U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–946 PDF 2008

AVIATION DELAYS AND 

CONSUMER ISSUES 

(110–111) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Gribbin, D.J., General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 13 

Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for Airline Passengers’ Rights, 

Health and Safety ................................................................................................ 13 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association, accompanied 

by Gary Edwards, Director, Flight Control and Chief Dispatcher, Delta 

Airlines .................................................................................................................. 13 

Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International North America 13 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 13 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 49 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 50 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 56 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 64 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 67 

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 69 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Gribbin, D.J. ............................................................................................................. 71 

Hanni, Kate .............................................................................................................. 83 

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 99 

Principato, Gregory .................................................................................................. 136 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 148 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

letter to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez ....................................... 61 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association: 

responses to questions from the Subcommittee ................................................. 104 

‘‘Use of the National Airspace System,’’ Federal Aviation Administration, 

Report Number: CR-2008-028, date issued: March 3, 2008 .......................... 108 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ..................................... 186 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Ed Bolen, President and CEO, 

letter to Hon. Calvin L. Scovel, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 192 

National Business Travel Association, Bill Connors, Executive Director and 

Chief Operating Officer, written statement ....................................................... 193 

vi 


41946.001
vii 


41946.002
viii 


41946.003
ix 


41946.004
x 


41946.005
xi 


41946.006
xii 


41946.007
(1) 

HEARING ON AVIATION DELAYS AND 

CONSUMER ISSUES 

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chair would ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn 

electronic devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on Aviation Delays and Consumer Issues. I will give a brief opening statement, call on the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, to give his statement 

or remarks, introduce our witnesses and then proceed with testimony. 

I thank everyone for being here today to our Subcommittee hearing on Aviation Delays and Consumer Issues. This hearing is in response to the record high delays the traveling public endured during the summer of 2007 and is the fourth in a series of hearings 

on airline consumer protection. 

In 2007, the traveling public saw firsthand the serious problems 

that our current system has with congestion and delays which, at 

times, has led to a breakdown in customer service. Delayed flights 

affected 20 percent more passengers during the summer of 2007 

compared to the previous summer of 2006. In addition, the number 

of airports with arrival delay rates greater than 30 percent increased by 189 percent. Further, the average delay lasted about 

one hour. 

On our September 26th, 2007 hearing on delays, I requested that 

the Department of Transportation Inspector General prepare an 

after-action report on what happened last summer as well as review progress by the Department of Transportation, the FAA, airlines and airports to implement policies to improve customer service and to minimize delays. 

The IG is here this afternoon to report their findings to us. These 

findings will provide the important information into what the traveling public can expect during the 2008 summer travel season. 

H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, passed the 

House on September 20th, 2007. It addresses consumer protection 

and congestion and delay reductions including a mandate that air 

carriers and airports create emergency contingency plans that are 

2 

approved and enforced by the Department of Transportation; 

schedule reduction meetings if aircraft operations exceed hourly 

rates and are, at best, adversely affecting national or regional airspace; create an advisory committee for aviation consumer issues; 

install an 800 consumer protection hot line; and provide a number 

of other provisions to protect consumers. 

In addition, it provides for increased penalties for airlines, airports and those who violate the consumer protections in H.R. 2881. 

I am very disappointed, I think as everyone in this room is today, 

that the Senate has not acted on the FAA reauthorization that is 

pending before the other body. We continue to urge our friends in 

the Senate to pass a bill so that we can get into conference and get 

a final reauthorization bill for the FAA to have consumer protection issues in that final legislation. 

In November of 2007, after the House passed H.R. 2881 in the 

Aviation Subcommittee, this Subcommittee held three hearings on 

delays and consumer issues. 

Finally, President Bush and Secretary Peters decided that it was 

time to address consumer protection, aviation congestion and 

delays. Their solution was to basically take a number of provisions 

out of our House bill and to implement those provisions, including 

an emergency contingency plan for airlines and airports. I am interested in hearing from the Department of Transportation today 

on how implementation of these initiatives is going. 

Next, I am also interested in hearing the progress made by the 

Department of Transportation’s New York Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee including which of the 77 recommendations the Secretary will implement in the immediate future and near term for 

the Summer, 2008 travel season. 

In 2007, the New York area airports contributed 36 percent of 

the tarmac delays of an hour or more. These disruptions, of course, 

rippled throughout the Country, causing system-wide delays all 

over the Country. 

While the airlines and airports have made some progress in 

terms of coordinating efforts, much more needs to be done and as 

customers are still experiencing long onboard delays. In 2007, there 

was a 41 percent increase on onboard tarmac delays of 5 hours or 

more. 

Let me repeat that again. In 2007, there was a 41 percent increase in onboard tarmac delays of 5 hours or more compared to 

the previous year of 2006. 

With that, I again want to thank our witnesses for being here 

today. I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Before I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, 

for his opening statement, I would ask unanimous consent to allow 

two weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and 

to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by 

Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to welcome our panel of witnesses here today and 

particularly Calvin Scovel who has become a regular, having been 

before the Full Committee last week and here on a number of other 

occasions. 

3 

Passengers, as our Chairman has noted, are angry and frustrated. Airlines are laboring under increasing costs and congestion, 

both on the ground and in the air, and the costs have reached unprecedented heights so far as fuel is concerned. 

Out of the last few weeks, we have seen hundreds of flights canceled, including more today as airlines conduct safety audits on our 

aging fleet, causing even more delays and inconvenience to the 

traveling public. Two thousand seven was another rough year for 

air passengers and airlines, and it continues as we speak. 

Last year, air travel was up again. In fact, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the total number of passengers 

enplaned in 2007 was 3 percent higher than it was in 2006. With 

an increase of 20 million passengers in the system, the on-time arrival rate for 2007 was 73 percent. Though this is roughly on a par 

with the preceding year, it clearly does not make for a pleasant 

travel experience for anyone involved in the delays. 

In November of last year, the Department of Transportation announced it would put in place initiatives to deal with the coming 

holiday travel season. Despite the best efforts of the Administration, the December, 2007 on-time arrival rate for airlines slipped 

nearly 7 percentage points from 2006 down to 64 percent on-time 

arrival. 

We all understand that weather is the wildcard factor in aviation, and I believe that reform needs to take place within the aviation system. We are witnessing a system in desperate need of new 

advanced technologies in the air and increased capacity on the 

ground. Government and industry have tried to make changes to 

improve airline performance within the system for years, and it undoubtedly needs refining. 

Clearly, the FAA realizes this, and that is why they are undertaking the immense task of transitioning to a new air traffic control system, NextGen. However, that will not become fully operational, if it in fact stays on schedule, for another 15 years or so, 

and we simply can’t wait that long. 

New initiatives undertaken by the stakeholders to address this 

dilemma sooner rather than later are critical to getting out of this 

problem so that we may prevent aviation travel woes. 

I am interested in hearing from both the Government and industry witnesses on the initiatives that they have implemented since 

our last hearing on this topic, and I am also interested in hearing 

exactly what impact they predict these efforts will have on the 

traveling public this summer. 

Lack of a long-term FAA bill is only further exacerbating the situation. It becomes increasingly difficult for airports to undertake 

projects when they are forced to operate on extensions that provide 

only 75 percent of funding. These are long-term expensive projects 

that require thorough planning and, when it is unclear whether 

funding will be available, airports find themselves in an almost untenable situation. 

Passenger rights initiatives are also in need of being strengthened. We worked in a bipartisan manner on a number of passenger 

rights provisions in the House FAA bill. These include provisions 

that will require airports and airlines to be prepared to care for 

4 

passengers who are experiencing long ground delays. The Senate 

needs to act now and move a comprehensive bill. 

I suppose the good news in all of this, if there is any, is that the 

FAA, airports and airlines are working to address the problem, and 

we in Congress must do our part in turn. 

This hearing keeps attention focused on the issue, and for that 

I am appreciative. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, and the 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Petri, for your opening remarks and for your service to 

this Nation and to our Committee. 

I look forward to hearing some definitive answers to how those 

of you in the industry who are still in business are going to meet 

the needs and expectations of the traveling public, not just the 

traveling Congresspeople but the traveling public. 

Earlier today, I had a phone call from one of my constituents 

who, for the past 36 hours, has been stranded in Columbus, Ohio, 

bumped and waiting and waiting for a flight as a standby traveler. 

I am interested to hear how you are going to offer the lowest 

rates possible in a competitive marketplace, how you are going to 

meet your business needs of being profitable where energy costs 

are soaring, how you are going to deliver one’s bags on time and 

in the right city, how you are going to provide prompt ticket refunds and meet all the customers’ essential needs during long air 

travel as things begin to unwind, also how you are going to ensure 

customer service from code sharing partners. These are some of the 

highlights I am looking forward to hearing some definitive answers 

either today or in writing afterwards. 

I am certainly interested, as everyone in the Country is, in seeing a profitable airline industry and in finding ways in which Government can work with your industry to make things possible to 

be profitable and also to have a customer that is enjoying the experience of traveling in the air once again. 

I dare say that all of us are at the age where we remember those 

half or one-third flights when we could stretch out in the back of 

the plane and have a three-across seat. It doesn’t exist any longer 

as the capacity has gone down and the demand has soared. 

So I yield back my time and look forward to hearing some of 

these solutions and how we can move forward together. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I thank you for yielding. 

The title of this hearing—I commend the Chairman and Ranking 

Member—is Airline Delays and Consumer Issues. The bad news, 

folks, is it isn’t going to get any better. It is probably going to get 

a lot worse. Industry is now wracked by soaring fuel prices. 

I have identified part of the problem and part of the problem, 

well, the biggest problem is Congress. 

If we look at, first, the issue of delays, most of the delays—we 

have had reports before the Committee—deal from the New York 

airspace area and they, in turn, those delays pyramid across the 

5 

system. In the very best of situations, we can only land at JFK, 

Newark or LaGuardia so many planes per hour in the very optimal 

weather conditions. When weather goes south and you see that as 

one of the major reasons for delay, then the system starts to deteriorate. 

The irony of all of this is you need somebody in charge to make 

decisions to move forward. The airspace in New York is basically 

equivalent to what our highway system was going into New York 

in the 1960s. For the last 10 years, we have been trying to do an 

airspace redesign there. 

I have been there countless times when I chaired the Aviation 

Subcommittee, meeting in Members’ districts from Connecticut to 

Philadelphia and all in between, and we just about reached a decision. Now I have two Senators, the New Jersey Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez, have put a hold on an FAA Administrator. 

Well, folks, I hate to tell you, but it is hard enough to get anything done when we have an Administrator, let alone when we 

have no Administrator. We have had no FAA administrator since 

September. 

The reason that they cite, we will put this in the record. I have 

their letter. Their top reason is airspace redesign. They are holding 

up Mr. Sturgill, the President’s appointee. So what they do, in fact, 

is revert FAA to a system that we had when we had five administrators in a period of a limited number of years, and we changed 

the system to a five-year term that transcended a presidential 

term. 

We had a Democrat FAA Administrator. We had a Republican. 

Now they are holding up appointment because of airspace redesign 

which we have been debating and working on for 10 years and it 

hasn’t been adjusted for almost, well, for over 3 decades. 

So, if anyone thinks that we are going to get any resolution of 

delays, they are smoking the funny weed. It is just absolutely unbelievable if you think you are going to get other resolution. 

Now everybody puts their stock in NextGen. We have had the 

Next Generation airspace, air traffic control. We have had them in 

here. 

The best estimate I have heard is that is going to improve things 

5 to 6 percent as far as dealing with congestion because you can 

only space the planes so close together in an area. 

You can only land so many planes on a runway in New York, 

LaGuardia, JFK and even if we add in the latest addition upstream, Stewart, yes. Still, just do the math with the numbers of 

flights, the projected number of flights. It isn’t going to work. 

Then a lot of Next Generation and the things that we need to 

get done with FAA are in the FAA bill, and where is the FAA bill? 

It is wandering around in the Senate. It has passed the House. 

So, folks, if you think this is going to get better, hang on. It is 

going to get a lot worse: Nobody in charge, people obstructing the 

progress we need to move the system and stop the delays. 

Eighteen seconds to conclude. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair would be happy to give you two additional seconds to round it off. 

[Laughter.] 

6 

Mr. MICA. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, you can tell I am not 

happy, but I want you to know too. All these things that are happening with the airlines as far as inspection, safety, all of that, 

none of that happened when I was Chairman of this Subcommittee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. I will keep that in mind the next time I am so 

generous with your time, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, do you want to take his words down? 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Petri, the Ranking Member, for holding this fourth in a series of 

hearings on the issue of airline customer protection. 

As I have stated before, I am certain that all of us can empathize 

with today’s subject matter. We have a lot of problems that the airlines are not really responsible for, and you just heard a little bit 

of it from Mr. Mica. 

I have been stranded on tarmacs. I have had luggage lost while 

traveling both domestically and abroad. When I have felt the customer service rendered to me fell below expectations, I made sure 

I registered those complaints, and that was my satisfaction. 

It is no surprise that most of our Nation’s air carriers are struggling to remain afloat financially. Now, while that is not a reason 

for them to have services that people feel are inferior, it does have 

some to do with some of the delays right now with the planes our 

for American Airlines. It will cause some inconvenience. 

The industry understands consumers have a choice, and the industry also understands the numbers. By 2015, it is projected that 

1 billion passengers will board planes domestically each year. So, 

obviously, a carrier’s loyalty base within this enormous market will 

be largely dependent upon how well customers are treated today. 

I would like to emphasize today’s subject matter can clearly relate to frustration and consumers who have experienced customer 

service nightmares on our Nation’s airlines. 

I can tell you, as a frequent flyer, that I would much rather be 

sitting somewhere on a plane on a tarmac than to be in the air during the storms that they have in Texas. North Texas has fast-moving thunderstorms that occur throughout the year that bring aviation operations to a halt, and it can be done very quickly. That includes Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and Littlefield. 

In spite of these incidents, our Nation’s airlines should continue 

to strive toward the implementation of sustainability of exemplary 

service, but I know that often they cannot. Sometimes their surprise is as great as ours when it is according to weather. We are 

not quite sure when the weather will clear enough to move. We 

don’t know where we are line. 

All of that makes a difference, and we have very antiquated air 

traffic control technology and fewer than what we need, air traffic 

controllers. 

So, as a former business owner, I, of all people, understand that 

mistakes are made from time when rendering a service are costly. 

I am also aware that when mistakes do arise, competent and capable customer service really has no rival. Furthermore, when mistakes are made, there is no substitute for a sincere apology and a 

7 

demonstrable willingness to show the customer that you intend to 

correct the wrong as soon as possible, and hopefully it won’t happen again. 

As I close, I want to align myself with the recommendations that 

the Department of Transportation Inspector General will elaborate 

on within his upcoming testimony: The airlines must refocus their 

efforts to improve customer service. The Department should take 

a more active role in airline customer service. The airlines must 

overcome challenges in mitigating extraordinary flight disruptions. 

I believe that I can fully support these recommendations, Mr. 

Chairman. I am not sure that I could give my support to any codification of a passengers’ bill of rights. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take the five minutes. 

It is good to have you all with us, especially Mr. May. I mention 

him because I have known him longer than the rest of you. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri, we have broached 

this subject before. Not unlike many members of the flying public, 

I wish our air transportation system did not have to confront these 

challenges. Delays frustrate me as much as the next guy, and I do 

acknowledge the obstacles that have led us to this current situation. 

You may remember, Mr. Chairman, at one of our hearings last 

year, I shared with you a conversation I had with a constituent 

who told me that he would rather submit to a dentist performing 

a root canal rather than set foot in an airport. Well, that doesn’t 

speak well for anybody, and I know it doesn’t make you airport 

folks happy. By the way, he didn’t like root canals to begin with. 

But let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. At the November hearing, at the time, a variety of measures had been implemented to 

accommodate the increased demand in air travel over the holidays. 

They included efforts to board flights earlier that were fully booked 

to ensure on-time departures, reserving seats to accommodate passengers who encounter problems and providing additional automated machines to secure areas to re-book passengers. 

I would be interested to know if those are still being implemented and to what effectiveness they are being realized. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back my 18 seconds. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

you and Ranking Member Petri for this series of hearings on customer service. 

However, with all of the upheavals in the industry, while customer service is very important, I also think that in the airline industry that we really should pay some attention to economic viability issues. Coming from Hawaii, particularly with the ceasing of 

the passenger service operations very precipitously by Aloha Airlines, leaving literally thousands and thousands of people stranded 

practically and then with ATA following close of ceasing all their 

Hawaii operations, it is very clear that the airlines are being bufVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41946 JASON
8 

feted by all kinds of external factors that are impinging on their 

ability to complete effectively. 

So I hope that as we look at the customer service issues, which 

I think are related to the ability of the airlines trying to compete 

in this environment, perhaps we could spend some time looking at 

the economic viability issues of this industry, something that is 

really, really important to Hawaii and I would say all across the 

Country and indeed throughout the world. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Just very short, as you know, Mr. Chairman, yourself, all of us on this up here, we travel a lot and our constituents 

that travel a lot see us because we are usually leaving and departing from the same place. There is a lot of unhappiness out there. 

So you are fully aware of that, I am sure. 

They are starting to put big pressures upon us. So be aware of 

that. 

Secondly, before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I had a lot of followup on those same reasons on the air safety. The last hearing that 

you had in the Full Committee and so on, which I applaud you for 

that too, but I am still hearing problems that we didn’t get discussed there to include such statements as shortcuts by FAA on 

training and different things that are going on that are concerns. 

So we will talk about that, not today because of this schedule, 

but it is a concern. We have to address it. 

With that, I yield back so we can get to the job at hand. Thank 

you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman for his brief remarks, and 

the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also 

thank you and Ranking Member Petri for holding this important 

hearing, as has been said by my colleagues. 

I represent California’s 37th Congressional District which includes both the Long Beach International Airport and the Compton-Woodley Airport that are both there. Aviation is a vital economic engine in my district. It employs thousands of people and delivers a tremendous amount of goods to our region. 

While I commend the airline industry for their record-setting 

pace of 769 million domestic and international passengers, we 

would be really shortsighted in not acknowledging the alarm feeling that we equally have that another record was set and established in the number of flight cancellations and delays. 

Concrete steps must be taken in order to increase on-time flight 

performance, enhance airline passenger protections and decrease 

the number of cancellations fueling consumer discontent. In the attempts to respond to the passengers’ demands, competitive and innovative approaches should be create and implemented in order to 

decrease these growing margins of errors. 

Assuring the American people that commercial aviation is reliable should not just be a requirement of the individuals that fly but 

to our Nation’s economic livelihood as well. 

9 

I am going to share with you a personal story, knowing that we 

were having this hearing today. This is not rhetoric. This is not 

Members of Congress showing emotion and being frustrated. This 

is real life experiences that the American people are facing. 

Last Friday, when I left here, I was supposed to be on a flight. 

That flight was an hour late. I think we are already up to about 

85 percent of the time, all of the flights that I have taken have 

been late this year, since me coming to Congress on September 4th 

of 2007. 

The other thing that was further frustrating is when I was coming back. On Monday morning, I was scheduled to be on a flight 

at 7:59. The passengers were not advised at what time the flight 

was going to be rescheduled. It just showed that the flight was delayed. 

To me, that is completely unacceptable because passengers 

should have an opportunity. If that particular carrier is not going 

to be able to go out, a passenger should be able to make a reservation with someone else. 

It wasn’t until 30 minutes prior to when that flight was supposed 

to leave, that finally a notice came out, saying: service delay; see 

the customer service agent. 

At that point, we were told a decision would be made at 1:00 

p.m. Now, mind you, this is 7:30 in the morning, and most people 

got up at 5:00 in the morning to get to the airport, and we were 

told that the flight would possibly be rescheduled at 4:00 p.m. that 

afternoon. That cannot be tolerated. 

What was particularly frustrating is that many of us missed an 

opportunity to take another flight at 8:45. Had we properly known, 

customers could have adjusted. It was only because I was coming 

here on the East Coast, that I had staff that was already here, that 

they could reschedule me on the 9:20 flight. 

So I am lucky. I feel I got the lucky green ticket, and I am on 

the 9:20 flight. Lo and behold, that flight leaves over an hour late. 

So I spent from 6:00 in the morning until finally arriving here at 

almost 5:00 p.m., making a travel from the East Coast. That cannot be continued to be tolerated. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Costello for holding this hearing 

today and for Chairman Costello’s and Full Committee Chairman 

Oberstar’s leadership on including passenger protections in the 

FAA Reauthorization Bill. 

I am a strong supporter of a passenger bill of rights and glad 

that we are having this hearing today again. It is unfortunate we 

have to do it but the continued problems that we face right now 

in the flying public. 

As someone who flies weekly, I certainly know the frustration. 

Ms. Richardson’s story, I could repeat probably many stories along 

those lines. I am not going to start down that road right now, but 

we all know that there are problems out there. 

10 

The Aviation Institute’s annual survey that just came out, showing complaints are up 60 percent and 1 in 4 flights are delayed, 

this is just unacceptable. 

Unfortunately, we really do not have a choice. I mean you look 

at it and you say, well, it is a free market in air travel. Unfortunately, there are limited choices. I think more needs to be done to 

help to make air travel better for Americans today. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. So I will stop right 

here, and I will wait until the question period, but I think that this 

is a very important issue today. 

I, again, thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding 

this hearing. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognized the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Petri. 

I am pleased to be here today to receive testimony from this 

panel. 

Memphis is the home of the hub of Northwest Airlines and, unfortunately, not the home of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Men’s Basketball Champion, but we were close. We are 

happy to be a hub city, and Northwest has been a good employer 

and helped put us on the map even though we could have had a 

better map if we had been the NCAA’s Men’s Basketball Champions. 

We also have Pinnacle Airlines in our city. So we are very airline 

dependent, not to mention another airline that you might have 

heard of that doesn’t take passengers but takes a few packages 

which absolutely, positively delivers on time, Federal Express. 

I probably get as many calls complaining about delays on airline 

flights and the way the airlines handle the passengers as any other 

issue, and it is a serious issue. I know it is difficult with so many 

people and the flying public increasing. 

We did some things in the FAA Reauthorization Act that if the 

Senate would have responded and passed the bill and worked with 

the House and passed a bill, maybe we would have some of those 

recommendations in place. 

But there are areas that recently Ms. Richardson mentioned, and 

I had a similar situation. Congressman Berry and Congressman 

Taylor and I were all on a plane to come up here, and we missed 

three votes each, which is more than half the votes I have missed 

since I have been here, because the plane was delayed. 

There were mechanical problems. Nobody wants to get on a 

plane with mechanical problems, but the problem was they couldn’t 

get attendants for the flight because it had been canceled. I guess 

with the contract the other people couldn’t spend an extra two 

hours. 

It seems like the airlines ought to have some way in that situation to have some labor policy where they pay the attendants more 

money or have some backup crew to where 90 or 100 passengers 

don’t wait 2 hours, some of whom miss important assignments, because they can’t get 4 people to be flight attendants. 

Somehow they could get those flight attendants, particularly in 

a hub city, and accommodate the passengers rather than the pasVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41946 JASON
11 

sengers having to wait and the attendants be found from a Florida 

flight. They found some people in from Florida. They were off a 

Florida flight. 

Sometimes the airlines don’t seem to be handling the personnel 

as well as they could. Maybe if they had some additional monies 

for them or incentives for them to work extra, then passengers 

wouldn’t be inconvenienced, but that is part of why there needs to 

be a passenger bill of rights. Maybe there needs to be something 

better for the employees. 

We have had some problems with the pilots in their negotiations 

in Memphis, and there have been issues. But the flight attendants, 

I guess, is something that needs to be worked out, so they can have 

a backup staff or something so that folks wouldn’t be inconvenienced. 

But, I appreciate your coming. 

We are proud to have both airlines in our city as headquartered 

in our city, and they employ a lot of people, and we are very 

pleased. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and at 

this time the Chair would recognize the witnesses. Again, we thank 

you for being here. Let me introduce the entire panel. 

We would ask each of you to summarize your testimony. We have 

your written testimony, of course, in the record. Summarize your 

testimony in five minutes or under, and we will have an opportunity then to have the Members ask questions. 

The first witness is the Honorable Calvin Scovel who is the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Transportation, who 

has testified before this Subcommittee many, many times; 

Mr. D.J. Gribbin, who is the General Counsel for the Office of the 

Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation; 

Mr. Gregory Principato, who is the President of the Airports 

Council International North America; 

Mr. James May, the President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, accompanied by Mr. Gary Edwards, the Director of Flight 

Control and Chief Dispatcher of Delta Airlines; 

And, Ms. Kate Hanni, the Executive Director, Coalition for Airline Passengers’ Rights, Health and Safety. 

Before I call on our first witness to testify, I would ask the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee if he has remarks that 

he would like to make. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry to be delayed getting here. I am always on other Committee business, but this is an important hearing, airline delays 

and consumer issues. We have visited it many times over the last 

20 years. 

We have refrained from making major legislative adjustments 

but frequently counseled airlines that their contract of carriage is 

the most important relationship between the air carrier and the air 

traveler, that the role of the Department of Transportation and of 

the FAA is to oversee that that contract of carriage is being enforced, carried out, respected by the airlines. 

After the experience in Detroit several years ago in the snowstorm, we thought airlines had learned a lesson, and I counseled 

12 

against widespread sweeping changes in law. We ought to rely on 

the airlines to come up with a passenger bill of rights and to carry 

it out, to enforce it and to show the traveling public they are, in 

fact, doing that. 

Then after that JetBlue didn’t learn from the Northwest Airlines 

experience, we said, well, we will give you another lease on life. 

But public patience is running short, and Members of Congress 

who travel frequently not only experience those delays but also 

hear from their constituents time and time again. 

In fact, I received a letter just last week, in the wake of our FAA 

hearing on safety, from a retired major airline executive who said, 

yes, just re-regulate the whole industry. 

I hear a voice over here. Were Mr. Lipinski still here, the other, 

the senior Mr. Lipinski, I think he would be saying the same thing. 

It is a cautionary note that I offer, that the leash is a very short 

one. 

We have a bill we have passed through the House. If the Senate 

acted on it, we would be in conference. I think, in conference, we 

probably would come up with something substantially more farreaching than we put in our bill. I think we struck the right balance. 

In the aftermath of September 11, one-fifth of the fleet was taken 

out of service. Older version aircraft were traded in, parked in the 

desert. Airlines have tried to bring in newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet, and we see some consolidation in the industry. 

But what we have seen is load factors the highest they have been 

in decades, yields higher than at any time since September 11 and 

even before that time and an industry that is now being compared 

to the pre-1970 rail passenger industry. It has lost its way and lost 

its touch with its passengers. 

It is not my saying. It is what I hear from travelers. It is what 

my colleagues hear. I can’t pass through the House floor without 

each week one, two or three from both sides of the aisle saying: 

When are we going to re-regulate the airlines and fix these problems? 

I am a firm believer. I sat way down over there during the deregulation legislation in this Committee and voted for it with 

mixed feelings. It has continued to generate $6.5 billion a year in 

savings for air travelers compared to pre-deregulation fares, but 

the margin of satisfaction is diminishing, and I think the airlines 

have to take that into account. 

We will hear testimony today on specifics of it. 

Just one final observation, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, in the 

aftermath of our hearing last week on aviation safety issues and 

even before we held the hearing when FAA got wind that this hearing was to be held, it was amazing how the agency swung into action, imposed a $10.2 million fine on Southwest Airlines, relocated 

a principal maintenance inspector, stepped up its inspections and 

how, and at that witness table last week, we had not only contradictory testimony but testimony that might be perjury. 

We have seen the whole 777 fleet of one carrier pulled down for 

further inspections, 200 MD-80s taken out of service, another section of the airline fleet taken out for further inspections—actions 

that should be done in the ordinary course of safety inspection. 

13 

Deadlines that were missed. Airworthiness directives that 

weren’t followed. As one of the witnesses said so well, those air 

worthiness directives were written in blood. When 132 people died 

because of an uncommanded rudder control in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, an air worthiness directive was issued in the aftermath that 

said: You fix these and you inspect these aircraft and you take this 

action. 

When a carrier allowed its aircraft to fly beyond the deadlines, 

they put 200,000 people at risk. That is not acceptable. 

Now we are seeing the fallout is coming as the industry realizes 

they have to correct their course. 

I have news: We are going to stay on this course. Safety is the 

hallmark of the FAA, and we are going to make sure it remains 

or becomes again the gold standard for the world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Chairman, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Scovel. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; D.J. GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL 

INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY EDWARDS, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT CONTROL 

AND CHIEF DISPATCHER, DELTA AIRLINES; AND KATE 

HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AIRLINE 

PASSENGERS’ RIGHTS, HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, Ranking 

Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate 

the opportunity to discuss efforts underway by the Department, 

FAA, and various stakeholders to improve customer service and reduce delays. Secretary Peters has made these issues a top priority 

within the Department. 

Our statement will address the three areas the Chairman asked 

us to report on today. 

First, an after-action analysis of the summer of 2007: Our work 

shows that multiple factors contributed to gridlock and recordbreaking delays last summer. DOT ranked late-arriving aircraft as 

the number one cause of delays with carrier-caused delays and 

weather ranked number two and three respectively. 

However, these categories lack considerable precision. To get a 

better understanding of the root causes, we focused on 15 airports 

with the worst delays last summer. In addition to the usual causes 

such as weather, other factors included: 

Airspace bottlenecks in New York; this accounted for more than 

one-third of delays system-wide. 

Airline scheduling; for example, 6 of the 15 airports had flights 

scheduled either at or over capacity during good weather, including 

JFK. As a result, even a small increase in operations or weather 

problems had cascading effects system-wide. 

14 

Excessive aircraft spacing on final approach added to the gridlock in the New York area and beyond and made aircraft arrival 

rates at JFK and Newark unreliable. 

Whether this summer will reach the discomfort level of last year 

depends on a number of factors or wildcards. They include: 

First, weather conditions as well as the impacts of a weakening 

economy and higher fuel prices on the industry. Three carriers 

stopped flying just last week. 

Second, DOT, the airlines, and airports have taken steps to address the action items we outlined at the hearing last fall. However, many of the initiatives will not be in place by this summer. 

The key will be follow-through, execution, and implementation. 

In response to our recommendations, the Department has issued 

two proposed rulemakings to establish specific targets for airlines 

to reduce chronically delayed or canceled flights, disclose on-time 

performance on internet sites and resume self-audits of customer 

service plans. These rules will not be finalized in time for the summer. 

The Department also established a national task force to develop 

model contingency plans to minimize the impact of long on-board 

delays. The task force will report its results later this summer. 

The airlines have taken some steps, but more needs to be done. 

Eleven of twelve ATA member airlines have defined an extended 

period of time for meeting passengers’ essential needs during long 

on-board delays. The trigger thresholds for meeting passengers’ essential needs vary from an hour and a half to three hours on departure. 

Eleven of twelve ATA airlines have now set a time limit on delay 

durations before deplaning passengers or elevating the situation to 

senior managers for resolution. Again, the thresholds for deplaning 

passengers vary significantly. 

Only four of the twelve ATA airlines have completely satisfied 

our recommendation to establish specific targets to reduce chronically delayed or canceled flights. 

Most importantly, in our view, the airlines need to publish to 

consumers their commitments to improve customer service in their 

customer service plans and contracts of carriage. 

Airports have taken steps to improve air travelers’ experience, 

including a task force to address problems in the New York area 

and conducting workshops. Further actions are needed. 

We reviewed 20 airports and only 3 have established procedures 

to proactively monitor long on-board delays that involve contacting 

the airline to request a plan of action. In our view, all airports need 

to do so. 

Finally, actions are needed this year and next to mitigate congestion. Given that NextGen is a long-term effort, several actions are 

needed. 

FAA needs to negotiate plans with the Department of Defense for 

using special use airspace to open up additional lanes of traffic. 

FAA needs to continue to address concerns about controller productivity and excess spacing on final approach while simultaneously 

training large numbers of new controllers. FAA needs to further expand the number of its airspace flow program locations to help reduce delays. 

15 

Airlines should attempt to level out the arrival and departure 

banks at hubs. Airlines have successfully done so in the past, 

which reduced congestion. 

BTS, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the Department need to analyze delay and cancellation data submitted by the 

airlines. This would provide Congress with a better understanding 

of the causes of delays and cancellations and solution sets needed. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased 

to answer your questions or questions posed by other Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Scovel, and now recognizes Mr. Gribbin. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to update you on initiatives 

taken by the Department to address airline delays and consumer 

protection or, as Jim Oberstar phrased it, to increase the margin 

of satisfaction. 

We are all too familiar with the litany of statistics that demonstrate that action is needed on behalf of air travelers. One of the 

most compelling statistics is that last year almost two million 

flights did not land on time because they were delayed, canceled or 

diverted. 

Over a year ago, the Administration identified the need to respond to the growing consumer impacts of aviation system delays. 

We launched a two-pronged attack on the problem: We are working 

to improve consumer relations and consumer protections and we 

are working to resolve the systemic failures that result in delayed 

flights, missed connections and lost baggage. 

The Department has undertaken a number of consumer-specific 

measures. We have three current rulemakings that would help passengers know what to expect when they book a flight, allow us to 

step up oversight of chronically delayed flights and enhance protections for consumers who are bumped, experience delays or have 

complaints against the airlines. 

Secretary Peters, as the Inspector General mentioned, has also 

formed a Tarmac Delay Task Force to develop model contingency 

plans for airlines and airports. 

In addition to improving consumer protections, we are also working to address the underlying cause of much of the misery attributed to air travel, and that is congestion and delays. Flight delay 

problems including cancellations and missed connections are the 

number one air traveler complaint, as Representative Richardson 

illustrated. 

Along these lines, the Department has done a number of activities, including the following: We have overseen the construction of 

13 new runways allowing for 1.6 million additional operations. 

We have reduced delays to implementation of New York airspace 

redesign. 

We have capped operations at JFK and proposed capping operations at Newark. 

We have appointed a new aviation czar. 

We have worked on accelerating the deployment of NextGen 

technology. 

16 

We have established the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee. 

We have proposed amendments to our rates and charges policy 

to give airports more tools to manage congestion at the local level. 

And, by summer’s end, we will have completed all 17 of the operational improvements called for by the ATA and the Port Authority 

to address congestion in New York. 

These operations improvements will be helpful, but they will not 

come close to providing the additional capacity needed to meet demand in New York. It is a bit like using a pillowcase as a parachute. It is helpful, but you still have a bit of a disaster at the end. 

Really, more needs to be done. 

The cause of congestion at our busiest airports is not a mystery. 

It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Free access and significant demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource 

to over-exploitation. 

Our current structure dooms airports. In fact, last summer, some 

of the airlines recognized the dynamic and asked us to intervene 

and cap the New York City airports because the airlines understood and understand that their incentives are to over-schedule 

congested airports. 

But to really address congestion, we have a choice between two 

fundamentally different approaches: administrative remedies or 

market-based solutions. We believe that moving towards a marketbased system will reduce delays and contribute to an improved flying experience for air travelers. 

Instituting administrative remedies, like caps, is an effective but 

not an efficient way to reduce delays. Caps limit capacity, stifle innovation and block competition. As a result, passengers get poorer 

service and pay higher fares. In addition, imposition of caps in the 

manner proposed by the airlines would result in a massive wealth 

transfer from the American public to the airlines. 

For the better part of the last century, the world has engaged in 

an exhaustive debate on whether it is more efficient for governments to manage systems to meet consumer demand or whether 

management should be left to the markets. I can say that the results are in and that markets have won. 

Pricing balances demand with available capacity. It results in 

less congestion and more reliable schedules. Pricing sends better 

signals as to where the system needs extra capacity, and it can 

supply the revenues to add such capacity. Pricing also can increase 

the number of passengers served in an airport even if the number 

of airplanes does not increase. 

Market forces, however—and I want to make a point to highlight 

this—market forces do not address every policy problem with aviation congestion. Market forces do an excellent job of allocating resources to those who can realize the most economic value from that 

resource, but they do not allow for the societal value placed on certain activities such as access to airports by general aviation or the 

need for small community service. The Department recognizes this 

and will respond accordingly. 

Let me conclude by saying I think we all agree that the American public deserves the safest and most reliable air system possible. 

17 

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Gribbin, and recognizes Mr. Principato. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, 

thank you for allowing Airports Council International North America the opportunity to testify at this important hearing on aviation 

delays and consumer issues. 

Our 366 member airports enplane more than 95 percent of the 

domestic and nearly all of the international passenger and cargo 

traffic in North America, and nearly 400 aviation-related businesses are also members of ACI North America. 

We applaud the Subcommittee for its work on H.R. 2881 to provide airports the financial tools necessary to build new runways 

and terminals to meet growing airline passenger needs, the longterm solution to congestion and delays. 

Air travel delays and complaints are rising. DOT’s most recent 

air travel consumer report, released on April 3rd, indicates that 

complaints from consumers increased 13.3 percent in February, 

2008, over the same month one year earlier and on-time arrival 

rates are down. 

While these statistics are alarming, airports are working aggressively to enhance air travel by improving the airport customer experience during lengthy airline delays. 

In January of this year, ACI North America convened an industry-wide workshop. The goal was to promote an exchange of information on providing excellent passenger care during extended 

delays and identifying new opportunities to better serve travelers. 

To better enhance and strengthen airport contingency plans, the 

workshop identified immediate and near-term actions to be undertaken on a local and national level. 

Immediate actions on a local level include coordinating individual 

airline and airport irregular operations plans to identify overlaps 

and gaps, communicate and coordinate to present consistent and 

accurate messages to both employees and passengers, and establish 

a network of stakeholder professionals that will develop, in advance, comprehensive guidelines that encompass all stakeholders’ 

needs and ensure they are met. 

Near-term actions include creating an irregular ops committee 

comprised of all airport stakeholders, development of a unified communications plan that considers the needs of all service providers, 

employees and the traveling public, partnering with local media for 

effective broadcasting of messages, and enhancing airport and airline web pages as a means of communicating real-time events to 

employees and the traveling public. 

ACI North America is also reaching out to the FAA, TSA, CBP 

and others to explore opportunities by which Federal entities might 

enhance their operations during irregular operations, and we are 

working with ATA in doing that. 

These actions, as well as some current best practices, have been 

provided to DOT’s National Contingency Plan Task Force on which 

ACI North America, as well as representatives from several large 

and small airports, are actively participating. 

18 

Airports are taking a leadership role in identifying trends and 

patterns and recommending workable solutions for mitigating the 

impact of flight disruptions for passengers, both on the airplane 

and in the terminal. 

Additionally, ACI North America staff is assembling a list of solutions that have already been effectively implemented by airports 

around the Country to provide to the Task Force at its next meeting on April 29th. 

While airports are being proactive in finding solutions, the best 

solution to decreasing congestion and delays is to add additional capacity. However, in those limited situations where existing capacity 

is inadequate to meet demand and significant airfield capacity expansion isn’t feasible, congestion management tools should be 

available to airport operators. That is why ACI North America supports the DOT-proposed rule regarding airport rates and charges. 

There is one size fits all solution and, because of the unique circumstance at each airport’s facilities, proprietors of congested airports need the ability to develop programs that are custom fit to 

specific local circumstances. Additionally, it is very important that 

DOT permit congested airports to build reasonable exceptions in 

their rates and charges to preserve small community access. 

ACI North America also supports DOT’s proposals to increase 

compensation for involuntary denied boardings as well as enhanced 

consumer protection from chronically delayed flights. However, 

given the growth of regional or feeder airlines, DOT should ensure 

that their operations are also covered by any new rules to ensure 

that passengers in both large and small communities have pertinent information on which to base their travel decisions. 

ACI North America also remains concerned that flight delays 

and cancellation rates at many small airports continue to have a 

negative effect on abilities to make connections at large hubs and 

are disruptive to passengers flying to and from smaller communities. 

In closing, ACI North America and its member airports thank 

you for the opportunity to share our views on this important matter. Increasing consumer confidence that the aviation system can 

work efficiently without extended delays and passenger inconvenience is important for both passengers and airlines. We are in this 

together. 

We look forward to working with you as we continue to address 

these vital passenger issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes Mr. 

May. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to be accompanied today by Gary Edwards who is 

the Director of Flight Control at Delta Airlines. Gary is the person 

who is on the ground, handling all the day to day operations of a 

major airline and can answer a number of questions very directly 

from an airline’s perspective. Ms. Richardson, for example, raised 

an issue that I am sure Gary can address. 

I would remind the Committee as we get kicked off that we are 

really talking about two separate and independent but related 

19 

issues. One is the issue of increasing flight delays, and the second 

is customer service. 

I would make two fundamental points to start. Number one, air- lines hate delays. It cost us $9 billion last year. Within the last 

three or four months since Christmas, five carriers have filed for 

bankruptcy and gone out of business. Frankly, others may well be 

on the edge. 

There are brutal economics in the business today. Oil is trading 

for airline purposes at about a hundred and thirty five to forty dollars a barrel. That is refining premium plus the basic cost of crude. 

No one is more interested in making sure our planes get to their 

destinations efficiently and quickly than the airlines are, and an 

airline’s delay is our worst enemy. 

Secondly, we care deeply about our customers. Our customers are 

our livelihood. We are not satisfied with the status quo. We need 

to improve our customer service. We have been working hard to do 

that, and we need to continue. We cannot allow things to remain 

static, and we understand that. 

So, first part of the equation, increasing flight delays, numbers 

are up. We have all seen them. They are not where we want them 

to be. This Committee is frustrated. Passengers are frustrated. Airlines are frustrated. 

The real question is why are those delays up, and I think the answer is two-fold: number one, weather and, number two, air traffic 

control. 

It is interesting. Twenty years ago, we had been focusing on the 

Northeast, both from the older airports like LaGuardia to the 

newer airports like Stewart in Mr. Hall’s district. 

Twenty years ago, we could handle, FAA could handle an average of 10 to 12 flights more per hour than they can today. You 

would think that with new technology the trend would be heading 

in the other direction, and it is not. It is going south, not north. 

At the roundtable that you held, Mr. Chairman, we spent a number of hours sitting around and discussing some of the problems 

with NextGen, and the biggest problem with NextGen is it is not 

NowGen, and we need to move aggressively to get that changed. 

I spent some time about three weeks ago with the air traffic controllers up in New York, and I spent time in the towers at Kennedy 

and LaGuardia and Newark. We went up to the TRACON in New 

York, and there are very serious issues and we need to address 

them directly. We need to involve the input of the air traffic controllers and others who are hands-on, and we need to, quite frankly, just get off the dime and get this done. 

I disagree with my good friend in the Department of Transportation in suggesting that we are going to have pure marketplace solutions or ‘‘administrative’’ solutions. I think there have to be air 

traffic solutions because at the end of the day it is not just concrete 

and, in New York, we are not going to lay a whole lot more concrete. 

It is the airspace and the congestion in that airspace provided by 

a minimum of 15 towered airports in that air traffic control system, 

and it is airspace that is being occupied not just by commercial 

aviation but by private aviation and business jets. I would like to 

submit for the record one of Mr. Scovel’s best reports, Use of the 

20 

National Airspace System, which is an IG report that just came out 

that I think helps illustrate some of the problems in New York. 

So we realize we need to do more to solve the problem. We are 

working with the FAA, the DOT and others. 

Secondly, and a bigger part of the equation, is we need to do a 

better job with customer service. When we have delays, we have irregular operations, when we have customers sitting on the ground 

for extraordinary periods of time, we have to treat them properly. 

I think we have made great strides in being able to do that. I 

know the numbers are up on some of the longer delayed flights, but 

by the same token I think our carriers have done a much better 

job of handling that. 

We continue to work on our customer service commitments. We 

have them posted on our web site or in our conditions of carriage. 

We are continuing to revise them. 

We are spending time with Mr. Scovel and the IG and working 

on the many different approaches that our friends at the DOT have 

engaged in this. 

We are doing this internally. We are under constant review by 

you and ourselves, and we know we need to do a better job of doing 

that. 

Mr. Chairman, I have run over time a little bit. I appreciate your 

indulgence. I am happy to answer questions that you or the other 

Members of the Committee might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you for your testimony, Mr. May. 

Mr. Edwards, I assume you do not have testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni. 

Ms. HANNI. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Chairman Oberstar, 

Members of the Committee. 

The active members of our coalition number 22,074 as of yesterday and growing. We are supported by U.S. PIRG, ACAP, Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Public 

Citizen. That totals about 52 million ticked off air travelers. 

Among many coalition activities, we now operate a state of the 

art, round the clock hot line to talk with people in real time who 

are stranded on airline flights that have baggage problems, airplanes decompressing in flight which just happened last week, pilots complaining about a lack of sleep, every conceivable airline 

issue. 

The number of planes stranded on airport tarmacs are far higher 

than reported by the airlines or DOT. Airline passengers are still 

being stranded without food, water, working lavatories and the 

passengers’ option to deplane after three to four hours if it can be 

done safely. As recently as last month, American Airlines kept 17 

aircraft on the tarmac at DFW for several hours beyond that airline’s own non-binding 4-hour commitment. 

I know this because we get the phone calls from the passengers 

inside those aircraft. 

There have been many promises by the airlines about making 

progress and President Bush even got involved, directing Secretary 

Peters to address congestion and other consumer issues, but there 

has been very little permanent action. Even worse, the Federal 

courts have invalidated State passenger bill of rights laws on commerce and preemption grounds. 

21 

I have testified in most of the States bringing bills, and the 

ATA’s argument and the airlines’ argument is that they would prefer Federal legislation to State legislation. 

The new DOT guidelines are, to put it mildly, adding insult to 

injury. It would let each airline decide what, if anything, they want 

to offer stranded passengers with no Federal review, no effective 

enforcement mechanism, plans for stranded passengers are relegated to one-sided contracts of adhesion. For their part, the airlines oppose even this ineffective DOT proposal. 

Congress has the chance to address both the passenger bill of 

rights and safety scandal by enacting H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which passed the House last year. There is agreement in the House and bipartisan agreement amongst most of the 

key players in the Senate. 

The passenger bill of rights provisions can be added in conference 

as can any supplemental safety and inspection oversight measures. 

The bill already contains more funding for oversight and provisions 

relating to the dangerous off-shoring of inspections. 

Unless the Congress acts on some version of passenger rights 

legislation this year, the cries of frustration from the tens of thousands of stranded passengers will not be heard. 

The cries of thousands of people like me and my family who were 

held against our will without food, water and working restrooms in 

Austin or JFK or Philadelphia or Newark or Dallas or Los Angeles 

or Atlanta or January or a dozen other airports last year, all of 

those cries of despair will have been in vain. 

Mr. Chairman, the FAA has failed us, as have the airlines. It is 

now incumbent on Congress to act. 

Last week, we learned of the latest passenger issue, that planes 

were not being inspected and that safety inspections had succumbed to the worst kind of revolving door cronyism. News reports 

showed that the airlines literally thought they could use their cozy 

relationships with the FAA to silence whistleblowers. It is the kind 

of Katrina bureaucracy all over again. 

Given the frustration of airline passengers and the new safety 

scandal, I don’t think voters—Democratic, Republic or Independent—are in any mood for kicking the can down the road. This 

has to be the can-do Congress when it comes to passengers’ bill of 

rights and safety. 

Mr. Chairman, we are doing our best to urge the Senate to act. 

I have been to every Member of the Finance Committee’s office so 

far this week. 

For your part, we ask that you oppose DOT’s advancing its nonregulating regulation, just turning the issue back to the airlines for 

their voluntary actions. Congress tried that unsuccessfully in 1999. 

Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and we 

appreciate your organization and everyone else, the efforts they 

have made attempting to get our colleagues in the Senate to pass 

an FAA Reauthorization Bill. 

I have said many times, publicly and privately, to our colleagues 

over in the Senate that we don’t necessarily believe that they have 

to just rubberstamp the House bill but pass a bill, just their 

22 

version of a reauthorization bill, so we can get it into conference 

and work out our differences. I think the differences are slight, and 

they can be worked out. 

So we, again, appreciate your efforts and encourage you and everyone to continue to impress upon the Senate the importance of 

passing this legislation. 

Let me just inform our colleagues that we have been told about 

3:45 to 4:00 we will have series of votes probably lasting anywhere 

from, oh, an hour and 15 to an hour and 30 minutes. So I will proceed with questions as quickly as I can and get to you for your 

questions. I will also submit some questions for the record. 

Let me also say that the National Business Aviation Association 

has submitted a letter that they would like to be inserted in the 

record. At this time I would, with unanimous consent, insert this 

letter into the record, without objection. 

Mr. Scovel, one, thank you for your testimony. As I said earlier, 

you have been before us many times. We appreciate your hard 

work, and I know that we have thrown a lot of work your way and 

there is a lot more coming. 

First, let me ask you, you state in your testimony, that I read 

last evening and went through it again this morning, that DOT has 

taken a more active role in airline customer service issues. What 

additional steps has the DOT taken to improve oversight in this regard. 

Mr. SCOVEL. You are referring to customer service in particular, 

sir? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Customer service, yes. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I would like to note at the outset that my staff, as 

you have correctly noted as well, has been active in this area now 

for almost 10 years. Apart from the immediate aftermath of 9/11, 

when the airline industry was in a great deal of turmoil, the veterans on my staff have rarely seen the Department, the airports, 

and the airlines convene together as they have and move as quickly 

as they have on a number of different fronts. We would like to give 

them all due credit for that. 

The Department, in our view, has moved extraordinarily fast and 

has accomplished, we think, a great deal within the legal restrictions that rulemaking essentially requires. 

We would commend the Department especially for including in 

its proposed rulemaking a requirement that airlines post on their 

internet sites their on-time flight performance information. We 

think that will be a great help to the consumer. 

We would also commend the Department for requiring airlines to 

continue or to resume the audits of their customer services plans. 

There have been a number of different areas where the Department has moved forward on the customer service front. 

We have good news and bad news, I think, when it comes to the 

airlines and the airports, but for the Department at this point, we 

are pleased with what they have done. 

We have our scorecards out. We want to see some of the results 

when the proposed rulemaking and the comments have all been returned and evaluated, and we would urge the Department to approach those comments and their final rulemaking progress in a 

23 

very hard-nosed manner because the circumstances call for it at 

this point, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The question for the entire panel, and I think I 

can probably insert Mr. May’s answer already before I ask the 

question, but the question is: Does anyone on the panel believe that 

if we do not pass, the Congress does not pass a passenger bill of 

rights or some type of consumer protection, that it should be left 

up to the airlines to manage on their own, that it will in fact be 

managed by the airlines? 

Anyone on the panel other than Mr. May want to comment? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I would like to go ahead and comment on that. 

I think Ms. Hanni’s comments were good, but they were slightly 

inaccurate in saying that there is no enforcement mechanism over 

what the Department has proposed in our ANPRM. 

While it is true that we have said that the airlines ought to decide what plans are available in the case of significant tarmac 

delays, we have also said that they have to audit those plans and 

we have the legal authority then to oversee the audits of those 

plans. So if the airlines put forth a plan and are not abiding by 

that, we do have the ability to enforce the airlines by that. 

That said, we do think it is the best policy that the airlines decide. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Several of the issues that you have included in 

your consumer protections passenger bill of rights, whatever you 

want to title it, came directly from H.R. 2881. I would like you to 

tell us what provisions that you have included that are not in the 

House bill that was passed on September 20th. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I don’t have in front of me a side by side. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Is there anything that you can name off? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I can quickly run through. We have seven different 

items. It is true that there is a fair amount of overlap. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without going through all seven because we have 

limited time, we understand what provisions are in the House bill 

and we understand that many of the provisions that you have came 

from the House bill. But is there anything off the top of your head 

that you can name that is not contained in the legislation that we 

passed? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Most of the provisions we have are similar to what 

was in the House bill and similar to what was in the New York 

passenger bill of rights and reflects a number of the passenger bill 

of rights that are being considered. 

I think the significant difference is the amount of flexibility given 

to airlines and the airports to develop plans on their own and the 

number of Federal employees we would have to hire to oversee 

that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony, and this has been 

an issue that we have discussed in this Subcommittee before. You 

note that, and I will quote, and this is just one example. There are 

many others with other airlines that I can give. 

You have in your testimony: ‘‘For example, Northwest Airlines 

has scheduled 56 departures in 1 15-minute window at Minneapolis-St. Paul, nearly 3 times the airport’s departure capacity 

for that window.’’ 

24 

Now when an airline scheduled 56 departures, 3 times the capacity that can be handled in that 15-minute period, what that means 

is that people will be sitting on the tarmac and that there will be 

delays, correct? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And, we have seen that at other airports as well. 

I guess the reason that I bring this up is that we know that before we start out. We had examples that we pointed out to another 

Committee that has jurisdiction over a part of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, that in the New York area, where airlines are scheduling more flights than humanly possible to take off during that 

period of time. 

We had the air traffic controllers come in when we were trying 

to determine in the passenger bill of rights what should the window be. Should it be two hours? Should it be three hours? Which 

should it be? 

The air traffic controllers, when we showed them figures like you 

are demonstrating here, 56 departures in a 15-minute window, it 

is impossible to do. 

So my question, Mr. Gribbin and to you, Mr. Scovel as well but 

Mr. Gribbin in particular: When the Department of Transportation 

sees that airlines are scheduling three times as many flights as humanly possible to get out in that time frame, a 15-minute time 

frame, are you taking action? Are you negotiating with the airlines 

to reduce the number of scheduled flights that we know that will 

result in delays? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. What we do is we have our new rule on chronically 

delayed flights. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you move a little closer to the mic? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We have a new rule on chronically delayed flights 

that, in essence, if a flight is delayed chronically over a period of 

time of two quarters, then we penalize them. So that is the incentive we have for airlines not to schedule at a time that they know 

they can’t meet. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How long has that been in effect? How long have 

you been using it? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It has been in effect this year. We put it into effect 

last year. So it has been in effect almost a year now. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How often have you sat down and negotiated with 

airlines and said, look—to Northwest or United or whoever it may 

be—you have more flights scheduled in this 15-minute period than 

possible to take off and actually negotiated a reduction in flights 

in peak times? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, what we do is more backward looking. We 

look at the flight data as it comes in and as flights are delayed, 

we will sit down with the airlines on a periodic basis and explain 

what data we have and make sure that it is accurate for what actually happened. 

The tool that we have put in place to remedy the problem, you 

addressed, is our new rates and charges policy. 

Right now, airports don’t have the ability. When airlines come in 

and schedule flights all at the same time, they have no ability to 

move those flights to make it more rational to the public. And so, 

25 

with the rates and charges policy, they could actually use pricing 

to move flights out of peak times to avoid that very scenario. 

In addition, we have also, as part of the ANPRM, suggested that, 

as the Inspector General mentioned, that consumers be told when 

flights are delayed. 

The problem we have right now is exactly what you pointed out. 

Airlines are scheduling. Consumers want to leave at a certain hour. 

So airlines know that, and they schedule more flights in that hour 

than could possibly leave because there is no mechanism to prevent 

them from doing that and because competitive pressures drive 

them in that direction. 

I think that the problem we have right now is not so much that 

airlines are scheduling a lot of flights in a certain hour. It is that 

we have developed a system that incentivizes that type of behavior 

and we haven’t provided the tools to discourage it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But you know the problem exists and has existed 

for a long time now. 

Mr. Scovel, I wonder if you might comment. 

Let me mention as well that in our bill that we passed out of this 

Committee and out of the House, we give the Department of Transportation, the Secretary, the authority to sit down and not just negotiate with airlines as to if they have scheduled too many flights 

in a period of time that is impossible to achieve. They have the authority to tell the airline that you are going to reduce the number 

of flights in this peak period or particular time. 

Mr. Scovel, I wonder if you might comment on DOT’s role in 

stepping up and taking action when it is very obvious that scheduling like this results in people sitting in airplanes on the tarmac 

and flights not getting off on time. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, as we have testified before, we think 

an informed consumer is more likely to be a satisfied consumer. So, 

if information is posted on an airline’s internet site, that is tremendous. 

However, we think that the way the Department has approached 

chronically delayed flights leaves much to be desired. For years 

now, we have urged the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to proceed legally against airlines that have 

engaged, in our layman’s view, in deceptive practices by advertising 

flights to take off at a certain time. 

We think the way the Department has set the measure of what 

constitutes a chronically delayed flight is far too narrow. Under the 

Department’s rule, 200 flights per quarter, on average, might be labeled chronically delayed because the measures, according to the 

Department, should be any flight that is more than 15 minutes late 

70 percent of the time. It is a very high bar. Only 200 flights perhaps might qualify. 

Our office has urged a lower bar that we think would more correctly reflect the concerns of consumers. We have urged a 30- 

minute delay, certainly as a concession some to the airlines and 

airports. However, we have also urged that 40 percent of the time 

be set as the time limit to mark when a flight is running late. If 

that were to happen quarter over quarter, then we would hope that 

the Department would proceed against the airlines. 

26 

Mr. COSTELLO. Final question and then there are other Members 

who have questions, and I have a number of others that hopefully 

we will get to. If we don’t, I will submit them to you in writing. 

Mr. Scovel, you just said that you have recommended and this 

Subcommittee knows that you have recommended to the Department of Transportation that they take action, legal action against 

airlines that engage in ‘‘deceptive’’ practices which, of course, would 

mean advertising flights when they know that they are not going 

to get off on time. 

Have you see the Department of Transportation take any action 

based upon your recommendation? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Not yet, Mr. Chairman. We are reassured by the 

Department’s new emphasis on rulemaking and protection for the 

consumer, and we are hoping to see the statistics reflect this. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How many years have you or your office, the Inspector General’s Office, made this recommendation to the Department of Transportation? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I believe I can state four. It might be longer than 

that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So, for at least four years, you have been recommending to the Department of Transportation that they take legal 

action against airlines that engage in deceptive practices and, as 

of right now, you cannot cite an example where they have taken 

action? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I have been handed a note by a member of my staff, 

and I will stand corrected. Since February 2001, Mr. Chairman, we 

have been making that recommendation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Since February, 2001, you cannot cite one example where action has been taken by the Department of Transportation against an airline? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Not to my knowledge. However, we will certainly 

take that question for the record if we may and provide you with 

a detailed answer. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In fairness, I think I should call on Mr. May who 

is here on behalf of ATA and pose both questions to you. 

Number one, Mr. May, you have heard the Inspector General and 

I have cited the example that he gives, 56 departures in a 15- 

minute window. Why would an airline schedule 56 departures in 

1 15-minute window when they know that it is impossible for all 

56 of those flights to depart on time? 

Mr. MAY. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your turning to me in fairness and, in equal fairness, I cannot give you an answer to that. 

I saw that in the IG’s report, and I don’t have a good answer for 

it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I can tell you in trying to put together the consumer protection provision in the reauthorization bill, we spoke to 

probably everyone at this table, asking for their opinion on various 

provisions, and we spoke to a lot of people including the air traffic 

controllers. We found example after example where that has taken 

place, where an airline has scheduled, in this case, three times the 

amount of flights than humanly possible to take off. 

It is a major issue that the Department of Transportation and 

the airlines need to address. 

With that, I have taken far too much time. 

27 

Mr. MAY. May I? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Sure. 

Mr. MAY. On a second point that was raised here, Mr. Chairman, 

staff have helped me out here. In 2008, there have been 5 consent 

orders by the DOT. In 2007, there were 28 consent orders. There 

were a series of fines. There is other recent enforcement activity. 

So there are active enforcement provisions that are being pursued by DOT, and I would be happy to submit this for the record. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would like that for the record and would like 

to pursue it a little more, but unfortunately I have others who have 

questions. 

With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

I wonder if I could just ask Mr. Gribbin to expand a little bit on 

the remedy of, I guess you call it, market-based or congestion-based 

pricing. You indicate in your written testimony, this was attempted 

or implemented at LaGuardia Airport for a while, but seemed to 

be against the rules. 

The idea that an airport would know what the capacity would 

normally be at certain times of the day, and they therefore could 

vary the price that they would charge airlines for scheduling flights 

at different times, so that if they attempt to over-schedule or jam 

in they could price them out and that would tend to even things 

out. Obviously, they would have to pass some of that on, and people would have to pay more, but that again would influence the demand for those times. 

Is that the idea, and this would make money available to the airports to expand if they reaped additional revenue by congestion 

pricing in that way? 

Could you explain why that it is and then I would like to ask 

other members to comment? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I would be glad to. 

As the Chairman mentioned, you have a situation right now 

where competitive pressures and a number of factors lead airlines 

to, in essence, over-schedule an airport or schedule more flights 

than an airport can handle in a given period of time. 

The Department released a rates and charges amendment to our 

rates and charges policy to give the airports the ability to adjust 

the cost of landing fees during the course of the day, and those 

need to be revenue neutral. So while those traveling at peak periods may pay slightly more, those traveling in off-peak periods 

would benefit from a corresponding savings. 

So we think that right now the best way to manage congestion 

in airports, where you can’t have expanded capacity—like in the 

New York area you really are hemmed in the additional amount of 

capacity you could add—that airports be given the flexibility to adjust prices during the day, similar to what utilities use. 

With cell phones, we have free weekends. Why? Because there is 

extra capacity. So they want to drive usage in that direction. Most 

utilities charge higher prices during peak times. 

So we think that exact same principle applied to airports does 

two things: One, it helps reduce congestion. But, secondly, it helps 

28 

allow for new entrants, it encourages continued competition and allows for the market to work. 

Mr. PETRI. That would require a change in the law to accomplish? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That would not require a change in statute. It 

would require a change in our rates and charges policy. 

As the Inspector General mentioned, right now with reauthorization still pending, the Department is somewhat hamstrung in what 

we can do. And so, what we have done is we have pursued a number of remedies to this problem that we are able to do under existing law. 

This is a hearing on delays and consumer issues. All of our data 

shows that the number one consumer issue is delays. If we can 

avoid delays, if we can manage congestion, we don’t end up in situations where people are trapped on tarmacs for hours. 

Mr. PETRI. You could do it, but you have not yet thought, for a 

variety of reasons, that it made sense to do it to solve this problem? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We have actually proposed an amendment in the 

policy. The comment period ended on the 3rd of this month. We are 

reviewing comments and then will come out with a formal change 

in our policy later this year that will then give that freedom to airports. 

Mr. PETRI. So any comments on this proposal, Mr. May? I see 

you. 

Mr. MAY. I would hate to disappoint my colleague from the DOT 

by not commenting at this time because he well knows my views 

on this and those of a number of other leading legal scholars, including Ted Olson, who have very serious reservations as to whether or not the DOT enjoys the statutory authority to pursue this 

kind of congestion pricing. 

We don’t think it has ever been tried in a network environment 

other than probably electricity. It certainly has never been tried in 

a network environment in aviation. 

It was used at Logan Airport at one juncture a number of years 

ago against GA to drive GA out of Logan Airport. It hasn’t been 

applied to commercial scheduled operations. 

We think it is nothing short of a tax on passengers. If you are 

trying to Europe through JFK, and in your situation you would 

probably do it somewhat differently, using different hubs and carriers. 

But if you wanted to go to Europe through JFK, you are going 

to connect at JFK with a feeder flight that is coming in, a Delta 

flight or an American or somebody else, and you can’t afford to go 

up to Stewart Air Force Base and take a 60-mile ride down the 

Hudson from Poughkeepsie to get there. So, effectively, the pricing 

that is being applied to your flight is going to be a tax, and you 

are going to still want to have to fly through JFK in New York to 

get to Europe, but you are going to be taxed to do that. 

No guarantees that the money ever goes to improving air traffic 

control. We don’t think it has anywhere near the benefits of real 

meaningful improvements to Next Generation air traffic control 

systems, and so we have a very fundamental difference starting 

with the legality of it, going through the practicality of it and the 

history of it, just for the record. 

29 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Congressman Petri, if I could from the airport 

perspective. 

As Mr. Gribbin indicated, it does have to be revenue neutral. You 

had talked before about making more money available for airports. 

It does not. 

I think it is important to know that airports already do have the 

ability to do a two-tier pricing. The Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey, I think San Francisco, have minimum landing 

fees which essentially is a two-tier system. It is not just a weight 

base. So there already is a certain amount of authority to do this. 

In terms of the two-tier pricing, the DOT’s policy is to clarify the 

current rule, not to really set something new. 

You know 56 flights in 15 minutes probably is a rational, shortterm economic decision I guess somebody makes. A lot of people 

want to fly between 8:00 and 8:15 in the morning. So they will sell 

a lot of seats during that time. But no amount of NextGen or 

NextGen plus 10 is going to get those 56 flights off in those 15 minutes. It is just not going to happen. 

And so, we do need to look at some other issues: more capacity 

on the ground; obviously NextGen, NowGen, whatever you want to 

call it; and, as Mr. Gribbin has indicated, giving airports the flexibility through this new rates and charges policy to look at them, 

using pricing as away to move some of this around. 

As I said, airports already have some of this authority to do this. 

Not a lot of airports do it. Not all airports will do it. Most rates 

and charges are set in negotiations with the airlines. Airports and 

airlines work very closely together on this. 

So I don’t foresee a flood of airports coming in and beating the 

airlines over the head with this, but it is a tool that can be used 

while we wait for that new capacity on the ground that you all included in the reauthorization bill. While we wait for NowGen, 

NextGen, whatever we want to call it, it is another tool for airports 

to use that address the very issue you are talking about. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there were some others here before 

me. I do want to ask questions, but I will let you go ahead. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. May, in your testimony, you emphasize the importance of 

helping passengers caught on the tarmac during periods of excessive delay. How long do you believe an aircraft should have to wait 

or a passenger in an airline should have to wait before that aircraft 

is required to return to the tarmac? 

Mr. MAY. Required to return to the terminal or passengers given 

some right to get off? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. MAY. Congressman, I think it is a flexible answer. There is 

no single answer. It is why we have always opposed a hard and 

fast rule. 

30 

I think it depends on the airport. I think it depends on the conditions that are causing the delays. I think it depends on the type 

of aircraft, the destination. There are a number of different factors. 

All of our carriers, every single one of them, have set a time 

frame for decision based on their best information. I don’t think 

any of those time frames for a decision exceed two hours, two and 

a half hours and almost all of them, if not all of them, have set 

hard and fast deadlines that range in the three hours to I think 

JetBlue is at five hours time frame. 

Again, it depends on the circumstances. It could well be that in 

more extreme circumstances we are actually pre-canceling those 

flights before they leave the terminal because, quite frankly, we 

know we are not going to be able to get them out in time. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. May, I would just submit to you that your perspective is that from the airline industry, which I understand, but 

there is a constant in terms of how much a human being can withstand. I don’t care if you are in Tupelo, Mississippi or if you are 

in New York City, if you are on a little Cessna or if you are on a 

big Boeing plane. A certain amount of time sitting in a fuselage, 

not knowing what is going to happen, without food, fresh air, bathroom facilities, there is a constant. 

There must be a minimum time that a human being is not put 

under the indignities that they have been on these terrible delays. 

Now what is that minimum time from a human perspective? 

Mr. MAY. Congressman, I also bring a human perspective as a 

multimillion mile flyer for Delta before I took this job. So I understand exactly what you are saying. 

I think there is a human factor involved that is not only conditioned upon where you are going, what kind of an airplane you are 

in, what the weather conditions are, but also I think there is a condition that says I would rather get to my destination and suffer 

some delay in getting there than to have the plane go back to the 

terminal, get canceled, not be able to get on a connecting flight that 

day or the next day and lose that opportunity. 

Mr. COHEN. Is seven hours too long to be without a bathroom 

and water? 

Mr. MAY. Sure. 

Mr. COHEN. What is? There has to be a time. Five hours, is that 

too long? 

Mr. MAY. I think most of our carriers have said four or five hours 

is a time they need to bring back. If you lay out examples of seven 

hours, and I know they exist. I have been on one for nine hours 

in Dallas-Fort Worth, as a matter of fact, on American early in my 

career. 

So it is too long. It is not acceptable, and I think we have to do 

everything we know how to do to make sure that we reduce and 

eliminate the number of times that those occur. 

Mr. COHEN. You oppose Federal legislation to have a minimum? 

Mr. MAY. We have. We have consistently opposed a hard and fast 

time line, and the very reasons are that we are going to be creating 

more problems, untended consequences for our customers than not. 

I think having a rule that says you have a decision time frame, 

having a rule that says you have to have folks, based on your own 

31 

operations, out of there after a certain decision time frame is an 

appropriate way to go. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this, and it might have been Mr. 

Gribbin who referred to it but market conditions. You are an advocate of market conditions, are you not? 

Mr. MAY. I am not an advocate of the same market conditions 

that Mr. Gribbin is. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. That is some inside baseball, I guess. 

If we have a merger of airlines and there is talk of Delta and 

Northwest merging, and I see Northwest is much better on some 

of these charts that Ms. Hanni has given us. 

If there is a merger, does that not make it more likely that we 

will need governmental regulation to assure that the public has improvements because the market will be reduced? 

Mr. MAY. I don’t know that I would agree that one follows the 

other, Congressman. 

I mean you get Northwest in your market. They are your principal carrier in Memphis, and they do a terrific job there. If there 

were to be a merger, I am sure they would continue to do a terrific 

job there. 

Mr. COHEN. As long as they continue to do a terrific job there 

and not some other city, yes. 

Mr. MAY. I can’t ever imagine Northwest not continuing to serve 

Memphis in a very robust fashion. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Those are good words. We still 

should have won the tournament. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MAY. But can you take solace in the fact that Tennessee won 

the ladies’ tournament? 

Mr. COHEN. To be honest, no. I am from Memphis. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have all of you here. 

Mr. Scovel, you mentioned aircraft spacing may have had an effect on delays and congestion in New York airspace. I want to put 

a three-part question to you. In what way was it affected, and were 

aircraft spaced separately in situations where it was not warranted, i.e., clear weather, and, thirdly, what is the effect on delays 

in these situations? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Good afternoon, Mr. Coble. 

I think you are referring to excessive spacing on approach, which 

is in mentioned in our testimony today. 

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Mr. SCOVEL. What we have learned in talking with authorities 

at New York most recently is that they have identified a practice 

among air traffic controllers there in the recent past. This practice 

spaces out in further distance the aircraft that are on final approach to their airports, a longer distance than is required by FAA 

regulations. 

Typically, on approach it is three miles. There is a little bit of 

fudge factor there. Sometimes we have been told through FAA and 

New York authorities that the distances have been stretched an adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\41946 JASON
32 

ditional two to three miles, and we have been told by the airlines 

that it may even be farther than that. 

The result is, of course, a ripple effect throughout the airspace, 

with fewer aircraft being able to land and delays ensuing. 

FAA has not been able to directly quantify the problem in any 

great depth to our satisfaction. However, it has provided us with 

at least one factoid, if you will, which was: this past February, had 

excessive spacing on approach not been in effect, FAA estimates 

that in one 2-hour period perhaps 22 more aircraft could have been 

brought down safely. So that is the result. 

To some extent, a question that needs to be examined is whether 

air traffic controllers are properly, in their eyes even, reacting to 

an emphasis by FAA on getting control over operational errors. On 

this final approach question, an operational error might be when 

an air traffic controller brings two airplanes too closely together in 

final approach, below the three-mile limit. Air traffic controllers 

then, of course, try to err on the side of caution and stretch out the 

aircraft under their control. 

FAA has attempted to deal with that, but clearly it is an area 

that needs more study, and in this context it is a practice that may 

feed delay and, of course, give rise to consumer dissatisfaction. 

Mr. COBLE. As you pointed out, the ripple effect is the problem. 

One plane extending the space would be no problem, but when you 

have a dozen it is a different ball game. 

Mr. May, you heard me mention in my opening statement about 

the measures that you all implemented to address the increased 

demand during the holidays. Are those measures still being practiced? 

Mr. MAY. One of the measures that was most helpful during the 

holidays in particular is not, and that is the use of military airspace. I know that FAA and DOT have engaged in discussions with 

DOD to try and take advantage of the use of military airspace, 

punch a lane through off the East Coast, and have not yet been 

successful in achieving accord on that particular issue. 

I would hope this Committee could add some particular emphasis 

added to the need to have that in particular. When we get to the 

summer months and convective weather, it would be particularly 

helpful. 

Otherwise, I think we had a fairly smooth both Thanksgiving 

and Christmas holiday season. Easter went reasonably well, and so 

we are now approaching the summer, and we need to keep our eye 

on the ball for all of those issues. 

I would like to emphasize what Inspector General Scovel said on 

the controllers. To put a not too fine point on it, there has been a 

real dispute between FAA management and the controllers, and I 

don’t think it is any great secret. To the extent that FAA management was enforcing operational errors to the letter, the controllers 

made a determination that they were going to enforce the letter of 

the law to the letter, and they spaced planes out. 

I think there is a far better working relationship with Hank 

Krakowski today and the controllers than there has been historically. He is a real star in our book. He is the new head of the ATO. 

I think the relationship he has with NATCA is particularly positive, and I think that there will be some real serious operational 

33 

improvement available to us in New York. By bringing the controllers into the debate and the dialogue, it is very important. 

There is a classic example there with one of the operational 

changes for New York airspace is to add some additional departure 

points on exiting the airspace. Well, if you don’t have enough 

trained controllers sitting in the TRACON to, if you will, catch 

those flights—it is a term of art that the controllers use—then you 

can add as many departure points as you want. It is not going to 

do you any good because there is nobody there to man that center 

to be able to handle those flights. 

I think it is the little things like that that make a big, big difference in productivity, in moving more and more flights through 

there. I think a lot of it is not going to yield more noise as a lot 

of constituents have, but it will just be more positive. Changing 

some of the boundaries, that sort of thing could make a big, big difference. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. May. 

Mr. Chairman, I see that infamous red light. Could I ask one 

more quick question? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now be brief. 

Mr. May, as you know, in the past few weeks three airlines have 

ceased operations, and one of those carriers had a prominent presence in my district, which of course is of interest to my constituents. Are your members doing anything or are you able to do anything to help accommodate individuals who had purchased flights 

on those airlines? 

Mr. MAY. We are doing what we can, Congressman Coble, to accommodate those, but it is a problem that runs throughout the industry right now. I had some relatives that were on an Aloha flight 

that we needed to get reaccommodated, and it was a difficult task 

to do that. We had to buy additional tickets and eventually wait 

for a refund to come back from the creditor system at Aloha. 

So it is an issue. It is one we are worried about. 

We are worried more that somebody do something or try to do 

something about the one hundred and thirty-five or forty dollar oil 

that we are paying for because there are five carriers since Christmas that have gone out of business. There will be more if something isn’t done about high oil prices. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. May. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Richardson, is recognized. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one question, and I believe it is to Mr. Principato. 

My question has to do with in your testimony it states that airports are being proactive in assisting airlines and their passengers 

when lengthy delays occur. Can you give us more information on 

what specifically is being done? 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Last summer, when this really came to the fore, 

DFW convened a meeting of airlines and airports, got together to 

begin the process of coming up with some plans. We convened a 

similar meeting soon afterwards. 

34 

Things like proactively working together to make sure that the 

airports and the airlines both have the same information about 

what the needs are, making sure that concessions are open in cases 

where you have lengthy delays, so what happened to Ms. Hanni 

and her family won’t happen again, we hope. 

I know at one airport, they sort of opened up—maybe it is 

DFW—an automat kind of situation. Those of us who grew up in 

the Northeast remember Horn and Hardart. You walked in. You 

put in the money. You don’t need somebody to sell it to you. It is 

a machine, so you get sandwiches and real food. 

Having concessionaires that would carry things like diapers and 

baby formula because those maybe aren’t the normal things you 

can find in an airport at night. 

Working with the Red Cross and local pharmacies to make sure 

that people have access to prescriptions. 

Two quick examples: There was a situation at DFW a couple of 

weeks ago where there was some weather. I think it was 1,000 people who were there overnight. Because of the great work that DFW 

has done with its airlines and everybody else and its concessionaires, Kate maybe can correct me on this, but I don’t think her 

hot line received on real complaint about how they were treated 

that night. Things went very, very well. 

In Northern California, in early January, there was some really 

bad weather. There were hurricane force winds, if you remember, 

back in that period of time. In Fresno—Fresno, California—they 

had a plan that they worked out before Thanksgiving, that they 

put into effect when that happened. 

I brought the e-mail from Russ Widmar who is the director up 

there. They had more than 20 flights diverted to their airport. They 

are not used to having that many land all at one time. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Excuse me. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I appreciate everything that you just said. Part 

of my question was related to that. It was also related to what can 

do to assist passengers prior to even getting to the airport and 

knowing that there is a delay. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Right. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Let me give you an example of what I mean, 

the scenario I just said in my opening comments. I received nothing 

on a cell phone, nothing on an e-mail, nothing on a text message. 

These are the types of the things. 

I mean you are talking about after the problem has occurred. I 

am talking about what we can do to assist passengers on the front 

end which I think is just as important, so why we don’t do recorded 

phone calls. 

I remember there was a while ago when you would make a reservation and they would say, well, is there a number to contact you 

in case there is any issue with your reservation? I don’t know if 

that is still being done, but I can tell you here in my office no one 

received a phone call, and no one has received a call for the six 

months that I have been here of any time when my flight has been 

delayed. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Well, of course, from their point of view, we 

don’t know, for example, that you are booked on a certain flight. 

35 

So we wouldn’t be able to let you know that your particular flight 

was delayed. That is really the airlines, and Jim may have something to add to that. 

Certainly, we are trying to work with the airlines to get general 

information out about delays and so forth, but I know that Jim 

would like to jump in. 

Mr. MAY. Ms. Richardson, Gary Edwards handles those responsibilities in part, among many other things, for Delta Airlines and 

may have a comment on that. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Jim. 

Congresswoman, what we do at Delta is, well, you do sign up. 

You either get a text message to your PDA or a phone call. We try 

to get in front of situations like that. I don’t know the instances 

in this situation. 

I would like to share something with the room just for a moment, 

though. It sounds like you fly once or twice a week and, by the 

Government’s own statistics, you have a favorable experience three 

out of four times. 

I live it every day. Nobody is more frustrated about delays and 

cancellations than I am. I fly 1,500 times a day, 4,000 times a day 

if you include my connection partners. 

I am sitting in our command center in Atlanta, watching this 

very instance we talked about, the arrival rates into New York. It 

is a clear, sunny day. Everyone is at the airport, and everyone is 

on time. Today, we are at 90 percent on time, and out of the blue 

I start getting delays. I get a ground delay program. Delays start 

cascading through the system, and there is no reason for it. 

The next day, with a different set of controllers on duty, we fly 

in and out of New York and there are absolutely no delays. Nothing is going on. It is a 90-92 percent on-time day. So that is the 

part where we in the industry are extremely frustrated. I am sorry, 

I am off the point. 

We at Delta, we have processes in place, a lot of automation, 

whether it be a viewer you can touch, if you sign up, if you are a 

frequent flyer, you get e-mails. You get it on your PDA. You get 

a text message when we know about the delays. 

If we go to the airport and the crew is doing their walk around 

and find a leak there or something that we didn’t know about or 

we have, like we had Friday in Atlanta, we had two eyescopes go 

out of service unannounced when we had fog at the airport, one of 

the best airports, the best airport in the NAS, and we had two-hour 

delays that we had no idea about until it happened just like that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My time has expired. Maybe more appropriately with the Inspector General, I am looking for a more 

across the board policy. 

I do not occasionally fly on your airlines. I can tell you with the 

airlines I do fly on there is not this policy because, as I said, for 

the last seven months I don’t recall us getting any calls or any notifications of any delays. The only time we find out a delay is if we 

initiate the call. 

In terms of the airport, I am simply throwing out the idea: Have 

we thought about maybe having some screens kind of when you 

drive up and you got to the movies and you see what movies are 

playing and what time it is? 

36 

Maybe we can get a little forward thinking as people. Many airports, when you are coming up, it says tune to such and such radio 

station to get an update. Maybe the radio station can be advising 

people. 

Maybe you can have some screens at the airports so people aren’t 

going through parking, going through security, all of that when you 

actually know that there is a problem. 

But I would like to yield because I have extended my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try keep this relatively brief. I know Mr. DeFazio there is 

itching to go here. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Why don’t you go right ahead? Make me look like 

a nice guy. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I don’t know if I can make you look like a nice guy. 

Chairman Oberstar had mentioned in his opening statement and 

talked about the Mr. Lipinski, who used to be on this Committee, 

used to talk about re-regulating the airlines. I just wanted to make 

clear I am not there yet. 

I think, though, first of all, we have a problem if we are just talking about two ends of the spectrum saying, well, we either have a 

free market or we have complete regulation of the airlines. Our 

system is supposed to work where we are somewhere in the middle. 

First of all, I don’t think there has been enough of an effort, and 

I think the passenger bill of rights or whatever you want to call 

it that we put here in the House FAA Reauthorization Bill is a 

good place to start, but any kind of rules or regulations that are 

put in place need to be actually enforced. 

Unfortunately, we have seen what has happened with the FAA 

in terms of the maintenance and the problems going on there. I 

certainly think that enforcement is really key. 

We cannot say that the system is working well now. Ms. Hanni 

would not have the strong support that she has from so many people if the system were working well now. So we have to figure out 

where do we go from here. 

I know the airlines are hurting, financially hurting. We have 

seen three airlines go under very recently, and we do not see a situation where it is not viable to run an airline in this Country. 

However, that should not be an excuse to squeeze everything possible out of the flying public. 

The dissatisfaction with flying, it seems to be at a point where 

we are just supposed to be happy if we get there safely no matter 

what happens to us in between that time. It did not used to be that 

way. 

I think some of the problems that have been talked about here, 

but one thing that I certainly see is a lack of information given to 

people when they are flying. One thing that I have mentioned before in hearings, flights being canceled for I don’t see any reason 

why the flight was canceled. 

Ms. Richardson was talking about information. I have a major 

problem with getting any information even at the airport, even 

standing there at the counter. I have a hard time, and I am telling 

them. Standing there at the counter, I am telling them this is what 

37 

is showing up on the board, and they don’t even know what is 

going on with that flight. 

These are just some of the problems that we are having here, 

and I think a lot of it comes, yes, from problems that the airlines 

are having financially, but that should not be an excuse. 

Running down on time here, let me get to my question. Something that is being talked about right now to help—it was put out 

there as a way to solve some of the financial problems right now— 

is for airlines to merge. 

However, I have some concerns over airline mergers, not that 

they shouldn’t be done but we have had experience in the last couple of years with an airline merger that there have been some 

problems with it. You have employees at the same airport working 

in the same merged airlines under different work rules, receiving 

different wages and benefits, a lot of stories about this causing 

problems and more hassles for passengers that have resulted. 

I sent a letter with Mr. LaTourette and 46 of our colleagues to 

Attorney General Mukasey and Secretary Peters, saying we need 

to take a look. They need to take a look very closely at these mergers and the impact it will have on the flying public. 

I wanted to ask, first of all, Inspector General Scovel and Ms. 

Hanni if they have any knowledge or opinions or what they believe 

the impact of airline mergers will have on the flying public. So, 

first, Mr. Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Lipinski, I don’t have any data on that point, 

and I won’t engage in speculation. My staff would probably kill me. 

But if you were to refer a question to us, we would certainly give 

that a stab. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay, I will do that. 

Ms. Hanni? 

Ms. HANNI. I will certainly weigh in. We are not favorable towards the merger being discussed. We are very concerned both for 

the employees of the airlines which—I don’t know if it was Ms. 

Richardson—someone said something about an employee bill of 

rights. 

Not only our members are just the flying public but also many 

of the employees of the airlines have become our members because 

they feel under-represented. They are afraid. They have no one to 

turn to. 

We know that the flying public’s service will go downhill if there 

are mergers. Fares will go up. There won’t be as much competition. 

You probably won’t see as many flights to different places. These 

are just our thoughts. 

We have been joined by the International Aviation Machinists 

Union. They have joined us unequivocally regarding passenger 

rights. They are on the ground, dealing with us when we come off 

the planes. 

We have deeply discussed the merger issue, and I think that I 

speak for the whole coalition when I say that 99 percent of us 

would say that we are not favorable towards it. We really believe 

it is going to create a problem for passengers. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Congressman Lipinski, from the airport point of 

view, in terms of the general subject of mergers, we are agnostic 

basically. 

38 

Whenever mergers are discussed, specific ones, the folks who get 

the most nervous are smaller airports, and I know that happened 

the last time around when Delta and U.S. Airways were talking 

about it. Some of the smaller airports were getting nervous, and 

both airlines are reaching out to them. 

Delays and congestion affect smaller airports more than the larger ones. To begin with, you probably pay more to fly out of those 

cities. Your flight is more likely to be canceled if you fly out of one 

of those cities. It is harder to re-book because there are fewer seats. 

What they really worry about is if you have competitive air service from a smaller community and carriers merge or even with the 

delays and congestion, flights get canceled, will you have an alternative? 

What we are finding is that from a lot of the smaller cities, even 

now, even without mergers there are delays and congestion. Congressman Petri is not here any longer, but in Madison, Wisconsin 

you can take a bus from O’Hare to Madison most days quicker than 

you can fly and there is a bus company that is doing a nice business. 

But certainly delays and congestion really hurt small communities more than most. Whenever there is talk of mergers, our 

smaller airports get concerned about that. 

It doesn’t mean that we would be opposed or in favor of a merger. We probably wouldn’t weigh in on a particular merger, but 

there is that concern there that needs to be looked at. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Scovel, on your testimony here when you talked about the 

parameters that are used for targeting chronically delayed or canceled flights, it seems that you make an interesting point: It all depends upon the definition and apparently our current definition is 

very narrow, 15 minutes late 70 percent of the time. So there is 

only 200 chronically delayed flights. 

If we go to 30 minutes late, 50 percent of the time—which I 

think most consumers would say that is pretty crappy service— 

there is 2,789. 

Then 30 minutes late, 40 percent of the time, 5,369 regularly 

scheduled flights were chronically delayed? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Those were our findings, yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is out of how many flights that were regularly scheduled? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I don’t have that number before me. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But it is a pretty significant subsegment here of 

that number. 

So are you aware of any action that is being taken? Is DOT taking action to expand that definition? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We have recommended that, sir, but I will defer to 

Mr. Gribbin. I am not currently aware of a move to expand that 

definition. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Are you considering expanding that definition, Mr. 

Gribbin? 

39 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes. As part of our rulemaking, we have had conversations of how that definition ought to be changed. We ought to 

clarify that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Which rulemaking? Is that the proposed rulemaking where you are proposing a rule that you might propose 

rules that couldn’t get done before this Administration leaves office 

or is it part of a hard rulemaking that is actually in form and being 

proposed? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It would be the ANPRM, the former. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is the former. So you are proposing that you 

might propose a rule, and you are asking people to comment. You 

don’t think this a problem. 

I see you have a background in philosophy. That is great. I studied in economics. Did you ever read the Wealth of Nations? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Do you remember the discussion about the information that if we are going to have market-based systems, that 

consumers need, and do you think that this information is adequate for consumers? It clearly isn’t, is it not? 

It is an opaque system. Where could I go to get the information 

that my flight is chronically delayed today? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, we have proposed under the ANPRM that 

that information would be posted at point of purchase for the consumer for the very reason that you point out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But you propose that you might propose it. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It is an ANPRM which means it is a traditional 

way of rulemaking where we go out and solicit comments. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but you don’t see it as a problem now that 

we could just skip that step and go to the proposed rulemaking? 

I mean because you are saying we are going to solve these problems with market-based forces, but if the consumers don’t have the 

information they need for what you have identified as their greatest frustration with aviation, then they can’t. Market forces aren’t 

going to work for the consumers. 

Now you want to use market forces to deal with the airports. 

How about consumers? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I think that that is right. You don’t want to conflict 

those two issues. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I don’t want to conflict them. I would like consumers to have information they need. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. If we have congestion pricing in place, you 

are likely to get far fewer chronically delayed flights. 

I would also like to point out and make sure that everyone understands that the 15 minutes 70 percent of the time, that is a per 

se chronically delayed flight. What we need to be careful of is that 

some of these flights are delayed due to no fault of the airlines, 

such as weather delays. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, would you say no fault of the airline? 

Let me give you an example. I live in Eugene, Oregon. United 

uses something called SkyWorst as a vendor who flies down to San 

Francisco. United is bringing in more regional jets now with the 

same number of people as before 9/11, but they have sopped up a 

lot of airport capacity. 

40 

So, on a predictable day which happens about half the time in 

San Francisco, where they have limited operations, the first thing 

they do is cancel all the regional jets from Eugene, Oregon, and everybody sits there, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait. 

The last time I had to make a flight, I had to fly to Portland to 

fly down there because that was the real United versus the fake 

United, and they fly those planes. United doesn’t cancel the real 

ones. They cancel the fake ones because they control that. 

Now this is not very obvious to consumers, is it? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It is not. That is why if San Francisco had the ability to congestion price, what you would do is you would move, as 

you deem, the fake United flights out of those key slots. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But why do we fear regulation so much? 

You say it is inefficient. I don’t think you get a total grasp. Let 

me quote something from here that I think is inaccurate: ‘‘cheapest 

flights to be are those departing or arriving at the last desirable 

times.’’ 

I spend a lot of time, when I am not flying on official business, 

shopping, using those various search engines. I would say that is 

not a true statement. 

The true statement is they will segment my day into five arrivals 

and departures through four different airports, and those are the 

cheapest flights I could get. It doesn’t have anything to do with 

what time I originate. It is how many places they make me go in 

order to get the one place I could have gone to in the old days directly. 

So I am questioning first off, given your background with roads 

and not aviation, your understanding of this. I hate to do it, but 

I have to agree with Mr. May here on this issue. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I am glad I brought you together. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Let’s think about I will give you two things to 

think about. 

Hub and spoke and how that is going to work when they are flying RJs in from somewhere to catch the only flight that is departing, which they can get the extra money for because it is going 

from San Francisco to Dulles or New York, but other people have 

to get there on the little planes. There are only 60 people on there. 

We are going to charge, I assume, not by passenger but per slot. 

So, therefore, you are going to have a much higher fee per passenger on the 60-person flights. It sounds to me like small communities could be disadvantaged. 

You do have sort of a footnote at the end, although you mention 

general aviation. I think you mean commercial aviation access to 

these airports. 

Then the second one, how about this? The dollar is headed toward a rupee pretty quickly, and so if we are going to allocate the 

slots at our international airports on a market basis, it sounds to 

me like the international airlines, they will say: Oh, it doesn’t cost 

us anything to land there. We can pay in rupees. 

Suddenly, they are sopping up all our capacity. Then what happens to the domestic carriers that need to use those airports? 

I don’t think you have thought this all the way through. I never 

like the hub and spoke system, but we got it. Some airlines are trying to get us away from it. 

41 

What you are talking about would be so disruptive of the existing 

system. I don’t think you have through the unintended effects both 

consumers at mid-size and small airports and hub and spoke or the 

potential for inordinate penetration by foreign carriers and dominance of the market by foreign carriers, but that would be marketbased. So I guess it would be okay. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Actually, we have, and Mr. May participated in 

this. We spent nine weeks, about five hours a day over the course 

of nine weeks, talking through all these issues. So we have examined these in great detail. We understand that there are concerns 

out there. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The people who are in the industry came to a different conclusion than the people who aren’t in the industry. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. No, because I think you would say the airports are 

in the industry. The airlines came to a different conclusion than 

the Department and some of the airports. Now, to be fair, the Port 

Authority is an airport and also opposes any type of pricing. 

But, in essence, what we are saying is that right now the airlines 

are charging additional for meals. They are charging additional for 

baggage. They are charging additional for leg room, all of which is 

because that is what consumers demand. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No. They are doing that because they are desperate to not reflect in their published fare how much they are 

going to charge you to go some place. They figure: I got you on the 

phone. I won’t tell you about these extra addeds, and you will find 

out when you check in. Actually, your $200 ticket is now $400. Oh, you want to check a bag? Well, that will be $500. 

Oh, you actually want a seat? Oh, well, that is going to be an- other $150. 

I mean we did have that proposal that the new Airbus could 

have standing room although they quickly back away from that. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That was probably wise. But all we are saying is 

I think consumers will pay additional for flights that arrive on 

time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Think of the problem of the 60 people on the RJ 

from Eugene, trying to go San Francisco, and they are competing 

with a 747 coming in from Asia. Now you are going to say those 

60 people are going to have to carry as much of an additional fee 

as 500 Asians who are rolling in RMBs or yen, which are worth so 

much more than the dollar. How is that going to work out for those 

60 people? 

They are going to have to pay about 50 bucks each where those 

other people are going to pay a buck each. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Actually, what would happen is you would probably 

have the 60 people be combined with another 60 people, and they 

would fly in as 120 people, but at least this time—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No. It is one little plane coming from a town that 

can only support 60 people. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, no. But going with your point, they are going 

to get canceled now anyway, right? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is only because of the very lame way United 

Airlines runs things. In fact, real United has come back because we 

had the Olympic trials, and I am trying to convince them since 

they have reduced the load on San Francisco Airport to continue 

42 

to provide regular service through the next winter. So it will be 

more dependable 

And I did point out, and I did get the on-time, and it was totally 

unacceptable for SkyWorst. But that is also discriminating for their 

own profits versus their vendor’s profits. So that is a very complicated market. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. But what you pointed out as a market failure is exactly what we are trying to address. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. More market? I have to say your faith in markets, 

given what has gone on Wall Street in the last couple of months, 

is just sort of endearing to me, but I have to tell you I am ready 

for some really smart regulation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. Gribbin, the DOT’s Passenger Rights Task Force, when did 

DOT convene the Passenger Rights Task Force? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That kicked off this year. Well, the next meeting 

is the 29th of this month, and then they will wrap up their work 

by the end of this year. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Okay. When was their first meeting? What was 

the date of their first meeting? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. February 26th. 

Mr. COSTELLO. February 26th. 

Ms. Hanni, you are a member of the DOT’s Passenger Rights 

Task Force, correct? 

Ms. HANNI. I am. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You attended that first meeting? 

Ms. HANNI. Yes, I did. I spoke at that first meeting. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How do you see your role on that task force and 

the role of the task force in general? 

Ms. HANNI. Mostly information gathering so far, we have had. I 

am co-chairing a committee with Jim Crites from Dallas-Fort 

Worth, and we have had one conference call. There are a lot of people on the call that simply don’t say anything. They don’t speak, 

and so I am assuming that they are consenting to everything that 

Jim and I are proposing, but that is a big presumption. 

The way I am looking at it is that it is very good to keep the 

conversation alive. It is good that we are all talking about. I have 

spoken directly with D.J., had this same conversation, where there 

is no guarantee that out of this task force that there is going to 

be any enforceable deplanement that goes into the Advanced Notice 

of the Proposed Rulemaking, as Mr. DeFazio so effectively pointed 

out, or essential needs. I think those are the two things that are 

critically missing. 

Then if you also look at the parameters for chronically delayed 

flights, I believe it had to be a commercial flight that had 45 flights 

in a 3-month period. That narrows the scope so much that so many 

flights are excluded. 

We turned in our comments, and most of the comments came 

from our coalition as well as Senators Boxer and Snowe and other 

people that chimed in. Very few people disagreed regarding comments. The overwhelming response was the same. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I understand there are regional forums being 

held. Are you participating in those? 

43 

Ms. HANNI. I am. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you tell us, have you participated in a regional forum up to this point? 

Ms. HANNI. The first one is next week. So I will go home to 

Napa, and then I will fly to Miami. 

As far as I know, we have had one conference call. So my awareness of it is that there will be three panels. I am on the third 

panel. 

It is more of an operational issue. It is not really a forum for consumers to come complain. It is more of the airlines, mostly,—I am 

the only consumer advocate—and airports and other experts in the 

field, answering as to why operationally these delays happen and 

why it is that it is so difficult for them to return you to a gate. 

That is my perception so far. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Your organization has a hot line, an 800 phone 

number for passengers, people who have complaints to call. 

Ms. HANNI. Yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How many calls do you get in a given period? You 

must have statistics. 

Ms. HANNI. Our average is 70 calls a day. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Seventy calls a day? 

Ms. HANNI. Yes. Now that goes up at holiday times and down 

during slower travel periods, but the average is 70 a day. The first 

day that we started our hot line, I got 900 calls in 3 hours. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you forward those calls to the Department of 

Transportation, every one of them? 

Ms. HANNI. No, but I could. They don’t have a hot line where 

people answer it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I would suggest that you forward any complaints you receive both to the airline and the Department of 

Transportation. But as of right now, you do not report each complaint to DOT? 

Ms. HANNI. We encourage each person that calls in. We have the 

DOT complaint line and their address on our web site. 

First, we take care of whatever their immediate need is. So, if 

they are stuck on a plane or if they are in trouble or if their eight 

year old daughter has been told to get off a plane without accompaniment or a four year old is stuck out on the tarmac and his parents are not with him, we try to deal with those types of situations 

immediately. 

Then we say, what you must do is contact the Department of 

Transportation, CC that you contacted the coalition and ACAP 

also, the Aviation Consumer Action Project, and then also your 

Congressmen and your Senators to let them know, especially right 

now the Senate because we are working our tail feathers off to get 

them to forward the FAA Reauthorization Bill. 

D.J. is aware of the number of calls that we have received. I actually took sort of a bold step in a room full of people that probably 

don’t like me all that much on this task force, and I played seven 

or eight of our hot line calls for them to hear, so that they could 

get what I get when I pick up the phone and I hear somebody say, 

an 11 year old just passed out. We have medical emergencies going 

on. We have only been out here four hours with no air conditioning. 

44 

Whatever it is that we are hearing, so they could kind of get the 

impact. It is not the same for me to share it as it is for them to 

hear someone’s frantic call. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair would ask Members if they have additional questions. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to go back to something Mr. Scovel said that I found 

a bit shocking when he talked about the advertising abuse and he 

said that apparently you were handed a note by staff that. 

Over seven years, you are not aware of any prosecutions in that 

category? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is true. 

Mr. Gribbin has updated numbers on that. I wasn’t aware of specific numbers. However, apparently, within his office, he does. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Mr. Gribbin, could you repeat what you 

said? 

It wasn’t clear to me when Mr. Gribbin spoke that he was talking specifically about prosecutions or whatever we call these, violations, that specifically related to that category. I thought you were 

talking more generally about actions that have been taken. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The category of advertising? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We have had a number of enforcement actions 

against unfair trade practices and deceptive advertising. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But relating to scheduling chronically delayed 

flights or more relating to deceptive practices that relate to pricing 

because I know there has always been concerns about pricing? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Usually it is advertisement of fares that don’t include taxes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. There was an incident where an airline was charging for smaller children that could have been on a lap and there 

was a separate fee for that, but that was not advertised. 

So usually the enforcement actions are against an airline that is 

advertising a price and—going back to the example that you used— 

you get to the airport, and the price really is something different. 

That is clearly an unfair practice. It is deceptive, and we are very 

aggressive on that front. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But if they have an asterisk saying additional fees 

and charges may apply, see our web site, how is that, like for your 

extra bag? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. DeFazio, I wonder if you would yield. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The line of questioning when I asked that specific 

question of Mr. Scovel, I asked him specifically about recommendations that he made to the Department of Transportation concerning 

‘‘deceptive’’ practices. 

We were talking about 56 departures within a 15-minute window, and I asked the question, trying to find out if we can get an 

answer if, in fact, the Inspector General has recommended to the 

Department of Transportation that they take legal action for deceptive practice. 

45 

I would say that that is a deceptive practice. If you have more 

flights scheduled to take off that are impossible to get off the 

ground when they are advertising to depart. So my question was: 

Have you taken any action in that specific category, not on pricing 

and other issues but on advertising flights that are to depart when 

we know that it is impossible for that flight to depart on its scheduled advertised time? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We have actually done three things along those 

lines in the worst and most congested airports, for example. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But my question specifically is: Have you penalized or taken action against an airline like you have for pricing for 

deceptive practices for over-scheduling? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. What we have done is we have tried to change the 

system under which airlines operate to discourage that kind of behavior. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So the answer is no. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. No. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was maybe going around, but I was 

getting there because I thought when I heard those categories proffered that it probably did not specifically relate to the deceptive advertising. 

This again, unfortunately, brings me back to my first point. We 

don’t really necessarily have to deal with a wacky economist who 

has been dead for well more than 200 years, who used to be found 

walking around Edinburgh in his nightshirt with a candle and then 

they would take him back home and say, sit down and write some 

more, and he is the one on which we are basing our regulation of 

passenger rights in the 21st Century. 

But, again, he did say some good things, and one of the things 

he would say is that in order to have free markets and marketbased systems, consumers have to have perfect information. 

I think in this case, we are making it really clear. They aren’t 

getting perfect information. They are getting deceptive information, 

and you are trying to correct the underlying problem, but you 

haven’t used your regulatory role to take action against these deceptive practices. 

That is correct, right? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Actually, we are doing both. We are trying to correct. First of all, there is more than Adam Smith that supports 

pricing as a way to alleviate congestion. You would be hard pressed 

to find an economist that does not. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure, but a lot of people like to depend upon the 

Wealth of Nations and things he said, and I think they all pretty 

much agree that consumers need perfect information or near perfect information or at least some good information. In this case, 

they are getting nothing. They are being treated like mushrooms. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That is exactly why we have proposed, again, having the information available. The other problem is there is information available to consumers, but it is difficult to find. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is very difficult to find. I have cruised those web 

sites, and they don’t have all the flights on there reliably. 

I mean you can find some flights on some of those web sites that 

analyze departures, but they don’t analyze all sites. It is not very, 

46 

very accessible, and I think I am fairly skilled at finding information. So it is not. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It should be easy for the consumer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But the question would be if they have been making recommendations for seven years, you take action in this category in this Administration. I know you haven’t been there seven 

years. You have been in and out a couple of times, the revolving 

door, but you are there now. 

The question is why haven’t you taken action on any one of those 

seven years worth of recommendations on an enforcement action on 

deceptive advertising? 

That is another way of changing behavior, right, and that is a 

market signal to the airline. This is not acceptable. You can’t 

schedule 56 flights in a 15-minute segment, and you can’t tell people they are going to take off then. 

If you do that and they can’t and they miss their connecting 

flight, we are going to start whacking you. That is another way of 

changing behavior because we are talking about airlines here. 

Right? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. Again, we have proposed in our ANPRM, 

which I know you are not particularly fond of, we have proposed 

a whole series of changes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But you are proposing to propose changes which 

you know can’t happen before you leave office. Anything you get 

penned, we are going to throw out, I will tell you, because it is not 

going to be any good. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. You may want to keep this one. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am just saying there are actions that need to be 

taken now, that you could take with your delegated authority to 

change market behavior, deceptive behavior, but you are choosing 

not to use that authority. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, let’s use the example of multiple airlines taking off at the same time. We have 35 airlines or 30 and only 10 

can take off. So it is three to one. Which 20 would we penalize? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would say since you want to go with a marketbased system, all of them, and see which one will take the fines 

and which ones won’t, and then some of them will move their 

flights around. I don’t know. 

You are a regulator. I have a better solution here. In terms of 

regulating, you want to want to use the market. 

But back to the Chairman, when you are talking about that, how 

many flights were involved in the 56 flights in the 15-minute window? 

Mr. COSTELLO. One airline. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, one. Well, in that case, it might work, huh? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You are telling me multiple, but in this case there 

is one. So couldn’t we then use the club on them, change their behavior? 

Why are you so loathe to use your lawful powers as a regulator? 

We are not going to agree here, and I am not going to get anywhere, but let me try this. Should we regulate safety on a market 

basis? 

47 

Certainly, no one would fly a plane that was unsafe because if 

it crashes, it is bad publicity, and then you lose passengers and all 

that stuff. You have to pay higher insurance premiums. Who 

knows? You might even get sued and all this stuff. 

So should we delegate safety to the same trash bin that we have 

delegated passenger rights? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We haven’t delegated passenger rights to a trash 

bin. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, effectively. Shall we say the black hole? All 

right, trash bin was bad. The black hole. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I prefer to disagree with either analogy. 

Again, what we are trying to do on the passenger rights side is 

not applicable to safety. Safety clearly is our number one priority. 

We are not going to allow the market to differentiate between 

planes that are safe and planes that may not be safe. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Even with the customer service initiative that we 

held a 10-hour hearing on last week where apparently airlines became clients or customers to the regulators, and—unlike passengers who aren’t given a web site and 10 options when they have 

a problem with an airline—the airlines were given, hand-carried by 

management personnel, packets that outlined the appeals procedure of anything your regulator might tell you, you have to do to 

all sorts of different offices including oh, my God, you can always 

go to the Secretary if you need to because we are really concerned 

if our people are trying to regulate you here? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I will go back to my point. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is a failure. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We are not going to allow the market to distinguish 

between safe and unsafe aircraft. All aircraft will be safe. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am glad to hear you say that. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. There are instances, and Kate and I have talked 

about this. Do you want a Federal regulation that says a plane has 

to turn around after two or three hours? 

Okay, well, what if that plane is second in line? 

What if that plane is an international flight? 

There are circumstances where actually the customers would 

choose not to do that. So if this was a clear black and white, easy 

regulatory matter, that would be one thing. But you have dozens 

of airline and hundreds of airports and millions of passengers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If I could, but what you have chosen to do is say, 

airlines voluntarily might adopt procedures to deal with passengers 

who are unduly delayed according to their own operations capabilities. Okay, that is better than nothing. 

If they do adopt it, they must audit it. 

If they do adopt it optionally, they have to audit and you can 

oversee the audits. 

But if they don’t adopt it, then there is nothing. They don’t have 

to, do they? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. They have to adopt it. They all have to have plans. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But a plan with no parameters. 

Ms. HANNI. But with no oversight out. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. No. There would be oversight. 

Ms. HANNI. By the DOT. 

48 

Mr. GRIBBIN. They would all have to propose plans. They would 

all have to audit the plans. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. They would propose a plan that you would review 

for adequacy or they would just have to have a plan? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. They have to have a plan and they have to disclose 

to the public what that plan is. 

Ms. HANNI. But the ANPRM explicitly said there would be no 

DOT approval of those plans. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Correct. 

Ms. HANNI. No oversight by the DOT of those plans. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. 

Ms. HANNI. It would be whatever plan they present with no consequences. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It is their plan. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But it would be market-based because you 

wouldn’t choose to fly on that airline because you would go to their 

web site and find buried somewhere what their policy is when you 

are stuck on the plane for five hours. 

Then you would say, I have to go check out the other airline. Oh, 

only four. Maybe I will go with them. 

Ms. HANNI. If you are lucky enough to have a computer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Then you would go to the other web site to find 

out how chronically delayed they are, but that doesn’t exist, so you 

wouldn’t know. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair hates to disturb this discussion going 

on here, but we have votes on the floor. 

Let me comment, Mr. Gribbin, that the difference between what 

DOT is doing regarding a plan and so on is much different than 

the legislation that we passed. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. It, in fact, would be in law that the Secretary 

would have to approve the emergency contingency plans and would 

have to enforce those plans and to take action, assess penalties 

when there are violations. There is a huge difference between what 

you are proposing to do and what the legislation, in fact, does if, 

in fact, we can get it passed out of the Senate. 

We will have some additional questions for you that we will be 

submitting that we would expect you to respond to. 

We appreciate your testimony here today, and that concludes this 

Subcommittee’s hearing today. 

[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

49 


41946.008
50 


41946.009
51 


41946.010
52 


41946.011
53 


41946.012
54 


41946.013
55 


41946.014
56 


41946.015
57 


41946.016
58 


41946.017
59 


41946.018
60 


41946.019
61 


41946.020
62 


41946.021
63 


41946.022
64 


41946.023
65 


41946.024
66 


41946.025
67 


41946.026
68 


41946.027
69 


41946.028
70 


41946.029
71 


41946.030
72 


41946.031
73 


41946.032
74 


41946.033
75 


41946.034
76 


41946.035
77 


41946.036
78 


41946.037
79 


41946.038
80 


41946.039
81 


41946.040
82 


41946.041
83 


41946.042
84 


41946.043
85 


41946.044
86 


41946.045
87 


41946.046
88 


41946.047
89 


41946.048
90 


41946.049
91 


41946.050
92 


41946.051
93 


41946.052
94 


41946.053
95 


41946.054
96 


41946.055
97 


41946.056
98 


41946.057
99 


41946.058
100 


41946.059
101 


41946.060
102 


41946.061
103 


41946.062
104 


41946.063
105 


41946.064
106 


41946.065
107 


41946.066
108 


41946.067
109 


41946.068
110 


41946.069
111 


41946.070
112 


41946.071
113 


41946.072
114 


41946.073
115 


41946.074
116 


41946.075
117 


41946.076
118 


41946.077
119 


41946.078
120 


41946.079
121 


41946.080
122 


41946.081
123 


41946.082
124 


41946.083
125 


41946.084
126 


41946.085
127 


41946.086
128 


41946.087
129 


41946.088
130 


41946.089
131 


41946.090
132 


41946.091
133 


41946.092
134 


41946.093
135 


41946.094
136 


41946.095
137 


41946.096
138 


41946.097
139 


41946.098
140 


41946.099
141 


41946.100
142 


41946.101
143 


41946.102
144 


41946.103
145 


41946.104
146 


41946.105
147 


41946.106
148 


41946.107
149 


41946.108
150 


41946.109
151 


41946.110
152 


41946.111
153 


41946.112
154 


41946.113
155 


41946.114
156 


41946.115
157 


41946.116
158 


41946.117
159 


41946.118
160 


41946.119
161 


41946.120
162 


41946.121
163 


41946.122
164 


41946.123
165 


41946.124
166 


41946.125
167 


41946.126
168 


41946.127
169 


41946.128
170 


41946.129
171 


41946.130
172 


41946.131
173 


41946.132
174 


41946.133
175 


41946.134
176 


41946.135
177 


41946.136
178 


41946.137
179 


41946.138
180 


41946.139
181 


41946.140
182 


41946.141
183 


41946.142
184 


41946.143
185 


41946.144
186 


41946.145
187 


41946.146
188 


41946.147
189 


41946.148
190 


41946.149
191 


41946.150
192 


41946.151
193 


41946.152
194 

Æ 


41946.153