U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

27–295 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–373

AVIATION CAPACITY AND CONGESTION

CHALLENGES—SUMMER 2005 AND FUTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 26, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 26, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Lott ...................................................................................... 29

Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson ............................................................ 29

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 45

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 2

WITNESSES

Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ........ 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

ElSawy, Amr A., Senior Vice President/General Manager of the Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development, MITRE Corporation ....................... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of Transportation ..... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to: 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. ............................................................................ 59

Hon. Kenneth M. Mead .................................................................................... 59

(1)

AVIATION CAPACITY AND CONGESTION 

CHALLENGES—SUMMER 2005 AND FUTURE 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. We’ll call the meeting to order. We have some 

folks on the way I’m told. I’m one of these kind of guys who will 

count them when they show, but we’ve got a little bit of ground to 

cover today. We’re also conflicted today with marking up the energy bill. Energy, that’s where I’m supposed to be and here. I’m big 

enough to be two people, but it ain’t working. And also Intelligence 

is marking up and is fairly busy today. So it’s sort of a busy day 

here on the Hill. We’re trying to get ready to go on the Memorial 

Day week break, and everybody kind of wants to go home. 

I thank the panel for showing up today. I appreciate you postponing any plans that you might have had for traveling for this 

Memorial Day weekend to be with us today. As most of you know, 

Memorial Day seems to be the beginning of a busy summer travel 

season for most Americans. We felt there would be no better time 

to take a look at the upcoming season than today. 

We also need to look beyond this summer and examine our longterm challenges. It’s important to this Committee that we know the 

imminent problems that face us today, the long-term challenges, 

and what technologies and ideas are out there to effectively and efficiently modernize our system. 

Since Congress deregulated the airlines in the late 1970s, flying 

has become an essential form of transportation; and between 1980 

and 2000 it grew faster than any other form of transportation. In 

fact, the number of travelers more than doubled during those 

years. 

By the year 2000 the growth was starting to cause large-scale 

delays and bottlenecks. In 2001 we lived through the horrific 

events of 9/11. Those terrorist attacks drastically impacted the 

aviation system; and for the past 4 years, we’re back to record 

numbers. 

2

We find ourselves approaching the summer of 2005, and many of 

the problems we were facing in 2000 have returned. The problem 

doesn’t stop there though. FAA is forecasting one billion passengers 

in the next decade. 

Most of what we will hear today is dependent on the overall 

economy. We realize that, but I think most everyone would agree 

that there’s going to be a lot of planes in the skies the next couple 

of years. We’re seeing trends toward regional jets, and their use is 

projected to double by the year 2015. 

Additionally, we have exciting new markets for business. Micro, 

mini, air taxi and fractional ownership of jets. That market is also 

expected to double in the next decade, and we need to be ready. 

Our National Airspace System is complex, and it has many different aspects to it. The list of elements that cause congestion and 

delay numbers far too many times, and there are far too many of 

them to name today. 

I anticipate and I am hopeful that we will hear a multi-pronged 

approach to the problem. It’s extremely important we have adequate airport and air traffic control infrastructure in place to handle today’s traffic and the traffic of tomorrow. We need to explore 

technology like the ADS-B; and it is important that we continue to 

design, manage and utilize airspace in the most efficient ways possible. 

Again, I want to thank everybody for coming today, knowing that 

we have a holiday ahead of us; and we appreciate you being here 

and sharing your ideas with this panel, with this Committee. 

We’ve been joined by the Chairman of the Full Committee, Senator Stevens of Alaska. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m delighted to be here with you. I’m here to 

hear the witnesses. 

Senator BURNS. That’s very simple. He’s never handed it off like 

that before. Surprising. 

We have Director Blakey, FAA. We look forward to your statement, and thank you for coming today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. BLAKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Stevens. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to testify before 

you today on what truly is an important and critical issue for us 

these days. 

And Chairman Burns, I have to congratulate you too on the new 

leadership here. We have been looking forward to working very 

closely together. We are heading into the toughest part of the year, 

without question, in terms of aviation. The delays and congestion 

we worry about are right in front of us, and the summer and convective weather brings it out. 

I think it’s important too for us to step back a minute. Our drive 

and determination have also brought us to the very safest point in 

aviation history. 

3

Our record right now is one fatal accident for every seven million 

departures. It’s really remarkable. And if you look at just in-flight 

accidents, not things that happen with the baggage car on the 

tarmac, it improves to one fatal accident for every 11 million departures. So I’m very confident that with the same kind of determination and drive we can address the congestion and delay challenges 

we have in front of us. 

As this Subcommittee is very well aware and, as Chairman 

Burns just outlined, traffic is back. It’s good news for the passengers because as we have low ticket prices and scheduling flexibility is good all around. 

Last year 688 million passengers flew. This year we expect the 

number to go up to around 715 million. But with increased traffic 

does come delays and congestion. 

Last year set a record for delays, some 455,000. I think it’s important to note that 70 percent of those were weather related. So 

while we cannot control severe weather, I think we can work very 

hard to prepare for it; and we are. 

I’m especially proud of our program to reduce vertical separation 

in the domestic airspace. DRVSM, as it’s affectionately known, has 

provided a tremendous boost since January because it essentially 

doubles the capacity in the high altitudes, adding six jet lanes 

above 29,000 feet. This is a huge deal because this procedure essentially permits controllers to separate properly equipped aircraft in 

the high altitudes so that they are only a thousand feet apart without diminishing safety. 

In addition, obviously, the issue of fuel efficiency is huge right 

now; and we estimate that at this point with current fuel prices, 

we are talking $5 billion in savings over the next 10 years just for 

those procedures alone. 

We are also using airspace redesign as one of the ways to address the problem. We’re using an air traffic concept known as 

Area Navigation, or RNAV for short; and while the concepts, I 

think, are a little difficult to envision, what it does for aviation is 

very clear. 

Simply, RNAV is an advance in navigation capability that begins 

to move us away from the ground-based navigational aids to a system that really is much more efficient. It’s not the old system of 

Federal airways and jet routes that everyone knew. It gives us 

much greater predictability and precision for both the pilot and the 

controller. 

Now, I want to show you what this means because I’m very excited about this, I’ll have to tell you. [refers to a chart.] I think this 

chart of Atlanta—these are departure routes that we just put in 

place. Over there before RNAV, you can see how it’s all split out; 

and by the way, you have four departure fixes. Not very efficient 

for getting them out of a very congested airport. 

Take a look at this after RNAV. At this point you’re talking 

about highly precise departure routes, six fixes. You get them out 

quicker. By the way, it helps from a noise standpoint because these 

are the optimal routes. It’s not all over communities that don’t 

want it. 

From the standpoint of fuel efficiency, Delta is at this point estimating a $30 million savings on an annual basis out of Atlanta just 

4

for this. So it’s a very big deal, and it’s something we are moving 

with a number of communities to do. 

At this point, I think it’s important to go to the Required Navigational Performance. You all have heard us talk about RNP before 

because it also helps us boost efficiency. This is a marriage of onboard navigation technology and GPS satellites. Because it allows 

crews to fly precisely defined computer routes with unprecedented 

accuracy; and it’s in places where you can’t get conventional procedures. I don’t have to tell Chairman Stevens how important RNP 

has been in Alaska. It is a very big deal for us; and it is going to 

give us also very big savings in places like Kennedy, LaGuardia. 

We’re hoping we will be able to unveil an RNP procedure out here 

at Reagan before the year’s out. 

As you’ll hear in a moment, the Inspector General recently 

issued a report on our efforts with airspace redesign. The assessment I think was fair and balanced. The report emphasized that 

airspace redesign is important to enhance capacity and meet demands for travel, and we agree with this. 

Our redesign of national airspace continues to be a critical element in addressing congestion, especially when you don’t have the 

option of putting in a new runway. Unfortunately we have a very 

few tied-up airports where that’s the case. 

Our intensive effort also has been to address choke points. We’ve 

done that in the busy northeast and Great Lakes corridor where 

we are already establishing new centers and routes. They have increased the throughput. No question about it, we think this effort 

has saved airlines over $90 million in reduced delays and fuel. 

Now another thing that has just come up, which I’m hearing 

from the airlines; and I thought this Committee would find important is that the airlines are indicating that they plan this summer 

to fly full. What this means is that they anticipate full passenger 

loads; and they will not cancel flights as they did a lot last summer 

because of convective weather. 

They intend to keep to the schedules, flying later and opting to 

incur delays if need be to reach the destinations. It’s good news for 

the passengers because it means you’re not looking at cancellations; but boy, I’ll tell you, we can be looking at some real delays. 

The lack of cancellations will extend the flying day while aircraft 

wait out the storms before departing. It puts pressure on the airports and will also require us to put additional staffing in place in 

the evening hours to accommodate all these later operations. Because I think, as you all know, the National Weather Service is 

talking about a very rough convective weather season this year. I 

hope they’re wrong, but that’s what they’re telling us. 

So with this new approach by the airlines this summer, we’re 

going to incur greater costs to cover the service that we’re going to 

have to cover; and it’s a cost, of course, that hasn’t factored into 

the FAA’s budget. 

We are making inroads wherever possible to find ways to increase capacity. We commissioned a study of 300 airports in 300 

metropolitan areas, looking at the socioeconomic trends, to see 

what’s really coming at us in the future. This FACT study, as we 

call it, serves as an early warning, if you will, of anticipated aviation demands. 

5

The year 2020 and 2030 sounds like a long way out there, but 

it’s not when we’re talking about building runways. Our taskforce 

found that the capacity investment in making runways is money 

well spent. If our targets to boost capacity are not met, demand 

will exceed capacity at 27 of our major airports and metropolitan 

areas in that timeframe. That’s why pavement is one of our major 

areas of focus. 

In the last 2 years we’ve opened runways at Cleveland, Denver, 

Miami, Houston, and Orlando. By the end of 2008, we’ll have added 

a runway at Atlanta, and an extension in Philadelphia, both of 

which are on the top ten list of the airports with the most delays. 

This is a list that the Inspector General tracks pretty carefully. 

Also by the end of 2008, we will have added runways in Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Boston, Charlotte and Seattle. All 

of these projects represented investment of $4.75 billion. The new 

runways’ improvements already in place have added investments to 

our economy and will accommodate a million more operations annually. 

Even with all these advances, we know that our forecasts show 

ever-increasing operations in the system. We will have a greater 

likelihood that delays will get worse before they get better. This is 

all the more reason why I say with emphasis that the financial 

health of the Aviation Trust Fund is essential. 

Under Secretary Mineta’s leadership we have begun a dialogue 

of how our services are funded. Our Next Generation Air Transportation System, which takes us through the year 2025, is crucial if 

we’re going to be able to handle the continued upward trajectory 

of traffic. We’ve got to have the capacity in place to handle it, and 

I don’t think there’s any way to get to the Next Generation System 

and be able to pay for it unless we expect to do that and commit 

to it. 

This body has directed the FAA to function more like a business, 

and I’m proud to say we are. We’re controlling our costs; managing 

our resources much more efficiently; labor costs are the single-largest cost driver for the agency; and with our upcoming labor negotiations, I’ve gone on record to state we cannot and will not sign 

an agreement we cannot afford. 

We’re consolidating services, such as accounting and personnel. 

We’ve just made the largest A–76 award in government history 

through a private/public competition over the provision of automated flight services. We’re going to save the taxpayer $2.2 billion. 

So in closing, my message is that in the short term, specifically 

this summer, we’re going to do everything we can to get ready for 

the traffic and the weather. The big unknown is the long term. We 

know that the FAA needs a stable, consistent revenue stream in 

place in order to be able to pay for the capacity enhancements we’ll 

need. 

In the interim, you have our firm commitment we’re going to be 

diligent in using the resources we have to provide the world’s 

safest and most efficient aviation system. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Good morning Chairman Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss our 

plans to ease air traffic congestion this spring and summer. Secretary Mineta and 

I wish to offer our congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming the Chair 

of this Subcommittee and to extend our good wishes to the new and returning Members of the Subcommittee. But before we discuss capacity and delays, let me address 

safety. As you know, safety is and will always be the FAA’s top priority. Every decision we make is done with the safety of the flying public in mind. The system must 

be safe, as you know, and we deliver a remarkably safe system. I am pleased to 

note that over the last three years, the commercial airline fatal accident rate is the 

lowest in history. That’s a tribute to the men and women of the FAA and the industry we support. 

The health of our aviation system is critical to our economy, and the good news 

is that air travel has rebounded. We now project that overall passenger demand and 

commercial activity at FAA air traffic facilities will return to pre-9/11 traffic levels 

by the end of this year, reaching about 710 million passengers. Commercial operations at 17 of this country’s top 35 airports have already exceeded their pre 9/11 

levels, with some airports like Salt Lake City and Fort Lauderdale already showing 

very high growth, above 11.5 percent and 6.6 percent over pre 9/11 levels respectively. 

With approximately 9 percent of our country’s Gross Domestic Product tied to 

aviation, this is a very welcome rebound. However, we need to brace up because 

with this rebound will come delays, potentially serious ones, as early as this summer, and we need to do all we can to avoid them. That’s why today’s hearing is both 

important and timely. 

Certainly some aviation markets have fared better than others, and new trends 

have emerged. Low-cost carriers have increased their market share, while the larger 

‘‘legacy carriers’’ have been restructuring and downsizing. Also, regional and commuter carriers have been replacing and supplementing flight routes once dominated 

by legacy carriers, as well as introducing new services that use longer range regional jets. As a result, we are seeing significant growth in the regional carrier market, and we expect it will continue to grow. 

Following 9/11, the agency worked with this Committee and industry stakeholders 

to prepare for the return of air traffic demand. We developed careful plans and 

worked to ensure that the agency was better situated to avoid the delay problems 

of past summers. We will continue the successful innovative steps begun in recent 

years that have helped to avert a repeat of past delay-riddled summers. To address 

and alleviate congestion and delays over the short term we will work to implement 

new procedures, more pavement, and better technology. 

Our plan takes into account the myriad of factors—some well beyond our control—that contribute to system delays, including weather, security, airline operations, air traffic control, airports, infrastructure, and equipment. We are confident 

that this approach will provide effective inroads to manage the surge in traffic that 

will coincide with the busy summer travel season. 

To emphasize the difficulty some of these factors create for the National Airspace 

System, you may recall that last summer four major hurricanes made landfall in 

the State of Florida, one of the country’s primary tourist and travel destinations, 

in just a six-week period. Airports and air traffic facilities across the state suffered 

significant damage, including Southwest Florida in Fort Myers; Orlando International in central Florida—which was hit by three different hurricanes; and the 

FAA’s Pensacola TRACON in the Panhandle. The FAA responded quickly to restore 

capabilities damaged by the storms. For example, the Pensacola TRACON was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. The facility was closed on September 15th because 

of the forecasted winds and storm surge. Employees volunteered to stay behind to 

monitor the facility condition and begin service restoration after the hurricane 

passed. However, during the height of the storm, the roof of the Pensacola TRACON 

was partially torn off. Employees on site quickly unplugged and protected the sensitive ATC equipment from the wind and rain, saving millions of dollars worth of 

equipment. Through the dedicated work of our employees and the cooperation of 

several agencies, the Pensacola TRACON was reopened for daylight operations only 

within two days, and to full ATC operations only 20 days after Ivan’s devastation. 

Additionally, FAA’s Airports Organization distributed $25 million from the Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act to 85 airports in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Puerto 

Rico in record time, allowing the airports to make repairs and resume operations. 

7

Many of the new procedures we are now using were the result of a first-of-itskind meeting of industry decision makers and the government, known as ‘‘Growth 

Without Gridlock,’’ which we convened last year. The group agreed to a series of 

new procedures designed to relieve congestion during the heavy summer travel season. We moved away from the ‘‘first come-first served’’ model of air traffic when demand far exceeds capacity by issuing revised flight plans or rerouting some aircraft 

away from problem areas, allowing us to maximize utilization of available airspace 

under adverse conditions. 

The most innovative of these new procedures, a concept we call ‘‘delay triggering,’’ 

imposes minor delays on the ground to avert massive delays across the National 

Airspace System. When delays at an airport are anticipated to reach 90 minutes or 

more, other airports sending aircraft into the congested area will hold flights until 

our controllers clear the congestion. Although this may mean brief delays for some 

flights, it helps prevent the massive delays that can occur system-wide when critical 

airports become gridlocked. This procedure has been so successful that we have incorporated the philosophy into other areas of managing demand and delays. Most 

recently, we began using this concept in managing departure delays from Fort Lauderdale. The feedback from our customers has been very positive, and we will continue to apply this procedure during the upcoming convective weather season. 

A major accomplishment this year is our implementation of Domestic Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimums or DRVSM. This is a tremendous boost to air traffic 

capacity because it essentially doubles capacity at high altitudes, adding six cruising 

altitudes or jet lanes above 29,000 feet. The procedure permits controllers to reduce 

minimum vertical separation at altitudes between 29,000 and 41,000 feet from 2000 

feet to 1000 feet for aircraft that are equipped with dual altimeter systems and 

autopilots. Not only does this double the capacity options for controllers and pilots, 

but the higher altitude routes are more fuel efficient. We estimate the DRVSM will 

save airlines approximately $5 billion through 2016, an estimate that will prove to 

be conservative if fuel prices remain high. 

Another major initiative is the expanding implementation of Area Navigation 

(RNAV) procedures to additional airports. RNAV procedures have been implemented 

and are performing successfully at Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and Dulles airports. 

Just last month, 13 RNAV departure procedures went into full operation at Atlanta 

Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport—the world’s busiest airport. These procedures provide flight path guidance incorporated in taxi procedures, with minimal instructions required during departure by air traffic controllers. This significantly reduces routine controller-pilot communications, allowing more time on frequency for 

pilots and controllers to handle other safety-critical flight activities. Key benefits of 

the RNAV procedures include more efficient use of airspace, with improved flight 

profiles, resulting in significant fuel efficiencies to the airlines. RNAV procedures 

are scheduled for implementation at Dallas-Ft. Worth airport this year as well. 

Another technological innovation, known as Required Navigation Procedure or 

RNP, promises to add to capacity. RNP is on-board technology that allows pilots to 

fly more direct point-to-point routes reliably and accurately. RNP gives pilots not 

only lateral guidance, but vertical precision as well, and the system is highly precise 

and accurate. RNP reaches all domains of flight—departure, en route, and arrival. 

This not only will allow more efficient airspace management, but also provide savings in fuel costs for the airlines. For example, in January 2005, in partnership with 

Alaska Airlines, we implemented new RNP approach procedures at Palm Springs 

International Airport, which is located in very mountainous terrain. Under the previous conventional procedures, planes could not land unless the ceiling was at least 

2,300 feet. With the new RNP procedures, approved air carriers can now operate 

to a ceiling of 684 feet, which allows much better access during bad weather. Additionally, RNP has enabled aircraft to cut significant mileage out of their flight path 

into Palm Springs—nearly 30 miles—which translates into substantial fuel savings 

for operators. The U.S. is leading the world in RNP, by issuing the first set of criteria and standards in this area in the very near future. Boeing and Airbus support 

RNP, and our standards are being embraced in Europe, Asia and South America, 

and by our neighbors to the north in Canada. 

In addition, we improved communication among the system users and the FAA. 

Airlines agreed to improve their input to the FAA’s flight schedule monitor system 

using new software so that it will more accurately reflect the latest airline schedule 

plans. This move minimizes unused airport capacity when flights are rescheduled 

or cancelled. Also, airlines are encouraged to file flight plans earlier, allowing for 

more time to address potential congestion problems. In addition, our relationship 

with the air carriers who participate in our daily conference calls is genuinely cooperative, reflecting our common understanding that we all have a stake in the process. The conference calls—scheduled every 2 hours during the busiest portion of the 

8

day—also provide an opportunity for feedback. Customers let us know if they believe they were disadvantaged by a prior day’s delay reduction measures or offer 

ideas on how we can all improve the system. We all know that continued cooperation is essential to the success of our spring and summer airspace management 

plans. Delays are bad for business, regardless of whether you are a large, legacy 

carrier, a low-cost carrier or a regional airline. 

I’d like to take a moment to recognize this Committee’s role in addressing system 

capacity constraints. With the passage of Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, you provided the FAA and DOT with additional tools to address unexpected challenges that threaten to reduce capacity or cause delay at critical 

chokepoints. We must be ready to react to situations when they unfold. For example, the authority provided by Vision 100 enabled us to take initial action last year 

at Chicago O’Hare International Airport to address over-scheduling by air carriers 

and the resultant excessive delays that affected the entire National Airspace System. 

As you know, two major carriers, American Airlines and United Airlines, have 

hubs at O’Hare. The competition for market share is compounded by the obvious 

physical limitation on the number of planes that can take off and land during any 

time period. Moreover, it has been well demonstrated over the years that delays at 

O’Hare have the potential to cause delays at as many as 40 other airports nationwide. Consequently, managing delays at O’Hare is essential to the effective management of air traffic nationally. In November 2003, major delays began occurring as 

a result of steady increases in flights, as O’Hare’s slot rules phased out, and a shift 

by American Airlines of flights from St. Louis to O’Hare. Vision 100 enabled us to 

take action. 

Early last year, Secretary Mineta and I asked United and American to make a 

voluntary 5 percent schedule reduction during peak travel times. This voluntary reduction took effect March 4, 2004. American and United further agreed to reduce 

their overall peak-hour schedules by another 2.5 percent by June 10, 2004. This voluntary agreement was extended through last summer, as negotiations between the 

FAA and all airlines serving O’Hare continued in an effort to craft a more comprehensive plan to reduce flight delays, and one which treated all air carriers serving O’Hare fairly. Eventually, in August 2004, a voluntary agreement for schedule 

reductions during peak hours was reached involving all airlines currently serving 

O’Hare, and which allowed some leeway for new entrant carriers as well. This 

agreement took effect in November, and in March 2005 was extended through October 29, 2005. At the same time we extended the agreement, we also published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes options to address congestion at O’Hare for the next three years. By that time, if approved by FAA, O’Hare’s 

proposed Modernization Project or a reasonable alternative to that project could provide additional airport capacity. 

Since the voluntary agreement took effect last November, O’Hare’s on-time arrival 

performance has improved by more than 10 percent, and overall delay minutes from 

November through this past February have been cut by 22 percent, as compared to 

the previous year. We estimate that maintaining limits on the number of arrivals 

through April 2008 will result in a reduction in delays at O’Hare, and save airlines 

and passengers over $700 million lost through delays as compared to November 

2003. As noted above, the proposed rule is timed to expire as airport capacity improvements are expected to take hold. Under the terms of the NPRM, we will review 

every six months the level and length of delays and other operating conditions, to 

determine if the airport can accommodate more arrivals. If additional capacity becomes available while the rule is in effect, we propose a method to assign the additional capacity to air carriers interested in initiating or expanding service at O’Hare. 

We partner with airports to address capacity and delay concerns and we support 

implementation of solutions with funding from the Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP). By the end of 2008, eight new runway projects are scheduled for commissioning. These include new runways at: Minneapolis-St. Paul; Cincinnati; St. Louis; 

Atlanta; Boston; Charlotte; and Seattle, and a runway extension at Philadelphia. 

Beyond 2008, we are working with other airports to increase capacity. We recently 

announced our final Record of Decision for Los Angeles, which will permit the airfield reconfiguration project to go forward. We continue to maintain and monitor the 

schedule for the Environmental Impact Statement at Chicago as well. We are also 

working closely with Fort Lauderdale on a major runway extension, and three major 

metropolitan areas Chicago, Las Vegas, and San Diego who are considering the need 

for new airports. We are supporting, through AIP funding, the preparation of regional studies in the New York Metropolitan area and the LA Basin. 

While new runway construction typically provides the largest increase in capacity, 

there are new technologies and procedural improvements, such as Traffic ManageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
9

ment Advisor (TMA) and Precision Runway Monitor (PRM), which add capacity, as 

well. TMA is a tool that assists the air traffic controller to sequence and schedule 

aircraft to the runway to maximize airport and terminal airspace capacity without 

compromising safety. PRM approaches have been implemented at San Francisco, 

Philadelphia, Cleveland and Minneapolis-St. Paul, and are planned for Atlanta and 

St. Louis. PRM allows air traffic controllers to run simultaneous operations on closely spaced parallel runways. It should be noted that increases in capacity from new 

runway construction often cannot be fully realized unless implemented along with 

new procedures and technology. 

As with other networks that experience peak period demand surges, congestion 

management, such as congestion pricing, could be an option at a small number of 

airports where demand may come to exceed capacity in the short term, pending capacity expansion, or in the long term if capacity expansion is not a practical option. 

In FY 2004, the FAA completed a study analyzing system capacity, taking into 

account the socio-economic and demographic trends expected to occur in the United 

States through 2020. This study expanded the focus of the 35 OEP airports and 

evaluated nearly 300 commercial service airports nationwide. This study identified 

airports and metropolitan areas expected to have significant growth in population 

and/or income that could result in an increase in the demand for air transportation 

that may not have been previously anticipated. The study identified the airports 

that need additional capacity and any constraints to enhancing capacity. Without 

capacity improvements at airports in these areas, this demand may go unsatisfied. 

In FY 2005, the FAA will complete a second phase of this study that will take a 

more detailed look at the non-OEP airports and will begin to identify possible solutions to increase long-term capacity 

We must also make sure we are using the best technology to maintain a safe and 

efficient air traffic system. One example of this is the Wide Area Augmentation System, known as WAAS. WAAS is a precise navigation system that enhances the satellite signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide the accuracy and 

reliability necessary for pilots to rely on GPS during flight. Because the system is 

satellite-based, WAAS procedures cost a lot less to implement and maintain than 

traditional ground-based navigation systems. WAAS makes more airspace usable to 

pilots, provides more direct en route paths, and provides new precision approach 

services to runway ends. The implementation of WAAS into the NAS will result in 

safety and capacity improvements. Since WAAS became operational in July 2003, 

the FAA has developed 3,000 WAAS approaches. This is a significant accomplishment in modernizing how we use our airspace, and one which will have a lasting, 

positive effect on capacity. 

In the longer term, however, we know that these short and mid-term efforts will 

simply not be enough. The recent FAA aviation forecast provides further evidence 

that our current system, already coming under stress in some areas, will be 

stretched to its limit as future demands continue to grow. Passenger totals are expected to exceed one billion by 2015, and we project up to a tripling of passengers, 

operations and cargo by the year 2025. As Secretary Mineta said in a speech before 

the Aero Club in January 2004: ‘‘The changes that are coming are too big, too fundamental for incremental adaptations of the infrastructure. We need to modernize and 

transform our air transportation system—starting right now.’’

Our overarching goal in the Next Generation initiative is to develop a system that 

will be flexible enough to accommodate very light jets and large commercial aircraft, 

manned or unmanned air vehicles, small airports and large, business and vacation 

travelers alike, and to handle up to three times the number of operations that the 

current system does with no diminution in safety, security and efficiency. At the 

same time, the system would minimize the impact of aviation on the environment. 

However, the move to a modern, efficient and technology-driven aviation system 

is going to require sustained, long term investments. The problem we face is that 

the status of the Aviation Trust Fund, which supports these investments, is inextricably tied to the fortunes of the aviation industry. Policy makers need to know 

that there is a gap that exists between our revenue and expenses, and this gap is 

quickly eroding the Trust Fund. The FAA needs a stable source of funding that is 

based both on our costs and the services we provide so that we can meet our mission 

in an extremely dynamic business environment. Tying fees to the cost of providing 

service protects both FAA and the customers who use FAA services by not subjecting our ability to provide a critical level of service to unrelated factors like ticket 

prices. A stable, cost-based revenue stream can also ensure funding for long-term 

capital needs. We also believe that a cost-based revenue structure would provide incentives to our customers to use resources efficiently and to the FAA to operate 

more efficiently, as stakeholder involvement can help us ensure that we are concentrating on services that the customer wants and is willing to pay for. 

10

Mr. Chairman, with a comprehensive plan in place, cooperative initiatives underway, and thanks to the tools provided to us by this Committee, we are ready for 

the spring and summer travel season. This completes my statement. I will be happy 

to answer your questions at this time.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. The Honorable Kenneth 

Mead, Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Stevens, and 

Senator Nelson. On May 18 of last year, this Committee had a 

hearing on the same subject; and it’s timely as we approach the unofficial start of summer this weekend. In 2004 the number of passengers on planes were nearly 700 million, just short of 2000 levels; 

and flight operations this past April were 4 percent greater than 

in April of 2000. One factor stimulating growth is the decline in 

airfares. 

Last month the average fare on a thousand-mile flight was $118. 

In 2000 the fare on that same flight was $147. A major exception 

to the rebounding traffic levels is in the area of small communities 

and cities with non-hub airports like Missoula, Texarkana, and 

Charleston. Scheduled flights to these airports this coming July are 

down 21 percent from July of 2000. Congestion-related delays are 

also coming back. In the first quarter of this year, delays affected 

more than one in every four flights and in some airports, one in 

every three flights. 

Last year delays affected 22 percent of all flights. Delays this 

year are averaging about 52 minutes a flight, last year it was 49 

minutes. This summer you can expect delays to get worse. In addition, as Administrator Blakey pointed out, there’s the inevitable, 

but unpredictable, summer storms that can compound delays. 

The airports to watch this summer include Philadelphia, Washington-Dulles, New York-Kennedy, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, New 

York-LaGuardia, and Atlanta. All these airports are currently experiencing delays, and traffic at most of them is projected to grow 

substantially this summer. 

Now, you’ll note that Chicago-O’Hare was not on my list. O’Hare 

went from the worst airport last year to number 14 this year. The 

delay rate went from 37 percent in 2004 to 27 percent this year. 

The improvement is at least, in part, due to the Department’s 

interventions three times this past year. 

Here’s another interesting factoid: Only five of the fifteen most 

delayed airports are among the Nation’s fifteen busiest airports. 

And based on the lessons we learned this past Christmas season 

when one airline’s understaffing, weather problems and traffic volume nearly tripled traffic in Philadelphia, to say nothing of the luggage problems, it’s imperative that FAA, airports and the airlines 

are ready for what I think is shaping up to be the busiest summer 

travel season in 6 years. 

Several factors are driving delays. These factors change a bit 

from year to year, but here’s what it appears to be for this summer: 

11

Low-cost carrier growth, especially in markets that have historically been legacy carrier strongholds. This is driving down fares, 

stimulating demand, and sparking scheduling battles. 

Another factor is legacy carrier hub downsizing. For example, US 

Airways downsized its Pittsburgh hub and shifted operations to 

hubs in Philly, Charlotte and Fort Lauderdale. At those airports 

delays increased by more than 60 percent. Another factor, Administrator Blakey pointed out, is traffic growth by smaller jet aircraft. 

It is really driving congestion as network carriers continue to shift 

service to regional jets. Benchmark back to 2000 when regional jets 

accounted for about 10 percent of flights. Now it’s about 32 percent. 

Also general aviation jet traffic is growing. Beyond this summer, 

congestion’s likely to grow as low-cost carriers continue to expand. 

We also expect international cargo and international passenger 

flights to pick up as well. More affordable microjets. That’s a price tag of $1 million, com- pared to about $4 million for a business jet today. They may come 

online as early as next spring and will pose challenges to air traffic 

control. This is because microjets are likely to operate in the same 

airspace as the larger jets. 

Since the gridlocked summer of 2000, FAA has taken actions to 

improve the flow of air traffic. These include putting administrative 

controls in place at O’Hare, improving communications between 

airlines and FAA’s Command Center, and relying on new procedures to better manage effects of bad weather. Also, this past January FAA reduced vertical separation for aircraft traveling at high 

altitudes, in effect, creating more highways in the sky. 

Moreover, seven new runways have come online since 1999. So 

without question, things would be much worse if these things had 

not been done. I’d like to highlight five key actions. I think they’re 

important for both the short and long term. 

First, keeping new runway projects on schedule. There are 

projects in Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, Boston, 

Philadelphia, Charlotte and Seattle. Only three of those fifteen, 

though, are among the fifteen most congested airports. Those airports are Atlanta, Boston, and Philadelphia. All three are expected 

to complete new runway projects within the next two to 3 years. 

This year, we are facing a key decision point on Chicago O’Hare’s 

Runway Expansion and Modernization Program. This decision 

point focuses on the environmental impact statement. 

A second factor that I think FAA needs to move on is taking 

steps to materially improve its management of Airspace Redesign 

projects. Sometimes you can complete a runway project; but if you 

don’t make changes in the airspace, you’re not going to yield the 

benefits of the runway. And I know Administrator Blakey alluded 

to that. I think they’re committed to making a good number of 

changes that we recommended there. 

A third factor is addressing the wave of controller retirements. 

Over the next 10 years, three-quarters of the controller workforce 

is planning—will be eligible to retire. FAA has published a plan, 

and later this year they need to come out with numbers by facility. 

There’s over 300 of them in the country. 

The fourth factor focuses on getting a handle on exactly what 

FAA’s new office for developing a Next Generation Air Traffic SysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
12

1 Includes all domestic and international flights. 

tem can do in 5 and 10 year benchmarks. The 2025 timeframe is 

just not that meaningful. It’s difficult for people to relate to 25 

years from now, and that is why I think we need benchmarks in 

5 and 10 year intervals. 

Also, the current air traffic system was designed to handle a 

much lower level of traffic than we have today. It’s largely based 

on a paradigm of ground based systems and procedures that hasn’t 

changed appreciably in the last three decades. So I’m hoping that 

this year FAA will be able to articulate what new capabilities it 

needs, when they need them, and what the financing requirements 

will be for them. 

Finally, in the short term we are facing decision points at two 

airports, O’Hare and LaGuardia. I mentioned the runway decision 

for September, but administratively imposed flight caps are in 

place now at O’Hare. They’re set to expire this November, and FAA 

is considering whether or not to extend them for another 3 years 

until the runway is built. 

At LaGuardia slot restrictions imposed under the High Density 

Rule are in place. They are due to expire, I believe, in January 

2007. New construction’s not an option at LaGuardia. FAA will 

have to do something at LaGuardia. 

Market-based solutions may offer some relief, but the devil’s 

going to be in the details if we move to market-based solutions. 

Some of those details will be how to value capacity, how to price 

it, small community access, and of course, who’s going to get the 

money. That concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for inviting us to testify today. As we venture into the summer 

months—historically the peak air travel time—congestion and delays are on the 

forefront of concern. In many markets, traffic and delays are back at a rate as severe as 2000, when travel disruptions were at their peak. And in some markets they 

are worse. Today I want to describe the scenario—what we’ve seen recently, and 

where we’re likely to be this summer, what is driving the delays, and what FAA 

must do to address congestion in both the short- and long-term. 

Traffic Levels Are Growing as Are the Number, Rate, and Length of Delays 

in Key Markets 

Both enplanements and operations are back to or greater than 2000 levels, when 

air travel was at its peak. Enplanements in 2004 were 698.7 million, just about 

250,000 short of 2000 enplanements. Flight operations in April 2005 actually exceeded April 2000 operations by 4 percent. 

One of the factors stimulating traffic growth is the continued decline in average 

airfares. In April 2000, the average one-way airfare on a 1,000-mile flight was 

$147—this past April the fare was down 20 percent to $118. The one exception to 

rebounding traffic levels is in the area of small communities. In cities with non-hub 

airports like Missoula, Montana; Texarkana, Arkansas; Yuma, Arizona; and 

Charleston, West Virginia, scheduled flights in July 2005 to large, medium, small, 

and other non-hub airports are down 21 percent and seats are down 12 percent from 

July 2000. 1 Service levels remain depressed despite a doubling in recent years in 

Essential Air Service funds, and a near 50 percent increase in the number of subsidized cities. 

As traffic has increased, so have delays. In the first quarter of 2005, arrival delays 

were up 17 percent over the first quarter of 2004, and affected more than 25 percent 

of all flights. The average length of delay is also rising, with first quarter 2005 

13

2Domestic and international operations by U.S. flag carriers, international operations by foreign flag carriers, and charter service. 

delays averaging 52.3 minutes compared to 48.5 minutes in the same period in 

2000. During the first quarter of 2005, more than one-third of all arrivals were delayed at five airports, including LaGuardia, Philadelphia, and Newark. We note that 

the most delayed airports are not necessarily the busiest airports. In fact, of the 15 

highest-volume airports during the first quarter of 2005, only 5 are among the top 

15 most delayed airports. 

Overall, we expect the traffic and delay growth to continue, especially in those 

markets where we are already experiencing problems. Total operations are continuing to increase, and summer storms are notorious for adding delays in Southeast and Northeast markets like Atlanta and New York which are already suffering 

from capacity-related delays. 

Outlook for This Summer and Beyond: Six Airports to Watch 

Airports to watch this summer include Philadelphia, LaGuardia, Newark, Washington-Dulles, Atlanta, and Fort Lauderdale. All have some or all of the following 

characteristics: significant delays last summer, in most cases exceeding summer 

2000 delays; substantial projected traffic growth this summer; or consistently elevated delay rates sustained over the past year or longer. On a cautionary note, we 

learned a hard lesson last December when weather problems and traffic volume in 

a handful of cities bumped up against the pared-down operations of one network 

carrier. Many network carriers have been trimming operations to lower costs and 

improve their financial conditions. With traffic expected to grow this summer, the 

airlines—as well as FAA and the airports—need to ensure that staff and resources 

are commensurate with the level of scheduled operations. 

On a positive note, delays appear to be improving at Chicago-O’Hare, an airport 

which has been plagued by congestion for more than 30 years, despite regulatory 

intervention. We expect the improvement to continue through the summer months. 

O’Hare ranked fourteenth in delays during the first quarter of 2005 in contrast to 

its rank of first in the same period in 2004. The improvement appears to be, at least 

in part, a result of the Department’s administrative actions in 2004 to cap hourly 

operations at O’Hare at a level consistent with available capacity. The controls on 

landing slots and schedules have temporarily brought some short-term relief, but in 

the long run, controls do not accommodate demand and can stifle competition. 

Causes of Delay Growth Include Significant Low-Cost Carrier Expansion, 

Down-Sizing of Network Carrier Hubs and Subsequent Transfer of 

Service to Alternative Hubs, and Continued Growth in Regional Jet

Operations 

Incursion of Low-cost Carriers into Legacy Hubs Spurs Traffic and Congestion Growth. Low-cost carriers are now challenging legacy carriers in their 

hubs in most large- and medium-sized markets, increasing traffic and contributing 

to delays. For example, the increasing presence of JetBlue and other low-cost carriers at New York-JFK are causing delays in an airport that has been operating at 

under-capacity since traffic dropped off in late 2000. During the first quarter of 

2005, low-cost carrier traffic increased more than five-fold while other traffic 2 was 

down by 34 percent from the first quarter of 2000. During this same period, delays 

at JFK were 34.5 percent higher than during the same period in 2000 and represented an increase of more than 52 percent over the first quarter of 2004. Likewise, following the start-up of new low-cost carrier Independence Air at WashingtonDulles, traffic levels there increased by 79 percent and delays more than doubled. 

New market entry by low-cost carriers can have dramatic effects on the average 

fares in those markets, often stimulating demand and driving additional service frequencies. For example, when Southwest began service between Philadelphia and 

Providence in 2004, the average one-way fare dropped from $328 to $54 and the 

number of passengers in the quarter following Southwest’s market entry (third 

quarter 2004) increased from fewer than 10,000 to more than 100,000. 

Displaced Traffic from Down-sized Legacy Carrier Hubs Contributes to 

Congestion Growth in Other Hubs. In an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiency, several mainline carriers have closed hub operations at some airports and 

transferred operations into remaining hubs. For example, US Airways downsized its 

Pittsburgh hub operations by 3,800 flights in the fourth quarter of 2004 and shifted 

mainline aircraft and operations to its hubs in Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Fort 

Lauderdale. While delays in Pittsburgh were down minimally in the first quarter 

of 2005 from the first quarter of 2004, delays increased in each of the other three 

hubs by more than 60 percent. 

14

Increased Regional Jet Operations and Rebounding Jet-powered General 

Aviation Traffic Are Increasing Demands on High-Altitude Airspace and 

Airport Runways. Network carriers continue to shift service to regional jet aircraft. In July 2000, scheduled flights aboard regional jets accounted for 10 percent 

of all flights. In July 2005, they will account for 32 percent of all flights. Unlike 

their turbo-prop driven predecessors, regional jets occupy the same airspace and require access to the same runways as larger jet aircraft. 

While the rest of the industry has shown signs of recovery, general aviation (GA) 

operations as a whole have continued to decline and remain 12.4 percent below 2000 

levels. However, within the GA market, one sector—jet aircraft activity—is improving. Flight hours logged by GA jets in 2004 were up 6.2 percent over 2000 levels. 

Future Drivers of Congestion Will Include Continued Low-Cost Carrier 

Growth, Increased International Operations, and Expanding

Jet-powered General Aviation Traffic 

Continued growth of low-cost carrier networks in hubs formerly dominated by legacy carriers will increase demand on airport and air traffic control operations. 

International traffic, which has lagged behind domestic rebounding traffic, is once 

again picking up. In the summer 2005, scheduled international passenger and cargo 

operations are projected to exceed summer 2000 levels by 16 percent and 12 percent, 

respectively. 

One of the new challenges that we are likely to encounter within the next year 

is operations by a new class of aircraft called Very Light Jets (VLJs) or microjets, 

which are scheduled to enter the market as early as March 2006. Priced as low as 

$1 million per aircraft, microjets may be more attractive to the business travel market than the currently available comparable aircraft priced at about $6 million. 

Microjet manufacturers anticipate that these twin-engine, 4–6 passenger jets, will 

find a niche among a variety of corporate and private owners as well as on-demand 

air taxi service. While supporters believe that microjets have the potential to redefine business travel, others are more conservative about how quickly, where, and to 

what extent the market will materialize. 

FAA Has Made Progress in Managing and Enhancing Capacity but

Additional Actions Need To Be Taken To Meet the Demand for Air 

Travel in the Short- and Long-Term 

Since the Summer of 2000, FAA has taken a range of actions that have improved 

the flow of air travel. These include putting administrative controls in place at Chicago O’Hare, improved communications between airlines and FAA’s Command Center, and procedural changes to help manage the affects of bad weather. Moreover, 

a number of new runways have come on-line. Most recently in January 2005, FAA 

reduced vertical separation for aircraft traveling at high altitudes (between 29,000 

and 41,000 feet) to enhance the flow of air travel. 

Without question, congestion and delays would be much worse this summer without these actions, particularly the administrative controls at Chicago O’Hare and 

the commissioning of new runways. However, the anticipated demand for air travel 

highlights the need for additional actions in both the short- and long-term. 

Keeping new runway projects on schedule, including projects at Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, Boston, Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Seattle Airports, is 

important because FAA reports that new runways provide the largest increases in 

capacity. We note that of the 15 most congested airports (in terms of percent of operations delayed in the first quarter of 2005), only 3 airports (Atlanta, Boston, and 

Philadelphia) are expected to complete new runway projects within the next 2 to 3 

years. 

Getting FAA’s airspace redesign efforts on track is critical to enhance capacity. 

Earlier this month, we issued a report on FAA’s airspace redesign efforts and found 

that cost and schedules for projects are not reliable, projects are delayed 3 years 

or more, and airspace redesign efforts are not effectively coordinated among FAA 

organizations. We made recommendations aimed at strengthening and speeding the 

transition from project planning to implementation by establishing cost and schedule controls for airspace projects, prioritizing efforts, and linking airspace projects 

to agency budgets. 

Addressing the pending wave of controller retirements will be a challenge. Over 

the next 10 years, FAA estimates that approximately 73 percent of the organization’s 15,000 controllers will become eligible to retire. This past December, FAA 

issued the first in a series of reports outlining how the problem will be addressed. 

While a good first step, the plan does not discuss cost nor hiring and staffing needs 

by location. This information is critical because FAA has over 300 air traffic control 

facilities, and many (like Chicago O’Hare) have the potential to impact the entire 

15

National Airspace System. Without accurate facility-level planning, FAA runs the 

risk of placing too many or too few controllers at key locations and could waste a 

one-time opportunity to address longstanding concerns about controller staffing imbalances. FAA must also be cognizant that a much higher percentage of its controller workforce will be trainees. FAA will need to continually monitor the training 

results from individual facilities to ensure that the significant increase in trainees 

does not adversely impact efficiency or safety. 

Setting expectations for FAA’s new Joint Planning and Development Office is critical. This office was mandated by Congress to develop a vision for the next generation air traffic management system in the 2025 timeframe. There are a number of 

reasons why this effort is important, including the forecasted demand in air travel 

and the factors (i.e., microjets) that may drive increased operations. It is also important because much of FAA’s current capital account focuses on keeping things running (i.e., infrastructure sustainment), not new initiatives. FAA reports that the current air traffic control system (or ‘‘business as usual’’) will not be sufficient to accommodate future growth in traffic or the changes facing the aviation community. 

Key issues focus on what new systems are needed and how new systems, capabilities, procedures, and changes in airspace management can transform the way air 

traffic services are provided. FAA needs to determine what the new office can do 

in 5- and 10-year intervals and establish corresponding funding requirements. 

In the immediate term, there are two airports—Chicago-O’Hare and New YorkLaGuardia—where traffic, if unchecked, is likely to overtax available capacity. Slot 

restrictions were in place in both airports through 2002, when O’Hare’s were lifted. 

At LaGuardia, slot controls were lifted in 2002 and then reinstated when delays became unmanageable. At O’Hare, the Administration has imposed administrative 

controls to cap the number of hourly flights at a level consistent with the airport’s 

capacity. The Department has a rulemaking underway that would extend these caps 

for 3 years until planned runway projects can add capacity. 

At LaGuardia, however, new construction is not a viable option because of land 

constraints. At LaGuardia, and potentially other airports where delays may return 

to a crisis level faster than capacity can be added, market-based solutions may offer 

some temporary, or even permanent, relief. Market-based solutions such as congestion pricing or slot auctions may allocate scarce capacity without distorting the market, but they entail difficult policy decisions such as how to value capacity, what 

the appropriate price is for the respective users, who should determine the price, 

who collects the revenues, and how the revenues should be used. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. An attachment to this statement includes charts, graphs, tables and other data that further illustrate the issues 

I have highlighted today. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

ATTACHMENT 

Traffic Growth In Key Markets Is Driving Delays and Congestion While 

Smaller Communities Continue To Experience Depressed Service

Levels 

Both enplanements and operations are back to or at even greater levels than 

2000, when air travel was at its peak. Enplanements in 2004 were 698.7 million, 

just about 250,000 short of 2000 enplanements. Flight operations in April 2005 actually exceeded April 2000 operations by 4 percent.

Traffic growth has led to a resurgence in congestion and delays. Systemwide arrival delays in the first quarter of 2005 were up 17 percent over the first quarter 

of 2004, affecting more than 25 percent of all flights. The number and percentage 

of delays in the first quarter of 2005 were also greater than the number of delays 

in the first quarter of 2000, generally considered to be the hallmark of poor on-time 

performance. The average length of delay is also rising, with first quarter 2005 


526m.eps
16

delays averaging 52.3 minutes compared to 48.5 minutes in the same period in 

2000.

The increased rate of flight delays for the first quarter of 2005 was concentrated 

in airports in the Northeast and Florida. We note that the most delayed airports 

are not necessarily the busiest airports. In fact, of the 15 highest-volume airports 

during the first quarter of 2005, only 5 are among the top 15 most delayed airports. 

The following table identifies the Top 15 highest-volume airports as ranked by 

scheduled arrivals and their delay profiles.


526m1.eps
17

Most of the Top 15 Delayed Airports Experienced Traffic Growth, Increased 

Delay Rates, and Longer Average Delays. 

Twelve of Fifteen Airports Experienced Traffic Growth. Among the top 15 

delayed airports, as ranked by percent of flights delayed, 12 airports experienced 

traffic growth of between 1 and 18 percent over first quarter 2004 levels, with the 

largest growth at Indianapolis (+18 percent), Philadelphia (+16 percent), and Fort 

Lauderdale (+15 percent). Scheduled arrivals were flat at LaGuardia and scheduled 

arrivals at Newark and O’Hare actually declined by 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Both O’Hare and LaGuardia are operating under administratively-imposed 

traffic caps. 

Fourteen of Fifteen Airports Experienced Growth in Delay Rates. The percent of flights delayed increased over first quarter 2004 levels in all of the top 15 

delayed airports except O’Hare, most notably at Fort Lauderdale (+11.3 percentage 

points), LaGuardia (+11.2 percentage points), and Philadelphia (+9.6 percentage 

points). The percentage of flights delayed at O’Hare actually decreased by nearly 10 

percentage points from this period. 

Fourteen of Fifteen Airports Experienced Increased Average Lengths of 

Delay. In the first quarter of 2005, the average length of delay increased over the 

first quarter of 2004 at 14 of the 15 airports, with the greatest increases at Fort 

Lauderdale (47 to 57 minutes), Philadelphia (50 to 60 minutes), and Atlanta (52 to 

61 minutes). The average length of delay at O’Hare was 62 minutes, which was 

more than a 2 minute decrease from the average 65 minute delay experienced during the first quarter of 2004. 


526m2.eps
18

The following table identifies the 15 most delayed airports and their net growth 

in traffic, percent of flights delayed, and change in average length of delays. Chicago-O’Hare is highlighted because it is the only airport on the list that improved 

in the first quarter 2005 over the first quarter of 2004.

Of the top 15 delayed airports, the only airport to improve over the first quarter 

of 2004 was O’Hare. For the first quarter 2005, O’Hare ranked fourteenth in percent 

of delayed arrivals (27 percent), a sea-change from its ranking of first in the same 

period in 2004, when 37 percent of flights arrived late. This improvement, at least 

in part, can be attributed to the Administration’s interventions with the carriers 

serving O’Hare. In 2004, the Department intervened on three separate occasions to 

negotiate and/or impose schedule reductions to cap operations at a level consistent 

with O’Hare’s available capacity. The first intervention in March 2004 resulted in 

a 5 percent reduction in schedules by United and American. The second intervention 

in June 2004 reduced schedules another 2.5 percent. The third and final intervention in November 2004 capped scheduled peak-hour departures at 88 combined 

among all carriers. Congestion in the Chicago area was also mitigated after bankrupt ATA Airlines reduced operations out of Chicago-Midway Airport by 19 percent. 

Growth in Low-Cost Carriers, Hub Consolidation, and Regional Jet Growth 

Drive Congestion 

Incursion of Low-Cost Carriers into Legacy Hubs Spurs Traffic and Congestion Growth. Low cost carriers (LCCs), which once opted to operate at alternative but more affordable secondary airports, are now challenging legacy carriers 

in their hubs in most large and medium-sized markets. Based on July 2005 scheduled flights, low-cost carriers will account for 26 percent of all departures, compared 

to 18 percent in 2000. The share of service provided by network carriers and their 

regional affiliates has likewise declined from 82 percent in July 2000 to 74 percent 

in July 2005.


526m3.eps
19

The entry of new low-cost carrier service can have dramatic effects on the average 

fares on those markets as all carriers are pressured to reduce fares to levels competitive with the new low-cost service. 

Significant fare reductions often stimulate demand, driving additional service offerings. For example, when Southwest began service between Philadelphia (PHL) 

and Raleigh-Durham (RDU), the average one-way fare dropped from $213 to $61, 

spurring passenger growth of 263 percent in the third quarter of 2004 over the third 

quarter of 2003. 

Similar effects occurred when Southwest initiated service from Philadelphia to 

Providence (PVD), AirTran began service to Newport News (PHF) and Akron (CAK) 

from Boston (BOS), Independence Air began service to Raleigh Durham and Portland, Maine (PWM) from Washington (WAS-Dulles), and JetBlue began service to 

Oakland (OAK) and Long Beach (LGB) from Boston.


526m4.eps
20

3For eight major U.S. Airlines, as reported to the Air Transport Association.

Systemwide, the effects of low-cost carriers are taking their toll on average airfares. In April 2005, the average fare for a 1000-mile trip 3 was $118, a drop of 20 

percent from the $147 average fare for a 1,000-mile trip in April 2000. 


526m5.eps
21

4Domestic and international operations by U.S. flag carriers, international operations by foreign flag carriers, and charter service.

The new low-cost carrier operations, coupled with competitive responses from existing service providers can significantly tax runways and airspace at airports that 

may be already congested. Examples of the impact of low-cost carrier entry on congestion include Independence Air’s operation out of Washington-Dulles and 

JetBlue’s growing operation at New York- JFK. 

In 2004, Independence Air (formerly Atlantic Coast Airlines) launched a new lowcost service with its hub operation at Dulles Airport. United, the incumbent legacy 

carrier, matched Independence Air on fares, further stimulating growth in the markets served by both carriers. As a result, flights increased 79 percent in March 2005 

over March 2004 levels. In the same period, the number of delayed flights increased 

by 7,700 or more than 100 percent. 

Growth at New York- JFK is almost entirely attributable to growth in low-cost 

carrier service, led predominantly by JetBlue. In the first quarter of 2005, total JFK 

traffic was down 11 percent from the highs of the first quarter of 2000, largely as 

a result in lagging International traffic. However during this period, low-cost carrier 

traffic increased more than five-fold while other traffic 4 was still down by 34 percent. Delays as well have increased as traffic has grown. In the first quarter of 2005, 

the number of delayed arrivals was 35 percent higher than the same period in 2000 

and represented a more than 52 percent increase over the first quarter of 2004. 


526m6.eps 526m7.eps
22

Displaced Traffic from Down-sized Legacy Carrier Hubs Contribute to 

Congestion Growth in Other Hubs. In an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiency, several mainline carriers have closed hubs and transferred operations to remaining hubs. For example, Delta Airlines eliminated 7,500 flights from its hub operations in Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (DFW) during the first quarter of 2005 and 

shifted its DFW-based mainline and regional affiliate aircraft to Atlanta, Cincinnati, 

and Salt Lake City. Other carriers backfilled some of the vacated slots, but the net 

impact was a 17 percent decrease in total scheduled operations at DFW. 

On the flip side, however, operations in Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Salt Lake City 

in March 2005 were 7 percent, 5 percent, and 22 percent greater than operations 

in March 2004, respectively. Delays in the first quarter at these airports showed effects of these shifts, with delays down 14.4 percent at DFW from the first quarter 

of 2004 and up in Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Salt Lake City 7.9 percent, 13 percent, 

and 3.4 percent, respectively. 

In a similar pattern, US Airways cut its Pittsburgh hub operations by 3,800 

flights during the fourth quarter of 2004, shifting mainline aircraft and service to 

Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Fort Lauderdale. Overall traffic in Philadelphia increased by 29 percent, and was up 20 percent in Charlotte and 23 percent in Fort 

Lauderdale. Compared to the 402 daily Philadelphia departures scheduled on a typical day last summer, US Airways is now scheduling 495 daily flights, an increase 

of 23 percent. While delays in Pittsburgh were down minimally in the first quarter 

of 2005 over the first quarter of 2004, they were up 62.4 percent in Philadelphia, 

65.2 percent in Charlotte, and 63.7 percent in Fort Lauderdale. 

Increased Regional Jet Operations and Rebounding Jet-powered General 

Aviation Traffic Are Increasing Demands on High-Altitude Airspace and 

Airport Runways. The shift from turboprop or piston aircraft to jet aircraft (regional jets, jet-powered general aviation aircraft, and microjets) are posing new challenges to airports and air traffic control. The shift essentially pushes the former lowaltitude turboprop traffic up to the 35,000 to 40,000+ foot airspace—the same altitudes where larger jet aircraft fly—and thus crowding the high-altitude airspace. In 

addition, regional jets and jet-powered general aviation aircraft have the same airfield requirements, utilizing the same runways as larger jets. In some congested airports, such as Newark, the runways that once accommodated propeller-driven regional aircraft are underutilized, while delays mount as jet-powered general aviation, regional jets, and large aircraft vie for landing slots on the longer runways. 

Regional Jets Now Represent Nearly One-third of All Scheduled Flights.

The airlines are continuing to shift service to jet aircraft. In July 2000, scheduled 

flights aboard jets accounted for 66 percent of all flights offered. In July 2005, 

scheduled flights aboard jets will account for 81 percent of all offered flights. In contrast, scheduled turboprop flights decreased from 28 percent in July 2000 to 14 percent in July 2005. The growth in jet traffic reflects, in large part, significantly increased reliance on regional jets. In July 2000, scheduled flights aboard regional jets 

accounted for 10 percent of all offered flights. In July 2005, scheduled flights aboard 

regional jets will account for 32 percent of flights.

23

5 Compared to comparable aircraft currently priced at around $6 million. 

General Aviation Jet-powered Aircraft Activity Is on the Rebound. While 

the rest of the industry has shown signs of recovery, general aviation (GA) has not 

improved since a steep drop-off after September 11th. In fact, GA operations at combined FAA and contracted towers declined 1.6 percent in 2004 and remain 12.4 percent below 2000 levels. However, within the GA market, one sector—jet aircraft activity—is showing signs of improvement. The number of GA jets filing instrument 

flight rule flight plans (generally not filed by locally operating recreational pilots) 

and the number of flight hours were up 1.6 percent and 6.2 percent, respectively, 

during 2004. 

And it appears the trend will continue. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) reports that shipments of business jet units were up 26 percent in 

the first quarter of 2005 compared to the first quarter of 2004. FAA forecasts the 

number of general aviation hours flown by jet aircraft to expand at an average annual rate of 6.7 percent over the next 12 years. The large increase in jet hours is 

largely due to expected increases in the fractional ownership fleet and its activity 

levels. The growth of this traffic sector is a concern to the FAA because GA jets fly 

at the same altitudes, occupy the same airspace, and could potentially require use 

of the same runways as large commercial jets. 

Microjets Have Potential To Further Crowd Dense Airspace. Beginning as 

early as March 2006, microjets or VLJs (Very Light Jets) are scheduled to enter the 

market priced between $1 million and $3 million per aircraft. 5 Manufacturers anticipate that these twin-engine jets carrying four to six passengers will be attractive 

to a variety of owners and operators. For example, Florida-based DayJet has ordered 239 Eclipse 500 microjets and plans to use them to operate what it calls ‘‘PerSeat, On-Demand’’ jet services. The company plans to provide point-to-point service 

to and from small community airports, including markets that have limited, if any, 

scheduled airline services. The Eclipse 500TM and several other VLJ models are undergoing testing this spring, and manufacturers have announced that customer deliveries will begin in 2006, pending FAA certification. 

Beyond the air taxi business model, manufacturers of VLJs also see a market in 

private ownership, corporate business jet fleets, and logistics (on-demand air cargo—

when ‘‘overnight’’ is not fast enough). While supporters believe that the microjets 

have the potential to redefine business travel, others are more conservative about 

how quickly and to what extent the market will materialize. FAA’s forecast assumes 

that the VLJs begin to enter the fleet in 2006 (100 aircraft) and grow by between 

400 to 500 aircraft a year thereafter, reaching a total of 4,500 aircraft by 2016. 

However, some industry estimates suggest that the market could reach 5,000 aircraft by as early as 2010, although it is not clear to what extent this represents domestically deployed aircraft.


526m8.eps
24

Short-term Outlook Is for Trouble Spots This Summer 

The summer travel season is historically the busiest travel time for the airlines. 

Schedules increase to accommodate increased demand and traffic volume increases, 

elevating the potential for an increased number of delays. Extreme weather conditions often add an additional layer of difficulty in meeting on-time performance 

goals. The following table identifies the 13 airports with summer 2004 arrival delays 

of greater than 25 percent. The airports with an asterisk, (Washington-Dulles, New 

York- JFK, and Fort Lauderdale) are those airports whose absolute delays in the 

summer of 2004 exceed the number during the summer of 2000 (considered the peak 

in aviation delays), and are projecting scheduled operations growth of greater than 

10 percent for the summer of 2005. 

In addition to Washington-Dulles, New York-JFK, and Fort Lauderdale, three 

other airports are likely to experience significant disruptions this summer. Delays 

in Philadelphia last summer affected more than 29 percent of all flights and scheduled departures this summer are 18 percent higher than the summer of 2004. Newark and Atlanta bear watching as both have sustained consistently high delays since 

the summer of 2000 and are likely to experience similar delay levels this summer.


526m9.eps 526m10.eps
25

Long-Term Outlook Calls For Continued Growth 

International Traffic Is on the Rebound. International traffic is forecast to exceed pre-September 11th levels this year, with approximately 145 million passengers traveling to and from the United States; an increase of 11 million passengers since 2004. In the summer 2005, scheduled international passenger and 

cargo operations are projected to exceed summer 2000 levels by 16 percent and 12 

percent, respectively. According to the FAA, the move toward deregulation overseas, 

privatization of national carriers, and expansion of open-skies agreements could result in significantly greater international traffic growth. This month the United 

States signed a bilateral open-skies agreement with the Maldives which follows 

agreements recently signed by India, Sri Lanka, Paraguay, and Pakistan. 

General Aviation Will Continue To Grow. The Department will need to closely monitor the growth and utilization of VLJs, which will expand jet traffic in airspace above 38,000 feet and increase the demand for air traffic services for jet aircraft. Depending on how and where VLJ traffic materializes—much of which is unknown at this point—the impact on safety, staffing needs, airspace, and infrastructure could be significant. In addition, VLJs could raise complex policy issues in 

areas such as landing rights, airport congestion, and security. 

Despite Growth in Traffic and Congestion at Large and Medium-Sized 

Hubs, Small and Non-hub Airports Still Lag Their Larger Counterparts 

in Service Recovery Since 2000

Service this summer connecting the smallest airports—otherwise known as nonhub airports—to large, medium, and small hub airports will remain significantly 

below service scheduled during the summer of 2000. Non-hub airports include those 

in cities like Key West, Florida; Missoula, Montana; Roanoke, Virginia; Lincoln, Nebraska; Charleston, West Virginia; and Redmond, Oregon. Access to large hub airports (like Phoenix, Honolulu, and Newark) from non-hub airports is down 16 percent from July 2000 levels. Scheduled flights to medium-sized hub airports (like San 

Antonio, San Jose, and Manchester) are down 26 percent from July 2000 levels. 

Scheduled flights to small-hub airports (like Spokane, Washington; El Paso, Texas; 

and Portland, Maine) are down 32 percent. Finally, flights between non-hub airports 

(e.g. Helena-Great Falls, Montana; Juneau-Ketchikan, Alaska; and Ithaca-Elmira 

(New York) are down 24 percent. 

Service levels remain depressed despite funding increases in the Essential Air 

Service (EAS) program. Annual funding between FY 2002 and FY 2005 has averaged about $100 million, or twice the level of subsidy available in 2000 and 2001. 

The number of cities with EAS subsidies has increased also, growing from 106 in 

2000 to 151 in 2005.


526m11.eps
26

The Department Faces Short- and Long-term Challenges in Addressing 

Congestion and Delays 

Since the Summer of 2000, FAA has taken a number of actions in managing and 

enhancing capacity. These include putting administrative controls in place at Chicago O’Hare, improved communications between airlines and FAA’s Command Center, and procedural changes to help manage the impact of bad weather (including 

greater use of joint civilian/military airspace on the East Coast). FAA has also established a new office to develop a vision for the next generation air traffic management system. Most recently in January 2005, FAA reduced vertical separation for 

aircraft traveling at high altitudes which provided for six new flight levels between 

29,000 and 41,000 feet. In addition, a number of new runways have come on-line. 

Without question, congestion and delays would be much worse without these actions, particularly the administrative controls at Chicago O’Hare and the commissioning of new runways. However, the anticipated demand for air travel and the factors we discussed earlier highlight the need for additional actions. We see several 

areas that require attention in the short- and long- term:

• Keeping new runway projects on schedule,

• Getting FAA’s airspace redesign efforts on track, which is critical to enhance 

capacity,

• Determining what FAA’s new Joint Planning and Development Office can do in 

5- and 10-year intervals and establishing corresponding funding requirements, 

and

• Continuing to explore market-based and administrative solutions where alternatives for providing new capacity are limited in the immediate term, for Chicago O’Hare and LaGuardia airports.

Keeping New Runway Projects on Schedule 

FAA reports show that new runways provide the most significant increases in capacity but these increases vary by location. New runways have been built at the 

Phoenix, Detroit, Miami, Denver, Houston, Orlando, and Cleveland airports. Without a doubt, congestion would be much worse this summer without the new capacity 

in the system. 

Between 2005 and 2008, eight additional new runway projects (7 new runways 

and a major extension of an existing runway) are expected to be completed. FAA 

will need to make sure, among other things, that new procedures and navigation 

equipment are in place when new projects are commissioned. We note that of the 

15 most congested airports (in terms of percent of operations delayed in the first 

quarter of 2005) only 3 airports (Atlanta, Boston, and Philadelphia) are expected to 

complete new runway projects within the next 2 to 3 years. The following table provides information on the eight runway projects FAA is monitoring as part of its 

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), the agency’s blueprint for enhancing capacity.

Status of Major New Runway Projects—May 2005

Airport 

Initial OEP 

(June 2001) 

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Current

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Phase 

Cost

Estimate 

as of Oct 

2001

(Millions) 

Current 

Cost

Estimate 

(Millions) 

Minneapolis Dec. 2003 Oct. 2005 Construction $563 $682

Cincinnati Dec. 2005 Dec. 2005 Construction $233 $255

St. Louis May 2006 Apr. 2006 Construction $1,100 $1,043

Atlanta May 2005 May 2006 Construction $1,200 $1,200

Boston Dec. 2005 Nov. 2006 Construction $95 $118

Philadelphia Not in initial 

OEP 

Dec. 2007 Design n/a $40

Charlotte June 2004 Feb. 2008 Design $187 $201

Seattle Nov. 2006 Nov. 2008 Construction $773 $1,129

Note: The Philadelphia project is a runway extension 

Source: FAA and Airport Sponsors 

There are about 10 other new runway projects in various planning stages, including major efforts at Chicago O’Hare, Los Angeles, and Washington-Dulles. However, 

FAA does not yet have firm completion dates for them and therefore has not yet 

27

6FAA includes a new runway in the OEP when all the planning and environmental processing 

has been completed, a Record of Decision has been issued, and the sponsor has provided FAA 

with the dimensions, timing, and planned use of the runway. FAA just recently added Philadelphia to the plan. 7OIG Report Number AV–2005–059, ‘‘Airspace Redesign Efforts Are Critical To Enhance Capacity But Need Major Improvements,’’ May 13, 2005.

included them in the OEP. 6 We will issue a report shortly on plans to revamp Chicago O’Hare, which represents the largest and most costly reconfiguration of an existing airport in the United States. 

While adding new capacity (via new pavement) may ultimately be the most comprehensive solution, it is not always a feasible one. For example, at congested New 

York-LaGuardia, where slot controls are slated to expire in 2007, land constraints 

preclude new construction. This is why FAA and some airports are looking into market-based or administrative solutions to manage congestion and delays. However, a 

number of policy questions need to be resolved with such approaches. 

Getting FAA’s Airspace Redesign Efforts on Track Is Critical to Enhance 

Capacity 

Airspace redesign efforts are critical in getting the most benefits (in terms of capacity and delay reduction) from new runways. FAA’s OEP indicates that 40 to 60 

percent of projected capacity improvements from new concrete will be lost without 

corresponding changes in airspace. In some cases, airspace redesign plays an even 

greater role. 

For example, very few of the benefits of the Chicago O’Hare Modernization Program (the addition of one new runway, the extension of two runways, and the relocation of three others) will be realized without significant airspace changes. For the 

first stage of the O’Hare Modernization Program expected to be complete in 2007 

(the new north runway only), a combination of airfield and airspace changes provides for more than a 50 percent reduction in the average minutes of projected delay 

per flight, from 19.6 to 9.6 minutes. FAA and Mitre analyses show the new north 

runway, without corresponding airspace changes, will have little impact on delays. 

On the other hand, the Choke Point initiative (following the summer of 2000) 

demonstrated that airspace changes can also have important benefits even without 

new runway construction. FAA reports that the Choke Point initiative reduced 

delays and resulted in an annual savings to airspace users of $70 million. The 

Choke Point initiative was successful because it was placed on a fast track, had significant management oversight, and linked plans and resources—all of which are 

best practices that need to be transferred to all airspace projects. 

We recently issued a report on the importance of FAA’s airspace redesign projects 

in enhancing capacity and the range of actions the agency needs to take to get these 

efforts on track. 7 We reviewed the 42 approved airspace redesign projects in FY 

2004 and found that FAA’s overall process for controlling costs, mitigating risks, 

and coordinating local, regional, and headquarters efforts is diffused and fragmented. Specifically, we found: 

• Cost and schedule estimates for the vast majority of airspace redesign projects 

are not reliable. Cost estimates—for the program as well as individual 

projects—include costs for planning but not for implementation. Therefore, we 

could not, nor could FAA, determine the cost of implementing the 42 approved 

projects in FY 2004.

• FAA’s redesign projects are often delayed 3 years or more because of changes 

in a project’s scope, environmental issues, and problems in developing new procedures for more precise arrival and departure routes. For example, of the 42 

approved projects in FY 2004, 7 were affected by environmental concerns, 10 

by problems in developing new procedures, and 21 by changes in a project’s 

scope.

• Projects are not effectively coordinated among agency organizations that manage resources (e.g., new equipment and radio frequencies) or linked to the agency’s budget process. This directly affects a project’s implementation. We found 

that 19 of the 42 approved projects in FY 2004 had unresolved equipment 

issues.

We recommended that FAA (1) establish cost and schedule controls for airspace 

redesign projects (and include costs for both planning and implementation), (2) establish procedures to ensure projects are coordinated among agency offices, (3) 

prioritize airspace projects and establish criteria for assessing a project’s systemwide impact, and (4) re-evaluate how resources are used at the local and regional 

levels. FAA has actions underway to address our recommendations. 

28

8We reviewed 16 of FAA’s major acquisitions. We found that 11 of the 16 experienced cost 

growth of about $5.6 billion, which is more than double the amount of FAA’s Fiscal Year 2006 

budget request for its Facilities and Equipment account. Additionally, 10 of these 16 projects 

accounted for schedule delays ranging from 2 to 12 years and 2 projects have been deferred until 

at least 2008. For additional details on FAA’s major acquisitions as well perspectives on the 

JPDO, see our testimony entitled ‘‘Next Steps for the Air Traffic Organization’’ (CC–2005–022, 

April 14, 2005). 

FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office—Determining What Can Be 

Done in 5- and 10- year Benchmarks and Establishing Funding

Requirements 

Another important effort to help meet the anticipated demand for air travel is 

FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). The establishment of this 

new office was mandated by Congress to coordinate research and development efforts among diverse Federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and the Department of Defense, and develop a vision for the next 

generation air traffic management system in the 2025 timeframe. 

There are a number of reasons why this effort is important, including the forecasted demand in air travel as well as the factors (i.e., microjets) that may drive 

increased operations. The new office is also important because the majority of 

projects in FAA’s current capital account ($2.4 billion for fiscal year 2006) focus on 

keeping things running, or ‘‘infrastructure sustainment.’’ The combined effects of increased operations costs and the fact that modernization projects have suffered so 

much cost growth over the years has left little room for new initiatives. 8 This is 

one of the reasons why there is so much discussion about how to finance new air 

traffic management initiatives. 

FAA reports that the current air traffic control system (or ‘‘business as usual’’) 

will not be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated future growth in traffic or the 

changes facing the aviation community. Key issues focus on what new systems are 

needed and how new systems, capabilities, procedures, and changes in airspace 

management can transform the way air traffic services are provided. The JPDO 

published its first plan this past December. It laid out goals and strategies but did 

not provide details on what capabilities will be pursued or how much they would 

cost to implement. 

While the 2025 timeframe has merit, benchmarks for what can be done in 5- and 

10-year intervals are also important. Other imperatives focus on determining what 

level of funding is actually required, how much other agencies will contribute, what 

specific capabilities will be pursued, and when they can be implemented. The Department committed to Congress that by the year’s end, it would provide specifics on 

how much money is needed, when, and for what purposes. 

Administrative and/or Market-Based Solutions May Provide Congestion

Relief in Markets Where Alternatives are Limited 

As delays return, FAA and some airports are considering a variety of administrative and/or market-based solutions that would allow variable pricing of access in 

order to control congestion and delays. Some of the congestion management alternatives under study include slot auctions, congestion pricing, administratively imposed scheduling caps, and incentives for up-gauging aircraft. 

In 2004 and 2005, the FAA used administrative actions to reduce delays at Chicago-O’Hare by first negotiating and later imposing schedule reductions with the 

carriers serving O’Hare. The FAA is now soliciting comments on whether to continue the administrative controls at O’Hare for another 3 years, until ultimately, the 

first phase of the O’Hare Modernization Plan is complete and additional capacity 

could relieve some of the congestion. At LaGuardia, another airport where scheduled 

operations are anticipated to exceed capacity when slot controls expire in 2007, new 

construction is not a viable option. At LaGuardia, some demand management tool—

whether market based or administrative, will likely be needed to prevent what could 

be crippling delay conditions. 

Market-based approaches, while on paper appear to be a reasonable solution for 

some airports, entail difficult policy considerations, such as who sets the fees, how 

the fees should be set, who collects the fees, how (and whether) fees are shared between airports and the FAA, how general aviation will be treated, and small community access. These are difficult questions that will need definitive answers—the 

consequences of moving forward without working out the details could result in severe market consequences. We believe this debate needs to be joined with the debate 

taking shape on financing FAA—there should be some degree of equity between who 

benefits from premium services (i.e., rush hour departure slots), and who pays for 

these privileges.

29

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. We’ve been joined by Senator Nelson of Nebraska. He’s worried about McCook International. 

And I’m sorry, Senator, I didn’t recognize you before we went to 

Mr. Mead. Do you have a statement——

STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator BEN NELSON. No. Thank you for the opportunity, but I’m 

anxious to get to their statements first. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. We have with us this morning Mr. Gerald 

Dillingham. He is Director of Aviation Issues with the GAO, and 

he’ll be next. 

Senator Lott, thank you for being here. We were just going over 

the advances that have been made in the FAA and in aviation 

under your tutelage when you were Chairman of this Committee, 

and we thank you for your service. 

Do you have a statement or anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Yes. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for having the hearing, and thank you for your comments. I’ve enjoyed very much working with the FAA Administrator, Mr. Mead, 

and all those involved in aviation. I think we have made some 

progress, and we dealt with this industry. And with what’s trying 

to be done at FAA, we obviously still have work to do. 

Modernization still has a long way to go, and we still have airlines that have a great deal of difficulty. But actually, I just came 

from a meeting on dealing with that very issue, how we’re going 

to deal with the pension problem; and I expect the Finance Committee to take this issue up in June. If it doesn’t, I’m going to offer 

it as an amendment on the floor in June or July. 

I made it clear we’re going to act on this pension issue, and we’re 

going to do it this summer. I think that would, set up a way for 

the pension issue to be dealt with appropriately while we move 

from the old system to the new. 

But I just want to thank our witnesses today for being here. 

Keep up the work. We need to make more progress. This is a 

vital part of our economy, and we must find a way to make it 

healthy and safe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator. And now Mr. Gerald 

Dillingham from the Government Accountability Office. 

And thank you for your report, Mr. Dillingham. Good report. And 

it’s sort of an eye-opener to many of us who are going to be dealing 

with this business of keeping everybody in the air and getting 

there on time. So thank you for joining us this morning. We look 

forward to your testimony.

30

STATEMENT OF GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Stevens, 

Senator Lott and Senator Nelson. 

A few months after 9/11, GAO issued a report to this Committee 

on airspace capacity issues. The key message in that report was 

that the decline in air traffic was only a temporary reprieve for system congestion and delays. We characterized it as a window of opportunity to develop and implement plans for long-term capacity 

enhancements. 

As you may recall in 2000, which was billed as one of the worst 

years for aviation delays, one in every four flights experienced a 

delay. In 2004 one in every five flights experienced a delay. The 

2004 ratio was achieved even though air traffic was near pre-9/11 

levels. This could be seen as an indicator of some progress in reducing delays. It could also be seen as an indicator that much more 

needs to be done. 

For example, the Air Transport Association has reported that flight delays in 2004 cost the airline industry an estimated $6.2 billion in direct operating costs. These are costs that the airline industry can ill-afford. Neither can the Nation’s economy nor its position in the global economy continue to withstand what has been estimated to be a $30 billion annual loss to the Nation’s economy 

when people and products do not reach their destination within expected time periods. 

Since our earlier report, and as you’ve heard from the previous 

witnesses, FAA and the other stakeholders have undertaken or 

planned a wide variety of initiatives to address the delay problems 

this summer. FAA and the airlines have also focused special attention on some of the choke points in the system, such as in the New 

York area and Chicago, where delays and congestions tend to have 

a ripple effect throughout the system. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the initiatives that FAA and the 

other stakeholders have implemented will minimize system delays 

and congestion for the upcoming travel season. To address system 

congestion and delays for the longer term, FAA has also developed 

a long-term strategy, the OEP. 

The centerpiece of the OEP and, by general consensus, the OEP 

initiative which holds the greatest promise for increasing system 

capacity is runway construction. Under the OEP, 15 new runways 

are scheduled to be in service by the end of 2008; but only three 

of the nine airports that experienced the highest rates of delay in 

2004 are scheduled for additional runways. There is a general consensus that even if all of the OEP initiatives are implemented, the 

National Airspace System is not expected to keep up with demand, 

resulting in increased congestion and delays over the 10-year OEP 

time frame. 

The question seems to be, how much congestion and delays will 

there be? On the one hand, FAA’s Management Advisory Council 

estimates passengers will experience 63 percent more total delay 

hours in 2012 than they did in 2000. On the other hand, FAA’s position is that if all the OEP initiatives are implemented, delays will 

be maintained at or below the delay levels of 2000. 

31

You will recall that in 2000, one in every four flights was delayed. Both of these scenarios indicate that the OEP initiatives will 

not be enough to solve the delay and congestion problems. Our 

written statement identifies some other potential capacity-increasing options that are not in the OEP but have been cited by GAO 

and others over the last decade. These options basically fall into 

two categories. 

The first category involves measures to add new infrastructure, 

such as building new airports or greater utilization and development of regional airports near major cities. 

The second category focuses on developing alternative modes of 

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

rail to reduce the number of short-haul flights. 

We recognize that adopting many of these other options is likely 

to be a much greater challenge than implementing initiatives in 

the OEP principally because of stakeholder opposition. 

Mr. Chairman, as has been made clear from the statements this 

morning, there are certainly numerous challenges that lie ahead 

for enhancing system capacity and moving toward the Next Generation Air Transportation System for 2025. FAA has taken a first 

and very important step toward addressing the challenges by developing a series of plans, including the 5-year flight plan, the 10-year 

OEP, and the twenty-year Next Generation Air Transportation System plan, all of which give direction and focus to enhancing system 

capacity. 

However, we think one of the most serious challenges to the successful implementation of the plans is the availability of funding. 

We agree with the Administrator that the FAA is in an untenable 

financial position where its costs are exceeding its revenues. In 2004 the gap between its costs and revenues was about $4 billion. Although FAA has been able to fund its key systems acquisitions, the FAA budget accounts that fund capacity-enhancing 

projects and the acquisition of ATC systems had reduced funding 

in 2005, and further reductions are proposed for 2006. 

Additionally to meet budget targets, FAA also eliminated all of 

the $1.4 billion that it had designated for early R&D activities in 

support of new system projects. Taken together, it would seem that 

FAA will have a difficult time moving from its current investment 

strategies, wherein as much as 80 percent of its annual budget is 

to maintain the status quo rather than increasing capacity and efficiency within the system. 

In a final analysis, Mr. Chairman, we think that most of what 

can be done for the short term is at various stages of implementation. However, meeting the challenge of keeping up with the increasing demand for safe and efficient air transportation services 

in the 21st Century will require additional actions including integrating the various plans that currently exist and adequate funding to implement the plan through new or existing funding mechanisms. 

Meeting the challenge will also require continuous use and improvement of sound business practices and cost control efforts by 

the FAA. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dillingham follows:]

32

1 U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Airspace System: Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays, GAO–02–185 (Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2001).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

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

the national airspace system. Since the unprecedented flight delays in 2000, a year 

in which flight delays totaled 1.4 million and one in four flights were delayed, our 

aviation system has been adversely affected by many unanticipated events—such as 

the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq war and associated security concerns, 

and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)—that significantly reduced the demand for air travel. However, that demand for air travel is rebounding. For example, the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in 2003 

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

billion travelers per year in the United States. 

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

of flight delays today. Flight delays have many causes. Historically, the major cause 

of flight delays has been bad weather. For example, 70 percent of the flight delays 

from 2000 to 2004 were weather-related. Apart from weather, the next main cause 

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

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

fleet—including the airlines’ greater reliance on regional jets with an average of 49 

seats—has also increased the number of aircraft in the national airspace system, 

which has placed greater demand on the system. Besides airlines, other parts of the 

aviation community are also likely to place more demands on the national airspace 

system. For example, corporations may make increasing use of their corporate jets, 

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

Flight delays have also been among the most vexing problems in the national airspace system and are defined by the Department of Transportation as instances 

when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or more after scheduled arrival time. 

In 2004, the number of flight delays totaled over 1.4 million and almost one in five 

flights were delayed primarily at New York La Guardia, Newark International, Chicago O’Hare, and Atlanta Hartsfield. Because these are some of the busiest airports 

in the country, their delays generally have significant ramifications for the rest of 

the national airspace system. Our Nation’s airspace system is a critical engine of 

economic growth that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods 

around the globe, consequently flight delays and capacity issues have significant 

ramifications. According to the Commission on the Future of the United States 

Aerospace Industry, consumers stand to lose $30 billion dollars annually if people 

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

Transport Association also reports that flight delays in 2004 cost the airline industry an estimated $6.2 billion in direct operating costs (e.g., pilots, flight attendants, 

and fuel). 

My statement today updates our 2001 report entitled: National Airspace System: 

Long-Term Capacity Planning Needed Despite Recent Reduction in Flight Delays 1

and addresses the following questions: 

• What initiatives are ongoing by the Federal Government, airlines, and airports 

to address flight delays and enhance capacity?

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

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

To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from FAA, Airports Council International, and the Air Transport Association on the status and impact of initiatives to reduce flight delays that were identified in our December 2001 

report. We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

In summary: 

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

enhance capacity are ongoing.

33

2See appendix 1 for a list of the 35 airports that are in the OEP. 

3The Airport and Airway Trust Fund help funds the development of a nationwide airport and 

airway system and air traffic control facilities. 

Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA’s February 2005 Operation Evolution Plan which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system and focuses on airport congestion, air traffic management 

flow efficiency, en route congestion, and terminal area congestion at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. 2 FAA acknowledges, however, that the OEP is not 

intended as the ultimate solution to congestion and delay problems. Also, over the 

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

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

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

landings). Seven more runways and one runway extension are scheduled to open by 

the end of 2008 with the potential to accommodate 889,000 more annual operations. 

In addition to building runways, several new systems or technologies were implemented. For example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase available high altitude 

routes which gives pilots and air traffic controllers more choices so that aircraft can 

fly more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient altitudes. FAA is also pursuing some 

additional solutions for flight delays that are not in the OEP. To reduce flight delays 

at some of the delay-prone airports such as New York La Guardia and Chicago 

O’Hare, FAA is also exploring administrative and market-based options. For example, FAA is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights and using congestion pricing at New York La Guardia and limiting the number of takeoffs and landings during peak periods at Chicago O’Hare. 

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity remain. 

Chief among them is obtaining funding for many of the initiatives mentioned above; 

their successful implementation is predicated on the availability of funding from 

several sources, including FAA, airlines, and airports. However, since 2000, the financial condition of the aviation industry has changed significantly. Many structural changes, such as the growth of the low cost carriers which led to lower average 

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

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

in airline industry revenue and the amount of revenues flowing into the Airport and 

Airway Trust Fund. 3 FAA expects that over the next four years there may be an 

$8.2 billion dollar gap between its costs and revenues. In 2004, the airline industry 

losses totaled $14 billion and the industry is expecting similar losses in 2005, which 

will make it difficult for them to equip their aircraft with some of the new air traffic 

control technology, according to Air Transport Association officials. 

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

capacity—not by adding runways to existing capacity-constrained airports, but rathVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF

dill1.eps
34

4FAA updated its capacity benchmark report in 2004. 

5The current OEP includes 35 of the busiest airports in the U.S. 

er by building entirely new airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas, and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another 

option is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as, but not limited to, 

highspeed rail where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These options 

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

cases, would be costly. 

Background 

Although recent events may have moved airport congestion off center stage as a 

major national issue, delays remain a pervasive problem, in part because of the 

interdependence of the Nation’s airports. The effect of delays can quickly spread beyond those airports where delays tend to occur most often, such as New York La 

Guardia, Chicago O’Hare, Newark International, and Atlanta Hartsfield. Delays at 

these airports can quickly create a ‘‘ripple’’ effect of delays that affects many airports across the country. For example, flights scheduled to take off from these airports may find themselves being held at the departing airport due to weather or 

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

occurring may be late in arriving at its destination, thus delaying the departure 

time for the aircraft’s next flight. 

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

by FAA indicate that weather causes about 70 percent of the delays each year. 

Apart from weather, the next main cause is lack of capacity—that is, the inability 

of the national airspace system to handle the amount of traffic seeking to use it. 

Capacity can be measured in a variety of ways. For example, at individual airports, 

one measure is the maximum number of takeoffs and landings that can be conducted in a given period, such as 15 minutes or 1 hour. In our 2001 report, we noted 

that FAA had established such a capacity benchmark at each of the 31 of the Nation’s busiest airports. 4 FAA’s data on capacity and demand at these airports 

showed that even in optimum weather conditions, 16 airports had at least three 15-

minute periods each day when demand exceeded capacity. 5

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

erode capacity. For example, some airports have parallel runways that are too close 

together for simultaneous operations in bad weather. When weather worsens, only 

one of the two runways can be used at any given time, thereby reducing the number 

of aircraft that can take off and land. FAA’s data in 2001 showed that in bad weather, 22 of the 31 airports had at least three 15-minute periods when demand exceeded capacity. Another measure of capacity, apart from the capacity of individual airports, is the number of aircraft that can be in a given sector of the airspace. For 

safe operations, aircraft must maintain certain distances from each other and remain within authorized airspace. If too many aircraft are trying to use the same 

airspace, some must wait, either on the ground or en route. 

Addressing flight delay problems also requires action by multiple aviation stakeholders because no single entity has the authority or ability to solve delay-related 

problems. The Federal Government, especially through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its parent agency, the Department of Transportation (DOT), 

plays a major role by operating the national airspace system, distributing Federal 

funding for airports, and setting operating standards for all aircraft and airports. 

Airports and airlines are also important decision makers and funding sources. The 

Nation’s airports are primarily owned and operated by local units of government, 

so that decisions about such steps as expanding airport capacity are primarily local 

in nature. Airlines’ business decisions have a strong effect on the volume and routing of flights, the type and size of aircraft used, and the degree to which aircraft 

are upgraded to take advantage of new technology. 

A Number of Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity Are 

Ongoing 

Several initiatives to reduce flight delays and enhance capacity are ongoing. These 

initiatives which FAA, the airlines, and the airports are implementing are incorporated into FAA’s major capacity-enhancing effort: the Operation Evolution Plan 

(OEP). The OEP is a rolling 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the 

national airspace system and focuses on airport surface infrastructure, and technological and procedural initiatives at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. 

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

to congestion and delay problems. Responsibility for the various initiatives is still 

shared among the various segments of the aviation community. In February 2005, 

35

FAA published version 7 of the OEP and organized it into the following four quadrants: 

Airport Congestion. The Airport Congestion quadrant focuses on capacity enhancements for the airport surface. One of the most effective ways to increase capacity is to build runways; however, it takes an average of 10 years from the time 

planning begins for a runway until it is commissioned. To help expedite the process 

for building runways, Congress and FAA streamlined the environmental review 

phase of the runway process. In addition, according to FAA, over the last six years, 

seven new runways were opened at Phoenix, Detroit, Denver, Miami, Cleveland, 

Houston, and Orlando airports which provided those airports with the potential to 

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

Seven more runways and one runway extension are included in the OEP and are 

scheduled to open by the end of 2008. These runways are expected to provide those 

airports with the potential to accommodate 889,000 more annual operations in the 

system, as shown in figure 2.

In addition to the runways listed in the OEP, nine more projects are in the planning or environmental stages, including one new runway, three airfield reconfigurations, one runway extension, and three new airports in major metropolitan areas. 

FAA also has additional flight reduction activities that are not included in the OEP. 

To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone airports, such as New York La 

Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is exploring administrative and market based options. For example, FAA is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at 

New York La Guardia and is currently limiting the number of scheduled arrivals 

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

Air Traffic Management Flow Efficiency. This quadrant focuses on new technology and procedures to optimize the flow of traffic and maximize system throughput which may allow better control and utilization of current airspace. Included is 

the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product which is a graphical forecast of potential convective activity areas (i.e., thunderstorms) for use in the strategic planning and management of air traffic. It is intended to provide advance planning for 

long haul flights and allows for schedule predictability based on 2-, 4-, and 6-hour 

forecasts. This tool is most useful during the severe weather avoidance procedures 

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

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

Making focuses on electronic data exchange; optimized airspace utilization; shared 

planning and decision-making; and post-analysis reporting. In addition, the Traffic 


dill2.eps
36

6Traffic Management Advisor provides an aircraft arrival schedule in the en route and terminal units and produces meter lists for controllers that display that estimate optimal arrival 

times. 

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

is an automated decision support tool, is intended to provide controllers and traffic 

management coordinators more information on airport arrival demand and available 

capacity for making decisions on aircraft spacing. 

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

airports, many times this occurs in the en route areas as the airways become congested. The tools in this quadrant reduce delays and contribute to time and fuel savings for the vast majority of airspace users. One of the tools currently in use is reduced lateral (side-to-side) separation may provide space for additional routes between current city pairs or allow for new direct routes. Reduced longitudinal (noseto-tail) separation may provide more opportunities to add flights without incurring 

delays. For domestic flights, Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum was 

implemented in Fiscal Year 2005 in the contiguous United States and Alaska and 

adds six additional flight levels between existing flight levels. The User Request 

Evaluation Tool which was installed at l7 air route traffic control centers and is 

operational at 13 air route traffic control centers, allows controllers to predict aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-airspace conflicts, which allows them to construct alternative flight paths. Airspace redesign projects also provide significant capacity 

improvements. For example, new routes added as part of the High Altitude Redesign increased en route throughput from the Pacific Northwest into the San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles Basin areas. 

Terminal Area Congestion. Terminal airspace is a critical component in the efficient use of airport capacity. In instances where volume has increased and the current airspace structure is the limiting factor, redesigning arrival and departure procedures, including the addition of Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance procedures, will allow more efficient use of constrained terminal airspace. 

Also, by applying existing technology with new procedures may provide instrument 

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

of meteorological conditions that are insensitive to airport surface traffic. Area navigation procedures provide flight path guidance from the runway to the en route airspace with minimal instructions given by air traffic controllers. As a result, routine 

controller/pilot communications are reduced, which frees time to handle other safety-critical flight activities. Other key benefits include more efficient use of airspace, 

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

Additional solutions for increasing capacity in this arena are Time Based Metering which is used in conjunction with Traffic Management Advisor, 6 became operational at seven air route traffic control centers. By optimizing the flow of aircraft 

from the en route to the terminal area, Time Based Metering with Traffic Management Advisor may help an airport to efficiently use the full capacity of its runways 

which increases acceptance rates as well as peak throughput. An air traffic management tool called Integrated Terminal Weather System which provides full color 

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

and efficiency of air traffic control operations was also implemented at Boston 

Logan, Denver International, and Minneapolis-St. Paul airports in 2004. According 

to FAA, the plan is to install the production version of Integrated Terminal Weather 

System at the New York terminal radar control facility in 2006. 

Challenges in Reducing Flight Delays and Enhancing Capacity Remain 

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity remain. 

A daunting challenge that FAA and other aviation stakeholders will have to address 

is funding the various initiatives that are designed to address flight delays and enhance capacity. The successful implementation of many of these initiatives is predicated on the availability of funding. However, since 2000, which is to date the worst 

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

changed significantly. A number of structural changes within the airline industry, 

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

growth of the low cost airlines, and fare reductions by legacy carriers, all transformed the industry and led to lower average fares. These lower fares have resulted 

in lower ticket taxes and less revenue into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In 

addition, a series of largely unforeseen events, including the September 11 terrorist 

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

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

resulted in sharp decreases in airline industry revenue. 

37

7The Joint Research Council is a FAA executive body consisting of associate and assistant 

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

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

a mission need and should proceed. 

Consequently, FAA expects that over the next four years there may be a multibillion dollar gap between its costs and revenues. According to one aviation expert, 

this gap could have consequences that would increase air traffic delays. For example, FAA’s Facilities and Equipment account, which provides funding for modernizing the air traffic control system and improving its reliability, capacity, and efficiency, was reduced by 15 percent in Fiscal Year 2005 and the President’s 2006 

budget proposes to reduce it by 20 percent in Fiscal Year 2006. These are the funds 

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

to minimize delays. For example, to provide the $4.4 billion needed for its major system acquisitions while remaining within its budget targets through fiscal year 2009, 

FAA has made significant cuts elsewhere in its capital funding plans. Specifically, 

FAA eliminated all of the $1.4 billion that it had set aside for what it calls the ‘‘architecture segment.’’ These funds would have been used to perform about two years’ 

worth of early research on new programs before they are mature enough to receive 

formal Joint Resources Council approval. 7 FAA also made significant reductions in 

planned investments for facilities—an action that runs counter to its reported need 

to refurbish or replace its physical infrastructure. Thus, even if all OEP initiatives 

are implemented the national airspace system is expected to fall behind demand, 

resulting in an increase in congestion and delays over the 10-year period of the 

OEP. FAA’s Management Advisory Council estimates that passengers would experience 63 percent more total delay hours in 2012 than they did in 2000. 

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

will be maintained at or below the flight delay levels in 2000. However, FAA also 

stated that capacity at some airports will not keep pace with demand and in these 

cases delays will get worse over time because not all airports have improvements 

planned. In 2004, the airline industry losses totaled $9 billion and the industry is 

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

aircraft with some of the new air traffic control technology, according to Air Transport Association officials. 

Another important challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity at 

delay-prone airports, such as those shown in table 1, some of which have little capacity to physically expand and would find it difficult to build even one more runway, either because they lack the space or would face intense opposition from adjacent communities.

Table 1: Most Delay-Prone Airports in 2004

Airport Delays per 1,000 operations 

Chicago-O’Hare 97

Atlanta Hartsfield 72

Newark International 70

Philadelphia International 58

New York La Guardia 56

Houston International 36

Washington Dulles International 36

San Francisco International 32

New York John F. Kennedy 27

Source: FAA. 

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

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

Hartsfield, Philadelphia International, and Houston International) of the nine airports that experienced the highest rate of delays in 2004 will receive new runways. 

Because these delay-prone airports can cause delays that ripple throughout the system, other airports that have increased their own capacity could still experience 

delays. For example, in 2000, Phoenix Sky Harbor International put an additional 

runway into service, and the airport had sufficient capacity to allow flights to take 

off on time. However, the airport ranked among the top 15 in the United States for 

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

result of delays and cancellations at other airports—circumstances unrelated to the 

capacity at Phoenix. FAA also projects that the three New York-area airports—La 

38

Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy—will experience relatively small capacity gains during this decade—just 7 percent for Newark and 1 percent each for the other two 

airports. 

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

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

of new metropolitan areas in the South and Southwest. Among those metropolitan 

areas FAA believes will need additional capacity by 2013 are Tucson, AZ; AustinSan Antonio, TX; and South Florida. 

Other Options Could Help Address Capacity Needs 

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

needs as shown in table 2. These options, which have been cited by various researchers and policy organizations over the last decade, basically fall into two categories. The first category involves measures for adding airport infrastructure besides adding runways to existing airports, such as building new airports or using 

nearby underdeveloped regional airports. The second category includes developing 

alternative modes of intercity travel other than air transportation, such as highspeed rail.

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

Options Description 

Category 1: Adding 

airport infrastructure

Building new airports 

in metropolitan areas. 

This measure involves new airports within metropolitan areas to provide additional capacity, especially where the existing airport has 

little expansion potential. This measure has recent limited use 

since only two major new airports—at Dallas-Fort Worth and Denver—have been built in large metropolitan areas since 1973. 

Developing regional airports. Existing regional airports located within 50 miles of metropolitan 

hubs would be developed to take advantage of unused system capacity. A regional approach is in place at several airports including 

Boston Logan and is being contemplated in other areas such as 

New York and Los Angeles.

Category 2: Using 

ground transportation alternatives

Building high-speed, 

intercity ground 

transportation. 

Building high-speed ground transportation (e.g., rail) between populous cities within 200 miles of each other may free up capacity at 

congested airports by reducing the air traffic demand at those locations. Such trains could travel at speeds of 200 mph or more. Technologically, high-speed rail has proven successful in Europe and 

Asia; efforts are under way in the United States to develop highspeed rail in several designated corridors. 

Connecting nearby airports with high speed 

ground transportation. 

Using high-speed ground transportation to connect congested airports 

with underused airports nearby could accommodate passenger 

transfers within the current hub-and-spoke system. This measure 

has not been done in the United States. 

Source: GAO analysis of previous studies 

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

the circumstances at each major airport. There is no ‘‘one-size fits-all’’ solution; rather, substantially reducing delays will probably require a combination of options 

spread out over time. For example, the airspace surrounding the greater New York 

metropolitan area is perhaps the most congested airspace in the Nation. The three 

major airports in the area (La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy), which currently are 

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

substantial air traffic growth. But these airports have very limited expansion potential, largely because they cannot realistically build new runways. Building new airports or developing regional airports to serve these airports are long-term solutions 

that will likely take many years to materialize. In the meantime, other short-term 

options would need to be considered as passenger demand increases, such as ways 

39

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

York/New Jersey Port Authority, which operates the three area airports, were moving before the drop in passenger demand following the events of September 11. 

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

reevaluating a regional approach to addressing these issues. As noted earlier, FAA 

and the Port Authority are also considering market-based and administrative approaches, such as auctioning off landing and take-off rights and congestion pricing 

for La Guardia. However, the airlines oppose auctions because of the uncertainty 

regarding the number of slots and gates that they might receive. The airlines also, 

to a lesser degree, oppose a market-based mechanism such as congestion pricing because of concerns over who would have responsibility for the revenue generated. Because major airports in other locations may face different circumstances than the 

New York airports face, they may need an entirely different set of solutions to address flight delays. 

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

ground transportation alternatives—are likely to be a more daunting challenge than 

implementing initiatives in the OEP. Implementing the OEP’s initiatives will not 

be easy, but the opportunity for success is enhanced because FAA has the support 

of major aviation stakeholders on nearly all of the initiatives. By contrast, gaining 

consensus on any of these other options could be much more difficult because they 

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

the interests of one or more key aviation stakeholder groups—including passengers; 

air carriers; and aircraft operators, airports, and local communities. For example,

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

metropolitan areas, could create major controversy. Such projects are often opposed by adjacent communities that are fearful of noise, displacement, or other 

environmental concerns. Also, finding suitable sites for such projects in crowded 

metropolitan areas—with enough land that is compatible with other potential 

land uses—may be difficult. Airlines may oppose some types of infrastructure 

projects if they fear that the projects would adversely affect them. For example, 

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

building an additional airport nearby because the dominant carrier may view 

it as an opportunity for their competitors to enter the market in that area. In 

addition, some airlines are concerned about the need to divide their hub resources between the current airport and a new airport.

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

existing capacity could generate opposition from various sources as well. Airlines may oppose such measures if they perceive that these measures would restrict their choices in determining rates, schedules, and aircraft sizes—all of 

which could affect their profits and competitive status relative to other airlines. 

Smaller communities may also oppose such measures, fearing that commercial 

air service to and from their airports may be reduced or curtailed because airlines would react by choosing more profitable routes for the limited number of 

airport slots available.

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

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

major new airport—the Denver International Airport completed in 1995—cost 

almost $5 billion to build. This cost would have been greater had the airport 

been located closer to the city, but since it was located on open land away from 

established communities, the costs of noise mitigation and other land-use issues 

were minimized. Also, the construction of fast-rail service in populated metropolitan corridors is likely to be costly. For example, Amtrak estimates the cost 

to construct fast-rail service in Federally designated, high-speed corridors and 

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

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

help to reduce flight delays and increase capacity in the national airspace system 

in the short term. However, FAA and other aviation stakeholders continue to face 

a number of challenges in reducing delays at the most delay-prone airports and developing long term solutions for enhancing capacity. Addressing these challenges is 

perhaps more difficult today in comparison to 2000 because a number of issues have 

exacerbated the situation. Chief among them is funding these initiatives during a 

time when the Federal Government and the aviation industry are experiencing significant fiscal problems. Consequently, keeping up with the economy’s increasing demand for air transportation services will require a tremendous amount of planning; 

40

making some tough choices about which initiatives, both short-term and long-term, 

to pursue; and efforts to ensure that such initiatives are adequately funded. 

For further information on this testimony please contact Dr. Gerald Dillingham 

by email at dillinghamg@gao.gov or Tammy Conquest at conquestt@gao.gov. Alternatively, we can be reached by phone at (202) 512–2834. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Colin Fallon, Simon Galed, David Hooper, 

Maureen Luna-Long, Richard Scott, Laura Shumway, and Nicolas Zitelli. 

APPENDIX I: LIST OF 35 AIRPORTS IN THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S

OPERATION EVOLUTION PLAN, FEBRUARY 2005

1. Atlanta Hartsfield International 

2. Baltimore-Washington International 

3. Boston Logan International 

4. Charlotte/Douglas International 

5. Chicago Midway 

6. Chicago O’Hare International 

7. Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky 

8. Cleveland-Hopkins International 

9. Dallas-Fort Worth International 

10. Denver International 

11. Detroit Metro Wayne County 

12. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

13. George Bush Intercontinental 

14. Greater Pittsburgh International 

15. Honolulu International 

16. Lambert St. Louis International 

17. Las Vegas McCarran International 

18. Los Angeles International 

19. Memphis International 

20. Miami International 

21. Minneapolis-St Paul International 

22. New York John F. Kennedy International 

23. New York LaGuardia 

24. Newark International 

25. Orlando International 

26. Philadelphia International 

27. Phoenix Sky Harbor International 

28. Portland International 

29. Ronald Reagan National 

30. Salt Lake City International 

31. San Diego International Lindbergh 

32. San Francisco International 

33. Seattle-Tacoma International 

34. Tampa International 

35. Washington Dulles International

Senator BURNS. Thank you, and we appreciate your report. 

Now we’ll hear from Mr. Amr ElSawy, Senior Vice President and 

General Manager of the MITRE Corporation. Thank you for coming 

this morning. 

STATEMENT OF AMR A. ELSAWY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/

GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED

AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, MITRE CORPORATION 

Mr. ELSAWY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Burns, good 

morning. Thank you, Senator Nelson. In addressing the Committee 

today in my prepared remarks, I talk about four topics: Traffic and 

delay trends, factors contributing to the increased system duplicity, 

how the aviation community is responding; and finally, specific actions that we must pursue in order to meet the forecasted demand 

and maintain global leadership. 

As the Administrator, Inspector General and Dr. Dillingham 

have highlighted, there is a lot going on. There’s a lot of changes 

41

that have been implemented, improvements have been—are in 

place; and the challenges have been described extremely well. So 

I would ask that my prepared statement be included in the record. 

But I’d like to focus this morning on how do we meet the future 

challenges. In order to meet the challenges of the future, the FAA 

and the aviation community need to be flexible, agile and adaptive 

to the very changing set of circumstances, requirements and demands. We must continue to implement changes in technology, procedures, avionics and policy that can together increase operational 

efficiency and productivity; and we believe that the following actions are required to achieve those goals. 

Specifically, first, as the Administrator mentioned, relying on the 

aircraft capabilities and avionics to implement a roadmap or performance-based navigation is extremely significant. This is a most 

significant change because it is equivalent to adding precise navigation lanes in the sky without requiring greater ground-based 

equipment. 

Moving to a performance-based system will transform the way 

that the National Airspace System operates by taking advantage of 

the aircraft’s flight management system in avionics. Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance procedures lead to safety, efficiency and capacity improvements, especially in complex and 

congested airspace such as Atlanta and the Eastern United States. 

Over 200 procedures are being planned for implementation over 

the next few years. The initial RNP procedure implementation will 

be in New York’s Kennedy, Reagan National, and Houston Airport. 

The FAA’s addressing key challenges to ensure these procedures 

are implemented expeditiously by streamlining both FAA and industry processes. I emphasize the collaboration required in those 

areas. 

This will provide direct operating benefits to customers and will 

enable the FAA to reduce the size, complexity and cost of its infrastructure to selective divestment of ground-based navigational aids. 

Second action is to accelerate the implementation of airspace 

changes—we’ve heard a lot about that this morning—to be more 

flexible and to accommodate the expected growth in traffic and new 

airspace users, such as unmanned area vehicles. Again, this has 

the real effect of streamlining flows into congested areas and providing more efficient, reliable arrival and departure paths for all 

users. 

Third action, emphasize enhancement of automation and decision 

support tools to enable controllers to handle more traffic by presenting them with automated conflict-free resolutions, thereby increasing system capacity and productivity and improving safety 

and the quality of the services provided to customers. 

Fourth, develop a firm plan for the implementation of air-toground data link that will enable controllers and pilots and their 

respective ground and onboard aircraft automation systems to exchange digital messages that yield efficiency, productivity and safety improvements. 

Fifth, improve traffic flow management capabilities, such as access to timely and accurate information, especially for unscheduled 

flights. That will permit the FAA to identify and solve congestion 

problems more quickly and efficiently. 

42

Sixth, transition to a new technology, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast. This is equivalent to providing pilots with electronic eyes in the sky and will permit the FAA to migrate to a less 

costly and more accurate surveillance system. By relying on aircraft avionics and the power of satellite navigation, we can improve 

situational awareness for the pilots, allowing better access and effective communications about weather and terrain. We can also 

achieve capacity and performance under instrument flight rules, 

which are only possible today under visual flight rules. 

The positive experience and the results shown by the Capstone 

Phase I program in Alaska are achievable in the rest of the United 

States. 

Seventh, use advanced simulation technologies to train the new 

controller workforce. This will reduce the time and cost needed to 

train controllers and will improve trainee proficiency and readiness 

to implement the advanced concept we talked about. 

Eighth, maintain a strategic view of investments in airport infrastructure and runways. The Administrator, Inspector General, and 

Mr. Dillingham have all emphasized that point. 

Ninth, develop a comprehensive air traffic infrastructure consolidation plan. To the extent that we have an aging infrastructure 

that adds to the cost, we need to figure out how to reduce that; and 

with the technologies that we discussed, that will be extremely 

achievable. 

And finally, develop and implement policies that enable enhanced access to airports through the use of modern and improved 

avionics and procedures instead of ground-based infrastructure. 

These actions will position us to meet ever-increasing demands 

and have the potential for improving overall productivity between 

20 percent and 40 percent while reducing future operating costs by 

several hundred million dollars per year. 

Over the next year MITRE will be working the FAA’s Air Traffic 

Organization and Joint Planning and Development Office to simulate and validate the productivity and development cost savings. 

Mr. Chairman, implementing these changes will keep the United 

States as innovators and leaders of the global aviation community; 

and we have a lot of opportunities ahead. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. ElSawy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMR A. ELSAWY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL

MANAGER OF THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT,

MITRE CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me to appear before your Committee. My name is Amr ElSawy and I 

am a Senior Vice President at the MITRE Corporation. I am also the General Manager of MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD), 

which is the FAA’s Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). 

I would ask that my statement be included in the record. 

In addressing the Committee today, I will focus on four topics: Traffic and delay 

trends, factors contributing to the increased system complexity, how the aviation 

community is responding, and finally specific actions that we must pursue in order 

to meet the forecasted demand and maintain global leadership in aviation safety, 

capacity and efficiency. 

Traffic levels and delays have returned to levels seen prior to 9/11 in many areas 

of the country. These areas include airports in Chicago, Atlanta, the Washington 

area, the New York area, Las Vegas, and south Florida. There have also been inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
43

creases in traffic in smaller airports in many areas of the country. Examples include 

Scottsdale, Teterboro, and West Palm Beach. Traffic in major en route corridors is 

also generating congestion not just due to higher traffic volume, but also as a result 

of increasing traffic pattern complexity. 

The following factors have created challenges that are different than those experienced in 1999 and 2000. For example:

• Regional jets have replaced larger jets and turboprop aircraft resulting in different traffic flows and mix which require changes in operational techniques 

and strategies.

• North/south traffic flows have increased in the winter months changing how 

traffic flows must be managed around ceiling and visibility constraints. Unscheduled traffic has grown in south Florida and the Southwest.

• For the coming summer season, traffic growth is expected at Houston, and the 

NAS will face its usual severe convective weather challenges.

• Traffic increases in areas such as New York and Washington with airports in 

close proximity to each other resulted in greater complexity due to traffic climbing, descending, and crossing other traffic in the same airspace.

• Denser overhead traffic streams in areas such as the Chicago/New York corridor 

create challenges in merging the departing aircraft into already full traffic 

streams.

• Increased security operations (such as Combat Air Patrol and Temporary Flight 

Restrictions) have also generated challenges in accommodating higher volume 

and more complex traffic around restricted areas such as within the New York 

and Washington airspace, as well as during major events.

The FAA and aviation community have responded to these new challenges in such 

a way that performance across the NAS is good by most measures:

• The airport and customer community and the FAA worked together on actions 

to minimize delays resulting from major growth at Chicago’s O’Hare and Washington’s Dulles Airport. Emerging issues resulting from growth at airports such 

as Fort Lauderdale and Las Vegas are being actively worked.

• The FAA, the airports, and lead carriers have increased airport capacity 

through the development of new arrival and departure procedures that use aircraft navigation capabilities. For example, new area navigation (RNAV) departure procedures were implemented at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport. In addition, 

new procedures are being implemented at Dulles, Las Vegas, Portland, Philadelphia, Dallas Fort Worth, and South Florida.

• Airspace changes have also been worked collaboratively to relieve congestion 

points in new ‘‘hot-spots’’ such as south Florida. In addition, the vertical separation minima have been successfully reduced in high altitude airspace and are 

providing controllers with more flexibility to move the traffic.

• The FAA has been continually refining procedures and actions in conjunction 

with the customer community to manage traffic flows to minimize delays when 

congestion does occur.

• The FAA worked in collaboration with organizations that provide flight services 

for unscheduled operations to receive more timely and more accurate information on planned flights.

Beyond this year, commercial and general aviation will continue to see changes. 

The NAS will likely continue to see traffic growth, changes in the traffic patterns 

between major airports and metropolitan areas, and changes in the mix of aircraft 

that make up the traffic. In addition, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), very light 

jets, and commercial space launches will need to be accommodated in the NAS, with 

each bringing their own challenges for the operation of airspace, controller workload, system complexity, and overall operational productivity. Projections developed 

by DOT, FAA and MITRE (and documented in the Capacity Needs in the National 

Airspace System) indicate that by 2013, 15 airports and 7 metropolitan areas will 

need additional capacity to meet expected demand. 

In order to meet the challenges of the future, the FAA and the aviation community need to be flexible and agile in adapting to changing requirements and demands. We must implement changes in technology, procedures, avionics, and policy 

that can—together—increase operational efficiency and productivity. We believe 

that the following actions will be required to achieve those goals: 

Take advantage of aircraft capabilities and avionics to implement the 

Roadmap for Performance-based Navigation. This is a most significant change 

because it is equivalent to adding precise navigation lanes in the sky without reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
44

quiring ground based equipment. Moving to a performance based system will transform the way the National Airspace System (NAS) operates. By taking advantage 

of the aircraft’s flight management systems and avionics, Area Navigation (RNAV) 

and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures lead to safety, efficiency 

and capacity improvements, especially in complex and congested airspace such as 

Atlanta, and the Eastern United States. Over 200 procedures are being planned for 

implementation over the next few years. The initial RNP procedure implementations will be in New York’s Kennedy, Reagan National, and Houston airports. FAA 

is addressing key challenges to ensure these procedures are implemented expeditiously by streamlining both FAA and industry processes. This will provide direct 

operating benefits to customers and will enable the FAA to reduce the size, complexity, and cost of its infrastructure through selective divestments of ground-based 

navigation aids. 

Accelerate the implementation of Airspace changes to be more flexible, and 

to accommodate the expected growth in traffic and new airspace users such as 

UAVs. Again this has the real effect of streamlining traffic flows into congested 

areas and providing more efficient arrival and departure paths for all users. 

Emphasize enhancement of automation and decision support tools to enable controllers to handle more traffic by presenting them with automated-conflict 

free resolutions, thereby increasing system capacity and productivity and improving 

safety and the quality of service provided to customers. 

Develop a firm plan for the implementation of air/ground data link that 

will enable controllers and pilots, and their respective ground and onboard aircraft 

automation systems, to exchange digital messages that yield efficiency, productivity, 

and safety improvements. 

Improve traffic flow management capabilities, such as access to more timely 

and accurate information (e.g., for unscheduled flights), will permit the FAA to identify and solve congestion problems more quickly and efficiently. 

Transition to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast—This is equivalent to providing pilots with electronic eyes in the sky and will permit the FAA 

to migrate to a less costly and more accurate surveillance system. By relying on aircraft avionics and the power of satellite navigation, we can improve situational 

awareness for pilots, allowing better access and effective communication about 

weather and terrain. We can also achieve capacity and performance under instrument flight rules (IFR), which are only possible today under visual flight rules 

(VFR). The positive experience and results shown by the Capstone Phase I program 

in Alaska are achievable in the rest of the United States. 

Use advanced simulation technologies to train the new controller workforce. This will reduce the time and cost needed to train controllers and will improve trainee proficiency and readiness to implement advanced concepts of operation. 

Maintain a strategic view of investments in airport infrastructure and 

runways. We must continue to build runways and improve taxiways to stay ahead 

of the demand. 

Develop a comprehensive air traffic infrastructure consolidation plan.

Develop and implement polices that enable enhanced access to airports 

through the use of modern and improved avionics and procedures instead 

of ground based infrastructure.

These actions will position us to meet ever increasing demands and have the potential for improving overall productivity between 20 and 40 percent while reducing 

future operating costs by several hundred million dollars per year. Over the next 

year, MITRE will be working with FAA’s ATO and JPDO to simulate and validate 

the productivity and cost saving estimates. 

Implementing these changes will keep the United States as innovators and leaders of the Global aviation community. We have a lot of opportunities ahead. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer questions.

Senator BURNS. Thank you for your testimony, and I’ve just been 

handed a note by our Chairman. He has an obligation at 11 that 

is sort of a must, and I’m going to give way to Senator Stevens. 

Senator Pryor’s joined us. 

Do you have a statement? 

45

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. No. I’m anxious to hear Senator Stevens’s question. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. I’m not too anxious to go 

to the end, but we are going to anyway. Senator Stevens. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and I’m sorry, but we do 

have a conference on allocations of funds, appropriations and 

it’s——

That leads me to my first question, Ms. Blakey. We had a long 

discussion about the concept of up-front money and paying it off 

over a period of years, a concept of creating some sort of an entity 

that would bond and go to the general market to get funds and be 

repaid through the normal flow of funds to FAA. 

Have we come anywhere close to that yet? 

Ms. BLAKEY. After your initial discussion about this in January, 

certainly we began looking at this very carefully; and we held a 

forum at the end of April where we were looking at the various 

ways to approach changing the funding structure for the Trust 

Fund and also looking at the challenges there. We also brought in 

a number of the analysts from the financial community who were 

real experts on the issue of bonding and debt financing and how 

it can be approached; and I was very encouraged by the number 

of ways that this can be addressed, even in a government context. 

I will also tell you that it was very interesting because we invited 

the Tennessee Valley Authority, the TVA, which is one of the examples where debt financing is being used in the Federal Government arena. And again, they talked about what this has made possible in terms of capital investment in the Tennessee Valley. It’s 

very impressive. 

I can’t tell you where we may go at this point from the standpoint of proposals; but we’re looking forward very much to sitting 

down with you and others to discuss what the potential could be. 

But this is obviously one of the ways you can have a large trough 

of up-front capital to invest in the Next Generation System to really begin to get the benefits of that and lower the unit costs, which 

is something we all want to do when we’re talking three times the 

travel. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we look at the myriad of instances in our Federal Government where immediate up-front capital is needed for 

modernization and look at the Federal budget, it’s really not possible to achieve what we have to do in a short period of time without charting a concept similar to TVA in several different places in 

the government and relying on private capital to come in and take 

part of the risk; but actually, they will be relying upon the continued level of existing appropriations in various areas to repay the 

bonds to be issued. 

I still think that that’s the only way to accomplish what we have 

to do in aviation, and I would—I think Chairman Barton and I 

would be pleased to call a summit between literally everybody to 

sit down and work out something jointly so we can introduce—to 

start this on its road. 

I think we absolutely have to have that money up front; and you 

have to know how much you have before you can really solidly folVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
46

low Mr. Mead’s suggestions that some of them—maybe not all of 

them, Mr. Mead—but most of them; and I think he’s been very astute in pointing out the areas of real concern; and there has to be 

some prioritization on that. But I do hope we can get to that point. 

I want to applaud what you’ve done in terms of Reagan Airport. 

I think that solution, if it works, ought to be looked at to see how 

we might regulate the use of general aviation at some of these 

highly congested places. Now, they may not like to hear that, but 

there’s just too many new business jets coming online for you to—

and put them fully into the total freedom of the airways system as 

it’s existed in the past. 

I think we’ll have to find some way to prioritize flights and to 

have some flights—some entities know how many flights a week 

they can have in a certain airport, rather than just an announcement that they’re coming 2 hours from now. That concept of advanced planning has got to come into this. Am I right? Mr. Mead, 

do you disagree? 

Mr. MEAD. No, sir. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are we going to have to move to a satellite-based 

system for your communications? Are we going to change our basic 

concept of communications as these new technologies tumble in 

communications? Are you going to broadband? Are you going to 

save your existing system? What’s going to be the basic communications concept for your airwaves into the future? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I think there’s no question about the fact we will 

be moving very significantly to a satellite-based system; and we, of 

course, are looking at the communications issues in terms of spectrum and what will be required. We have a real expert at the table 

in Amr ElSawy. 

Amr, you might want to address that. 

Mr. ELSAWY. Thank you, ma’am. I think the answer is, we’ll 

have to use multiple communications systems. Satellite communications is an integral part of the future concept. ADS-B is an integral link, is an integral part of the concept. 

As we move to the future with routing technologies and Internet 

technologies, we are able to, in fact, have every element of it be addressable with an address so that we can know where it is; and we 

can direct communications to it. And I think that broadband communications, satellite communications, ADS-B are all elements of 

the future—for the future concept. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what you choose will really have an impact 

on the modernization of some of the aircraft, right? I think you 

have to be—people have to know in advance what you’re going to 

do. 

Mr. ELSAWY. Precisely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me thank you for your comment about Capstone. 

Mr. Mead, did you ever look into the Medallion program in Alaska as far as safety is concerned? Are you familiar with what we’ve 

done up there? 

Mr. MEAD. I’m not familiar with the term Medallion, but I am 

familiar with Capstone and ADS-B. 

The CHAIRMAN. Medallion is a voluntary concept that was 

worked out with Ms. Blakey, and it is a concept of continued upVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
47

grading of pilot skills and commitment of the entities that own 

these aircraft to the expenditures that are necessary to accomplish 

that. 

We have reduced our fatalities in aviation dramatically; and we 

have increased awareness of not only the pilots and the basic operators but of the public, of the things that must be done to reduce 

the fatalities in aviation in our state where, as you know, we only 

have one main road system. We depend either on air or water for 

basic transportation. Seventy-five percent of all travel in Alaska is 

done by air. 

But I think you should study it and see if we can’t take that out 

into other areas where they have substantial amounts of general 

aviation and make—this is a system for general awareness of—of 

the things that can be done to make flying safer. 

Mr. MEAD. I think that program in Alaska has tremendous 

merit. I really think it is the wave for the future. The only sad part 

about it is it took so long to get started. There was a fair amount 

of resistance. 

The CHAIRMAN. A little bit of money helped. 

Mr. MEAD. Money always helps. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think Congress would be perfectly willing to 

put that up. That was not that much money. After that it became 

all voluntary support, not Federal money now. Isn’t that right, Ms. 

Blakey? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Absolutely. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, we invited the Capstone Foundation down this spring to join a group of 

carriers that do not have scheduled service. Whereas, you know we 

are having some challenges in the lower 48 these days. We really 

felt that the Medallion Program was a great example of how you 

can incentivize the private carriers to really step up the pace on 

the safety front. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a few of my friends coming up to join me 

for a little bit of marine research this summer. Maybe we can arrange to have some meeting there while we’re there for them to 

talk a little bit about Capstone and about Medallion. They may be 

able to take it home with them. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. In other words and where I’d say, we’re going 

fishing. Senator Nelson. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Senator Burns. My question with regard to the short-term response 

to congestion that we might be facing this summer or that we have 

faced is—I am thinking of capacity issues at O’Hare, just as one 

example, since many of the flights coming into and from Omaha 

and Lincoln will go through Chicago as a hub. 

Now, my first question is: When there is a backup and flights are 

getting canceled or delayed, how is it determined which ones to 

cancel or delay? Is it based on the size of the airplane and the capacity—the passenger capacity? Is it based on where the flight is 

coming from or going to? Is pain shared equally? Is it based on 

smaller airports versus larger airports? What is—how is the determination made for those decisions? 

I would—I guess, Ms. Blakey, you probably are under some duress to make those decisions or help airports establish priorities. 

48

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, I’ll tell you, we certainly have paid a great 

deal of attention to the issue of service to smaller communities and 

trying to make sure there was an equitable approach in the system 

where we have had, in effect, limited capacity. Most of our airports, 

of course, we have not had to do that; but O’Hare is an example 

where we were forced into that; and we are talking about essentially 88 arrivals an hour in that congested period. That is to say, 

there was a very definite concern and a good bit of discussion given 

to making sure that the smaller communities remain served. 

The specific decisions, though, about which flights are delayed or 

canceled are those of the airlines. The carriers themselves look at 

what is happening in terms of delays at that airport. They realize 

that maybe we’re only getting 62 flights an hour out instead of 88 

because of low ceilings or other kinds of problems. 

As you know, O’Hare has wind problems and bad weather; and 

it is at that point that the carriers themselves have to look at such 

things as the load factor onboard the aircraft, how many people, 

where’s it going, do they have backup service there, and will there 

be another flight in an hour or two. All those are kinds of things 

the airline itself and the dispatcher makes the decisions. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Is there any oversight over their determination? In other words, if our concern is for equitable consideration, is that applied to their decision-making process and the results of that process? 

Mr. MEAD. I think there’s very little oversight of the airline decision-making process on what flights to cancel. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Do you have any data that would show 

over a period of time the cancellation of or delaying of flights that 

might help us understand how they—how they’ve decided it or at 

least look at the results of their decisions? 

Mr. MEAD. I can assemble that data. 

Senator BEN NELSON. I would like to see it. 

Mr. MEAD. If you like. And we’ll speak to your staff afterwards 

about it. A short discussion would be helpful. 

I also think—there were really two parts to your question. One 

part was, how do you get the flight scheduled in the first place? 

You know, in a place like out of O’Hare or LaGuardia——

Senator BEN NELSON. Or McCook International or Lincoln or 

Omaha. 

Mr. MEAD. You have plenty of departure space in your state. It’s 

the question of getting from a hub—a place like Chicago O’Hare to 

there, especially now that Chicago O’Hare has administrative caps. 

And I think the first part of your question had to do with how 

much you set aside for service to small communities in terms of 

flights. 

The second part of your question is, well, once you’ve done that 

set aside, and a decision has to be made about whether to cancel 

one flight over another, how is that decision made? 

Senator BEN NELSON. Well, if pain is spread out equitably, I 

think everybody understands; but if pain is disproportionate, a lot 

of folks won’t understand. Some people will be happier while other 

people will be clearly, less happy. 

And certainly in a state like Nebraska which would not—Omaha 

is not going to be in the top one or twenty-five airports; but it’s cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
49

tainly number one in the State of Nebraska and Eastern Iowa; and 

Lincoln becomes important and so do all the other airports that experience Essential Air Service issues. 

So I would be very happy to see what—how this decision-making 

is done and what the effects of it are because I think that we’re 

certainly going to look at efficiency, cost effectiveness; but we have 

to look at the equitable treatment of passengers and communities 

as well. 

What—Ms. Blakey, what is the commitment to smaller airports? 

We continue to go through the battle for Essential Air Service 

funds every year, and they’re cut. We fight. We get some money in; 

the next budget comes around; and they’re cut; and we go through 

this dance every year. 

Is there a commitment to smaller communities that are, by nature, inefficient but totally dependent on travel? The Chairman 

says about Alaska that 75 percent of their travel is related to—not 

to road transportation or surface transportation but to air transportation and water transportation. 

I don’t know how cost effective it is up there. I know it’s probably 

not cost effective to some of the small airports in Nebraska, but it 

is essential. That’s where we go for these Essential Air Service 

funds. What is the commitment? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, the Essential Air Service program is one that 

the Department is funding; and while it is a Department of Transportation program, not an FAA program so I do not have direct responsibility there, I can tell you that we are assiduously collecting 

the overflight fees from those carriers, that overfly the U.S, mostly 

foreign flights, obviously, to be able to put up the $50 million from 

that source. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Do you think that is—it’s obviously better 

than nothing, and it’s a lot better than nothing. How far off the 

mark would you say that this—how much more would we need to 

really fund Essential Air Service? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I’ve not done any analysis of this because, again, it’s 

outside my realm of responsibility; but I will tell you this, there are 

several changes in terms of what’s going on with the fleet mix that 

I think are very encouraging to smaller communities to move to 

smaller regional jets, which really can work out of smaller communities and make it cost efficient for the carriers which is, at the 

bottom of it, very critical. 

The move to the microjets is an example. As we’re talking about 

this movement to four- and six-seat small jets, which are cost efficient, I think you will see much more service into these smaller 

areas. So those things I think will make a difference. 

One of the things, though, that’s a countervailing pressure is the 

fact that many of the low-cost carriers are serving relatively significant city pairs. That means a lot of people are driving instead of 

flying out of the smaller communities. I can tell you when I sit 

down with small airport directors, they often bemoan the fact that 

they will find people in their town willing to drive 200 miles to get 

a good airfare rather than use the air service going out. So it is 

an issue there that there are countervailing pressures that the 

market is largely sorting out. 

50

Senator BEN NELSON. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

I think my microphone went dead. So I’ll just lung it. I have a 

couple questions and a followup on what Senator Nelson said. 

We who live in rural areas not only whenever we start making 

the decisions of—in airports like O’Hare, usually those decisions—

the delay of persons going to North Platte, Nebraska, or Omaha, 

Nebraska, that’s not because that’s where you usually terminate. 

What happens is, and when it gets very expensive for travelers, 

and you really get an amount of humor is when they leave North 

Platte or Scottsbluff or Omaha and they can’t—and they—they’re 

delayed getting into Chicago; and they misconnect; and then you go 

through this process of a rebook; and then that next flight is sold 

out. 

So we’ve got this big tie-up that is really—not only is it expensive for the airlines, but it’s also expensive for the traveling public 

because you lose—sometimes you lose an entire day. 

In Montana, we’ve got to make the early morning flight or the 

evening flight. We don’t have anything in between. So we are very, 

very much aware of those delays that’s in a principal or a major 

hub. Minneapolis being mine to get—and of course you use Minneapolis. 

But I wanted to followup on that because sometimes I think we 

are—we are caught in sort of a catch–22. 

If the FAA doesn’t, say, monitor some of this, so to speak; and 

you have a report on it, Mr. Mead, I would be interested in the 

same report; and if MITRE would have some of the same information, I would be anxious to look at that. 

New runways, environmental streamlining continue to be a challenge for us. I guess it is more from a financial end of it or economic end of it or the availability of capital end of it rather than 

the policies set by government. Is that a true statement? That’s for 

anybody to address if——

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think you know, the things 

that Congress has done in terms of streamlining the runway construction process and, in fact, from the work that we’ve done, we 

see that there’s ample funding for runways. The problem seems to 

come in the local jurisdiction more than anything else. 

There tends to be a lot of groups and persons who are not enamored about having an airport in their area or runway extension 

that may be involved with environmental issues or noise issues. So 

I think it’s the latter as opposed to the former. 

Senator BURNS. Do we—does MITRE have an estimate on what 

those kinds of discussions and those kinds of delays, what it costs 

us in the end to save—to expand an airport or to build a new one? 

Mr. ELSAWY. We don’t, sir; but we would be happy to look at it. 

Senator BURNS. How about Ms. Blakey and the FAA? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, we’ve got some broad figures in terms of what 

it has cost recently. It’s a little bit hard because every runway is 

different; so I don’t want to extrapolate too much. I wouldn’t want 

us to just divide this up. But the cost of the last eight runways that 

we did was approximately $1.96 billion; and out of that, the U.S. 

51

Government—the AIP funding was $941 million. So about half, 

roughly, is what the AIP funds put up. 

Now, for 2008 we’re expecting to have eight more runways come 

onboard. The price has jumped way up. At this point we are talking $4.75 billion for those; and again, AIP funding for this is going 

to be somewhat over a billion dollars. 

Senator BURNS. I know it’s costly whenever we start talking 

about getting things done in the local community and environmental rules and this type of thing. So I’m not real sure we 

shouldn’t look at that. 

Our numbers of traveling people will almost equal 2000 shortly. 

They may even make it in 2005; but yet even though our numbers 

are back, we have increased traffic in the air. 

Give me some idea of the comparison and the challenge you 

might have from—in those 2 years of trying to handle that traffic. 

Mr. MEAD. Well, I think one example, a good one, is the regional 

jets. Regional jets, of course, hold fewer people. Back in 2000 10 

percent of flights were regional jet based. Now they’re 32 percent. 

There’s an increase in operations there. 

Senator Stevens has pointed out repeatedly this phenomena 

that’s expected to hit next year, these microjets. To buy a jet right 

now at the low end, you’re probably talking seven or eight million 

dollars. There are jets that are going to be hitting the market next 

year that are—they are originally taking orders for slightly under 

$1 million and are now up to about $1.2 million. There’s a lot of 

controversy about where exactly are these aircraft going to fly? 

Questions also focus on: Are they going to be air taxis? Are they 

going to be fractional ownership with business people? FAA is 

going to have to deal with this. 

Now, the big difference for FAA is that these planes are not propeller-driven. So they are flying up there at high altitudes with 

your big 777s. They basically have the same impact on air traffic 

control that’s quite comparable to a 777, whereas the old propeller 

planes did not. 

Ms. BLAKEY. I have to admit, I will put in a plug for the fact that 

certain passenger traffic is coming back; and that’s great. The fact 

of the matter is, we are seeing smaller aircraft carrying those passengers, which means from a workload standpoint for the FAA, it 

is really ramping up; and that is something we all need to recognize because more aircraft in the sky with fewer numbers of people 

in them—obviously from our standpoint, it costs the same thing to 

move a small plane as it does a big one. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that the witnesses have given us a good sense of what 

some of the challenges are. You’ve got some congestion problems; 

clearly you’ve got capacity problems, some now and maybe large capacity problems down the road. You’ve got changing circumstances 

with these microjets or very light jets, I’ve also heard them called; 

and the regional jet phenomenon, even though I like those personally because a lot of those fly in and out of places I fly in and out 

of. 

52

I understand it does exacerbate the problem or at least it adds 

to the circumstances in which you have to deal because they occupy 

airspace, ground space, etc., etc. 

Also another thing I think you’ve touched on, but I just want to 

make sure that we’re on the same page here. So as another concern 

I have, and that is high-growth areas. We have one part of my 

state that’s growing very very rapidly. It’s the northwest corner of 

the state. It’s about four, five counties up in this part of the state 

that are really among if not the fastest-growing part of the entire 

Nation. 

That’s where Wal–Mart, Tyson Foods, University of Arkansas, 

J.B. Hunt and Trucking, among other companies, are located there; 

and it is expected to double in population over the next 20 years. 

I mean, this is a very rapidly growing area. Ten years ago they 

didn’t have a large airport at all. They’ve now built one. 

And the only reason why I mention that is because when I look 

at you all having to make funding priorities, and certainly you 

have a lot of challenges in making determinations on where to do 

capital improvements, where you should have runways and all 

those things, what makes sense today may not make sense 15 

years down the road. 

And when you make a big investment in infrastructure, like a 

runway or more capacity in one way or another, I just hope you’ll 

look to the future and look for areas like what we have in the 

northwest part of Arkansas; and I’m sure there are a lot of other 

areas around the country that are experiencing that type of growth; 

and I just hope you’ll be sensitive to that growth. 

Another thing that we touched on, but I just would like to get 

your thoughts on—Ms. Blakey, maybe you’re the best one to mention this—is trying to manage the congestion at these larger airports. Not to pick on O’Hare, but we’ll talk about Chicago O’Hare. 

Let’s just say that we’ve got a regional jet coming out of one of 

our airports in Arkansas directly to O’Hare; and then there are 

larger planes coming out of other cities that are connecting into 

O’Hare; and there’s only so much capacity there. Might we get 

bumped out of O’Hare and our access to O’Hare if the capacity 

there—or if the capacity there is strained too much? 

And so I just have that concern. Do you have any thoughts on 

that? We kind of get squeezed out as you’re trying to manage the 

slots in and out of, say, O’Hare. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, it was a legitimate concern of ours, I will tell 

you, when we did have to impose administrative caps on O’Hare. 

We analyzed pretty carefully what the major carriers were, therefore, planning to do in terms of either flights that they were moving to the less congested part of the day; there was a good bit of 

that going on, but also those that were actually canceled on a permanent basis. 

We actually found there was very little loss of service—actually 

none, in fact, to small communities in terms of absolute service. 

Now, it may have dropped from four to three flights a day, two to 

one flight a day; but this was a handful of flights. We’re not talking 

significant numbers at all. This was almost a year ago now when 

a lot of this took place. So I think at this point what the concern 

would be, I’m sure on your part, is when bad weather hits and canVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
53

cellations hit, is there some view that it’s the larger cities that are 

being served. 

I think the Inspector General is taking a look at that and giving 

us some sense of what happens—that would be a very valuable 

thing. 

Let me return, if I might, to—because as I say, it really is a decision of the carriers. It’s a market-based decision. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Let me return to your point on high-growth areas 

because you are hitting on an important point. One of the things 

we are doing right now is updating a study we did a couple years 

ago. We carried it out over last June; but we will quickly update 

it, looking at 300 communities around the country in terms of what 

their airport needs will be, looking at 2020 and 2030 and trying to 

forecast on the basis of the kind of economic and demographic 

trends you’re talking about, where we really are going to—where 

we are going to need more infrastructure because I think it’s vitally 

important that we anticipate that; and we plan for it. 

So we will be bringing out an update on that, and we will certainly be looking at that section of Arkansas. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. 

Mr. MEAD. One thing that would be good to look at, is FAA’s 

planning profile for airports. I think it’s called the NPIAS for short. 

It’s like a national airport planning guide. It would be good to see 

what the State of Arkansas has submitted in terms of its own expectations for that area of Arkansas. 

FAA waits for the area to make suggestions, and there is the 

document I mentioned. I’ll look at it and check it out when I get 

back to the office this afternoon. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. Thank you. Because when you look at, 

say, the Little Rock area, it’s growing about the same rate as the 

Nation is growing. It’s kind of a steady, solid whatever. But that 

northwest part is really just booming. 

Let me—speaking of that northwest part of the state, general 

aviation, as I understand the microjet or the very light jet phenomenon that’s coming, first question I had on that is: Are these 

coming on the market just because of market-based dynamics? Or 

has the Federal Government somehow now authorized these lighter 

jets and so they’re entering the U.S. market for the first time? I 

just don’t know the history of that. 

Ms. BLAKEY. It’s a market-based phenomenon. Some entrepreneurs looked around and decided there was a way to take this 

technology that had been developed and really be able to put it into 

a very highly cost-efficient very small aircraft. However, the FAA 

does have a significant role in certifying it. We must certify it from 

a safety standpoint before they will ever market it. That’s in the 

process now. 

Senator PRYOR. That’s in the process now. So I guess another one 

of these things that you have to consider is you have a lot of congestion around a lot of airports and with these small microjets, or 

very light jets, that’s just more planes in the air, more capacity 

that’s needed, and more congestion’s created. 

So I would assume that smaller airports maybe near large airports, but smaller airports might pick up a lot of that traffic beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:42 May 04, 2006 Jkt 027295 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\27295.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
54

cause they just can’t get into larger airports with the more congested airspace. And I assume, therefore, we need to look at the infrastructure requirements of these smaller airports and look at the 

general aviation needs of these smaller airports. 

Again, it may be very different. If this market does develop like 

you have indicated, just what will that look like over the next decade or two decades. Any comments on that, I’d appreciate it. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, I’ll certainly say this, the intent, I think, in 

a lot of the utilization of these small jets is to be able to go into 

smaller airports, fly point-to-point, closer to where people want to 

be. After all, who wants to be in the downtown congestion of Chicago if there’s another airport closer to where you actually want to 

go, using the pavement that’s out there? 

We really don’t have a pavement problem in this country. We 

have one only in terms of these large congested airports. Otherwise, we have a fair amount of tarmac to use. So I think you will 

see that going on; and it will be a very good thing from the standpoint of congestion. 

In terms of Federal funding for airports, you will see if you look 

at the funding from the Airport Improvement Program, a very significant amount of that funding does go to smaller airports. Larger 

airports have a lot more flexibility in terms of bond authority, in 

terms of going to private sources; and they also use passenger facility charges, PFCs, so they can raise money through that. Smaller 

communities get a fair slice of the AIP funding. 

Mr. ELSAWY. If I may add, the issue of access. Senator Nelson 

asked a question; and you did too, Senator Pryor. I think one of the 

really pieces of good news here is with the Wide Area Augmentation System. You now have access and precision navigational capabilities at close to 5,000 airports in the United States with the procedures that we talked about. 

Now, the requirement for infrastructure, ground-based infrastructure is minimized while the access is actually increased because you now have precision navigation capability almost a category one to a lot of these airports. So in terms of enabling the 

small communities and enabling access to small communities, the 

area navigation procedures the Administrator mentioned earlier, 

the Required Navigational Performance, the higher capability in 

the aircraft all will contribute toward actually increasing the access 

with precise navigation and the satellite-based system; but we have 

to put the procedures in place to make sure that actually materializes. 

Mr. MEAD. That’s an important point because one thing that may 

happen with these smaller—these very light jets is—depending on 

the market for on-demand air taxi service looks like to airports 

that don’t really have scheduled service now. There will be an expectation that they have precision landing capabilities. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. I’ve got—oh, my light’s back on. 

I’ve got a couple of questions, and I think everybody else has 

kind of covered them. A couple questions. 

Mr. Dillingham, in your report, how much will people put up 

with delays and problems in an airport before they start avoiding 

that airport? In other words, when I go into New York, I’m just 

55

going to go around LaGuardia. I’m going to try Newark or I’ll try 

Kennedy or I’ll try something else. What’s our breaking point when 

we start saying, I’m not going to connect through Chicago anymore; 

and I want to go to Minneapolis or I’ll try to hub out of somewhere 

else; but I don’t want to go through Chicago? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it’s pretty hard to predict where 

the individual tipping points are; but even personally, I try not to 

go through Chicago in the wintertime because you never know 

what will happen; but I think a part of it fits into the plan. 

That is, if people can, in fact, go to airports other than the major 

hub airports, that might help with the situation. So it’s an individual decision, and I don’t know if you can sort of make that for 

anybody. 

Senator BURNS. Well, in other words, I guess we’ve all got different levels of intolerance, I would assume. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. ElSawy, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. ELSAWY. I agree with Dr. Dillingham. 

Senator BURNS. This is something for the whole panel. Some 

technologies are under consideration, like better surveillance for 

controllers and pilots. They will require users to equip new avionics. I would imagine this is more geared toward the MITRE Corporation here. This has been a roadblock in the past. 

What incentives could FAA rely on to speed up the introduction 

in these new systems? Is there anything we can do or the FAA can 

do to require airspace users to install and equip new avionics? 

Mr. ELSAWY. I think that, as the Administrator mentioned earlier, as we think about the aircraft as being an integral part of the 

system, to the extent that the aircraft is capable, the system will 

operate better; and the examples we saw with the area navigation 

which was just one example with avionics in the aircraft are really 

helping us change the procedures, changing the ways to control the 

traffic. 

If we think about the traffic and the volume and complexity and 

growth and the way we manage traffic today, the controller’s actually voicing commands and vectors to the aircraft. Changes the frequencies, changes the vectors, re-routes are all today voiced. 

If you think in the future, those routine types of communications 

can be, in fact, data-linked to the aircraft. Using existing avionics 

that they have on the aircraft today that they use for airline operational communications, we can, in fact, start the process of changing the procedures, reducing the requirements of voicing commands 

and increasing the precision and the predictability of the communications, also contributing to a reduction in the operational errors 

and that is as a result of hear-back/read-back errors. 

So I think that as you go forward, the data-link technologies will 

be critical in helping us improve; and I think the incentive will 

come from efficient streaming of flows in and out of major areas. 

And certainly the airlines are very very aware of the benefits of 

data link and for their operational control. 

Senator BURNS. Anyone else want to comment on that? 

Mr. MEAD. I think it’s important to look at this transition that 

Chairman Stevens was referring to. How quickly it’s going to occur; 

how quickly you’re going to come to a vision of the future is going 

56

to be dependent on how quickly you have universal equipage. 

FAA’s going to have to make some hard calls on some policy issues. 

Historically, FAA has tried to rely on voluntary equipage for long 

periods of time. It gets to be very controversial when you start to 

tell the carriers or general aviation that they must purchase and 

install certain avionics. So there’s some hard calls ahead. 

Ms. BLAKEY. I do think, though, that the carriers respond very 

well when we begin to say you can reduce the unit cost. So we can 

have a lot more capacity for less money per aircraft in terms of 

what it’s going to cost to move them through the system. 

The other thing that I would mention is that we do also have to 

remember that there’s some foundation building blocks in modernization we’re going to have to stick with. The host, if you will, 

for the entire aviation system of air traffic control is going to be 

based on a new program called ERAM. 

Now, I’m very pleased to say that ERAM is on schedule and on 

budget; but it really will be the enabling technology for all this. 

And we’re going through a major modernization of our terminals; 

and again, terminal modernization will have to take place so that 

some of these other further-out-there technologies will really be incorporated. 

Senator BURNS. Now, this leads me to my last question. The Subcommittee is worried about the comments being made that the U.S. 

airspace industry is losing its competitive edge and that other 

countries are moving forward technologies that we have abandoned, like controller/pilot data link. Are other countries ahead of 

us? 

Ms. BLAKEY. No, I don’t think so. 

Senator BURNS. In comparison, I mean around the world. 

Ms. BLAKEY. I think what’s happening is this: we’re seeing major 

resolve on the part of the European Union in terms of moving 

ahead with their aviation systems, both the Galileo satellite-based 

system as well as what they call SESAME, which is their Single 

European Sky initiative, with a major commitment to air traffic 

control technology. 

They’re not ahead of us yet; but they are making major investments. And I think we have to recognize that so that as we are 

looking at this and the expressed desire on their part to assume 

the leadership position in aviation technology, which the United 

States has always held, it certainly is a challenge. 

Senator BURNS. What do we have to do to stay ahead and be the 

imagination of air traffic control? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, I think one of the things we have to do is stick 

with the plan that we have laid out. We do have a plan for the 

Next Generation System, and we will be updating that and bringing that to this Committee before the year is out. 

I think you’re going to see some very exciting progress on the 

very things that the Inspector General’s saying. We need to have 

near-term deadlines. We need to know what the investments are, 

and we need to make real progress over the short range as well as 

the longer term. We’re very committed to making that happen. I 

think we can do it. 

57

Mr. MEAD. I second that. Senator Stevens made a point about financing. And he’s right to be concerned about it. The current situation the FAA is facing, as Mr. Dillingham said, is untenable. 

But before you have a financing plan, people have the right to 

ask how much money do you need; and what do you need it for; 

and when do you need it? So I totally second what you just said. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Dillingham, I saw your eyes light up. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. We have just started a major study to answer 

just the question that you’ve just asked. Where are we; where do 

we need to be; and what do we need in order to get there? 

Senator BURNS. I would imagine—policy has always been on this 

Committee no matter what field we talk about, we talk about communications or whatever. We try to kind of stay technology-neutral. 

We figure the marketplace determines what technology will be 

used and what can be the platform that will launch us into the future and that we can’t make that decision as policymakers; but it 

has to be made by the folks who use these systems. 

And I’m wondering—I would hate to get into a position as policymakers to be dictating what we use because nine times out of ten, 

that will change. Technology changes every—well, more often now 

than ever before; and you know, we don’t change all that quickly. 

I’ve always laughed at how long does it take with government, 

the bureaucracy to change a lightbulb? Nobody really knows because some of them don’t change anything; and we’re reluctant to 

do that; and I don’t want to get locked into a technology or a system that prevents us from moving to the next generation because 

it will change. 

How much redundancy in our R&D do we find between NASA 

and FAA? And can we save dollars there on what each other’s 

doing? Have you ever taken a look at that? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I think it’s a very important question. What has 

happened is over time, in terms of R&D, more and more of the research for the air traffic control system has shifted from the FAA 

significantly to NASA. I might say MITRE also does very important work for us in that area, but NASA is doing some critical 

work. 

The great thing that I must really compliment this Committee on 

is Vision 100 because when you all called for this plan for the Next 

Generation System, you said you wanted five agencies of government to pull together: NASA, the FAA, the Department of Transportation, but also the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, they spend significant research dollars as well. And the Department of Commerce is also included because they have the 

Weather Service, and we’ve been talking about weather all morning. 

With all of that research, we are working very hard to align 

those research plans and to look at the budgets we’re submitting 

to OMB and then to the Congress. You’ll see a lot of that in 2007 

where they really are aligned in a way that didn’t happen before; 

and I think it is going to give the taxpayer a lot more benefit for 

the dollars that are going into that. 

Senator BURNS. Do these agencies collaborate and communicate? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Absolutely. And they’re doing it through a joint 

planning and development office that was part of the Vision 100 

58

approach. So it is an office that the FAA and NASA are significantly putting resources into and so are the other agencies. We 

have eight different teams, and each of these agencies is leading 

at least one of them where they have the particular expertise. But 

the key is to look at the research dollars, look at the budgets and 

say, are we spending it on the right things; and are we duplicating 

or are we complementing and pulling it together? 

Senator BURNS. Mr. ElSawy? 

Mr. ELSAWY. I’d like to address the issue of leadership because 

I think there’s a really good news story here. 

If you look at leadership, leadership comes with implementation. 

The United States was the first country in the world to have a conflict probe in the airspace most advanced in the world, and it’s implemented its operating inspection system today. Time-based mirroring systems are implemented in the system today. We are providing leadership, really, for the entire world in area-based navigation, based on what is happening today. 

The implementations in Alaska, ADS-B is absolutely essential to 

helping the rest of the world move toward ADS-B concepts. So I 

think we’ve been very successful with implementing; and I think 

that ought to be our strategy going forward, getting it done, leading 

the way. 

Senator BURNS. I would say we need competition in the research 

area because competition usually gives us a lot better product at 

the end of the day; but I do feel every now and again that redundancy is somewhat—I don’t know how you judge it, to be quite honest with you; but I would look at that to save some dollars because 

we’re going to have to do some more work. 

I have no more questions for this panel, and I appreciate you 

coming this morning. There are other Senators that have got conflicts this morning and couldn’t make it. They will probably have 

some questions. If you could respond to their questions and submit 

your responses to the Committee for the record, we would appreciate that. 

And we appreciate your testimony this morning and also your 

work that you’re doing because I know it’s one of those—it’s in 

progress every day. And I appreciate your dedication to that and 

to keep us flying. Keep us flying safely and hope we get from A to 

B. 

And have a nice Memorial Day weekend. Stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59)

APPENDIX

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. KENNETH M. MEAD

Question. We know rail is competitive with air for certain markets, and we need 

rail as part of a balanced transportation system. We all know how essential the 

aviation trust fund is to the aviation community. Could a Federal rail trust fund 

be used to provide for rail infrastructure? 

Answer. In theory, a rail infrastructure trust fund similar to the aviation trust 

fund could be used as a mechanism to fund some or all passenger rail capital needs, 

although developing such a vehicle and ensuring equitable distribution of funds 

would pose extremely difficult challenges. 

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (aviation trust fund) was established in 1970 

to help fund the development of a national system of airports and airways, and to 

fund investment in air traffic control facilities. To fund these activities, the aviation 

trust fund relies on a number of taxes for revenue, including passenger ticket, fuel, 

and cargo taxes That are paid by airline passengers and airlines. 

If a similar funding scheme were contemplated for a rail trust fund, Amtrak and 

commuter rail passengers would be asked to pay higher ticket prices—something 

which they may or may not be willing to do, especially at the level necessary to provide sufficient funding for infrastructure reinvestment. For example, according to 

the airlines, it has been difficult for them to pass through to passengers the additional security fees imposed by the government after September 11. This reflects the 

competitive ticket environment and passengers’ unwillingness to pay. The airlines 

assert that the inability to raise fares to cover the new fees has forced them to lower 

base fares in order to keep absolute ticket prices constant. 

In the same vein, if an infrastructure ticket tax (similar in construct to the aviation security fees) were applied to Amtrak’s fares, Amtrak would need to raise its 

fares. If passengers were unwilling to pay the higher fares, ridership and total revenue would decline, requiring an equivalent increase in Federal operating subsidies. 

If Amtrak were to respond as the airlines did—lowering base fares to keep total 

ticket prices constant—the same effect would occur. Amtrak’s operating revenues 

would decline, resulting in a need for higher Federal subsidies. The fact that Amtrak operates at a deficit is strong evidence that this scenario would result. If rail 

passengers were willing to pay higher fares, Amtrak would have raised fares already so as to reduce the deficit and its dependence on Federal subsidies. 

In addition to funding, issues of fairness would need to be addressed. Unlike the 

aviation industry where the infrastructure is owned by public entities, much of the 

Nation’s rail infrastructure is owned by privately-owned freight railroads. It is unlikely that passenger rail operators would be willing to subsidize the upkeep of privately-owned infrastructure for which they already pay access fees, just as it is unlikely that the privately owned freight railroads would be willing to subsidize 

(through fuel and cargo taxes) the investment in stations and track required to support higher-speed passenger service for which they receive little or no benefits. 

The ultimate challenge in funding the significant infrastructure requirements to 

support rail service is not the vehicle for funding, but the amount of funding. ‘‘Creating’’ a trust fund is not the same as ‘‘funding’’ a trust fund. Funds distributed 

from the trust fund to address infrastructure needs would have to come from somewhere—passengers, cargo taxes, and/or fuel taxes—and it is almost certain that any 

of these options could potentially result in a greater need for increased operating 

subsidies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D. 

Question. We know rail is competitive with air for certain markets and we need 

rail as part of a balanced transportation system. We all know how essential the 

60

1See GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues or Consideration in Developing an Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, GAO–03–712T (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003); Economic Research Centre, Airports as Multimodal Interchange Nodes (Paris, France; 2005); Reconnecting America and 

Center for Neighborhood Technology, Missed Connections II (Chicago, Illinois: 2003); IATA, Air/

Rail Intermodality Study, (United Kingdom, 2003); DOT, Airport Congestion Impacts Resulting 

from Introduction of Improved Service in Eleven FR Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors

(Cambridge, Massachusetts: March 2002). 2See GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD–99–

32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998); GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a 

Framework for Infrastructure Investments, GAO–02–1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002); 

GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions, GA0–04–744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004); GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO–05–325SP (Washington, D.C.: 2005).

aviation trust fund is to the aviation community. Could a Federal trust fund be used 

to provide for rail infrastructure? 

Answer. We have not conducted any studies to determine whether a Federal trust 

fund is a viable option for funding rail infrastructure. However, we think that the 

costs and benefits of this option would need to be assessed to determine its viability. 

Past GAO reports and other research have indicated that for rail transport to provide a viable alternative to air service, the distance between markets has to be either short enough, generally between 100–500 miles, or trains must travel at high 

enough speeds to make rail travel time competitive with air travel, generally with 

2 to 3 hours total travel time. 1 Both of these issues could potentially require significant investment in rail infrastructure. 

As we have reported in prior reports, transportation programs and funding mechanisms are already largely stovepiped by transportation mode through mode-specific 

trust funds, and this situation makes it difficult for intermodal projects and other 

modal projects (e.g., freight or passenger trail) to be integrated into the transportation system. This stovepiping can also prevent states and local governments from 

choosing the best transportation investment to solve a mobility problem. To break 

down these stovepipes. there are a number of steps the Federal Government could 

take, short of creating a new trust fund, such as increasing the flexibility of current 

programs, applying different Federal matching criteria for projects that reflect federal priorities, establishing a performance-oriented funding or reward-based system, 

or expanding support for alternative financing mechanisms. 2

Æ