OBSERVATIONS ON SHORT-TERM 

CAPACITY INITIATIVES 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number: AV-2008-087 

Date Issued: September 26, 2008 
U.S. Department of The Inspector General Office of Inspector General

Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Office of the Sec tary re

of Transportation

September 26, 2008 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation 

 and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable John Mica 

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation 

 and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Oberstar and Costello and Ranking Members Mica and Petri: 

As requested, we are providing our observations on the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) current efforts to increase capacity in the National Airspace 

System. Specifically, you requested that we provide our observations on the 

initiatives that will provide the most capacity benefits in the next 5 years, including 

updates on FAA’s efforts to redesign airspace and implement performance-based 

navigation initiatives, i.e., Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation 

Performance (RNP). Consistent with your request, our objectives were to (1) identify 

the initiatives—both technological and procedural—that will provide the most 

capacity benefits in the next 5 years and (2) examine FAA’s process for implementing 

and managing interrelationships among the various efforts. The results of our review 

are discussed below and further detailed in the enclosed briefing, which we provided 

to your staff on July 2, 2008. 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
2

As we stated in our testimony before the Subcommittee on Aviation in April,1

enhancing the capacity of the National Airspace System, particularly at already 

congested airports, and improving airline customer service are important issues facing 

the Nation. The summer of 2007 was part of the worst year on record for flight 

delays; cancellations; and long, on-board delays—the underlying causes of airline 

customer dissatisfaction. The Senate Joint Economic Committee estimates that last 

year’s flight delays alone cost the airlines, passengers, and the U.S. economy more 

than $40 billion. Peak-year 2007 trends continued into early 2008. In the first 

6 months of 2008, more than 1 in 4 flights (29 percent) were delayed or cancelled. 

Not until July did on-time performance show a substantial improvement compared to 

the same month last year. 

Because delays in the New York region have a nationwide effect, the Secretary of 

Transportation formed the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) last 

September to explore ways to alleviate congestion and delays in the New York area. 

In addition, the Secretary directed FAA to negotiate with the airlines and established 

temporary flight caps at the John F. Kennedy and Newark/Liberty airports. The 

Secretary also proposed auctioning a limited number of take-off and landing 

opportunities (known as “slots”) at these two airports. This approach, however, is a 

very controversial issue among some stakeholders. 

The Department, FAA, and various stakeholders have identified several initiatives to 

enhance capacity. The ARC identified 77 action items, including operational and 

infrastructure improvements, to mitigate delays in the New York metropolitan area. 

Of these action items, FAA states that 17 are complete, 30 are expected to be 

complete by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, and 40 by the end of FY 2009. The 

remaining items are either planned for the long term or undergoing analysis to 

establish feasibility and priorities. In this audit, we did not assess whether these 

initiatives targeted specifically for New York were effective in reducing delays. 

Since we testified in April, the airlines have continued to face considerable financial 

uncertainty due to skyrocketing fuel costs and a softening economy. In response, 

airlines are reducing flight schedules and taking aircraft out of service. Nevertheless, 

FAA forecasts that the demand for air travel will grow. Even if airlines further reduce 

their schedules, FAA points out—and we agree—that the Agency and stakeholders 

must address the underlying causes of delays. We believe the current situation 

provides FAA with an important opportunity to better plan, prioritize, and manage 

capacity initiatives. 

The long-term solution to increasing capacity and reducing delays depends largely on 

expanding capacity through the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), which is targeted for the 2025 timeframe. Although FAA is exploring 

 

1

 OIG Testimony Number CC-2008-058, “Status Report on Actions Underway To Address Flight Delays and Improve 

Airline Customer Service,” April 9, 2008. OIG reports and testimonies are available on our website: www.oig.dot.gov. 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
3

ways to accelerate NextGen, much work remains to set realistic expectations for when 

capacity-enhancing initiatives can be delivered. Therefore, it will be important to 

keep several near-term, capacity-enhancing initiatives on track. 

FAA Must Address Challenges With Several Initiatives Underway That Could 

Reduce Delays and Boost Capacity in the Near Term 

While there is no “silver bullet” for addressing delays, we identified five FAA 

initiatives underway that can help reduce congestion and enhance capacity over the 

next 5 years.2

 

New Airport Infrastructure – According to FAA, building new runways provides the 

largest increases in capacity. Currently, there are nine key runway projects underway 

at seven Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports. These projects are 

expected to be complete by 2012 and, according to FAA, will provide those airports 

with the potential to accommodate an additional 400,000 operations annually. These 

capacity benefits, however, cannot be realized without new air traffic control 

procedures and improved airspace redesign. 

Challenges that could impede the progress of new runway projects include the years 

of planning required, extensive environmental reviews, coordination among numerous 

stakeholders, and legal issues. Another challenge is making corresponding 

improvements to an airport’s infrastructure (e.g., terminal gates and passenger waiting 

areas) to accommodate the increased traffic. Unfortunately, building a new runway is 

not an option for some airports, like LaGuardia. 

Airspace Redesign – Airspace redesign efforts are critical to realizing the full benefits 

of runways and can enhance capacity without new infrastructure. Currently, FAA is 

pursuing seven airspace redesign projects nationwide, including a major effort to 

revamp airspace in the NewYork/New Jersey/Philadelphia area. Once implemented, 

FAA believes this effort could reduce delays by as much as 200,000 hours. 

FAA has done a better job of coordinating airspace changes with Agency stakeholders 

and linking projects to its capital account3

 since we reported on the airspace redesign 

program in 2005.4

 We remain concerned, however, that FAA’s airspace redesign 

efforts still do not function as a “national” program since FAA facilities are now using 

their own resources to redesign airspace without coordinating with Headquarters. 

FAA is developing procedures to address this problem, but those have not been 

finalized. Further, since 2005, the airspace redesign program has experienced 

 

2

 We did not assess planned NextGen demonstration projects or the potential benefits of proposed demand management 

techniques. 3

 Prior to 2007, FAA’s airspace program was funded solely from the Operations account. By linking each project’s 

requirements to both the operations and capital budgets, the Agency was able to address procedural, environmental, 

technical, and staffing requirements to complete the implementation process. 4

 OIG Report Number AV-2005-059, “Airspace Redesign Efforts Are Critical To Enhance Capacity but Need Major 

Improvements,” May 13, 2005. 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
4

significant funding reductions, from $15.3 million to $6.8 million—a 70-percent 

decrease. We are concerned that this could steer the program off track and note that 

FAA funded only three of seven planned airspace projects last year. 

Performance-Based Navigation Initiatives – FAA is pursuing two initiatives that rely 

on aircraft avionics for improved route precision: RNAV and RNP. RNAV allows 

aircraft to fly any desired flight path without the limitations imposed by ground-based 

navigation systems. RNP adds an on-board performance monitoring and alerting 

capability for pilots and allows aircraft to fly more precise flight paths into and out of 

airports. This reduces fuel burn, boosts controller productivity, reduces noise 

emissions, and increases capacity. 

As of June 5, 2008, FAA had published more than 400 RNAV/RNP routes and 

procedures and made this capability available at 98 airports. The Agency intends to 

publish at least 100 RNAV and 75 RNP procedures for the period FY 2008 through 

FY 2009, with priority given to new routes for airports in the congested New York, 

Chicago, and Dallas areas. 

Challenges facing this initiative include close integration with airspace redesign as 

future RNAV/RNP routes shift away from localized operations toward “networking” 

routes between city pairs, such as Washington, D.C., and Chicago. It is also 

important to note that current RNAV/RNP routes are only available to specially 

equipped aircraft and trained aircrews, and air carriers must meet certain 

qualifications to fly these special airport approaches.5

 

To help speed the introduction of RNP, FAA is relying on non-government third 

parties to develop and implement new procedures. FAA has stated that it would like 

to delegate greater authority to third parties but is still defining these expanded roles 

and responsibilities. A considerable level of oversight will be required, and we will 

review this in greater detail later this year. 

Air Traffic Management – This program, managed by FAA’s Command Center, 

provides the Agency with the ability to manage air traffic and reduce the impact of 

severe weather. The two major components of Air Traffic Management are the 

Traffic Flow Management (TFM) Program and the Collaborative Air Traffic 

Management Technologies Program. TFM includes a new tool, the Airspace Flow 

Program, to collaboratively plan and manage traffic demand for airspace congestion 

issues. 

FAA is modernizing the overall TFM infrastructure for more than $500 million but 

faces complex software development and integration issues. Another challenge is 

 

5

 In this case, we are referring to special instrument flight procedures that are known as RNP Special Aircraft and Aircrew 

Authorization Required (SAAAR). RNP SAAAR is the certification required by FAA to allow aircrew to use RNP 

avionics during RNP approaches. RNP SAAAR helps aircraft fly more precise approaches and departures, thereby 

increasing operational efficiency and reducing operating costs, noise, and emissions. 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
5

introducing better weather forecasting techniques into this system. We note that 

delays in implementing the new system could place the current system at risk of being 

unable to handle the increased demand. 

Automated Controller Tools – The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) tool allows 

air traffic controllers to better sequence aircraft to a runway and could therefore 

enhance the flow of traffic. FAA has deployed TMA to all 20 en route centers in the 

continental United States; 11 are fully operational, and the remaining systems are 

slated to be ready later this year. The transition to TMA will continue to be complex 

as new enhancements to this tool will require extensive software adaptation (site 

customization) and new controller training. 

The Interrelated Nature of Short-Term Capacity Initiatives Will Require 

Management and Oversight at the National Level 

Since 2001, FAA’s blueprint for capacity has been the Operational Evolution 

Partnership (formerly known as the Operational Evolution Plan), which coordinates 

relationships among programs. In 2007, FAA refocused the OEP to help manage the 

implementation of NextGen. This plan was recently renamed the NextGen 

Implementation Plan. 

The plan’s initiatives that we examined are interdependent and span across the Air 

Traffic Organization’s (ATO) three service units—Terminal, En Route, and Systems 

Operations—and therefore require much coordination. However, such coordination is 

often inhibited due to differences in the priorities and resources among these ATO 

units. 

Until recently, there was no single office responsible for overseeing nationwide 

capacity initiatives. FAA has taken steps to reorganize the ATO and has established a 

Senior Vice President for NextGen Implementation and Operations Planning. Also, 

FAA is establishing a NextGen Integration and Implementation Office to oversee and 

coordinate near-term capacity and other NextGen initiatives. The recent focus on 

delays in the New York area raised questions about FAA’s management of short-term 

capacity initiatives in the northeastern United States. To address these concerns, FAA 

appointed a single person to coordinate regional airspace issues and all projects and 

initiatives addressing congestion and delays in the New York area. 

Several Key Issues Require Sustained Management Attention 

In April, we highlighted several actions needed to help prevent a repeat of the summer 

2007 air travel problems. In addition, there are several areas that require sustained 

management attention by FAA. 

Managing Capacity Initiatives as Portfolios – To successfully implement short-term 

initiatives, FAA must manage these efforts in a highly integrated fashion. As we 

noted in the past, it is important to link NextGen Implementation Plan projects with 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
6

the operations and capital budgets. However, FAA lacks a long-term plan to sustain 

its procedural programs funded in the operations budget as it does for capital 

programs (e.g., new radar systems or controller displays) in the facilities and 

engineering budget. 

Keeping Planned Airport Infrastructure and Airspace Projects on Track – FAA needs 

to ensure the navigation equipment, new procedures, and airspace modifications are in 

place when its nine runway projects are commissioned in 2012 so that the expected 

benefits can be achieved. 

Maximizing Special Use Airspace – FAA needs to continue working with the 

Department of Defense to open special-use airspace, which is often inactive, to create 

additional lanes of traffic at specific chokepoints. Last year, joint efforts by the 

Departments of Transportation and Defense to open up special-use airspace along the 

east and west coasts before the winter holidays helped to reduce delays during these 

heavy traffic periods. Industry groups noted that “repeatable procedures” need to be 

developed to enhance coordination between military managers of special-use airspace 

on each coast and at FAA’s Command Center during periods of severe weather. 

Addressing Controller Training Issues – We recently reported challenges FAA faces 

in training large numbers of developmental controllers to replace retirees.6

 At the 

same time, FAA will be challenged to train controllers on capacity-enhancing efforts 

since several new initiatives involve introducing new capabilities. To gain maximum 

benefits from new technologies, it will be important for FAA to determine what can 

be accomplished over the next several years with controller training. 

Addressing Controller Productivity and Excessive Spacing on Final Approach – In its 

December 2007 report, the New York ARC expressed concerns that excessive spacing 

between aircraft on final approach has contributed significantly to arrival delays at 

New York airports. FAA controllers and an internal study7

 have noted that other 

factors, such as weather and poor coordination between FAA air traffic control 

facilities in the New York region, have also impacted spacing between aircraft. While 

FAA has developed a new tool to help monitor spacing and embarked upon 

educational efforts for controllers, clear and measurable performance expectations are 

still needed. 

Updating Capacity Benchmarks – An important first step in addressing the delay 

problem in the 2000 timeframe was to develop a set of “capacity benchmarks” for the 

Nation’s top 30 airports. However, FAA has not published updated capacity 

benchmarks since 2004 and needs to do so as these are critical to understanding 

airline scheduling practices and expected relief from technology and new runways. 

At the very least, benchmarks can provide a common framework for understanding 

 

6

 OIG Report Number AV-2008-055, “Review of Air Traffic Controller Facility Training Program,” June 5, 2008. 7

 Federal Aviation Administration New York Terminal Radar Control (TRACON) System Efficiency Assessment, 

February 4-8, 2008. 

Report Number AV-2008-087 
Report Number AV-2008-087 

7

what maximum arrival and departure rates can physically be handled at the busiest 

airports, by time of day, under good and poor weather conditions. This information 

would be valuable to key decision makers and stakeholders. 

In conclusion, there are several initiatives planned or underway that can provide some 

relief from delays and boost capacity over the next 3 to 5 years. Each initiative, 

however, faces challenges that must be fully addressed. FAA has recently taken 

several steps to better organize and manage capacity initiatives in both the short and 

long term and to help implement NextGen efforts. These include establishing a new 

Senior Vice President for NextGen Implementation and Operations Planning as well 

as a new office for NextGen integration. The details of these efforts are still evolving, 

however, and it is too soon to evaluate their effectiveness. Therefore, we are not 

making any recommendations at this time but will continue to monitor FAA’s 

ongoing actions. 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

We performed our review in accordance with Government Auditing Standards

prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. The enclosed briefing 

further details our objectives, scope, and methodology and contains updated 

information to supplement our July briefing and April testimony. 

We provided the Senior Vice President for NextGen Implementation and Operations 

Planning with a draft of our report and incorporated her comments where appropriate. 

The Senior Vice President generally agreed with our analysis and results. 

If I can answer any questions regarding this review, please contact me at (202) 

366-1959 or Theodore Alves, Deputy Inspector General, at (202) 366-6767. 

Sincerely, 

Calvin L. Scovel III 

Inspector General 

Enclosure 

cc: Acting FAA Administrator 
Review of FAA Review of FAA

’s Short s Short-T

Capacity Initiatives Capacity Initiatives

Briefing to the House Briefing to the House 

Subcommittee on Aviatio

Subcommittee on Aviatio

AV-2008-087 July 2, 2008 July 2, 2008
Objectives

The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Transportation and InfrastructAviation Subcommittee requested that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviefforts to increase capacity in the National Airspace System (NAS). Specificallyprovide our observations on the initiatives that will provide the most capacity ben5 years, including updates of FAA’s efforts to redesign airspace and implement p

navigation initiatives—Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation PerfoConsistent with the request, our objectives were to (1) identify the initiatives—boprocedural—that will provide the most capacity benefits in the next 5 years and (process for implementing capacity initiatives and managing interrelationships amWe provided our preliminary results at the Subcommittee’s April 9, 2008, hearing delays.

AV-2008-087
Background

• During fiscal year (FY) 2007, U.S. airlines handled over 700 million passenger

forecast to grow to over 1 billion by 2016 (see figure 1). Also, during FY 2007carriers and commuter airlines performed over 25 million flight operations (takforecast to grow to 30 million operations by 2014 (see figure 2). 

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Yea

Figure 1. U.S. Air Carrier Passenger 

Enplanements Within the NAS, FY 2005-2016

0

200400600800

10001200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fiscal Year

Passengers

 (in millions)

Mainline Regional

Figure 2. Air Carrier Op

NAS, FY 20

05

101520253035

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2

Fi

Operations

 (in millions

)

Mainline Regional

AV-2008-087
Background (continu

• In 2007, increased demand caused several 

key airports (e.g., LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy, and Newark) to operate near or at full capacity, resulting in increased congestion and unprecedented delays.

• Operational performance of the NAS 

continued a downward trend in 2007 with one in four flights arriving late. This level of delay is worse than 2000 when aviation gridlock dominated the aviation agenda. Problems at the New York airports reached intolerable levels and affected the entire NAS. 

• On-time performance in summer 2007 

deteriorated over the already dismal levels of 2006, even though the number of flights essentially remained the same.

Table 1. Increases in 

and Cancella

(Summer 2006 and S

Notable 

Statistics

Summer 

2006

Scheduled Flights

1,986,654 

Percent Delayed 26% Airports With Delays > 30 Minutes

9 

Length of Arrival Delays

56

Minutes

Cancelled Flights

37,396 

Percent Cancelled

1.9% 

Source: FAA

AV-2008-087
Background (continued

• Near-term initiatives are critical because much work remains to define an

benefits and timetables for capacity enhancing benefits. FAA is explorinNextGen and what can be done in the near and mid term.

• As we testified in April, the airlines face considerable financial uncertain

skyrocketing fuel costs and a softening economy. The airlines continue tand take aircraft out of service. This situation provides FAA with opportand manage short- and long-term capacity initiatives.

AV-2008-087
Objective 1: Identify the initiatives—both technological and proce

provide the most capacity benefits within the next 5 years.

Results

• There is no “silver bullet” for reducing delays. However, there are a numb

that can enhance capacity. We identified five FAA capacity initiatives that provide the most capacity benefits over the next 5 years. 

1. Runways2. Airspace Redesign3. RNAV and RNP4. Air Traffic Management5. Controller Tools (e.g., Traffic Management Advisor)

• For each initiative, we identified issues or concerns that have the potential 

implementation and limit expected benefits.

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Runways 

• Constructing new runways and runway extensions is the most effective 

increasing capacity.

• Status of New Runways

Since FY 2000, 13 new runways have opened at the 35 Partnership airpo

called OEP airports), thereby providing them with the potential to accom1.6 million more annual operations. Currently, seven OEP airports have construction projects that are expected to be commissioned through 201

slide 8).

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Result

Runways (continue

Table 2. Current Airfield Construction Projects

Airfield Construction Projects Est. Completion Cost Es

Philadelphia March 2009 $65 millionSeattle-Tacoma November 2008 $1.1 billionWashington-Dulles November 2008 $356 millioChicago O’Hare* 2012* $1.9 billionCharlotte February 2010 $300 millioDallas Ft. Worth December 2008 $79 millionBoston November 2009 $55 million

Source: FAA

* Chicago O’Hare has three runway projects underway. Two of the three will be completed by November 2008

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Runways (continued

• Challenges to New Runway Initiatives

- Not all runway projects will increase capacity. At some airports, such as Los 

International, a new runway will only replace an existing runway. 

- Runway capacity benefits cannot be realized without airspace and procedural 

FAA states that 40 to 60 percent of projected capacity would be lost without c

airspace changes.

- Some airports, such as LaGuardia and Las Vegas, need additional capacity bu

space to add new runways. Other airports may benefit by minimizing runway 

new taxiway designs.

- To accommodate the additional traffic generated by new runways, airports ne

additional gates and passenger receiving areas. A good example of this is AtlJackson Airport, which is building new gates. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Airspace Redesign

• Airspace redesign is an important but often overlooked capacity enhancing 

History shows that airspace redesign efforts, even without new infrastructuthe flow of air traffic. 

• Status of Airspace Redesign Initiatives

- In May 2005, we reported that the management and oversight of airspace projec

between FAA Headquarters and various local facilities. Further, we found that F

process for controlling costs, mitigating risks, and coordinating efforts was not e

Specifically, FAA did not have reliable project cost estimates and did not priorit

projects according to Agency national goals. FAA also did not effectively coord

link them to the Agency’s budget process. 

- In response to our report, FAA made several changes to the airspace program, in

efforts on high-priority projects with national significance and assigning trained each new project.

- For FY 2007, FAA approved seven airspace redesign projects as national progra

three projects received full funding due to funding shortfalls (New York/New JeMetropolitan Airspace Redesign, Chicago Airspace, and Houston Area Air Traff

- Since 2004, the number of, and funding for, airspace projects has steadily declin

slide 11). 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Airspace Redesign (cont

Table 3. Current Projects and Funding Profile

Fiscal Year Number of 

Projects

Operations Budget Capital Bu

2004 42 $21.0 million None

2005 42 $15.3 million None

2006 20 $8.5 million None

2007

7 $6.8 million $1.1 mill

2008

(Proposed)

9 $10.7 million $5.0 mill

2009

(Estimate)

8 $8.2 million $3.0 mill

Source: FAA

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Airspace Redesign (cont

• Challenges to Airspace Redesign Initiatives

- FAA identified seven projects as national priorities for FY 2007 but was only 

three projects. In fact, one of the seven national projects (Southern Californiaindefinitely because there was no guarantee of sustained funding for the envir

- FAA’s airspace redesign effort is not functioning as a national program. There 

coordination at the FAA Headquarters level, and some FAA facilities are usinresources to redesign airspace without coordinating with Headquarters. As a rare not being measured against national priorities and may not conform to the 

the NAS. 

- Airspace redesign initiatives are cross-cutting efforts that require close coordi

Air Traffic Organization (ATO) units. It is important for FAA to (1) finalize working across ATO lines of business to implement airspace redesign initiativ(2) determine what can reasonably be accomplished with airspace redesign ef

term. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

RNAV and RNP

• RNAV consists of procedures that allow aircraft to fly on any desired fli

limitations imposed by ground-based navigation aids. RNP takes advanon-board navigation avionics capability to fly a more precise flight path 

• Status of FAA’s Initiatives To Move Forward With RNAV /RNP

- As of June 2008, FAA had published over 400 RNAV/RNP procedures. In 2

69 RNAV routes and 41 RNP procedures. To accomplish this, FAA focused o

without extensive environmental review, which is normally a factor when new FY 2008, FAA intends to publish at least 50 RNAV procedures and 25 RNP p

it plans to publish 50 RNAV and 50 RNP procedures. 

- To help speed the introduction of RNP procedures, FAA signed agreements w

(Naverus and Jeppesen) to develop and implement public RNP Special Aircra

Authorization Required procedures. FAA has proposed giving greater authorimplementing new procedures to third parties. It will be important to clearly d

responsibilities for that process. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

RNAV and RNP (conti

• Challenges To Implementing RNAV/RNP

- Current RNAV and RNP routes are largely overlays of existing routes and do 

extensive environmental reviews. However, new routes that will take full ad

RNAV/RNP capabilities may require more extensive environmental reviews, 

to 8 years. 

- Thus far, FAA has developed RNAV/RNP procedures primarily for local ope

significant benefits may be realized by “networking” RNAV/RNP routes betwwill require that FAA closely integrate RNAV/RNP procedures with airspace Considerable simulation and modeling will also be required.

- FAA modernization efforts will impact the implementation of RNAV/RNP pr

example, moratoriums on new procedures at sites where En Route Automatio(ERAM) systems are being installed will limit FAA’s ability to implement necritical times between 2009 and 2012. If ERAM installation is delayed, imple

RNAV/RNP procedures may also be delayed.

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

RNAV and RNP (conti

• Challenges To Implementing RNAV/RNP (continued)

- Controllers must manage a “mixed equipage environment” in which they manage 

and non-RNAV/RNP aircraft within the same airspace. This may limit the benefit

operations. 

- FAA will need to develop new criteria for complex RNP procedures, and operator

with FAA for RNP approvals and authorizations (including pilot training and com

- Initially, controller training has been minimal because the controllers are already f

routes. As FAA advances toward RNAV/RNP routes that are significantly differen

routes (e.g., network routes), extensive controller training will be required. 

- FAA will need to standardize phraseology for controllers and pilots to build upon 

procedures and potential capabilities to enhance capacity.

- Airspace users may have to invest in more modern navigation equipment to take a

benefits from RNAV/RNP procedures. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Result

Air Traffic Managem

• Air Traffic Management is a combination of Air Traffic Control and th

Management (TFM) program. TFM, managed by FAA’s Command Ce

Nation’s focal point for capturing and disseminating air traffic informatiaviation community. TFM is comprised of two major components: the TModernization (TFM-M) Program and the Collaborative Air Traffic MaTechnologies (CATMT) Program. TFM includes a new tool, the AirspaProgram (AFP), to collaboratively plan and manage traffic demand for 

congestion issues. AFP, which also operates from FAA’s Command Cethe Agency and the airlines to reduce the impact of severe weather.

• Status of Air Traffic Management Initiatives

- Improvements to TFM include the capability for improved planning and exec

2010. This will help the FAA and user communities react more quickly and eweather situations. FAA inaugurated the AFP in June 2006 in the northeastern expanded it to the rest of the country in the spring of 2007.

- During the 2006 convective weather season, FAA implemented the AFP prog

on 19 severe weather days. As a result, FAA did not solely rely on widesprea

delay programs in the northeast corridor as in the past, which would have neethousands of flights. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Air Traffic Management (c

• Challenges to Air Traffic Management Initiatives

- Although FAA has been deploying new software releases every 6 months, the 

system prevents further upgrades. The service life for the currently fielded TFsoftware expires in December 2009.

- FAA faces complex software development and integration issues, particularly 

of the TFM-Modernization (TFM-M) system. While FAA has scheduled TFMoperational phase in September 2008, the Agency has yet to determine when t

become fully operational (estimated completion of deployment by FY 2010-2

implementing the new system could place the current system at risk of not bei

the increased demand. 

- It will be important for FAA to determine how best to (1) integrate weather fo

Air Traffic Management decision support capabilities and (2) improve commawareness related to weather forecasts and collaborative decision making with 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Controller Tools

• Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) is a controller tool that could enhanc

traffic. TMA is a software tool that applies the technique of “time-based memiles-in-trail to manage traffic. TMA helps controllers (who manage high-a

predicting the time an aircraft will cross a navigation fix, sequencing them foidentifying conflicts with the predicted flight profiles of other aircraft.

• Status of the TMA Initiative

- TMA is installed at all 20 en route centers in the continental United States. Eleven 

fully operational, and 9 are expected to be fully operational by the end of FY 2008. 

- FAA is adding an adjacent center metering feature to TMA. This enables metering 

coordinated between adjacent en route centers. This will extend TMA beyond a sinregional metering to airports. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 1 Results

Controller Tools (conti

• Challenges To Using TMA To Enhance Capacity

- The use of TMA represents a significant change in how controllers manage 

training will be required for traffic management personnel and controllers t

the automated functions of TMA. 

- To realize additional benefits, FAA needs to evolve TMA into managing tr

proposed adjacent center metering concept (also known as “regional center maximum benefits, traffic will need to be metered and spaced from the poin

destination, called “multi-center TMA.” This will require some additional greater coordination between FAA facilities and the FAA Command Cente

AV-2008-087
Objective 2 Result

Objective 2: Examine FAA’s process for implementing capacitmanaging interrelationships among the various efforts. 

• Implementing Capacity Initiatives

- Various short-term capacity projects are interdependent. For example, FAA 

to get the most benefits from RNAV/RNP procedures. 

- Since 2001, FAA’s blueprint for capacity initiatives has been the Operation

(formerly called the Operational Evolution Plan or OEP). The OEP is FAA

managing the interrelationships among programs. Overall, FAA’s efforts to 

initiatives have been successful. FAA recently refocused the OEP to help m

NextGen initiatives and renamed it the NextGen Implementation Plan.

- FAA’s short-term capacity initiatives cut across the ATO’s three lines of bu

En Route, and Systems Operations) and will require greater coordination. S

inhibited, however, as a result of differences in priorities and availability of three ATO units. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 2 Results (con

• FAA’s Management of Interrelated Efforts

- Until recently, there was no single FAA office in charge of overseeing capaci

has established a NextGen Integration and Implementation Office to oversee acapacity initiatives. 

- The recent focus to address short-term issues in and around New York airspa

about FAA’s management of short-term capacity initiatives in the northeaster

address these concerns, FAA put a single person in charge of New York area 

initiatives. 

• We identified several areas that require FAA’s attention. 

- Managing Capacity Initiatives as Portfolios – To successfully implement sh

initiatives, FAA must manage initiatives as portfolios—or in a highly integratwould help link short-term capacity requirements and initiatives to the capital 

accounts. 

- Keeping Planned Airport Infrastructure and Airspace Projects on Track 

projects are currently underway at seven airports (including projects at WashiChicago O’Hare) and are planned to be commissioned by 2012. FAA needs t

navigation equipment, new procedures, and airspace modifications are in placprojects are commissioned so that expected benefits can be achieved.

AV-2008-087
Objective 2 Results (con

- Maximizing Special Use Airspace (SUA) – More effective management and be

SUA is needed to make maximum use of airspace. As demonstrated by the Depa

Transportation and Defense decision to use military airspace over the holidays la

airspace can enhance the flow of air traffic. The goal is for improved schedule in

made available to FAA and airspace users. There may be opportunities to make when planned military operators and training missions have been cancelled.

- Addressing Controller Training – FAA faces challenges in training large numb

developmental controllers to replace retirees while concurrently training controll

short-term initiatives. Several of these short-term capacity measures, such as TMinvolve automating previously manual and decision-making processes. To gain mfrom this new technology, traffic flow managers and controllers will need to be t

these new tools and processes. Currently, FAA only provides limited training fotraining for RNAV/RNP. FAA needs to determine what reasonably can be accomterm with respect to controller training. 

AV-2008-087
Objective 2 Results (con

- Examining Controller Productivity and Excessive Spacing on Final Appr

December 2007 report, the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee repor

between aircraft on their final approach had been steadily increasing beyond tand contributed significantly to arrival delays at John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia

Liberty airports. Air Traffic Organization officials commented that concerns spacing extend beyond New York facilities. We discussed the issue with the c

and they pointed out that other factors, such as weather conditions, also impacaircraft. An internal FAA study found that problems were also traceable to poamong FAA facilities. FAA has developed a tool to help monitor spacing and 

educational efforts for controllers in both the en route and terminal lines of bu

to complete efforts to establish clear and measurable performance expectation

- Updating Capacity Benchmarks – An important first step in addressing the 

2000 timeframe was to develop a set of “capacity benchmarks” for the NationHowever, FAA has not published updated capacity benchmarks since 2004.

AV-2008-087
Scope and Methodolo

• We conducted this audit between May 2, 2007, and June 30, 2008. Duri

met with and obtained documentation from officials representing:

- FAA Headquarters (Airspace Management Program, RNAV/RNP Group, O

Performance Analysis, Airports Division, Weather Group)

- FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center- FAA Western, Central, and Eastern Service Centers - FAA Northeast U.S. Region- FAA facilities in Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; Anchorage and Juneau, A

Dallas and Ft. Worth, TX; Long Island, NY; and Atlanta, GA.

- Local airport authorities in Dallas, TX; New York, NY; and Atlanta, GA.- Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines- Naverus, Inc.

• We reviewed:

- FAA policies and procedures for coordinating, designing, and implementin

procedures.

- Terms of the Other Transaction Agreement for third party design and imple

procedures.

- FAA regulations relating to airspace usage and aircraft sequencing and spac- FAA plans for installing and implementing short-term capacity automation - FAA plans and procedures for implementing short-term capacity procedura

AV-2008-087
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts included in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added here to 

accommodate assistive technology. 
Observations on Short-Term Capacity Initiatives

Section 508 Compliant Presentation

Figure 1. U.S. Air Carrier Passenger Enplanements Within the National Airspace 

System, Fiscal Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 2016 

Fiscal Year 2005 587 million mainline (air carrier) and 150 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2006 584 million mainline (air carrier) and 156 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2007 606 million mainline (air carrier) and 159 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2008 

(projected) 

614 million mainline (air carrier) and 162 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2009 

(projected) 

634 million. mainline (air carrier) and 171 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2010 

(projected) 

658 million mainline (air carrier) and 178 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2011 

(projected) 

677 million mainline (air carrier) and 185 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2012 

(projected) 

698 million mainline (air carrier) and 191 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2013 

(projected) 

719 million mainline (air carrier) and 198 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2014 

(projected) 

738 million. mainline (air carrier) and 205 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2015 

(projected) 

760 million mainline (air carrier) and 213 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Fiscal Year 2016 

(projected) 

781 million mainline (air carrier) and 221 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier passenger enplanements 

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 
Figure 2. Air Carrier Operations Within the National Airspace System, Fiscal Year 

2005 to Fiscal Year 2016 

Fiscal Year 2005 13.5 million mainline (air carrier) and 12.6 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2006 13.3 million mainline (air carrier) and 12 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2007 13.6 million mainline (air carrier) and 11.7 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2008 (projected) 13.8 million mainline (air carrier) and 11.5 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2009 (projected) 14.1 million mainline (air carrier) and 11.8 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2010 (projected) 14.5 million mainline (air carrier) and 12.2 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2011 (projected) 14.9 million mainline (air carrier) and 12.6 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2012 (projected) 15.2 million mainline (air carrier) and 13.1 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2013 (projected) 15.6 million mainline (air carrier) and 13.5 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2014 (projected) 16 million mainline (air carrier) and 14 million regional (air 

taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2015 (projected) 16.4 million mainline (air carrier) and 14.5 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Fiscal Year 2016 (projected) 16.9 million mainline (air carrier) and 14.9 million regional 

(air taxi/commuter) air carrier operations within the National 

Airspace System 

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 
Table 1. Increases in Flight Delays and Cancellations (Summer 2006 and Summer 2007) 

• In the summer of 2006, there were 1,986,654 scheduled flights. In the summer of 

2007, there were 2,014,279. This represents a 1 percent change. 

• In the summer of 2006, flight delays represented 26 percent of all scheduled flights. 

In the summer of 2007, flight delays represented 29 percent of all scheduled flights. 

This represents a 12 percent change. 

• In the summer of 2006, there were 9 airports with delays of 30 minutes or more. In 

the summer of 2007, there were 26 airports. This represents a 189 percent change. 

• In the summer of 2006, the average length of arrival delays was 56 minutes. In the 

summer of 2007, the average was 60 minutes. This represents a 6 percent change. 

• In the summer of 2006, there were 37,396 cancelled flights. In the summer of 2007, 

there were 47,911. This represents a 28 percent change. 

• In the summer of 2006, the percentage of cancelled flights was 1.9 percent of all 

scheduled flights. In the summer of 2007, the percentage of cancelled flights was 

2.4 percent of all scheduled flights. This represents a 26 percent change. 

Source: FAA 

Table 2. Current Airfield Construction Projects 

Philadelphia airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

March 2009 

Estimated Cost: $65 million 

Seattle-Tacoma airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

November 2008 

Estimated Cost: $1.1 billion 

Washington-Dulles airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

November 2008 

Estimated Cost: $356 million 

Chicago O’Hare airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

2012 

Estimated Cost: $1.9 billion 

Charlotte airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

February 2010 

Estimated Cost: $300 million 

Dallas Fort Worth airfield 

construction project 

Estimated completion date: 

December 2008 

Estimated Cost: $79 million 

Boston airfield construction 

project 

Estimated completion date: 

November 2009 

Estimated Cost: $55 million 

Note: Chicago O’Hare has three runway projects underway. Two of the three will be 

completed by November 2008. 

Source: FAA 
Table 3. Current Airspace Redesign Projects and Funding Profile 

In fiscal year 2004, there were 42 airspace projects. Funding for these from the Operations 

Budget was $21 million, and $0 from the Capital Budget. 

In fiscal year 2005, there were 42 airspace projects. Funding for these from the Operations 

Budget was $15.3 million, and $0 from the Capital Budget. 

In fiscal year 2006, there were 20 airspace projects. Funding for these from the Operations 

Budget was $8.5 million, and $0 from the Capital Budget. 

In fiscal year 2007, there were 7 airspace projects. Funding for these from the Operations 

Budget was $6.8 million, and $1.1 million from the Capital Budget. 

In fiscal year 2008, there are 9 proposed airspace projects. Proposed funding for these from 

the Operations Budget is $10.7 million, and $5.0 million from the Capital Budget. 

In fiscal year 2009, there are 8 estimated airspace projects. Estimated funding for these from 

the Operations Budget is $8.2 million, and $3.0 million from the Capital Budget. 

Source: FAA