/J149 from Eliot Intersection (for use 

during Severe Weather Avoidance Programs) 

When thunderstorms affect the west departure routes, 

aircraft will be rerouted using the Eliot departure fix. 

Benefits have not been identified, but are available for use 

as weather events dictate. 

Completed 

4. Pass Back Departure Restrictions—700 mile restriction Pass back restrictions were removed on October 11, 

2007, beyond 700 miles for traffic destined for the 

New York airports. Departure restrictions to airports often 

lead to delays as controllers have to wait to release 

aircraft. Eliminating this airport restriction and allowing en 

route controllers to build in the spacing improves airport 

efficiency. 

Completed 

5. Excessive Spacing on Final Approach Briefings and trainings at major facilities are planned to 

speed implementation of changes associated with the 

“proximity event” category. Intent is to help educate 

controllers that reducing excessive spacing between 

aircraft on final approach can help reduce delay and

should not be considered an error, because it does not 

pose a safety risk. 

In progress

6. Conditional Holding Patterns Under certain conditions, control of the holding pattern 

airspace will transfer from the New York Air Route Traffic 

Control Center (ZNY) to the New York TRACON (N90). 

This allows aircraft to transition out of the holding pattern 

using terminal separation standards (3 miles) as opposed 

to the en route separation standards (5 miles).a

In progress

7. NY Area Severe Weather Avoidance Procedure Action 

Team Items—Route Availability Planning Tool (RAPT) 

When affected by thunderstorms, controllers and traffic 

flow managers will use a weather forecasting technology 

to identify the availability of departure routes, and provide 

traffic management specialists with the ability to more 

quickly open and close routes and to reroute aircraft. 

In progress

8. Second J80 Airway Creating another westbound departure route parallel to 

J80 has the potential to mitigate westbound delays from 

JFK. 

Completed 

 a

Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) is an FAA air traffic control facility which 

uses radar and two way radio communication to provide separation of air traffic within a 

specific geographic area in the vicinity of one or more large airports.
9. Resectorizing of New York ARTCC (ZNY) Sector 73 A reallocation of the lower part of sector 73 at the New 

York Air Route Traffic Control Center will allow the

remaining sector to focus on aircraft departing 

Philadelphia and New York. 

Completed 

10. Moving J79 Boston (Logan Airport [BOS] Arrivals to the 

East) 

Move current BOS arrivals via J79 to the east and reduce 

congestion at the MERIT departure fix. 

In progress

11. Moving Overflights in ZNY34 Moving crossing traffic, or overflights, out of the way of 

New York departures, allowing for unrestricted climbs to 

requested altitude, and reducing delay by decreasing 

miles in trail for New York departures. 

In progress

12. Airspace Flow Program (AFP) for New York Departures Apply AFP technology to manage departures from the NY 

airports, such that NY airport departures would be allowed

to freely flow and delayed flights would be redistributed to 

other peripheral airports. 

In progress

13. Severe Weather Avoidance Procedure (SWAP) Escape 

Routes

SWAP escape routes in Canadian airspace are used and 

coordinated daily with Canada’s civil air navigation 

services provider (NAV CANADA). Used mostly during the 

summer because of thunderstorms and winds in the 

United States. 

Completed 

14. Deconflict Newark Airport (EWR) Arrivals Over

SHAFF Intersection 

Allows for more efficient arrivals from the north into 

Newark by moving or eliminating crossing traffic. No 

added capacity benefits are expected. Do expect to get 

some added operational efficiency for aircraft while in the 

en route portion of flight. 

Completed 

15. Simultaneous Visual Approaches to Runway 4L at 

EWR 

A procedure that allows for simultaneous arrivals on 

runways 4L and 4R, when weather permits. 

Completed 

16. Caribbean Tactical Reroutes to EWR Traffic management procedure to allow EWR arrival 

aircraft to fly at higher altitudes and in a less circuitous

route. No added capacity benefits are expected. 

Completed 

17. EWR Runways 4R/29 Waiver Procedures currently allow for these runway 

configurations to be used in Visual Meteorological 

Conditions (VMC). Waiver has been signed to allow 

arrivals to land on Runway 29 while landing on Runway 

4R. 

Completed 

Source: GAO analysis based on DOT and FAA actions. 

Page 28 GAO-08-934T 
Page 29 GAO-08-934T 

Capacity-Enhancing Initiatives 

Action Description Focus Status 

Reported delay reduction 

benefita

17 short-term 

initiatives 

The New York Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC) recommended a

list of 77 items for consideration and 

implementation in the New York 

area. From these, FAA identified 17 

short-term initiatives for immediate 

action. 

NY region Eleven of the 17 

short-term 

initiatives are 

currently complete. 

The others are 

planned for 

completion by the 

end of fiscal year 

2008. 

Not analyzed but likely to be small. 

Coordination with the 

Department of 

Defense (DOD) for use 

of military airspace 

FAA is working with DOD to explore 

the current use of special use 

airspace, develop proposals for 

increased civil use of military 

airspace, and evaluate letters of 

agreement that provide operational 

direction for the shared uses of 

special use airspace. 

East Coast FAA’s efforts to 

standardize use of 

military airspace 

with DOD are 

ongoing and the 

outcome is

uncertain. 

Final plan unknown, therefore 

benefit unknown. 

New York/New 

Jersey/Philadelphia

(NY/NJ/PHL) Airspace 

Redesign 

The Airspace Redesign of the 

NY/NJ/PHL metropolitan area

involves changes to airspace 

configurations and air traffic 

management procedures. The 

selected alternative (Integrated 

Airspace Alternative with Integrated 

Control Complex) integrates the 

entire airspace with a common 

automation platform. Air traffic 

controllers can reduce aircraft 

separation rules from 5 to 3 nautical 

miles over a larger geographical 

area than the current airspace 

structure allows. 

NY region Implementation 

began on 

December 19, 

2007, with the 

introduction of 

additional 

departure 

headings at 

Philadelphia

International and 

Newark 

International 

airports. FAA has

stated that it does

not believe there 

will be additional 

changes

implemented until 

fall 2008. Final 

implementation by 

2012. 

When the redesign is fully 

implemented in 2012, FAA 

estimated a 20 percent reduction 

in national airspace system delay 

in the study area as compared to 

taking no action. Estimated arrival 

and departure delay reduction 

varies between airports. 

New York Airspace 

Czar 

ARC participants agreed that 

appointing a New York aviation czar 

to coordinate regional airspace 

issues and all projects and initiatives

addressing problems of congestion 

and delays in New York would be 

beneficial. As a result, the Director of 

the New York Integration Office 

position was created. 

NY region Marie KenningtonGardiner has been 

appointed Director 

of the New York 

Integration Office. 

Unknown 

Appendix II: Status and Reported Benefits of 

Capacity-Enhancing Initiatives and Demand 

Management Policies 
Demand Management Policies

Action Description Focus Status

Reported Delay Reduction 

Benefit 

Order limiting 

scheduled operations

at John F. Kennedy 

International airport 

In January 2008, FAA issued an 

order setting a cap on the number of 

hourly operations at JFK. The order 

took effect March 30, 2008, and will

expire October 24, 2009. 

NY region Operations are 

capped at 81 per 

hour. 

FAA estimates that caps would

reduce average departure delays

by 5.5 minutes, or 15 percent. 

The number of departure delays of 

60 minutes or more would 

decrease 31 percent. Based on 

proposed summer 2008 

schedules, estimated delays could 

have increased by up to 150 

percent. 

Order limiting 

scheduled operations

at Newark 

International airport 

In March 2008, FAA proposed an 

order to cap flights at Newark. The 

final order was issued on May 21, 

2008, and takes effect on June 20, 

2008, and expires October 24, 2009. 

NY region Scheduled 

operations

capped at 81 per 

hour by summer 

2008. 

Slight reduction in arrival delays

offset by slight increase in 

departure delays with no 

estimated net change in average 

delay between 2007 and 2008.

The purpose is to keep delays

from worsening at Newark in 2008 

because of caps at JFK. Based 

on proposed summer 2008 

schedules, estimated arrival 

delays would increase by as much 

50 percent in 2008 without the 

limits. 

Orders limiting 

scheduled operations

at LaGuardia (LGA) 

In December 2006, FAA published a

temporary order maintaining the 

same caps and exemptions in place 

since November 2000. In April 2008, 

FAA also published an order limiting 

unscheduled operations to 3 per 

hour. 

NY region Scheduled 

operations will 

be capped at 75 

per hour during 

summer 2008. 

FAA estimates 32 percent 

reduction in average delay as

compared to no cap. As the caps

were already in place, no new 

benefit is expected in summer 

2008. 

Supplemental 

rulemaking on slot 

auctions at LGA 

In April 2008, FAA issued a

supplemental rulemaking to lease 

the majority of slots at the airport to 

the incumbent operators and to

develop a market by annually

auctioning off leases for a limited 

number of slots during the first 5 

years of the rule. Two options to 

annually auction these slots were

proposed. 

NY region Comment period 

ended June 16, 

2008. DOT is

reviewing 

comments. 

Will depend on the option 

selected. Option 1 (slot retirement 

of 1.5 slots per year) estimated to 

result in 1 minute of average delay 

reduction. Option 2 does not retire 

slots. DOT believes the proposal 

will help reveal the economic value 

of slots, and may increase the size 

of aircraft used at the airports, and 

thereby increase the number of 

passengers served. 

Page 30 GAO-08-934T 
Demand Management Policies

Action Description Focus Status

Reported Delay Reduction 

Benefit 

Proposed rulemaking 

on slot auctions at JFK 

and Newark 

In May 2008, FAA issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to assign to 

existing operators the majority of 

slots at Newark and JFK, and create 

a market by annually auctioning off a

limited number of slots in each of the 

first 5 years. 

NY region In comment 

period until July 

21, 2008. 

FAA states that the immediate

impact will be to prevent a return 

to, or worsening of, the conditions

and delay experienced during 

summer 2007. By itself, a slot 

auction will not reduce delays. 

However, DOT believes the 

proposal will help reveal the 

economic value of slots, and may 

increase the size of aircraft used 

at the airports, and thereby 

increase the number of 

passengers served. 

Amendment to the 

Airport Rates and 

Charges policy

Announced in July 2008, the policy 

clarifies the ability of airport 

operators to establish a two-part 

landing fee structure consisting of 

both an operation charge and a

weight-based charge, giving airports

the flexibility to vary charges based

on the time of day and the volume of 

traffic. It also permits the operator of 

a congested airport to charge users

a portion of the cost of airfield 

projects under construction and

expands the authority of an operator 

of a congested airport to include in 

the airfield fees of congested airports

a portion of the airfield fees of other 

underutilized airports owned and 

operated by the same proprietor. 

U.S. Final policy 

issued July 8, 

2008. 

Not assessed, it is unknown to 

what extent airports can or will

implement this policy or the 

airlines’ response if it is

implemented. 

Source: GAO analysis based on DOT and FAA actions. 

a

For some actions, DOT has stated additional benefits unrelated to delay reduction. 

Page 31 GAO-08-934T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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 “E-mail 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, DC 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 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

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