U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

38–169 PDF 2007

AIRLINE DELAYS AND

CONSUMER SERVICE

(110–73)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Brown, Steve, Senior Vice President for Operations, National Business Aviation Association .................................................................................................... 42

Cohen, Roger, President, Regional Airline Association ........................................ 42

Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ........... 42

Gribbin, D.J., General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, accompanied by Mr. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement & Proceedings ................................................................................ 6

Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for an Airline Passengers’ Bill 

of Rights ................................................................................................................ 42

May, Jim, President and CEO, Air Transport Association .................................. 42

Mitchell, Kevin, Chairman, Business Travel Coalition ........................................ 42

Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International North America 42

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6

Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre ............................................... 6

Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................................................................ 6

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Braley, Hon. Bruce L., of Iowa ............................................................................... 68

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 72

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 73

Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri ............................................................................... 83

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 86

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 89

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 93

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brown, Steve ............................................................................................................ 99

Cohen, Roger ............................................................................................................ 105

Forrey, Patrick ......................................................................................................... 123

Hanni, Kate .............................................................................................................. 140

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 145

Mitchell, Kevin P. .................................................................................................... 164

Principato, Greg ....................................................................................................... 169

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 179

Sinha, Agam N. ........................................................................................................ 244

Sturgell, Robert A. ................................................................................................... 264

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

West Virginia, a statement from Pamela Foley of Scottsdale, Arizona ........... 96

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘‘Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,’’ report 

for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from the Inspector General ........................................................................................................................ 200

Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre, responses to questions from 

the Subcommittee ................................................................................................. 257

Page

VI

Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration:

Response to question from Rep. Coble ............................................................... 29

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee, and subsequent information 

for clarification .................................................................................................. 275

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Air Carrier Association of America, Edward P. Faberman, Executive Director, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 278

House of Tutors, Anjum Malik, written statement ............................................... 282

Travelers Aid International, Raymond M. Flynt, President and CEO, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 283

vii


38169.001
viii


38169.002
ix


38169.003
x


38169.004
xi


38169.005
xii


38169.006
xiii


38169.007
xiv


38169.008
xv


38169.009
xvi


38169.010
xvii


38169.011
(1)

AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER SERVICE 

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in Room 

2367, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F. Costello 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn all electronic devices to off or vibrate. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear 

testimony on airline delays and consumer issues. Before we begin, 

I would ask unanimous consent to allow our new Member of our 

Committee, Ms. Laura Richardson from California, to participant 

in the Subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will give an opening statement, and we will recognize the Ranking Member, who I just passed on the floor a minute ago, and he 

is on his way over here. But I will begin with my opening statement. I will recognize Mr. Petri for an opening statement, and then 

we’ll begin with our first panel. I welcome our witnesses here today 

and everyone here today to this Subcommittee hearing on airline 

delays and consumer issues. 

The first half of 2007 has been the worst for airline delays since 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics started keeping comprehensive statistics 13 years ago. Through July, almost one in 

every four flights were delayed. Long, on-board tarmac delays have 

increased by almost 49 percent from 2006 and delays of five hours 

or more have increased 200 percent. The delays and the increasing 

number of consumer complaints that passengers experienced this 

summer are unacceptable. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series of hearings that this 

Subcommittee will hold. We will hold at least one hearing every 

quarter, every 3 months to determine what the airlines and the 

FAA are doing to address this problem. The public needs to know 

what this administration has done and what it plans to do in the 

near term to address delays and consumer complaints. No doubt, 

the reasons for delays are many, and clearly weather, particularly 

summer storms, are a major factor. But there is also evidence to 

suggest that operational, technological and economic trends and 

choices within the airline industry are factors. 

Oddly enough, while delays have increased, systemwide total airport operations have actually decreased by about 11 percent since 

the year 2000. The decline in total operations has been driven 

2

largely by a 17 percent decline in general aviation operations, contrary to what the airlines would have us believe. However, while 

commercial operations remain flat, they have also become more 

highly concentrated in certain areas, increasing in some of the Nation’s largest and busiest airports. For example, according to the 

FAA, operations at New York’s JFK airport have increased 27 percent from 2000 and 44 percent from 2004. 

Today we will hear additional analysis from MITRE, that operations at seven large hub airports that account for 72 percent of 

the delays have increased 10 percent since the summer of 2000, 

while operations at 38 other airports have decreased. Two weeks 

ago, the former FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, acknowledged 

that airline scheduling was a problem when she stated, and I 

quote, ′′the airlines need to take a step back on the scheduling 

practices that are at times out of line with reality...And if the airlines won’t address this voluntarily, don’t be surprised when the 

government steps in.′′ Last week I was pleased that the FAA notified the airlines that 

it wanted advance schedule information on JFK and Newark for 

the summer of 2008 because of increasing operations and deteriorating on-time performances at those airports. But the question is, 

why didn’t the FAA take action on this long ago, as to requesting 

scheduling information, when they acknowledge that overscheduling was a serious problem and many acknowledge that, including the FAA? The FAA in fact predicted that the summer of 

2007 was going to be the worst on record. Administrator Blakely 

stated in May of 2007 that 2006 was, ′′a record year for delays with 

more than 490,000 flights that didn’t make it on time. The truth 

is 2007 isn’t looking any better.′′ The fact is that, in February, this administration put forward a 

very controversial financing proposal for which there was absolutely no agreement or consensus. The FAA’s plan generated intense opposition from both sides of the aisle in Congress and within 

the industry. Its only real support came from the airlines. Throughout the summer months, the FAA failed in its responsibility to hold 

airlines responsible for what we are now being told are, ′′scheduling 

practices that are at times out of line with reality.′′

Looking forward, Congress, the FAA and the industry must take 

a hard look at airline scheduling practices. Where overscheduling 

is resulting in serious delays, the government must step in and 

take action. We should also have a frank discussion about what 

near-term relief realistically can be provided by new technology. 

For the last year, this administration has aggressively promoted 

the Next Generation Air Transportation system plan to justify its 

financing proposal. While everyone agrees that we must modernize 

our air traffic control system and supports NextGen, I caution the 

administration not to continue to build false expectations by holding the Next Generation system out as a solution for delays in the 

near future. NextGen is a long-term solution. We will not see full 

benefits from core NextGen technologies like automatic dependent 

surveillance broadcast for several years. 

The traveling public should not be given the false impression 

that NextGen will be here soon or will address problems in the 

short term. And the public should not be expected to wait several 

3

years for results. The airlines and the FAA must take action to address the problem now. I think it is important to point out, over 

the last 4 years, this administration has underfunded the FAA’s 

capital account, the primary vehicle for modernizing the National 

Airspace System, roughly $2 billion below the congressional authorized level. As a result, a number of ATC modernization initiatives 

were cancelled and deferred, including some NextGen capabilities. 

There has been definitely a serious disconnect between the administration’s rhetoric and reality. HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2007, provides about $1 billion more for FAA’s capital account than the FAA said it would need for the next 4 years. This 

additional funding will help accelerate Next Generation related activities. 

Finally, the DOT IG, who will be testifying on our first panel 

here this afternoon, released a report yesterday. The IG’s report 

has many important recommendations stemming from its investigation into an American Airlines incident in December of 2006 

and a JetBlue incident in February of 2007. I am interested in 

hearing more from the Inspector General on his report. While I believe DOT is making a good faith effort in dealing with consumer 

issues, it is not moving fast enough. For this reason, I am pleased 

that HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which passed 

the House last Thursday, addressed many of the IG’s recommendations. We have a serious problem with congestion and delays in our 

aviation system which in turn affects passengers and the quality 

of air carrier service. We must look at all options for reducing 

delays and improving the aviation experience. With that, I want to 

again welcome our witnesses today. I look forward to hearing the 

testimony of both this panel and the second panel. 

Before I recognize Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to 

allow 2 weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks 

and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri for his opening 

statement. 

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

Well, as expected, it was a long, hot summer. We had a record 

number of passengers and a record number of flight delays in the 

United States. This year has been a particularly difficult one for 

air travelers. It was not all doom and gloom. If you flew out of Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Atlanta, Las Vegas or Houston, 

you enjoyed an improved on-time performance rate from 2006. Unfortunately, every other major airport suffered worse on-time performance rates this year. 

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, through 

July 2007, 27.8 percent of flights were delayed. Most of these 

delays were out of control. In fact—out of our control. In fact, so 

far this year, weather has accounted for 41 percent of the delays 

and cancellations. While we can’t control the weather, we can develop and put in place improved technology, approaches and processes to better deal with severe weather events. 

As we discussed during the Subcommittee hearing in April, high 

profile incidents in New York and Dallas and others since then 

4

have also brought attention to long flight delays on the tarmac and 

how airline passengers are treated during these delays. These incidents, while extremely rare, raise important concerns about how 

the industry and the FAA can safely and efficiently operate our National Airspace System. 

The first responsibility of government and industry clearly is the 

safety of the passenger. Because most of these causes of long 

delays, such as weather, are out of human control, it is important 

to consider the steps that the industry has and can take to mitigate 

the effect of delays on their customers. Over the last 8 years or so, 

the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General 

has been active in investigating and evaluating major delay events. 

As a result of these efforts, the airline industry has voluntarily 

adopted recommendations made by the Inspector General, however 

in varying degrees of effectiveness. 

Additionally, shortly after the February ice storm incident in 

New York, Secretary Peters asked the office of the Inspector General to review and evaluate the most recent major delays and report its findings. That report was issued yesterday, and I look forward to hearing from the Inspector General about both the findings 

and recommendations included in the report. The FAA reauthorization bill passed by the House does include various airline consumer 

rights provisions, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 

in both the house and in the Senate to address the issues as we 

move toward conferencing the bill. 

At the end of the day, major delay events painfully demonstrate 

the ever more critical need to modernize the Nation’s Air Traffic 

Control System. The unfortunate reality is that long tarmac delays 

are really just a tip of the iceberg. With the anticipated growth in 

operations over the next 10 to 15 years, these type of delays will 

not be limited to days where there is severe weather. They might 

become the norm rather than the anomaly. Therefore, I believe 

Congress must focus its attention on ensuring the transformation 

of the Air Traffic Control System. I thank all the witnesses for the 

effort that went into their testimony and for appearing here before 

the Subcommittee today to share your concerns and your points of 

view. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And at this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Full Committee and then we’ll come to our first panel. 

Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And I appreciate 

your holding this hearing. I Chaired the Subcommittee for some 6 

years, and we faced some of the same issues that we continue to 

face with delays. And it is our responsibility to make certain that 

people that are trapped on some of these flights and in fact, I am 

not sure, can I request this study? The Secretary did. But I know 

we requested reports back, and I have also asked FAA to come up 

with some sort of a standard for taking care of passengers who do 

get stranded for an inordinate period of time. That is part of our 

responsibility. 

Let me just make a couple of quick points. We have heard the 

Ranking Member mention—we have heard that weather accounts 

for 41 percent of the delays. And then I have seen in some of the 

5

air traffic control holds that are placed, about 78 percent of those 

are due to weather. So weather plays an important part in causing 

these delays. And we don’t want a situation like, I guess, a crash 

in Thailand during a storm. We want to make certain that every 

caution is taken to deal with weather, which can have a devastating and tragic effect. And we have an incredible record of safety with the measures that we put in place. 

Sometimes folks are delayed in our system, but we pay close attention to one of the primary causes of aviation catastrophes. We 

do have—we have identified some of the problems. Some of the 

problem is Congress and also the administration in acting. Even 

with NGATS, the Next Generation airspace, the highest, best technical equipment, aircraft still can only be spaced so closely. You 

can only land so many planes per hour. And most of the schedules 

that are developed today in our high congestion airports and hubs 

are absolutely maxed out during maxed times, and stretching some 

of that out might be part of the answer. We have given some relief 

for DOT to act as an arbiter. In some areas, it has worked well. 

In Chicago and—so again, Congress and DOT have the responsibility to deal with overscheduling. 

Let me just say a couple of commonsense things that we can do. 

Another one is, I sat on a plane not too long ago for 2 hours in Orlando due to thunderstorms and a storm coming over. And you 

learn something new, Mr. Costello, in this business every day, even 

with all the information we have. I saw workers looking out the 

plane. And the ramp workers were all working, but the plane that 

I was on—it happened to be US Air—was not being serviced. And 

we sat there and sat there. Then I saw other planes being loaded, 

and we sat there. 

And I said, well, is this some sort of a work rule for folks to 

check in on? I thought maybe this was some labor negotiated thing 

that they don’t work during this. I found out that is not the case, 

that every airline has their own policy. And that is something else, 

a commonsense approach that we could take. Now, what was instituted I am told is because some ramp workers were killed that 

work for a particular airline, each has put in their own rules. But 

because of liability, in fact, we have concerns, and they should be 

addressed. We don’t want anyone in danger. But the lack of some 

standardization in this or some backup protection for those who 

move forward, keeps planes on the ground and further exacerbates 

the situation. 

And finally, I was surprised to learn that the Chairman of the 

Committee has asked for a holdup on the airspace redesign in the 

greater New York area that we have been working on for 10 years. 

A redesign can result in 20 percent better on time, particularly 

with weather. We have waited 10 years, and now we find that that 

is being, in fact, delayed again for an additional look-see at this 

GAO report. So there are just some sensible commonsense approaches I think that we can take to speed up this process and stop 

the delays. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments. 

And at this time, I will introduce our witnesses today on the first 

panel. We welcome all of you: Mr. Robert Sturgell, Bobby Sturgell, 

who is here, who has been here many times before, he is the acting 

6

administrator, one of many hats that he has worn over the past 

few years for the FAA; Mr. D.J. Gribbin, who is the general counsel 

for the U.S. Department of Transportation; the Honorable Calvin 

Scovel, who is the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation; Dr. Agam Sinha, who is the senior vice president 

and general manager for the Center of Advanced Aviation System 

Development, MITRE. And I understand that you are here to answer any questions, Mr. Samuel Podberesky, who is the assistant 

general counsel for aviation enforcement. How did I do there on 

your name? 

Mr. MR. PODBERESKY. Close. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MR. D.J. GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. SAMUEL PODBERESKY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR 

AVIATION ENFORCEMENT & PROCEEDINGS; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER 

FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, MITRE 

Mr. COSTELLO. Close? Okay. Well, the Chair would now recognize 

the Honorable Robert Sturgell, the acting administrator under the 

5-minute rule. We would ask—inform all witnesses that your entire 

testimony will be submitted for the record. We would ask you to 

summarize it so we can have plenty of time for Members to ask 

questions. 

Mr. Sturgell. 

Mr. STURGELL. Good afternoon. And thank you, Chairman 

Costello, for the privilege of addressing you, Mr. Petri, and other 

Members of the Subcommittee, regarding delays and how they affect the consumer. 

I can understand the frustration of the flying public, having experienced delays this summer myself. But first and foremost, the 

National Airspace System is as safe as it has ever been. Over the 

past 20 years, general aviation accidents have dropped by one-third 

and commercial aviation itself is in the golden age of safety. Inefficiencies, delays in particular, is another matter. More people are 

flying more than ever and more smaller planes are carrying them. 

Compounding this, the FAA’s current system of taxes and fees 

provides little incentive to use the airspace efficiently. Aviation 

today is a deregulated system where the government does not create or control airline schedules. The passenger wants choices, and 

choices fill up schedules. Competition created by deregulation has 

also resulted in lower ticket prices for the traveling public. But 

when passengers arrive at the airport and see that a dozen flights 

are supposed to leave all at the same time, they know it is not 

going to happen. 

Commercial traffic has returned in different ways after 9/11. 

Delays are up 20 percent since last year and almost 30 percent 

since the summer of 2000. We have seen dramatic increases in traffic in several major markets. High performance business jet traffic 

has grown rapidly as well, up 43 percent between 2000 and 2006. 

7

The system is busy. And regrettably, the bad news here is that 

delays will likely only get worse. Take-offs and landings will grow 

by 1.4 million per year through 2020. And JFK alone, as the Chairman pointed out, had a 44 percent increase in activity since 2004. 

In the summer of 2000, the big delays came from seven big airports: Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark, Philadelphia and then Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. These seven airports at the time accounted for 55 percent of the delays. Since 2000, operations of 

these airports have grown an additional 10 percent, and they now 

account for 72 percent of delays systemwide. 

With respect to delays, our policy is always to try to grow capacity and improve efficiency, to reduce delays through pavement procedures and technology first. And we do that before interfering in 

the market. And I want to emphasize that we do not endorse deregulation. We will do, however, what is appropriate to make the 

system operate safely and efficiently. So, we are taking this issue 

head on. 

For example, airspace delays have become a bigger and bigger 

problem in the New York area. And, as you know and pointed out, 

we just issued a direct record of decision, a culmination of more 

than a decade’s worth of work for airspace redesign in that area. 

It will reduce delays by 20 percent, and it is also environmentally 

friendly, cutting CO-2 emissions by 430,000 pounds per year. We 

have got a dozen short-term operational initiatives underway in 

New York since the beginning of the year. 

I am pleased to say we are installing the ASDE-X system at JFK 

by July of 2008. That is a full year ahead of the planned deployment. And that is going to help us improve safety and surface traffic management at that airport. Complementing the airspace redesign is the runway work at Philadelphia. A new runway in 1999 

and a current extension project underway now is going to cut 

delays again by another 3 million minutes per year. I think everyone knows last May we opened a new runway in Atlanta, the 

world’s busiest airport. The runway commissioning coincided with 

airspace redesign that resulted in a 30 percent increase in capacity. 

We have a redesign of the airspace effort underway in Houston. 

And of course, you know we have imposed temporary short-term 

caps at Chicago’s O’Hare, which we plan to lift as they bring on 

additional capacity. 

As we move to the Next Generation, satellite based system, we 

are also changing navigation procedures in Atlanta and around the 

country to increase efficiency and reduce delays. Nationally, we 

have implemented 180 area navigation (RNAV) procedures for arrivals and departures with 42 more by the end of the year. It has 

enabled us to add another 10 arrivals per day at Hartsfield, Atlanta. That is a big increase, a savings of $34 million in time and 

fuel. 

The third way to address delays and increase efficiency is with 

technology. The problems we see in New York and other parts of 

the system are a reflection of the limitation of today’s system of air 

traffic control. They will only get worse with time. So, in the longer 

term, alleviating delays does require the technological transformation that will come with NextGen, and it is happening now 

with things like these RNAV and RNP procedures. 

8

The larger issue, how it gets paid for, is still in the balance. With 

our authorization set to expire shortly, the forward momentum is 

in jeopardy, and that is a short-term issue. In the longer term, I 

think the failure to link our revenue with the operating cost may 

likely put our major capital programs at risk and perhaps slow 

down the implementation. And I am hopeful that we can continue 

to work together in the reauthorization process to address these 

concerns. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gribbin. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually the department had a joint statement which actually Mr. Sturgell delivered. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scovel for his testimony. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

this afternoon. This hearing is both timely and important given the 

record-breaking flight delays, cancellations and on-board tarmac 

delays that air travelers have experienced this year. Based on the 

first 7 months of the year, nearly 28 percent of flights were delayed, cancelled or diverted with airlines’ on-time performance at 

the lowest percentage, 72 percent, recorded in the last 10 years. 

Not only are there more delays, but also longer delay periods. Of 

those flights arriving late, passengers experienced a record-breaking average flight arrival delay of nearly 1 hour. More than 54,000 

flights affecting nearly 3.7 million passengers experienced taxi-in 

and taxi-out times of 1 to 5 hours or more compared to 45,000 

flights for all of peak year 2000. Reduced capacity and increased 

demand have led to higher load factors; 71.1 percent in 2000 to 

79.7 percent in 2007. With more seats filled, airlines have fewer options to accommodate passengers from cancelled flights. 

As you know, Secretary Peters has serious concerns about the 

airlines’ treatment of passengers during extended ground delays 

and requested that we examine incidents in which passengers were 

stranded on aircraft for extended periods of time. We issued our report yesterday, which includes a series of recommendations that 

the Department, airlines and airports can take to improve airline 

customer service. 

Today I would like to discuss four key points that would help to 

improve airline customer service and minimize long, on-board 

delays. First, the airlines should detail their policies and plans to 

minimize long, on-board delays and off-load passengers within certain periods of times and adhere to such policies. 

The American Airlines and JetBlue events of December 29, 2006, 

and February 14, 2007, respectively, underscored the importance of 

improving customer service for passengers who are stranded on 

board aircraft for extended periods of time. On those dates, thousands of passengers experienced long, on-board delays and, in some 

cases, for over 9 hours. Although severe weather was the primary 

cause of the delays, it was not the only reason those passengers 

suffered the experience that they did. Neither airline had systemwide procedures in place to mitigate long, on-board delays and offload passengers within a certain period of time. In fact, prior to the 

American Airlines and JetBlue incidents, only a few airlines had 

9

established time limits on the duration of tarmac delays. Since 

these incidents, eight airlines have now set a time limit for delays 

before deplaning passengers, but five still have not. 

Second, airport operators should become more involved in contingency planning for extraordinary flight disruptions. Our examination of 13 airports’ contingency plans found that only two airports 

have a process for monitoring and mitigating long, on-board delays. 

This involves contacting the airline after an aircraft has remained 

for 2 hours on the tarmac to request a plan of action. All airports 

intervene only upon an airline’s request primarily because they do 

not have authority to interfere with a carrier’s operations during 

long, on-board delays. In our opinion, airport operators need to be 

become more involved in contingency planning for extraordinary 

flight disruptions. 

Third, there are best practices and ongoing initiatives that, if 

properly executed, should help to mitigate long, on-board delays in 

the short term. During our audit, we found several practices that 

airlines and airports are taking to mitigate the effects of these occurrences. Among others, these include setting the maximum 

amount of time that passengers will remain on board aircraft before deplaning. Also, keeping gate space available for off-loading 

passengers in times of irregular operations. FAA has also taken action to minimize delays through initiatives such as the Airspace 

Flow Program. This initiative gives FAA and the airlines the capability to maximize the overall use of the NAS while minimizing 

delays and congestion. These efforts do not create additional capacity but rather limit the negative effects of bad weather. 

Fourth, DOT, FAA, airlines and airports should complete actions 

immediately to improve airline customer service and minimize 

long, on-board delays. DOT should take a more active role in overseeing customer service issues involving long, on-board delays, and 

there are actions that the Department, the airlines, airports and 

FAA can undertake immediately. 

Specifically, first, all airlines should specify the efforts that will 

be made to get passengers off aircraft that are delayed for long periods and incorporate these policies in their contracts of carriage 

and post them on their Internet sites. 

Second, airlines should establish specific targets for reducing 

chronically delayed or cancelled flights and disclose on-time flight 

performance. 

Third, large- and medium-hub airport operators should establish 

a process for monitoring and mitigating long, on-board delays that 

involves contacting the airline to request a plan of action after an 

aircraft has remained on the tarmac for 2 hours. 

Four, DOT should investigate incidents involving long, on-board 

delays and oversee the airlines’ policies for dealing with them. 

And five, the airlines, airports and FAA should establish a task 

force to develop and coordinate contingency plans to deal with 

lengthy delays. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be glad to 

answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

Dr. Sinha. 

10

Mr. SINHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Congressman Mica and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearings on the airline delays and consumer 

issues. 

Today airlines are transporting more passengers than at any 

time in history but operating fewer flights than in 2000. Yet delays 

in the system are at an all-time high, up 11 percent as compared 

to 2000. This raises the natural question, if operations are down 

across the NAS, why are delays up? The answer to this question 

is location specific. Operations are not down everywhere, nor are 

delays up everywhere. 

I think it was mentioned earlier that, in the summer of 2000, of 

the 45 airports, seven airports, Atlanta, Chicago O’Hare, Philadelphia, Newark, La Guardia, Houston and Kennedy, accounted for 55 

percent of the delays. Today they account for 72 percent of the 

delays. If you look at the operations at the 45 airports, operations 

have decreased by 8 percent while at these seven airports they 

have increased by 10 percent. The biggest bottle necks this summer 

have been at the three major New York/New Jersey airports as 

well as the surrounding airspace. I think again it was mentioned 

earlier, Kennedy’s scheduled operations have increased by 44 percent. At JFK, more efficient procedures have been put in place to 

make better use of multiple runway operations thereby increasing 

the overall traffic at the airport. If not for these procedural improvements, delays would have been much worse. 

Many improvements have been made in the system since 2000, 

which provide significant capacity increases and user benefits but 

have not kept pace with the demand at key locations. Looking to 

the future, the FAA’s report on capacity needs in the National Airspace Systems takes a systematic look at current and projected demand and capacity across all airports and metropolitan areas. The 

results show that if all planned improvements are implemented by 

2015, six airports and four metro areas will still have insufficient 

capacity to meet projected demand. By 2025, the situation is 

worse—even with planned improvements, there are projected to be 

14 airports and eight metro areas that will have capacity constraints. 

Looking at potential solutions, NextGen will provide better navigation, surveillance and information sharing and decision making 

than today. Together these capabilities will allow the separations 

between aircraft to be reduced safely. This will allow more aircraft 

to land and depart per hour, reducing delays at the majority of the 

busiest 35 airports in the U.S, including Atlanta, Kennedy and 

Newark. Better surveillance and more automation in the cockpit 

can reduce the dependencies between operations on different runways. More precise navigation will help to reduce the dependencies 

between operations at different airports in busy metropolitan areas 

such as JFK and La Guardia. NextGen does allow more uses of existing runways at more than half of the top 35 airports and might 

create new opportunities for construction of additional runways at 

existing airports because of reduced separation requirements between runways. 

11

More efficient use of the airspace would also facilitate greater 

use of secondary airports in the major metropolitan areas that 

might address a lot of the metropolitan area constraints that are 

identified in the FAA report. Better weather data together with 

cockpit display of traffic information will reduce traffic disruption 

due to poor weather conditions, leading to what are termed equivalent visual operations in the NextGen concept. We know for example that today in visual conditions we do not have as much of a 

problem as we do in the instrument conditions. So this will allow 

us to operate more like visual conditions most of the time. 

Movement on the airport surface will be improved through 

ASDE-X, ADS-B and cockpit display of traffic information. Around 

two-thirds of the top 35 airports are likely to benefit from improved 

surface traffic management in terms of improved safety and reduced fuel consumptions. Further analysis of the potential benefit 

of these and other NextGen capabilities at the Nation’s airports is 

underway. As a step towards NextGen, a number of technologies 

and procedures have been demonstrated to be technically and operationally feasible in both enroute airspace and in busy terminal 

areas. These, called performance-based ATM or PATM capabilities, 

are currently being incorporated into FAA’s operational evolution 

partnership for implementation. Human in the loop validation conducted over the past 2 years have shown that these concepts are 

feasible and provide significant benefits in the controller’s capability to safely handle the expected increase in traffic probably up 

to 2016 and beyond. 

In summary, the answer to the question of why operations are 

down and delays are up, is that traffic levels have increased at the 

already congested hubs which have little spare capacity and have 

decreased at other locations which have more spare capacity. Local 

and regional solutions will continue to be needed to address capacity problems as they emerge; however, a systemwide approach to 

solving the Nation’s capacity needs is imperative. 

Finally, successful implementation of all the planned improvements at the airports and in the airspace through enhanced automation and procedures for both ground systems and avionics are 

critical in meeting the demand in the near term and for 2025 and 

beyond. This will require full participation from all stakeholders, 

the FAA, the customers and the manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, 

this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Doctor. Let me ask—I will begin with 

asking a few questions. First, before I do, I think we all agree that 

NextGen is needed. Is there any disagreement on the panel? I 

think we all agree that NextGen is several years away and provides no relief or no help in the shortterm. Would we agree with 

that? Everyone on the panel? Mr. Sturgell. 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would say that there are pieces 

of what will be, you know, the endgame of NextGen that are already being implemented. I mean, the move to a satellite-based 

navigation system, RNAV procedures, area navigation and RNP 

procedures are all about satellite-based navigation and taking advantage of what is in the airplane. So I think there are some things 

12

that are being implemented now that are not necessarily several 

years down the road. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And I understand that. But for clarification for 

those who are here and those who may be listening, give us an example of what is happening now. ADS-B, whatever it may be, that 

will provide relief in the short term. We have gone through the 

worst summer of delays we have experienced since BTS has been 

keeping statistics. We are about to get the summer behind us, but 

we are going to move into the holiday season now. So my question—what I am trying to establish, number one, is we all agree 

that the technology needs to be updated and changed. We all agree 

that NextGen needs to happen. That is the reason why, in the 

House bill that we passed, we provide over 1 billion more than the 

administration requested over a 4-year period to accelerate 

NextGen. But we are talking about short-term solutions here, addressing the problem at hand, and you know, I don’t want to build 

false expectations out there with the traveling public that, hey, the 

FAA is going to go out and buy something that is on a shelf someplace, implement it and it is going to help us by September—the 

end of September or when we get into the holiday season, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Isn’t it a fact that what we are doing with 

NextGen will not provide relief between now and the end of the 

year? 

Mr. STURGELL. Probably not to the level we would like, given the 

delays and particularly for the New York area. I mean, we do have 

RNP procedures in New York in those 3 airports. We are implementing more of those during the coming year, and I do think that 

they are very important. At Atlanta, we are getting 10 to 11 more 

arrivals per hour, more departures per hour, and in Dallas, depending on the configuration. That is a huge capacity increase at 

some of these airports. 

Mr. COSTELLO. There is no question that there is relief coming 

in the long term, but that does not help the people who will be 

traveling over the holiday season. What I am trying to communicate to them and get everyone to understand is, what are we 

doing short term, and then what are we doing long term? We understand what the long-term benefits are of NextGen, and we understand that there are steps in between from where we are today 

and when we complete NextGen. And those—all of those steps are 

progress in the right direction. But I would ask Mr. Scovel the 

same question. Do you see anything that the FAA is doing in moving toward NextGen that will provide short-term relief to the 

delays in the congestion that we have short-term, meaning between 

now and between the end of the holiday, December 31st of this 

year? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Sturgell was 

correct when he cites RNAV and RNP as very short-term initiatives that are in place in specific locations that can help the delay 

problem in those locations. I think when you mention the need to 

set realistic expectations, you are absolutely correct. And I think it 

is also important to note that those expectations need to be framed 

in terms of systemwide improvements. While local geographic improvements can certainly be obtained. Systemwide improvements 

are what is—makes long-term NextGen most important, certainly 

13

to the Congress, to the Department and to the traveling public. A 

moment ago, sir, you mentioned ADS-B; it is probably a good case 

in point. It is common knowledge that FAA recently let a contract 

for $1.8 billion for ADS-B. The infrastructure will be put in place 

between now and 2013. At that point, users will equip their aircraft with the technology that is required to take advantage of that, 

and they have until 2020 to make that change, and it will be at 

the cost of billions of dollars for the airlines. So it is a huge investment. 

Even when we get to 2020, only a part of the full capacity enhancements of ADS-B will be available because, at that point, it is 

ADS-B Out rather than ADS-B In. I am not a technician, but I can 

explain in layman’s terms what those mean. But the bottom-line is, 

that even in 2020, not all of the full capabilities of ADS-B will be 

realized. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Sinha, let me ask you. You say in your written testimony—and I quote—scheduled demand at Kennedy has increased rapidly since June of 2006 as Delta and JetBlue have developed their hub operations. Would you please elaborate on that 

and talk precisely about what Delta and JetBlue have done at JFK 

in the last few years? 

Mr. SINHA. I think what we have been seeing when we look at 

the data is, it is not so much over the long run, but it is, like, starting from maybe early part of 2006 through 2007. JetBlue had operations, something in the order of 265, 247, 262, in that range daily. 

But now, today, if you look at this July, August, September, it is 

358, 364, 336. That is a significant increase in the daily operations. 

If you look at Delta, they were going through some restructuring 

of the routes in the January through May or June of 2006, and 

their operations were in the range of 180 to 190 operations per day. 

Today they are at 368, 372, 373, 349. That is what we mean by 

what has happened in terms of them increasing their operations. 

Now, how much of it is free-market competition? You can judge for 

yourself. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And it is called competition, right? Okay. Mr. 

Sturgell, and again, this will be my last question. I have other 

Members, and then I will come back. 

Mr. Sturgell, I applauded the administrator for her comments 

concerning scheduling. It is a concern that I have had for sometime. We have looked at scheduling. We have sat down with some 

of your people in the FAA, some of the air traffic controllers. And 

there is no question in my mind that there is evidence that scheduling during peak periods at certain airports, JFK being one, that 

there are more flights scheduled at certain time periods than the 

system can possibly handle. So I was pleased when the administrator acknowledged that. I only wish that we would have focused 

on that back in January or February so we could have done something about the travel season this summer as opposed to concentrating on next summer. However, I am pleased that that action 

is being taken, and I am pleased with your decision or whoever 

made the decision to tell the airlines that you want to see the 

schedules in advance beginning in March of 2008. So in reading the 

notice that went out to the airlines, it is pretty specific. And it 

seems to me that you believe the FAA believes that there are 

14

scheduling problems at JFK specifically that has caused delays. Is 

that a correct assumption? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yeah. We are looking very closely at the scheduling in the New York major airports as you mentioned. There are 

some hours that are above the peak hours in those airports. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But the answer is yes. You have looked, there is 

evidence in your opinion that there are some scheduling problems, 

and that is obviously why you have taken this action? 

Mr. STURGELL. We have asked for the schedules, we have. You 

know, it has obviously been a problem. Again, there are some parts 

of the schedule that are above what we believe that airport can 

handle. But in addition to the schedules, there is a whole range of 

things we have been looking at, you know, since the beginning of 

the year. And I know we have talked about some of the operational 

things. We’ve met with the airlines and the Port Authority, since 

about February of this year, and we have been working to implement to help bring relief to that area. And scheduling, of course, 

is one of, you know, the many things we are looking at very, very 

closely. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The last question now before I turn it over to the 

Ranking Member, is that—and I will come back to ask a few more 

questions when we are finished with Members asking questions. At 

this point, can you give any assurance to the traveling public that 

nonweather-related delays, nonweather-related—you have no control over weather delays, that the FAA, that you are taking measures to reduce delays during the holiday season and the short-term. 

Mr. STURGELL. We are taking measures to address those delays 

and specifically for the New York area. Some of the early things 

we can do in the airspace redesign is what are called fanned departures off of the runways at the airports up there, specifically Philadelphia, Newark and then there is a new procedure for right turn 

out of JFK when departing to the northwest. The benefit is probably one to three an hour, in terms of operations that you can add 

to the system, and it doesn’t sound like much, but it will be an impact if we can move forward with that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you, and I will come back shortly. The 

Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Petri. 

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

I see that the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, is 

here and may want to participate, and I know that the senior Republican of the Committee, Mr. Mica, has several questions, and I 

would yield my time to him. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. I think everyone agrees NGATS is not going to 

be instituted or any parts of it really to deal with the delays. So 

we have got two issues here: We have got the problem of the 

delays, and then we have got the problem of dealing with people 

who are held captive on planes for extended periods of time. I have 

got a copy of my letter, April 19th, Mr. Sturgell, to the Secretary. 

The second paragraph: I respectfully request FAA develop a policy 

to determine acceptable procedures for extraordinary flight delays, 

particularly when health, life, safety of passengers are at risk. 

Now, the Secretary sent me back a reply in May and said that 

she was waiting on the IG’s report, which was expected later this 

15

summer. Now we get it in the fall today here. IG, you have recommended that the Secretary should define what constitutes an extended period of time. Do we have that, Mr. Sturgell? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Mica——

Mr. MICA. You just got the report. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. Just got the report and on behalf of the 

Secretary, I do want to publicly thank the Inspector General for the 

report. She did ask for that report to be developed. She has also 

had a senior task group working on these issues. 

Mr. MICA. This is April 19th. This is the 23rd. To get this thing 

rolling to make certain the people are protected on a plane, when 

can I find out when she is going to have that, a week, a month, 

a year? I mean, just something for the record. You don’t know? 

Okay. Because we can’t deal with the issue of taking care of passengers who are stranded. And the other thing it says, the Secretary should direct the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to ensure airlines comply with their public policies governing long—so we are asking the airlines to develop that, and 

then you enforce it. But I am not sure that is what I asked for. I 

asked for FAA to come up with some standard. I mean, it is nice 

to have the airlines and then use them as the fall guy all the time. 

I asked for FAA to come up with something, and that is what I 

think we need. Our responsibility is life, health, safety. Okay. We 

have identified there are seven airports that account for 70 some 

percent of the delays, right? JFK, Newark, La Guardia, all in the 

same area. O’Hare, we are doing a massive redesign of the runways. That will help some. I know Philadelphia we have done an 

extension. Is Atlanta down? We just finished that runway. Is Atlanta one of the ones down? Did anyone find that? It isn’t down? 

We just added that runway capacity. 

Mr. SINHA. It is Houston—Houston is the other one. 

Mr. MICA. But I am getting to——

Mr. SINHA. Atlanta is on the list. 

Mr. MICA. It is on the list. Okay. My point is, some places we 

can add capacity; some we are adding it, and some we’ve added it. 

So that should help a little bit. With weather, it is still tough because you can only land so many planes. My point here is JFK, 

Newark, La Guardia probably result in the bulk of the delays. 

Wouldn’t that be the case? I mean, those three in that airspace. 

Now, the last point I made when I came to make my little opening 

statement was that the airspace redesign can result, I was told, in 

a 20 percent expansion of our capacity and capability to handle aircraft and would lessen delays by about that percent. Is that agreed, 

Mr.—I see a yes. Is that yes? No? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Ballpark, yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. So again, some of this isn’t rocket science. But 

the airspace redesign which we have been waiting on 10 years—

we had an overwhelming vote in Congress. We had Republicans 

and Democrats. We all said, go forward with that northeast quarter, and that would help us. Now, I am told the GAO report might 

have to be interspersed here according to what the Chairman has 

asked for, and I don’t know that to even be the case, which would 

further delay that. Is that the case? Is there any impediment that 

16

you know, Mr. Sturgell, that will stop us from doing the New York 

airspace redesign? 

Mr. STURGELL. We have not received anything formally asking us 

to stop the——

Mr. MICA. So that can go forward and that—if that goes forward 

on an expedited basis, then we could expect, Mr. Scovel, some improvement in delays? 

Mr. SCOVEL. There certainly would be improvement, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would ask the gentleman to yield. I think everyone expects that the airspace redesign as proposed by the FAA for 

the New York airspace, that it will end up in court, that there will 

be litigation. So, I mean, I don’t think there is any question. I have 

been out to Philadelphia, and I have attended a town meeting, and 

there is no question that everyone expects that a lawsuit will be 

filed. So, from the standpoint of expediting it, there are those of us 

who would like to see that happen. But I think, realistically, we are 

in for some litigation, which is going to take some time to reach 

a court decision. 

Mr. MICA. Again, I have been to hearings and meetings in Connecticut and the northeast and Philadelphia and New Jersey, and 

it goes on and on. My point here is, I don’t want anything to 

stand—I mean, this isn’t rocket science. We can tell where the 

planes are being delayed. They just testified to it. If we can move 

them in the northeast quarter. If we have to put something that 

puts—that jams that threw. We just had an overwhelming vote in 

Congress. But we need to get that airspace redesign—it is not like 

redesigning a highway since 1980. And those are our airways, and 

we can’t move planes through. That is in the optimum condition. 

So stop blaming the airlines and let us take the responsibility for 

government not putting in place—stop blaming air traffic controllers who do their job. We have the ability to move this forward and 

we should. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair would note that Mr. Petri has exceeded 

his time by 1 minute. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sturgell, in your 

testimony on Page 9, you say we encourage our friends in the airline industry to re-assess their scheduling with an eye towards relieving some strain on the system. You have asked for them to 

start providing schedules in March. What are you going to do with 

those schedules? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. DeFazio, along those lines, the airlines, we 

have worked with them at location-specific airports as well as 

broadly. And, I would point out a couple of successes of voluntary 

efforts in that regard. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. How many failures do we have? We have lengthy 

testimony from the air traffic controllers documenting a large number of airports where we have scheduled more aircraft to take off 

during a given number of hours than could possibly take off on the 

best day in history, let alone any insignificant limitation due to 

weather. 

Mr. STURGELL. In the examples of places like Dallas, Fort Worth 

and Atlanta, the airlines voluntarily de——

17

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. When you have passengers all across America, who are being given phony schedules as Mr. May says in his 

testimony, people like frequent departures so the airlines schedule 

them. In the case of Eugene, Oregon, where I live, United schedules a lot of departures. And as soon as San Francisco gets limited, 

which it is 30 percent of the time, they just cancel or delay all 

those flights. Yeah, theoretically, we are going to leave. If you are 

a business traveler, you know it is a joke to have a ticket on United 

to San Francisco because they are just going to bump your flight 

and bring in the long-range flights. They are overscheduling the 

airport, you know, given the normal conditions at San Francisco. 

That is repeated at other airports throughout the system. So there 

may be a few voluntary success stories on the part of the industry, 

but you are a regulatory and a safety agency. 

So, my question is, what are you going to do with the schedule—

when they give you schedules in March that show they have scheduled more departures at a number of airports than can take off 

during a given number of consecutive hours on the best day in history, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do 

at that point? That is the question. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, addressing scheduling is one of many 

things——

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know. I am just trying to deal with one real simple factor. We are scheduling more planes to take off and land than 

can physically take off and land. We are allowing this to go forward. We are saying the market will control it. The market doesn’t 

control it because the airlines aren’t going to give up their slots because their passengers might go on someone else that gives them 

a fake schedule. The passengers aren’t informed that you are booking a flight for an hour that is overbooked. There will be some 

planes delayed during that hour. What are you going to do when 

you get the schedules that they will propose for next summer if 

they don’t voluntarily adhere to the minimum or the maximum 

number of flights on an hourly basis? What actions do you intend 

to take as a safety and regulatory agency with those reports? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. DeFazio, we will always ensure the safety of 

the system. But, you know, it is airport, it is airline specific. If 

there are things we can do to address that schedule through procedures or new runways that are coming in——

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am just saying in March when they give you the 

schedules for next summer, and we can’t build the new runways by 

next summer, we are not going to change the system dramatically 

by next summer, when we have done everything we can do to 

tweak it, when you know that they have booked more flights during given hours to take off than can take off during the best day 

in history at certain airports, what are we going to do about that? 

How are we going to get back to a number that is just realistic in 

terms of the best day in history, let alone the inevitable problems 

that might result? What are we going to do at that point? I am just 

asking about a little part of the problem but one that is very frustrating to travelers and is repeated time and time again. What are 

you going to do when they give you numbers that show they have 

scheduled more flights than can take off, are you going to somehow 

18

say, no, we have got to cut this back to the theoretical capacity of 

the airport and somehow get there? 

Mr. STURGELL. I will use Chicago O’Hare as an example. We 

worked with those airlines there, the two major carriers voluntarily, voluntarily, and achieved a reduction. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So your plan is, in March, when you find overscheduling at seven or ten or twelve airports around the country, 

you will bring in all the airlines for voluntary meetings to talk 

about voluntarily changing the schedules. I mean, I just had a very 

disturbing meeting with the head of the San Francisco airport yesterday. He said they are heading towards dramatic problems 30 

percent of the time. As the airport director, there is nothing he can 

do about it, and he is hoping someone, somewhere in the system 

will do something. So I am asking you, is there—at that point, if 

they won’t voluntarily do something, what can we do? Could we impose a congestion tax? Could we at least inform consumers that 

those hours are overbooked, and their flights are likely to be delayed if we are going to have market forces prevail? 

Mr. STURGELL. Market forces in terms of congestion, management and pricing, we would like to have that option. And, it is one 

of the options we proposed in our reauthorization proposal. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am talking about hours that are overbooked. If 

we said this hour is overbooked, if a commercial airline wants to 

book that hour, are they going to pay a special fee because it is 

overbooked. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we are certainly interested in congestion 

pricing. And we would willingly work with the Congress as our 

bills go forward. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am still not clear. I am over my time, but it is 

still not clear. So, in March, just to wrap it up, when you see that 

a number of airports are overbooked for departures and arrivals, 

you are going to call in the airlines that operate at those airports 

and ask them to voluntarily get it down to at least the theoretical 

capacity of the airport. 

Mr. STURGELL. Again, going back to O’Hare, we got voluntarily 

reductions. In the end, they were not enough. We did a short-term 

scheduling reduction while we had capacity improvements coming 

on line. If we can get new runways built, if we can get procedures 

changed and operational improvements, that should be the goal. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. We have long-term goals, but I am just saying—I am just talking about a very small part of the problem. I 

recognize all those other concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. Let me just make note, 

Mr. Sturgell, that the airlines in 1999 said that they would voluntarily implement what we know today is a passenger bill of rights. 

It didn’t happen. It is one of the reasons why we have—we were 

here today, one of the reasons we put a section in the FAA re-authorization dealing with those issues. I think this is a simple question that Mr. DeFazio is asking, and the question is simply this: 

If the airlines do with scheduling like they did with the passenger 

bill of rights on a voluntary basis and they do not scale back their 

operations when there is evidence at JFK or any other hub in the 

Nation, will the FAA take action? I know that you are going to 

19

meet with them. I know that you are going to talk about scheduling. I know that you are going to encourage them to take a look 

at scheduling and pull back when they schedule too many flights. 

But the question is, if they do not voluntarily act, will the FAA 

step in and act and force them to, as you did in Chicago, as you 

did in La Guardia, as you did at Reagan National Airport? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is one of the options that is available to us. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I know it is one of the options, but that is not the 

question. 

Mr. COSTELLO. That is when people are cynical about government. Of course, it is one of the options. There are a lot of other 

options, but it is a simple question. I understand you are Acting 

Administrator, and we are not here to beat you up. I mean it is 

pretty simple. 

If they do not act, are you going to? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we have used that authority, as you pointed 

out, in Chicago. So it is an option, you know, and we have used 

that authority, the authority we got in the last bill. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So that is a ′′maybe′′? 

Mr. STURGELL. At this time, like I said, there are ongoing things 

we are working to implement both from the FAA perspective and 

with the airlines at these, you know, congested airports, specifically 

in New York. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You probably just answered the question that 

some people have when they say, ′′Why does the government step 

in and mandate an agency to do something?′′ it is because the answer in this case, for instance, is, well, maybe we will; maybe we 

will not. I mean it is in the interest of the traveling public that we, 

in fact, take action, and if you are not willing to take it at the FAA, 

then we have to legislate it. With that——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman of the 

Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I was following up on your question, Mr. Sturgell, 

and it at least goes to the heart of one of the issues of this very 

complex nexus, and the greatest risk we face is oversimplifying the 

delay issue and saying, ′′Oh, it is here. Oh, it is there. Oh, it is 

something else.′′

If it were rocket science, as Mr. Mica was suggesting, it would 

be easier, frankly. Rocket science obeys specific laws of physics, 

which, when put in place, get our spacecraft up in the air and bring 

them down within fractions of a second. This is not rocket science. 

It is far more complicated, but the question that, I think, Mr. 

Costello was posing is do you have authority under existing law to 

order reductions in schedules if those schedules exceed the capacity 

and if the excess is having regional or national effect. If the answer 

to the question is you do and you use that authority at Chicago’s 

O’Hare, can it also be extended to the New York region as well? 

Mr. STURGELL. So we do have that authority, as you pointed out, 

and it is available wherever we see that kind of problem. 

Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, it is complicated. It is not 

easy. The system, itself—you know, you have many times eloquently talked about how complex our national airspace system is. 

When we talk about scheduling 1 hour of peak overscheduling, 

20

when there is a recovery period after that, it does not really make 

a case for moving in and capping an airport. So we see those situations at various airports around the country. There are only very 

few airports where it is a problem the entire day where there is 

no recovery. You know, some of the things—I keep hedging a little 

bit. It is an option. We are looking at it. It is definitely all of that. 

You know, there is also an impact when you do that, and it is that 

there could, perhaps, be a tendency to lose service to small communities, which I know is very important. It takes away any incentive 

to improve capacity in either that particular airport or in the region. Folks get happy with the status quo, and with the economic 

engine that the aviation industry is and with the benefits to the 

traveling public, I just think, you know, it is a tough situation, and 

we have to consider thoroughly all of what is available to us before 

making those kinds of——

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the Chairman and the other Members will indulge me further, to say, ′′oh, well, it is not an airline problem′′ or 

′′oh, it is not an air traffic controller problem, but it is an FAA 

problem,′′ that does a disservice to everybody. We are all in this together. It is a three-legged stool; it is airport capacity; it is air traffic control technology, and it is airline scheduling. 

Now, in the southern California TRACON, you have 2.4 million 

operations a year. That is 50 percent more than the entire Paris 

regional in all of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands 

combined. The New York TRACON and the southern California 

TRACON handle more air operations than all of Europe combined. 

The New York TRACON handles operations for 45 airports, four of 

which are within 10 miles of each other, one of which has two runways, 10,000 feet roughly at EWR Newark, and has a 900-foot separation. 

So the least bit of inclement weather means you are down to one 

runway, a little more weather and that one runway is down to 5-

mile spacing. It is not simple. You understand that. That is why 

you have this East Coast plan. Whatever you shift in one area has 

an effect and a consequence on another. I get impatient with those 

who want to oversimplify and thereby denigrate the participants in 

this issue. 

At JFK, you have capacity in the morning because it is an afternoon arrival-dependent airport with internationals coming in. If 

there are delays at La Guardia, the effect spreads across the entire 

United States and the entire rest of the East Coast. Continental at 

Newark will not give up a single slot until—it may have 55 percent 

of the operations there, but they will not give up a single slot until 

another airline says, ′′We will do the same.′′ We met this issue at DFW when 5 or 6 years ago there was a 

hearing in this Committee, and I think it was Mr. Duncan who was 

Chairing the hearing at the time, and they had 57 departures all 

scheduled at 7:00 a.m. Now, they have three air traffic control towers at DFW, and they cannot release 57 aircraft at 7:00 a.m. We 

know that. Now, it is the one authority the FAA has to bring those 

carriers together and to work on filling in the valleys, the slow 

times of the day, spreading it out so that all of the carriers accept 

some of that burden and lowering the peaks so that you have more 

dependable arrival and departure patterns instead of airlines 

21

scheduling flights at 7:00 a.m. that do not take off until a quarter 

to 8:00 and asking the passengers to buy into the lie. 

Now, the nexus of this issue is evening out the flow, and you 

have a study underway. GAO has a review. The IG has a review 

underway. All we need is for all of you to accelerate work on those 

studies and to get them done as quickly as possible, review, have 

public understanding of and input into, and then move ahead with 

implementation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I appreciate the indulgence. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the Full Committee and recognizes Mr. Petri at this time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. 

One, I do not know, Mr. Sturgell or Mr. Scovel, if I can put this 

into context, but in preparing for this, we indicated that some 41 

percent of the delays in the system, roughly, are due to weather 

conditions. 

Do you have an idea of what percentage of the delays overall are 

probably due to scheduling inspired congestion because of overscheduling? How big a problem is this particular phenomenon of all 

of the airlines wanting to have a flight when the public wants to 

travel, obviously? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes. I do not have that information today, Mr. 

Petri. It is obviously something we will try and put together for the 

Committee. Again, you know, it depends whether there are slower 

periods after peak volumes, how long the delay is and how lengthy 

the delay is, you know, and I certainly appreciate the frustration 

that has gone on with these chronic delays, and it is something 

that the Department’s enforcement folks have been pursuing for a 

couple of months now. I just want to put up one thing on the 

weather side that you mentioned, though. 

These are weather trends that specifically go to New York, and 

I think, as you look at the graph, the trend in weather from last 

year to this year has gotten a little worse broadly across the NAS. 

We have had problems in particular areas. Dallas-Fort Worth, for 

example, has had some severe thunderstorms in the summer 

months as have a few other pockets around the country, but the 

trend line for New York, as you can see, has been very, very severe 

from 2006 to 2007. You know, while the BTS statistics from the 

Department show 40 some percent, our OPSNET delays, which are 

really focused on the air traffic system performance, show weather 

delays running at about 70 percent. 

So, when Chairman Oberstar talks about things like how close 

the runways are together and what happens when the weather 

comes down, yes, it has an impact on the capacity and on the efficiency at the airport. Again, going back to RNP and some other 

things we are trying to do with systems like Precision Runway 

Monitor, we are trying to move to have VMC arrival rates during, 

you know, IMC conditions. That is the direction the agency is moving in terms of throughput through the system, and certainly, the 

NextGen weather programs will help us along that line. Specifically for this summer and for New York in particular, it has been 

very tough. 

22

Mr. PETRI. The general aviation community has said that—they 

indicate that there has been a decrease in the number of general 

aviation flights between 2000 and today, and yet, the agency says 

that the general aviation community continues to be a contributing 

factor to delays and congestion now. Could you explain that? 

Mr. STURGELL. You know, this is where you need to thoroughly 

look at the data and what types of data you are looking at. The 

business jet community is definitely growing very substantially. 

Overall, though, general aviation operations—piston and everybody 

else—is down some 17 percent from where it was several years ago. 

You know, it is really from the aircraft on the general aviation 

side, the high-performance flyers, that get up into the system, that 

take up space where we have the commercial aircraft flying as 

well, and then you look at particular airports and particular regions. The New York TRACON handles well over 100 airports. It 

has got a fair amount of general aviation traffic as a TRACON. 

Now, at the individual airport at La Guardia, for example, we hold 

six unscheduled slots, you know. So it is not a lot, but it is six, you 

know, and in a place like La Guardia, it matters. So it depends on 

how you dissect the data to reach the various conclusions and 

statements. 

Mr. PETRI. Just finally, earlier, Mr. Forrey, from NATCA indicated that one contributor to—he thought there were clear links between controller understaffing and delays in the system. Could you 

comment on that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, I think we have our workforce plan that we 

have been working off of for several years now. I am very confident 

we are going to hit the number again at the end of the month here 

with 14,807 controllers, and we are going to see that, by a fair 

amount, is the way things are shaping up this week. That is a net 

gain of 200 controllers over last year. So, I think the system is 

staffing well. 

Again, Jerry, if you have got—we have got a chart that shows 

operations per controller. You know, if you look at all of the broad 

measures, overtime is running about 1.6 percent; the time-on position is running about 5 hours and 1 minute, a little bit less on the 

en route side, a little bit higher on the terminal side for operations 

per controller. If you go back to 1999 and 2000, we are still, today, 

handling less operations per controller than we were in 1999 and 

2000. 

So, I think the broad measures all show that we are staffed and 

that we are staffed adequately. There are only so many positions 

for a specific facility that you need to staff, and again, we are working off of our workforce plan. You know, do we have some facilities 

where it is a bigger issue and a focus for it? Sure, but overall, I 

think we are where we need to be in terms of staffing with the controller workforce. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes 

now the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yesterday, in Memphis, there was an unfortunate incident where 

the air traffic control facility went down for about 2-1/2 hours. The 

reportage that I have read about the problem was that it was a 

Bell South, or now AT&T, problem and that our air traffic control 

23

folk in that part of the country did an admirable job, a commendable job, in fact, in maintaining safety, which could have been jeopardized. 

Does this incident, Mr. Administrator, indicate to you that there 

is a need for more backup systems or more security? This was not 

a security problem, but do we have security at the telephone facilities that, if they were struck, could destroy our capacity to have an 

air transportation system? 

Mr. STURGELL. It was a very significant outage for us, as you 

pointed out. You know, we are still investigating, but at this point 

it is a Bell South-AT&T problem, and of course we will be, you 

know, discussing this with them, as we have been since it occurred, 

to figure out what the problem was and whether our system should 

be routed differently at this location and at other places to ensure 

more redundancy or better reliability. 

I would point out that, overall, system outages only account for 

about 1.1 percent of delays, and you know, we are running well 

over 99 percent in terms of our availability for NAS equipment, but 

as you pointed out, you know, there were several hundred delays, 

and we had about 200 aircraft, I think, in that airspace at the 

time. The controllers did a tremendous job. We do not see any, at 

this point, safety issues in terms of separation losses. We are continuing the analysis. We are also looking at things about what kind 

of additional things we should be providing the workforce at facilities, you know, like cell phones, just like we did when we looked 

at the weather radio issue. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have anything to do—are you the person or 

is it your office that negotiates with the air traffic controllers for 

their contract? 

Mr. STURGELL. Are you talking about the contract towers or are 

you talking about the FAA employee towers? 

Mr. COHEN. Either. 

Mr. STURGELL. Either one? Yes, we have departments within the 

organization that handle negotiating those salaries and those programs. 

Mr. COHEN. Doesn’t this situation yesterday where human, really, heroism to some extent but ingenuity probably saved us from 

having an accident in the skies indicate how important it is to have 

experienced air traffic controllers and to have a labor mechanism 

that provides for the retention of the experienced and skilled people 

who we depended on yesterday to save us from a tragedy? 

Mr. STURGELL. Again, our controllers did a great job in handling 

that event yesterday, no question about it. 

Mr. COHEN. And I hope our administrators do a great job in appreciating them and in negotiating with them and in seeing that 

they stay on the job.

Mr. STURGELL. Fair enough. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Let me ask you this about regional jets. There has been some 

issue and a lot of studies recently about regional jets being a cause 

of some of our delays. We have got more smaller planes and all of 

them flying with less passengers and taking up the same amount 

of space and the same amount of time for the air traffic controllers. 

24

What is your opinion about regional jets and the problems they 

are causing the American flying public? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, again, the regional jet industry has really 

taken off, and I think——

Mr. COHEN. No pun intended, right? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, exactly. I think, overall, it is the result of, 

you know, the operators responding to passenger needs and wants, 

and it has proved to be a great business tool and a great thing for 

the traveling public. 

With respect to how it impacts the system, I mean, I think, 

largely these planes have been replacing smaller turboprops, and 

that does a couple of things. Specifically, the turboprops generally 

flew below what would be the typical high-altitude environment for 

your commercial operators. The RJs have the capability to do that. 

So, to some extent, they are up there adding to the higher altitude 

level traffic. 

Mr. COHEN. We are running out of time. 

As they are adding to the traffic, they are causing part of the 

delays, right? So they are not necessarily conveniencing the public. 

Are they not a part of the delay problem? Let us say, if we had 

fewer planes, fewer scheduled flights and more people per plane, 

wouldn’t we have the likelihood of less delays? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think, obviously, with fewer planes, there would 

probably be fewer delays overall. Again, it depends on where those 

planes are going and whether they are all going at the same time 

or at different times, that kind of thing. 

The other problems it presents to us is that, at some runways 

in the system, we had shorter runways where turboprops could 

land. RJs tend to take up larger landing distances, so there is, you 

know, the impact that they need longer runways and might not be 

able to use these off-load runways that the turboprops used to use. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not sure where to begin after listening. My first suggestion 

would be all of the different people who are blaming each other for 

all of the problems come to the table again very shortly with a list 

of suggestions of how ′′they′′ the airline, ′′they′′ the FAA, ′′they′′ the 

controllers could improve the system from their point of view. 

It is frustrating for us and for the people at home to listen to 

what is being said here. The FAA can shut down. They can control. 

They can do all kinds of things. If there is a golf tournament or 

a national Republican-Democrat convention you take over, but I am 

not sure that is what we want to do, and I understand your frustration in trying to answer that. Let us put that aside for a minute. 

If the Chairman would agree, I would sure like to have, as soon 

as possible, those of you involved come back and say, ′′Well, here 

is what we can do.′′ The airlines are overscheduled like crazy. They 

do not have enough equipment to absorb a system delay when 

weather hits in one spot, and people who are inconvenienced and 

put at risk are sick and tired of that, and for the airlines to blame 

general aviation and other bogus straw men is just terrible. It just 

does not help the discussion. 

25

I want to switch a minute, Mr. Chairman, to the Next Generation Air Traffic Control, ADS-B. As I have spent a lot of time looking into that from my perspective as a pilot, there is a tremendous, 

a tremendous benefit waiting to be utilized by all sectors of aviation. It is not expensive, but we have not done a decent job of selling it to the public. 

Now, Mr. Scovel, you pointed out some very pertinent facts. I will 

disagree with the one you said that it will not cost the airlines billions of dollars to equip; it will cost thousands of dollars to equip, 

but everybody using the system needs to be encouraged to take advantage, and the FAA has done a fabulous job in Alaska, putting 

a system in place, developing it and using it. We need to really get 

on the ball and move down the track with that, but the public will 

not be confused. That is not going to eliminate the congestion problem. 

RVSM—we like to throw acronyms around—that has doubled the 

airspace above 29,000 feet. Again, there is only so much we can do. 

I would love to see the Northeast corridor and other congested area 

develop new plans, but we have reached the point of diminishing 

returns. Dan is a pilot. He is looking at me, shaking his head, and 

he is right. There are so many things we can do and not do with 

SIDS and stars. You know, our NAB has come and gone. I just 

wish that we would move forward and let people know what is 

available to us and what is realistic. 

We can stop the delay problem by slowing down the overinsertion 

of airplanes into the system. Mr. Cohen mentioned regional jets. 

That has been a boon to hub and spoke operations, but those are 

the, quote, ′′business jets′′ that are punching the extra holes in the 

sky. 

Mr. Chairman, I am having trouble developing a question in all 

of this, but again, I would hope the people who are here who have 

the answers, from their perspective, if they would clean up their 

own little place of business and come back and say, ′′well, we can 

do this′′ and somebody else says, ′′well, we can do that,′′ then we 

could begin to see some significant progress. 

Dr. Sinha, you have studied the thing from one end to the other. 

What does MITRE think about how we can develop a more cooperative attitude, a cooperative, collaborative whatever, to get the 

problem moving and the public seeing that we are not only talking 

about it but doing something about it? 

Mr. SINHA. Well, the kind of collaboration that we are talking 

about really boils down to people problems. So, I mean, the way 

you framed it, sir, you know, by what does each party bring to the 

table; most of the times we end up in a situation that I will bring 

something to the table if my competitor does it, too. 

The question is how do you get past that knot that says that it 

has got to be a joint action by a number of people. 

In fact, theoretically, there has been lots of work done in game 

theory which relates to things like this when one set of people are 

playing games versus the other, and I do not think all of the great 

minds who have worked on that have really found an answer. So 

that is the best answer I can give you. 

Mr. HAYES. Back to the airlines, the FAA does not have any compensation right now that I know of, but again, I would sure encourVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
26

age everybody here on this Committee that the Chairman and others are anxious to give a better product and to maintain the highest level of safety. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to, I guess, expend, 

but hopefully it will be helpful. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Boston, Mr. 

Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayes, you may think you vented. Watch this. 

Mr. Sturgell, you say you have the power. Tell me why you will 

not just do it. 

Mr. STURGELL. Because there are other things we are working on 

that will help alleviate the problem. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, that really, really helps me while I am sitting there waiting for plane that is stuck at La Guardia. You talk 

about recovery time. What about my recovery time and that of the 

hundreds of thousands of Americans who waste hour upon hour sitting in an airport waiting for a plane that never comes? 

Now, I should not complain, because the airline I fly just fixed 

the whole problem. They now list the flight to Boston as an hour 

and 20 minutes instead of 65 minutes. I do not think Boston has 

moved further away from Washington than it was last week, but 

at least they are telling the truth a little bit more, a little bit more. 

I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I understand you are 

Acting Director, and to some degree, I am sorry to take it out on 

you but you are the guy today. It is more directed to the FAA than 

to you, personally, and whoever comes into your place, whoever it 

is, I hope they are listening. You are embarrassing all of us here. 

Your agency’s failure to act is an embarrassment. It is hurting the 

American business—the American economy, the American business 

flyers—and your failure to act and to study the issue has no reasoning to me. 

Why can’t you take something and try it in one airport? Go to 

La Guardia and say, ′′You do one thing.′′ Go to Atlanta and say, ′′You do one thing.′′ If the airlines do not help you—look, competition is competition. You might have missed it, but the free market 

is not working on this issue. You are a regulatory agency as well, 

and if the free market does not work, it is your responsibility, your 

obligation as far as I see it, to take some action. To tell me to wait 

for 15 years or to tell me that we have an overbooking of 20 flights 

an hour and you want to deal with one to three, that is not an answer, and if you think that America is not angry, travel with me. 

I would love to have you sitting next to me on the plane, so when 

people come up to me and say, ′′Congressman, why aren’t you doing 

anything?′′ I can say, ′′Hey, he is the guy. Talk to him.′′ Explain 

it to them that you are studying the issue. It is not an answer. It 

is an excuse to kick the can down the street. 

Now, I am not asking you to have an exact answer on every 

issue. I know it is complicated. There is nothing simple in this 

world that I am aware of, but to fail to try to do anything is an 

abrogation of your responsibilities and your duties. I do not mean 

to pick out you individually, but you are the FAA today. I am 

speaking to the entire FAA. If you try something and it does not 

27

work, stop it and try something new or if you try something and 

the airlines come back and say, ′′Hey, we have a better idea,′′ fine. 

Stop what you are doing and try that. Every flying member of this 

public knows that what you are doing now is not working, and I 

am a little embarrassed that Congress has not forced you to do it, 

but apparently the term ′′regulation′′ is like a swear word here in 

Washington. We cannot say that. I am perfectly happy to let the 

free market work, but when it does not work, we have an obligation to step in, and I have got to tell you that when I am sitting 

here talking about recovery time, recovery time means nothing to 

the individual who is sitting in an airport terminal or, worse, on 

an airplane. 

I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I do not really have a 

question except to beg you and your cohorts at the FAA and your 

successor, whoever the permanent Director is going to be, the Administrator, to please do something, anything. Try it. If it does not 

work, stop it and try something else, and if you do not have any 

ideas on what to do to try, ask any number of airport directors. Ask 

any number of people at any airport, and you will come up with 

a few. If we can help you, we are happy to. 

You said you have the authority. We know you have the authority. The FAA reauthorization bill also has provisions in there to 

allow you to implement different study programs and procedures—

not just study papers—around this country, and I cannot encourage 

you any more strongly than I just did to do something. Quit fiddling while America sits, please. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time that I no longer have, I 

guess. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes 

the former Chair. 

Do you want to go to Mr. Coble? 

The gentleman, Mr. Coble, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to have you gentlemen with us. 

I saw a constituent of mine, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, about 

4 or 5 weeks ago at an airport, and he said to me ′′My least favorite 

activity used to be going to my dentist.′′ He said, ′′I would rather 

go to my dentist than go to an airport.′′ Then he went on—and I 

am not piling on you guys, but he went on to say that—he said, 

′′I would exclusively travel by bus or train if it were not for the 

time consumed.′′ This distresses me because I think my constituent voices a common complaint shared by thousands. It distresses me because the 

airline industry has served America admirably and, I think, still 

serves us admirably. Plagued with problems, yes, problems perhaps 

for which the airlines are at fault in some cases. We are at war 

against terrorism. That, obviously, is another problem, but let me 

ask you all this: 

If you believe that we in the Congress should consider legislation 

beyond the scope of passenger rights included in the recently 

passed House aviation reauthorization, think about that. Give us 

safeguards that we may implement to ensure that we can continue 

to have a vibrant aviation sector, because if we do not continue to 

have a vibrant aviation sector we are vulnerable. We are fragile. 

28

We will look forward to going to see dentists. That is a sad state. 

I do not mean to diminish the dentist profession—I do not mean 

to do that at all—but we are at the borderline, I think, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Sturgell, and I will repeat that it is 

good to have you all with us. I know you feel like you have targets 

on your chest, but I think there is no ill will intended. I have heard 

that there is a proposal to develop accelerated lines for frequent 

flyers; that is to say, people who fly nine or 10 times a month as 

opposed to nine or 10 times a year. Send them to this lane where 

they can move along, and delays, of course, would be at least diminished. What is the story on that or the status on that, Mr. 

Sturgell? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Coble, I think you are referring to the security lines while going through an airport. 

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Mr. STURGELL. That falls within the jurisdiction of the Transportation Security Administration. I do believe there are those types 

of lines, but I cannot say for certain. 

Mr. COBLE. I would like to know. Can you tell us in more detail 

about that subsequently? 

Mr. STURGELL. We will follow up with the Committee on that answer, sir. 

[Information follows:]

29


38169.012
30

Mr. COBLE. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I am not blaming anybody. Well, 

somebody has to be to blame for some of it. Part of it is because 

of the era in which we live, and we are stuck with that for the moment, but I appreciate you all being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, the gentleman 

from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say this. Each of us has about 700,000 bosses, or 700,000 

constituents, always putting pressure on us to do more and to do 

better, and then one of our jobs is to put more pressure on the FAA 

and on the airlines to do more and to do better in response to our 

constituents. So that is sort of where we are, but having said that, 

I think we also should owe an obligation to be fair and to tell people that we do have the best aviation system in the world, the best 

airlines in the world. Our system and our airlines are the envy of 

the world. Now, does that mean they should not do more and do 

better? They should, but I mentioned here before that it is human 

nature that, if somebody has 100 flights and they have one or two 

bad ones or they have one or two cancellations or one or two 

delays, those are the ones they talk about. They forget very quickly 

about their good, safe flights, and safety has gone way up in recent 

years. So we need to say some of those things. 

Then I am told also that 40 or 41 percent of the delays are directly attributable to weather, and when you add in the ones that 

are indirectly attributable to weather in the national aviation system, it goes to over 70 percent. So you have got that situation, but 

there are things that we can and should be doing. 

For instance, if I heard Inspector General Scovel right, he said, 

I think, eight airlines had come up with ground delay plans, and 

five had not or had implemented those plans. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is correct, sir. Eight have implemented plans 

for establishing a time period for meeting passengers’ essential 

needs. Eight have also set a time period for deplaning passengers 

after a long, on-board delay. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Then Administrator Sturgell, maybe it would be good for you to 

do something as simple as call up those other five airlines and ask 

them why they have not done the same thing as those eight airlines, and I wish you would do that. 

Now, let me say this about the air traffic control system. I believe I heard you say that we have a little over 14,000 air traffic 

controllers, but did you say that they are handling, on average, 

fewer operations than they were in 1999 and 2000? 

Mr. STURGELL. 14,807 is what we expect to end this fiscal year 

with or more than that. Across the system, operations per controller are less than they were in 1999 and in 2000. Now, at specific airports, is it different where there has been a tremendous 

amount of growth? It is probably the case. I do not have those specific airports or numbers with me, but just nationally, that is where 

we are with the system. 

31

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Let me say this. 

You know, a one-size-fits-all situation usually is not the best solution to any problem, and I was very interested when I heard the 

figures, which I have heard similar figures many times before—

that you said 72 percent of the delays are concentrated in seven 

airports; is that correct? Somebody said that. 

Mr. STURGELL. That is correct. Those same seven airports in 

2000—in the summer of 2000, they were 55 percent of the delays. 

Now they are 72 percent of the delays. That includes places like 

Houston and Atlanta, though we have added runways, and we have 

seen big improvements there. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. STURGELL. The focus has been on the New York area this 

summer. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think somebody said or I read in one of the testimonies that it is almost impossible to build a new airport, and it 

is extremely difficult to add on even new runways, but we need to 

concentrate on those airports where the problems are the worst, 

and then, with all due respect to my friend from the other end of 

Tennessee, we sure do not want to restrict these regional jets or 

you are going to cut down the service, the direct service, that cities 

like Knoxville and Greensboro and many other cities would have to 

New York and to Washington and to all of these other places. So 

the regional jets, I will just say, have been a real blessing to areas 

like mine. 

So there are a lot of things that we can do and are doing. In fact, 

we have spent, I think, an average of $2.5 billion over the last 3 

years on improving the system, the ADS-B technology and the 

NextGen system. Now, in Chairman Costello’s bill, I am told we 

have got $13 billion over the next 3 years that we have authorized 

for the NextGen system, so there are going to be great improvements. 

Finally, I will just say this because my time has run out. While 

we still need to do a lot more, is the air traffic control system, Administrator Sturgell, better than it was last year? If you know, approximately how many people at the FAA are working to improve 

the air traffic control system right now in addition to the 14,000 

air traffic controllers? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, the mission of the entire agency is to, you 

know, maintain the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. Everybody at the agency is focused on delivering 

on that mission, and I am sorry that folks have the impression that 

the FAA has not been doing anything, I mean, you know, if we 

have not made that clear. Since 2000, we put 13 new runways on 

line, 1.6 million operations, including at Boston, which has been a 

huge delay reduction airport. Next year, we are going to have three 

more locations with new runways. In the last 2 years, I think we 

have had five. We have been working—you know, since the highdensity rule came off in January of 2007, we have been working 

with the airlines and the stakeholders in the New York area on a 

dozen or so operational activities to help that area specifically—

RNAV, RNP, DRVSM, time-based metering. There is a whole list 

of things that we have been doing that, I think, have made this 

system better than it was last year and, certainly, several years 

32

ago, and it is going to continue to get better, especially if we can, 

you know, accelerate the implementation of some of the technologies we know that are out there. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Sturgell, let me ask a couple of questions. I will get them in 

here. The folks on our side of the aisle have asked their questions. 

You make a good point. There have been improvements. There 

have been a number of runways built, a number of extensions and 

improvements, and you know, that is one of the reasons why when 

we did our extension on Monday of this week that we made certain 

to extend contract authority for the AIP program for the next 90 

days as well. 

The question, really, now is what are we going to say to the 

American people for the next several months, from now through 

the holiday season to the end of the year, and that is what I would 

like you to focus on right now. 

What, if anything, will the FAA be doing—I will give you the opportunity on the record to say so now—to try and reduce delays 

and congestion between now and the peak of the holiday season 

until the end of the year? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, with respect to just a couple of things here: 

interacting with the stakeholders who are involved and specifically 

folks in the New York area where there has been a tremendous 

amount this summer. We have had and the Secretary has established a working group with ongoing initiatives and discussions 

with the carriers about things we can do in a whole number of 

areas, including consumer rights. Again, you know, I understand, 

you know, how these long delays impact people.You know, I use the 

system both as a passenger and as a pilot. It is not a good situation 

to be in, but we are working with them. I saw today that Delta announced that they were going to shift some of their afternoon activities into a later third bank at JFK, so we will be doing analysis 

to see how that helps that airport. Again, that is done voluntarily. 

Some of the other things we are going to be working on are the 

airspace redesign, putting in the fanned departures that we will, 

hopefully, be implementing in a matter of months. We are looking 

at our own performance in terms of throughput at the respective 

airports and what we can do there. Simultaneous approaches at 31 

at Kennedy are in use now as well as we have started using three 

runways there, you know, as that operation has built up. There are 

additional approaches at Newark and additional RNP and RNAV 

procedures. All of these things, you know, are ongoing, and we expect many of them to be implemented before the winter schedule, 

but our focus is really on the summer and, you know, bringing in 

ASDE-X there a year early so that we can have that full system 

there by July. In addition to that, what we are going to have 2 

months before then, by May, as part of that ASDE-X system is a 

surface traffic management capability. 

You know, this goes back to ‘‘this whole thing is complicated.’’ 

One of the complications is the surface, not just the movement 

areas, which we are responsible for, but the nonmovement areas, 

which largely the carriers and the airport operators are responsible 

for, and we intend to give them data that will allow them to manage those operations better, and it should help us as well. 

33

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you. 

Mr. Scovel, would you like to comment as to what can be done 

in the short-term? You have heard Mr. Sturgell talk about what 

the FAA intends to do and can do in the short-term to address 

delays and congestion for the holiday season. I would like to ask 

you specifically: 

Are there any other suggested items that you would recommend 

that the FAA do during this period to reduce congestion and delays 

for the holiday season? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a number of 

ideas that we would refer to the FAA and also to the Committee. 

The first would be to revisit capacity benchmarks. Right now, capacity benchmarks are calculated at hour intervals. We think it 

would be more helpful if those were recalculated at 15-minute intervals to provide greater visibility to peaks in scheduling. That 

way, the FAA and airlines, perhaps, if they deem it necessary, can 

address depeaking through voluntary means or otherwise. 

Next, shift to a near-term focus at the New York airports. We 

have heard the FAA talk about their concerns about next summer. 

Our analysis is that everyone’s concerns over what happened this 

past summer will continue on through the winter and, as you 

pointed out, the busy holiday season. We recommend that the airlines and the FAA shift their focus specifically to the high-density 

area around New York, the three airports with the most delays, 

shift their focus to that. 

Third, expand FAA’s Airspace Flow Program. It has been expanded from 7 to 18 locations. We recommend that the FAA examine other locations on an urgent basis where this critical program 

may prove beneficial. 

Next, we urge the airlines—as they promised to do in 2001 but 

lost focus in the aftermath of 9/11, we urge the airlines to establish 

specific targets for reducing chronically delayed or canceled flights. 

In the month of June, my staff provided for me a list of flights, 

chronically delayed flights, in the month of June. There were seven 

flights that were late 100 percent of the time in the month of June. 

To update that for July, there were no 100 percent delayed flights, 

but all 15 flights on our list had been delayed at least 93 percent 

of the time. That is unsatisfactory, and the airlines can address 

that. 

We also have recommended to the airlines—and they have resisted this recommendation—that they disclose on-time flight performance. We think sunshine is a great thing for consumers to 

make intelligent decisions regarding their ticketing needs. If flight 

performance, on-time performance, is available at airlines’ Web 

sites, that would serve consumers well. 

We have also recommended to the airlines that they, without request by the consumer, disclose to a caller the on-time performance 

of specific flights that the consumer is inquiring about when he or 

she is making reservations. 

The Department should reconvene the task force, that was first 

instituted in 2001, to examine chronically delayed flights and other 

consumer problems but which again lost focus in the aftermath of 

9/11. 

34

Finally, sir, we would recommend that large- and medium-hub 

airport operators implement processes for monitoring lengthy 

delays. In my opening statement, I mentioned that 2 of the 13 airports that we examined had instituted a process to track or monitor planes out on the tarmac. At the 2-hour mark, those airport 

operators are prepared to call the carriers and say, ′′What is happening with your plane? How may we assist?′′ We recommend that 

other airports adopt that process as well. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you, Mr. Scovel, and let me point out 

that, as to many of the recommendations that you just made and 

other recommendations in your report yesterday, I am pleased to 

tell you, as you well know, that we have put in H.R. 2881, that 

passed the House last Thursday, the consumer protection provision 

of the bill. Included in that is transparency as far as the airlines 

are concerned. We would require them to post on their Web sites 

on a monthly basis those flights that have been canceled/delayed 

so that the American people and the people who fly have the ability 

to go online and determine which airlines/which flights were delayed, canceled and so on. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, we appreciate you all being here and helping us out with 

this. 

I think one of the things is that we who sit here are frequent 

travelers, you know, and are on the airlines every week, and I 

think, you know, part of the reason that we have such concern is 

that we have seen a fairly dramatic change in the last few years, 

and the airlines have been so good; the whole system has been so 

good. We really do need to nip this in the bud before it gets like—

we do not want it to get like driving in to Washington, you know, 

in the morning or in so many of our cities. Like I say, this has been 

the standard that has worked so well. 

What you can do for us, you know, and what I try and do and 

what so many Congresspeople try and do is use the power of the 

office for good, to bring people together, and so I think it is really 

important that you do show the leadership and use the power of 

the agency to get people to the table. You have got the clout, some 

ability now, you know, to hammer folks and to use that clout, and 

if you need more clout, then I think we will be glad to give you that 

within reason. 

I would like for you to talk a little bit about these. You know, 

I have had constituents who have sat on the Tarmac for 8 hours 

and things like that. To me, there is just no reason in the world, 

you know, that that kind of stuff can be tolerated. Can you talk a 

little bit about that and how you can prevent that or should it be 

prevented or—again, just kind of tell me a little bit about your 

thoughts regarding those horror stories that we hear about the 8-

hour delays and the Port-a-Pottys being full and the whole bit. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, just kind of operationally first and then on 

the consumer side, Mr. Boozman, I will just say a couple of things. 

One is the whole understanding of what is going on on the surface in terms of how airports are configured to flow traffic onto a 

runway and off of a runway but also out of a terminal where there 

35

are throats, where there are bottlenecks, where there are folks 

pushed back and who cannot move because other planes are in the 

way, that kind of thing. 

So one of the things that, you know, we and the industry need 

to do better on is on the surface management side in terms of traffic flows, and I think folks—like I said, we are going to get something into JFK before the summer of next year. Folks like Continental and, I believe, Northwest have installed these kinds of systems for themselves as well. 

I also think severe weather does play a factor in terms of lengthy 

delays and taxi-outs at times. Certainly, the ice storm, which had 

been forecasted differently last year with the JetBlue incident, was 

a contributing factor. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess what I am saying, though, is: 

Is there ever an excuse for keeping somebody on a plane for 6 

or 8 hours? I mean that, to me, makes no sense at all. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, I know the airlines have recognized that it 

is a problem, and some have voluntarily adopted programs now, 

and I think the air transportation——

Mr. BOOZMAN. But do you all recognize it as a problem? 

Mr. STURGELL. I will let D.J. address some of that. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you. I am not here because the Administrator needs counsel. I am here because the General Counsel’s Office at DOT actually houses the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, which is responsible for consumer protection. 

So we have done a number of things. Most recently in May, we 

sent a letter to 20 carriers, in essence saying that we are going to 

consider chronic delays—the instances were mentioned before—

where you have a flight that is late 100 percent of the time as an 

unfair practice. We will penalize them if, for more than two quarters, they continue to have flights like that, because what we are 

looking for is twofold. One is we want transparency for consumers 

when they are purchasing a ticket, so they understand that this 

flight is likely to be delayed. Secondly, we want them to have redress if something does go wrong at the end of the day. 

That said, our real focus, from a customer standpoint, is congestion relief. At the end of the day, most of the frustration—as somebody who commuted for a year and a half from here to La Guardia, 

I can attest to the fact that my flights were hardly ever on time, 

and there was no way for me to predict when they would be on 

time. So what we are trying to do is to put together a system that 

will allow us and will allow the industry to more reliably operate 

airlines. A big piece of that is potentially congestion pricing, and 

again, as you know, the administration’s bill had that as a component, and that has been stripped out on the House side. I think 

that is one short-term remedy that we could definitely use that, unfortunately, looks like is not going to be available to us. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full 

Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Costello, for the splendid work 

you have done all throughout this hearing. I regret having to be 

36

in and out with other Committee business that we have been attending to and also with my own congressional district business. 

This is a vexing issue, and it is going to take everyone’s best efforts. I come back to the image I created earlier, the three-legged 

stool. The FAA, the airports and the airlines all have to be working 

together. No one entity can resolve this issue alone. 

The East Coast redesign that the FAA has set forth that is now 

under review by GAO is an important step in the right direction, 

but this is such a complex airspace. Again, there is nothing like it 

anywhere else in the world, especially on the East Coast. Now, if 

you add up the nine TRACONs on the East Coast, they total 9.5 

million operations for last year. That is 10 percent of all air operations in the United States, of all TRACON operations in the 

United States. Those are more operations than all of Europe combined, more than three times as much as all of Europe combined. 

The nexus of it, the core of it, is the New York TRACON’s handling 

45 airports, four of which are within 10 miles of each other and are 

among the busiest in the world. I could say they are the busiest 

in the United States. It is the same as saying they are the busiest 

in the world. This is the busiest airspace. 

In untangling that complexity with the layers of problems, the 

arrival rate has to be predominant. You have got to get aircraft on 

the ground. Also, managing the noise impact on communities near 

airports. 

Whatever you do in the redesign is going to have an adverse effect on somebody else because there is no free space in which to 

move things around. The only area where you have capacity, blatant capacity in that New York region, is Atlantic City near the 

FAA Research Involvement Testing Center. The FAA just recently 

approved a grant to extend the runway to build out an existing 

runway to, I think, 12,000 feet and to add a taxiway. 

Now, if you manage the ground service into Atlantic City, which 

is very doable—New Jersey has a superb surface transportation 

system, and a high reliance of 10 percent of all transportation is 

by transit in the State of New Jersey—you can redirect flow into 

Atlantic City and reduce pressure on Newark, even on Philadelphia. There will probably not be much of an effect, though. There 

might be some, conceivably, on La Guardia. 

It is going to take the FAA’s paying heed to Mr. Scovel’s recommendations, which I thought were very pertinent, and bringing 

the airlines into a regular discussion, using the existing authority, 

and scheduling reduction meetings. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Secretary of Transportation may request that 

air carriers meet with the administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration to discuss flight reductions at severely congested 

airports to reduce overscheduling and flight delays. And the airlines have got to be part of that. They can’t sit on the sidelines and 

say, oh, there isn’t sufficient capacity in the air traffic control system, we need Next Generation. That is 15 years off. They have got 

to be a part of the solution. And they are sitting back saying we 

are not going to move until everybody moves. The way to make everybody move is for the FAA to exercise that authority. Now, tell 

me, Mr. Sturgell, what steps are the FAA taking to implement that 

authority? 

37

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we have been—you know, in addition to 

that, we have been working with the industry as you are talking 

about on all these operational improvements, on all of the issues 

in general, discussions about consumer issues, discussions about 

their schedules as Chairman Costello pointed out. We did ask recently for international schedules. So it is one of the things, you 

know, among the many things we need to be doing that we are 

looking at the very closely. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But you are willing to use that authority to bring 

the carriers together to rationalize their schedules, to fill in the 

peaks and the valleys. 

Mr. STURGELL. We have worked with airlines in the past, both 

voluntarily and at the example of Chicago, you know, voluntary 

scheduling meeting followed by an order to make the kind of 

changes to keep the system safe and efficient. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If I recall rightly, there was a time when the 

Congress gave brief exemption from the antitrust authority to the 

FAA—the DOT and the FAA to convene airlines together to redo 

schedules. But I don’t think that extensive authority is needed because of this provision that I just read from the existing law that 

we enacted a few years ago. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that. Currently, we 

are not able to grant antitrust immunity. We don’t have——

Mr. OBERSTAR. You don’t have that authority. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The way we proceeded in Chicago, was we had a 

group meeting and then we had one-on-one negotiations with each 

airline so the airlines would hear what each other was saying. That 

said, I think we need to be careful in throwing out a scheduling 

committee as a solution. It is somewhat akin to saying that, you 

know, cars with license plates that end in zero can’t drive on Monday and one can’t drive on Tuesday and three can’t drive on 

Wednesday. That will reduce congestion, but it is really not going 

to improve kind of the quality of life for Americans. 

So part of our main mission is to grow capacity so that as additional people want to travel, they are able to travel and to do that 

in a way that they are able to travel that is—if not congestion free, 

at least somewhat reliable. So I think that is why we are hesitant 

to jump on a scheduling committee as the ultimate solution to the 

problem. Because it will reduce congestion, but it will significantly 

hamper economic growth. 

Mr. OBERSTAR.And when you say that image you created, several 

years ago I was in Phoenix, Arizona for a meeting, a national meeting on infrastructure capacity and water and sewer and sewage 

treatment plants. And just taking the temperature of the local community of the Phoenix area, I turned on the TV for the morning 

news. And there was an announcement, if your license plate ends 

in 7, this is your voluntary no-drive day. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. Imagine if it was a mandatory no-drive day. 

And that is essentially what the scheduling committee would give 

us. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As an interim solution, you do have to use that 

authority, to bring the carriers together to modulate their operations. Well, where are you going to add runway capacity at Newark, in the Passaic River? That is the only place you can build anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
38

other runway out there. Where are you going to add more runways 

at La Guardia? There is no capacity. There is capacity at JFK in 

the morning hours because you have an arrival—an afternoon arrival rate for international flights. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. You——

Mr. OBERSTAR. You can’t quite conveniently shift La Guardia 

service to JFK. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. You are dead on. You are severely limited especially in New York at capacity now. One of the things that we have 

found historically, however, when we impose caps, is that incumbent airlines are hesitant to allow improvements to the system that 

will expand capacity to allow new entrants in. And so you do have 

kind of a perverse set of incentives once you impose caps for those 

that are already at that facility to resist expansion. That is why I 

think as Acting Administrator Sturgell said earlier, the FAA’s primary goal is to expand capacity, expand capacity, expand capacity, 

try to meet consumer demand. If you can’t do that, use technology 

to also expand capacity. Then only if we can’t do that should we 

look at more regulatory means like scheduling. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is all true, and I understand and I posited 

that at the outset. But if you had NextGen in hand today, operating at Newark and you had a storm come in, you have got two 

runways, 900-feet separation, you cannot have simultaneous operations under those circumstances. You are down to one runway. 

And what is the arrival and departure rate at Newark? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I will let Mr. Sturgell answer that. We are not talking about necessarily inclement weather issues. What we are really 

looking——

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is when the system really breaks down, 

though. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Exactly. But currently it is not functioning even 

particularly well when you have clear sky delays, especially in the 

New York area. So what we are trying to do is figure out if you 

have a limited capacity, you have limited sort of supply, what is 

the most efficient way to allocate that out so that you don’t create 

perverse incentives for gamesmanship to block out competition due 

to a variety of other things. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is where the Department comes in to moderate those forces. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. And what we had asked for in our bill actually was the ability to congestion price, which we think would allow 

for——

Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t know that pricing is necessary, but if you 

get people around a table—if you have morning peaks, mid day 

peaks and afternoon or evening peaks and then you have valleys 

in between, you have unused—you have available capacity and airlines could price, they could provide premiums to travelers who 

have flexible travel schedules to use the 9:00 to 11:00 period for example or the 1:00 to 3:00 period and provide incentives. Unless you 

bring them into the room together, Jim May’s operation isn’t going 

to do that. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. They have absolutely. The way we have currently 

configured our system, the airlines are incentivized to put as many 

flights as possible into New York, and they have done exactly that. 

39

Which again, if you can price it, you change those incentives and 

you get the people who value it most or the people who are able 

to move the most people take advantage of that time slot. I mean, 

you really have two options—three options. One is let delays continue. The second is sort of having an administrative solution and 

the third is pricing, where you are allocating scarce resources. History has shown us short of the administrative solution, because of 

data delays and other things, is always less efficient than a pricing 

model. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you tried a congestion pricing model anywhere? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. In fact, La Guardia had a congestion pricing model 

in the 1960s and it worked very well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They had one in the 1960s and then they just got 

rolled over by the influx of air travel. So the departure and arrival 

rate at La Guardia is still at 80 an hour? 

Mr. STURGELL. It depends on whether it is VMC or IMC, Mr. 

Chairman. The benchmarks have gone from 61 to 92 or so, I think 

it is. And that is total operations per hour. But, you know, you 

were talking earlier about Atlantic City. The Port Authority is 

doing a regional study and, of course, we are hoping that Stewart 

will be a viable fourth airport in that region. A similar study is 

going on in San Francisco and we think down the road southern 

California with LAX will need a similar look as well. But, we are 

looking at all reliever airports in that area to see what improvements we can do to help encourage people to off-load to other airports. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Hasn’t the introduction of regional jets subplanting the Saabs and older generation turbo prop aircrafts further complicated the airspace? That is you have RJs carrying half 

the capacity of a 737 or a 320 or sometimes even less, but using 

the same altitudes, same airspace, same arrival and same arrival 

speeds or departure speeds, whereas the Saabs carry roughly, say, 

a capacity of—maybe a little bit less, flying at lower altitudes, 

slower speeds and can fit in. That is further—I note that in 2000, 

we had 570 RJs and last year that doubled to 1,746 RJs in the system. Isn’t that creating additional strains on the air traffic control 

system? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, certainly a different type—again—as you 

said, it is complicated. There are different types of airplanes. And 

the more there are different types of airplanes in the system makes 

the system more complicated and difficult in general. And you are 

correct to point out that, you know, turbo props generally flew 

below the higher altitude structures that commercial airlines typically fly and that the RJs are largely capable of flying at those 

higher altitudes and will do so when it is fuel efficient to them. 

On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits with these new 

planes. It is a new generation of aircraft. There are additional capabilities in them. It is a different level of comfort and service for 

the passenger. So there are goods in others for all of these things. 

And, again, it goes back to: it is very complicated and it will require everybody working together to get this resolved. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So we have the GAO reviewing the airspace redesign. I hope they can accelerate their review. We need to move that 

40

along faster so that it can be subject to the public commentary and 

then get on. What do you anticipate on two levels? In reduction of 

delays and increase in capacity at La Guardia, JFK, Newark, 

Teterborough from the redesign? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, our focus at this point is the summer of 

2008. And we hope to have some things addressed and in place, 

you know, by early next summer, to help avoid the situation that 

we had today. Obviously, if we move forward with airspace redesign and a few of these other operational improvements we are 

looking at, we may be able to help out in the winter season this 

year. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Can you put a percentage of reduction of delay 

and percentage of increase in operations? I won’t hold it to you. I 

won’t say Mr. Sturgell, you told us this. Let’s say your best guess 

today is this much. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, I would be doing an injustice to everyone 

by guessing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The number 20 percent has been floated around 

and attributed to the FAA. Is that a ballpark here? 

Mr. STURGELL. If we are talking about the airspace redesign, full 

implementation we will reduce delays by 20 percent over the levels 

we expect in 2011. So we do expect to see substantial benefit out 

of that. And I think there are short-term benefits to the airspace 

redesign for Newark departures, La Guardia, and less so at Kennedy. But——

Mr. OBERSTAR. And that is an improved flow? Is that departure 

flow or is that arrival flow or is it both? 

Mr. STURGELL. Departure flow, fanned departures, yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What about the redistribution of noise as a result 

of the redesign? Will there be new populations that—or existing 

populations that receive noise that receive a higher impact of 

noise? 

Mr. STURGELL. So, you know, I understand this is a tough issue 

for everybody and certainly noise going forward for aviation is a 

tough issue in general. There will be a redistribution of some noise. 

But, the net overall benefit is a decrease in noise for nearly 

600,000 persons. So it is a substantial benefit and we did put in 

a lot of mitigations to achieve those benefits from an alternative—

you know, if we were focused solely on, you know, all about the operation and not worried about people and the impact on your constituents and the American public, you know, we would not have 

achieved those types of reductions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is essentially a zero sum game, is it not? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is a benefit in this case. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is no place where there is no noise impact 

now that—where there are no people living who will not be impacted by noise. 

Mr. STURGELL. Yeah. There will be new people with noise impacts. A lot of the people with noise impacts today will be relieved 

and the net benefit overall is nearly a 600,000 reduction in noise. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In some cases it is—I will stop on a measure of 

relief for you. And that is in some cases, it is perception. In 1990, 

we had just concluded action in Committee and on the House floor 

on the Noise Reduction Act, moving to stage three, the new stage 

41

three requirement and the bill passed the House. And our Committee received an irate call from a homeowner in the New York 

area saying, well, it hasn’t benefited us a single bit, it hasn’t done 

a thing. I am getting all this noise from a DC-10 and I can see it, 

I can see that aircraft coming right overhead. And our Committee 

staff person that took the irate call said, ma’am, you may be able 

to see that aircraft; but if you can see it from where you are, you 

can’t hear the noise. That noise is coming from someplace else. 

It is a tough problem. I just come back to the point, the airlines 

have to be engaged. They have to be willing to move flights around. 

They have to be willing to make—offer incentives to air travelers 

to travel at maybe less attractive hours of the day and to work 

hand in hand with the Congress and the FAA—and the DOT needs 

to use the authority that exists in law and to accept those—and implement the recommendations of MITRE and of the inspector general and work with us. We will work with you to help make this 

move better than it does today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank Chairman Oberstar. I have a few other 

questions I will submit to you in writing and ask you to reply. Before we dismiss the first panel, though. I would like to make some 

comments to follow up on Chairman Oberstar’s comments to you. 

One is that—there is no question that the FAA has the authority 

to sit down with the airlines now and to address the scheduling 

issue and as you indicated, Mr. Sturgell, you intend to do that. 

The bill that we have passed through the House requires the 

FAA to do that. We require the FAA to sit down with the airlines, 

where there is evidence that, in fact, overscheduling as resulted in 

delays. So that is a major change and we think that it is a necessary change. Also in congestion pricing, we accepted an amendment on the floor that will require a study on that issue. 

So that issue is addressed in the bill. And last, I can’t help but 

making note of the fact that when you look at the percentage of 

delays at Newark this year versus the percentage of delays at 

O’Hare International Airport when the FAA came in and capped 

flights at O’Hare, the delays are higher at Newark today than they 

were at O’Hare when the FAA stepped in and capped O’Hare. So 

I just make that point for the record. And, Mr. Scovel, I would ask 

you and your agency, if you would, to prepare a report for this Subcommittee. 

As I mentioned earlier, this is a second—the second in a series 

of hearings. I think one of the responsibilities that we have is to 

make certain that both the FAA, the airlines and all of the stakeholders here that we are all doing our job and that there is aggressive oversight and I said it in our last hearing to the airlines in 

particular and to others that if you think we are going away, we 

are not. This will not be just one hearing and we are going to walk 

away from this, that there will be additional hearings. This is the 

second. 

There will be another hearing on this matter in approximately—

at least one in the next 90 days. And by that time I would hope, 

Mr. Scovel, that your agency could prepare a report for the Subcommittee prior to the hearing, so that in the next 90 days, that 

would take a look at this summer what we are discussing right 

42

now, the congestion, the delays and the problems that we have experienced. And we will get you this request in writing. 

But we would like you to take a look at the delays this summer 

in comparison to delays since the year 2000 not only delay, but 

cancellations, including chronically delayed flight, as well as airline 

scheduling and provide to the Subcommittee hopefully in the next 

90 days prior to our next hearing. 

So we will get that information to you, the specific request in 

writing. We thank all of you for about being here today to testify 

before the Subcommittee. And we will not only beholding another 

hearing in about 90 day, but we will be in constant contact with 

your office and in particular, Mr. Sturgell and with Mr. Scovel as 

well. Again, we thank you for your testimony and we would dismiss 

the first panel at this time. Thank you. As our first panel is leaving, let me begin the introductions of our second panel and ask our 

witnesses to come forward and take their seats at the table. 

Mr. Patrick Forrey, the President of the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association; Mr. Jim May, the President and the CEO 

of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Steve Brown, who is the senior vice president for operations, National Business Aviation Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, the President of the Regional Airline Association, Mr. Gregory Principato, who is President of the Airport’s 

Council International North America; Ms. Kate Hanni, the executive director and spokesperson for the Coalition for an Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights; and Mr. Kevin Mitchell, who is the Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition. 

TESTIMONIES OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; STEVE 

BROWN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER COHEN, 

PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; GREGORY 

PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA; KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AN AIRLINE PASSENGERS’ BILL 

OF RIGHTS; AND KEVIN MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS 

TRAVEL COALITION 

Mr. COSTELLO. So we ask that you all take your seats and we 

will recognize you as soon as you are seated and prepared to testify. I would note for the second panel for our witnesses that we 

have—your entire statement will be entered into the record and we 

will ask you to summarize your statement so that we can get to 

the questions. You heard the testimony in the first panel. If any 

of you want to provide an answer or question or make a point on 

the record concerning the testimony that you have heard from the 

first panel, please feel free to do so. And at this time, I would recognize Mr. Forrey under the five-minute rule. 

Let me ask, if I can, if all of you would pull the microphone a 

little bit closer to you. We should have asked that of the last panel. 

It would be helpful to us. 

Mr. FORREY. Is that better? Does that work? Chairman Costello, 

Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, I want 

to thank you for inviting me to testify. I do so on behalf of the 

43

19,000 aviation safety professionals that I represent at NATCA. 

Also I would like to express my thanks to allow us the ability to 

address the critical issue of the aviation delays in the system. I 

cannot start this testimony without mentioning a fact that the 

Memphis air route traffic control center went into the ATC zero 

yesterday, which means controllers lost all communication with aircraft for three hours. Controllers had to clear all commercial flights 

over an eight-state area until the problem was fixed. We have 

never had an outage involving this much airspace for this long a 

period of time. 

One communication line brought the system down affecting over 

a thousand flights and thousands of passengers. The experienced 

veteran controllers rose to the challenge using their personal cell 

phones to separate traffic and ensure safety. Inexplicably, the FAA 

banned cell phones, but controllers do what they have to do to 

make sure they get the job done in a crisis and in unsafe events 

to prevent disaster. As we start today’s discussion about delays, I 

must point out that if we continue to strip away at the safety redundancy of the ATC system, occurrences such as this will continue to occur and next time we might not be so lucky. Aside from 

the millions of airline travelers who experienced the pain and frustration of this summer’s record level of flight delays firsthand, no 

one had a better view of the congested runways, taxiways, gate 

ramps and airways than the Nation’s air traffic controllers. These 

controllers work record amounts of hours of overtime in highstressed, understaffed work environments with the guiding principle of moving the system along as efficiently as possible while 

keeping safety above all as our highest priority. 

The fact is most delays are caused by weather and airline scheduling practices. Air traffic control staffing has also become a major 

factor as facility staffing levels across the country plummet. It is 

not uncommon to see flight restrictions due to a shortage of air 

traffic controllers. Capacity in the national airspace system is intricately related to runway availability and adequate air traffic control staffing. While modernizing enhancements and airspace procedures such as required navigation performance and domestic reduced vertical separation minimum will result in more available 

airspace, the gains made will be limited by the inadequate air traffic control staffing and infrastructure on the ground. 

The simple truth is that the efficiency gains made in airspace 

can only have a major positive impact on delays once ground capacity is addressed. Runways and taxiways are an absolute necessity 

to increase system capacity. Currently runways are under construction at only three major airports, Charlotte, North Carolina, Seattle, Washington and Washington, Dulles. The best evidence that 

supports our position that the current delay problem must have a 

ground based component are the results of the new runway at Atlanta Hartsville Jackson International Airport. Atlanta’s new runway opened May 27, 2006. 

A comparison of operations and delays was run from May 27th 

to September 30th of 2006 against the same time period in 2005. 

In that period, Atlanta had an increase of almost 3,100 operations, 

yet they had nearly 14,000 fewer delays in 2006. Meanwhile, 

understaffing of air traffic control facilities will continue to exacerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
44

bate the inefficiencies of the current system. As the NTSB warned 

earlier, this year we cannot continue to push our air controller 

workforce beyond its limits. Controller fatigue rates are increasing 

at a frightening level as air traffic continues grows. To me, the impact controller staffing has on delays is clear. There are 1,100 

fewer certified controllers currently watching the skies than on 9/

11, when 5,200 aircraft were landed safely in 90 minutes. 

At the same time, delays have increased over 150 percent with 

nearly identical traffic operations. Moreover, three experienced controllers are leaving every day, and an additional 70 percent of the 

current work force will retire in the next 5 years. Efforts are going 

to have to be made to stabilize and control the workforce. And a 

large segment of the U.S. Economy is increasingly dependent upon 

air travel to keep moving. 

The simple fact is that when demand exceeds capacity, delays 

will occur. Airline scheduling practices are unrealistic and favor 

marketing demand but they fail to consider capacity. Airline schedules are set to optimal conditions. And even at that, demand often 

exceeds capacity. If the weather conditions, runway availability, 

runway configuration, flight paths or other restrictions exist, 

delays are inevitable for flight schedules based on optimal conditions. 

Also when airline operations are disrupted at major airports, 

there is a ripple effect of delays across the country since aircraft 

and flight crews will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It 

is our position that responsible scheduling of flights within airport 

capacity limits will go a long way towards alleviating delays. 

Former Administrator Blakely agreed with our position when she 

recently admitted, ′′the airlines need to take a step back on scheduling practices that are at times out of line with reality.′′ To that point, NACTA looked at a one-day schedule earlier this 

month for New York’s La Guardiaairport. Under optimal configurations of runways and under perfect weather, they will be able to 

depart 10 aircraft per quarter hour for a total of 40 operations departures per hour. The following is a breakdown by 15 minute 

blocks of the effects of the airlines scheduling practices for that 

day. 

Between 2:15 p.m. And 2:29 p.m., 17 aircraft are proposed for departure. Remembering under optimal conditions, only 10 aircraft 

will the able to depart in the 15-minute block. So therefore, seven 

aircraft will be delayed to the next quarter hour creating an immediate backlog. Between 2:30 and 2:44, another 10 aircraft are proposed for departure. Seven aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 

2:45 and 2:59, 11 aircraft are proposed for departure. One aircraft 

will be delayed and added to the quarter, totaling eight back 

logged. 

Between 3:00 and 3:14, 13 aircraft are proposed for departure. 

Three additional aircrafts are added to the back log, totaling 11 in 

the backlog. 3:15 to 3:29, seven aircraft are proposed for departure. 

Three aircraft can be departed from the backlog. Eight aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m., 14 aircraft are 

proposed for departure. Four aircraft are added to the backlog. 

Eight are again in the backlog. Between 4:15 and 4:29, 10 aircraft 

are proposed for departure. Eight remain in the backlog. Between 

45

4:30 and 4:44, eight aircraft are proposed for departure, two aircraft can depart from the backlog, six aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 4:45 and 4:59, seven aircraft are proposed for departure. Three aircraft can depart from the backlog, three aircraft remain in the backlog. 

Between 5:00 and 5:14, another 12 aircraft are proposed for departure, two additional aircraft are added to the backlog, totaling 

five aircraft in the backlog. Between 5:15 and 5:29, four aircraft are 

proposed for departure. All five aircraft can now depart from the 

backlog and for the first time since 2:00 that afternoon, the backlog 

is empty. The controllers will not recover the time for nearly 3 

hours and neither do the passengers on the delayed aircraft. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today. I am available for any questions you or any Member of 

the Committee might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks Mr. Forrey for your testimony 

and recognizes Mr. May. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’ll truncate my remarks in 

the interest of time. You invited us to comment on increasing flight 

delays and customer service improvements. As you have already indicated, the two are inextricably linked. Today more people are 

traveling to more places on more flights than ever before. 760 million passengers will fly in 2007, 100 million more than the year 

2000. And why? Because air travel is convenient, relatively inexpensive, remarkably safe and demand is expected to keep growing, 

particularly in the New York area where metropolitan airports are 

major international gateways serving 32 more international airports and almost 19,000 more daily passengers this year than in 

2000. 

So I would note for you when you attack scheduling, there is a 

scheduling issue, but we are serving far more destinations and flying far more people and that has to be taken into account. We are 

a service industry and our goal is to assure that every journey is 

pleasant and safe and although every day 20,000 domestic flights 

and a million-plus passengers arrive at their destinations on time, 

we understand that increasing flight delays are a big problem and 

we are committed to finding solutions. 

Delays cost our passengers and us billions of dollars annually. 

And unfortunately, when flights are delayed, our service to passengers doesn’t meet expectations, their expectations or ours. That 

is unacceptable. We know we must do better. There is another reality and that is that this outdated, inefficient air traffic control 

system, increasing flight delays and demand on responsive customer service do in fact go hand in hand. So we have got to address 

the air traffic control system and make it modern to enable planes 

to fly more efficiently. And I think everybody at this panel would 

agree with that. I won’t spend a great deal of time. The point here 

is that nobody likes 72 percent delay rates or efficiency rates and 

it doesn’t work to our advantage or to your advantage. While 

NextGen may be the ultimate solution and here I distinguish between short-term and long-term as you have in your prior discussions, we think—and I think the FAA occurs, that there are a number of steps that can be taken near-term to improve operational efficiencies and increase use of available capacity. 

46

And this is on top of any scheduling discussions that we are more 

than happy to have the DOT under the right circumstances. I 

would also point out that there is not sufficient antitrust protection 

there at the current time, and that having discussions about New 

York are vastly different than discussions in ORD if we can get 

into that if you choose. As we requested in early August, the Department of Transportation should accelerate implementation of 

New York airspace it has been discussed today. We think there are 

elements that can be put into place, very near-term, you can see 

those departure routes on the screen on the left side of the screen 

there, I think Pat would verify there is something on the order of 

12 departure routes right now. We would like to take it to 17. 

I think that would make a big difference, increase the number 

of low altitude arrival and departure routes out of the major metropolitan airports. We think that will help with capacity. Increase the 

number of planes handled at airports by using existing runways 

and procedures more efficiently. Our experts tell us that there is 

opportunity for more intersecting operations, better coordinate access to restricted airspace. There is some fairly significant military 

space that is just off of New York that we can’t fly through. But 

if the FAA can work it out with the military to provide lanes and 

operations, especially in bad weather, it would have a big impact 

on the operations. 

Let me turn to customer service. And we know that we have got 

to improve. We have read the IG report. I told the Inspector General Scovel this morning that I thought it was a good report. We 

have sent a letter today to the Department of Transportation asking to sit down at the secretary’s earliest convenience to discuss the 

IG report. I would point out to this Committee, we are the ones 

who originally, alongside this Committee, asked that that report be 

completed. Our carriers have aggressively pursued some of the suggestions that are in there already. Got more than nine carriers that 

have time limits that they have set. They are looking at their long 

delay procedures. They are restocking water and food in strategic 

locations and I think there is just a lot we can do, much better 

than we have in the past. As I said, we have worked with the Inspector General’s office and we look forward to doing that in the 

future. 

I would note that we have a meeting with the Secretary of 

Transportation tomorrow afternoon on the subject of New York congestion and on customer service, and I think that will be the first 

step. So we are not letting any grass grow under our feet in terms 

of responding to this issue. Mr. Chairman, this industry has been 

down this road before. I understand that without fundamental 

change in our air traffic management system, the incidents are 

going to get worse. That is what drove us to the demand for 

NextGen raising. We are moving 760 million passengers a year 

today we are going to move a billion passengers a year probably 

within the next 5 years and we have to have change to be able to 

accommodate that. New York is a microcosm of what is going to 

occur around the country. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May, and recognizes 

Mr. Brown. 

47

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Member Petri. 

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the Committee. It is a 

privilege to be with you today. I am Steve Brown. I serve as senior 

vice president of operations for the National Business Aviation Association. We represent companies across the country that use general aviation aircraft to make their business models work. The vast 

majority of these companies are small to medium-sized businesses 

that use a single aircraft for their transportation needs. Prior to 

joining NBAA, I served as the associate administrator for air traffic 

services at the FAA where I managed the operation of the Nation’s 

air traffic control system. 

Earlier in my career, I was employed as a commercial pilot and 

taught courses on the faculty at Texas A&M University. This varied background has provided me with many of the insights outlined 

today about our aviation system. Mr. Chairman, as you know and 

as Members of the Subcommittee know, for the past several 

months, the general aviation community has endured erroneous allegations from some of the Nation’s airlines. They have attempted 

to blame record delays and increasing congestion on our community. I can tell you from my years of experience and current flying 

activity that those assertions are untrue, especially when you look 

at the facts. 

For instance, at the nation’s 10 busiest airports, general aviation 

accounts for less than 4 percent of all aircraft operations. When it 

comes to the busy New York area, because we receive so much attention today, our operations have actually gone down in recent 

years, and I expect they will in the future. These numbers are so 

low because our Members typically avoid the major airline hubs 

and instead fly primarily into areas where there are no capacity 

constraints and into general aviation reliever airports in the suburbs of metropolitan areas. 

On the rare occasions when our operations do go into the major 

hubs, we frequently do so using different approaches and different 

runways as is the case with Boston’s Logan Airport. What that 

means is even in the small number of cases when we are in areas 

with major airline congestion, we are not contributing to it significantly. Clearly a fair question is, if general aviation isn’t causing 

delay, what is? Let me again reference New York’s airspace. 

Based on my years of managing that airspace, I can tell you that 

when there are capacity issues in the air, it is usually because of 

the problems being caused by hub operations on the ground at 

those few congested airports where traffic is more and more concentrated every year. 

For example, JFK, which has been spoken about many times 

today, has enough capacity normally for 44 departures in the early 

morning hours, but the airlines regularly schedule about 57. When 

they do that, the gates become full, the scheduled carriers ultimately fill the taxiways and the runways with what we in the industry refer to as conga lines. There is nowhere to put additional 

aircraft on the ground, and therefore, arriving aircraft back up in 

the air waiting for landing clearance. It is natural then that when 

we look at the data on delays, the Department of Transportation 

information shows that the commercial airline scheduling practices 

are the second leading cause of delay, exceeded only by adverse 

48

weather. It is also worth noting that a few successful airlines are 

using schedules that create smooth demand on the air traffic control system and they avoid the destructive practice of overscheduling and causing peaks that stimulate delays. 

During my years with Administrator Blakely at FAA, we initiated the airline scheduling discussions that ultimately resulted in 

significant delay reductions at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. Clearly, 

general aviation is not the problem when it comes to these airline 

delay issues at congested hubs, and no authoritative source has 

ever concluded otherwise. However, we are committed to expanding 

system capacity because when capacity becomes constrained, general aviation is usually the first segment to be pushed out of those 

areas. For example, our industry has embraced technologies to help 

increase the capacity of the aviation system. Just over 2 years ago, 

our operators equipped their aircraft at their own significant expense with RVSM, reduced vertical separation technology. That 

term basically describes the technology as we have heard today 

that doubles the in route airspace available to high altitude aircraft. The majority of these routes created by the capacity increase 

are used by the airlines every day, saving them hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel and flight time. 

Our industry also leads the way in supporting stakeholder efforts 

to lay the groundwork for a modernized system. We have stakeholders on every one of these Committees working with the FAA. 

And I personally co-chair with my ATA counterpart, the current 

aviation regulatory committee. It is focused on a promising technology referred to today as ADS-B or automatic dependence surveillance. This technology that we are mutually committed to is 

widely viewed as the cornerstone of modernization and will offer 

significant improvement in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, we have demonstrated a commitment to strengthening the system as has this Subcommittee by passing the legislation that you referred to in your opening remarks. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 uses a proven funding mechanism, fuel 

taxes to raise the needed funds for system and transformation 

without resorting to foreign style user fees or providing tax breaks 

for other segments as the critical need for modernization and more 

capacity arises. This legislation substantially increases the fuel 

taxes that general aviation will pay, support system modernization. 

In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate one central point and 

that is the airline delays at congested hubs are basically a self-inflicted wound that is a byproduct of their business practices in 

those congested areas. My many years of managing the system and 

flying in it have made this reality clear. Data from DOT indicates 

this is also the case. And people with a real understanding of how 

the system works and airline economics know that it is true. Anyone who tries to convince the public or Members of this Subcommittee otherwise, is just simply not representing the complete 

picture or the essential facts. Thank you, and I look forward to any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you, Mr. Brown. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is 

Roger Cohen. On behalf of RAA’s 43 member airlines, there are 

49

more than 300 associate member suppliers. Thank you for inviting 

us here today since it provides us an opportunity to dispel the notion, this growing urban legend that regional jets have somehow 

caused the travel delays this past summer. Instead of demonizing 

RJs, historians will likely look back at the regional jet as the transformational jet of this generation. 

Just as the 707 brought comfortable, fast and affordable transcontinental and transAtlantic service to millions of Americans 50 

years ago, the RJ has delivered those same benefits to small and 

medium-sized communities across this country, communities whose 

alternatives used to be a handful of flights on slower, less comfortable planes or no flights at all. Given America’s reliance on regional airlines, it is understandable how this urban legend has 

taken on a life of its own. Today, regional airlines carry close to 

one out of every four passengers in this country. We are about one 

half of the schedules flights and we serve more than 600 communities across the country. 

Most notably, I point to the map. In 442 of those communities, 

70 percent of the United States regional airlines provide the only 

scheduled airline service. 

Mr. Chairman, all this is in our brand new annual report. And 

after the Committee meeting, if—we would love to give you the 

first copy off the press. This came out today. So we will do that 

after the hearing. We have mapped in here airline service for each 

State. For example, in your home State of Illinois, 23 percent of the 

passengers flew last year on a regional airline and regional jets 

and turbo props represented about 46 percent of the lots. 

Six Illinois airports are served exclusively by regionals and Peoria is just shy of that at 93 percent. Even at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, one of the world’s busiest and it was one of the world’s busiest 

before the regional jet was even on the drawing board, regional airplanes represent half of the flights. But where are those flights 

going? 

Of the 1,041 daily flights at O’Hare, less than 5 percent of those 

aircraft are flying to what FAA designates are the countries other 

big 35 hub airports, which includes close-in places like Detroit and 

Cleveland and Minneapolis and St. Louis. The remaining 95 percent fly to small and medium-sized communities whose only service 

into O’Hare may be on regional aircraft and that is Appleton to 

Birmingham, Cedar Rapids, both Springfields, Wausau, you name 

it. 

Well, what about the Big Apple? Because if urban legends—well, 

if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere. Let me go 

back here to JFK. At JFK, regional aircraft today comprise about 

half of the daily schedule. But during the evening rush hour, that 

6 to 8 p.m. Time frame when getting to the airport from midtown 

Manhattan is probably going to take longer than the actual flight, 

aircraft of less than 70 seats represent only 25 percent of the departures. 

So there are fewer RJs during JFK’s busiest period than there 

are at other times of the day. Let us take a look at La Guardia. 

This chart may be hard to see. But some suggest that solving La 

Guardia’s historical delay problems would be solved by squeezing 

out or even banishing RJs. They have proposed a scheme forcing 

50

airlines to upgauge the planes serving La Guardia. But at a capacity constrained, slot-controlled airport like La Guardia, discriminating against regional aircraft could jeopardize service to countless communities, communities as large as Jacksonville, Knoxville, 

Columbus, Dayton, Louisville, Savannah and dozens more. 

Mr. Chairman, regional airlines and regional aircraft didn’t 

cause this summer’s travel delays. In fact, while the number of 

passengers flying on regionals grew last year by about 2 1/2 percent, the number of regional flights actually declined by 3 percent. 

The total hours flown by regional airlines also fell last year. So 

regionals reduced their usage of the ATC and airport system year 

over year. Most notably—and I think this is very important—this 

upgauging of the regional fleet has been occurring without any 

forced schemes or any other kind of machinations. In the post 9/

11 period, the average seating capacity of the regional fleet has 

grown by about a third, from 35 seats per aircraft to about 50 seats 

today. 

In closing and on behalf of our member airlines, who have been 

at the foundation of the industry’s post 9/11 recovery, we pledge to 

work with you, this Committee, the FAA and all parties to fix the 

system for the Nation’s travellers, even if it means one delay at a 

time. Thank you again for this opportunity. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Principato. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, thank you for allowing Airports Council International the 

opportunity to testify at this hearing. My name is Greg Principato 

and I am president of ACI North America. Our member airports 

inplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and virtually all of 

the international passenger and cargo traffic in North America. 

About 400 aviation-related businesses are also members of ACI 

North America. We want to begin by applauding the Committee for 

its tireless work on HR 2881. We especially commend you for providing airports the financial tools necessary to build critical safety, 

security and capacity projects, including new runways, taxiways 

and terminals to meet growing passenger needs by increasing the 

ceiling on the passenger facility charge user fee to $7. By doing so, 

airports can meet the growing passenger demand by planning now 

to invest in modern, secure, comfortable and environmentally compliant facilities for air travelers. 

We are also grateful to the Committee for including the departure queue management pilot program. When implemented, this 

pilot program will have the added benefit of greatly reducing the 

amount of fuel burned and emissions produced by taxiing or idling 

aircraft on the airfield. Airports are greatly affected by extended 

delays and extraordinary flight disruptions. The vast majority of 

airports have contingency plans to assist airlines when such assistance is requested. This is an important point. Airports do not have 

and are not seeking the regulatory authority to interfere with an 

airline’s operations during an extended ground delay. 

However, we do agree that airport operators should work more 

closely with air carriers in enhancing contingency plans, including 

offering assistance after an aircraft has been on the tarmac for an 

agreed upon period of time. The Port Authority of New York and 

51

New Jersey is a good example. Anticipating that there may be unusual situations where an airline may face an imbalance between 

the number of terminal gates and number of flights, a policy was 

implemented several years ago at the Port Authority’s airports to 

mitigate the passenger impact. 

This policy urges all carriers to notify airport operation staff to 

determine if an alternate plan can be developed to allow passengers to safely disembark at another location. In addition to the 

Port Authority, Atlanta’s Hartsfield Jackson Airport and others 

across the country are working with the airlines in implementing 

similar contingency plans to successfully combat irregular operations. Just last week, and I think this is an important event, more 

than 40 industry representatives from 13 airports and six major 

airlines gathered at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, at DFW’s instigation by the way, to facilitate better planning to collectively respond to significant service disruptions affecting passengers. 

The single most important conclusion from that meeting was the 

need for airports and airlines to use the same techniques that have 

long been successfully employed to respond to emergencies, snowstorms and runway construction disruptions. ACI North America 

also believes it is important to provide passengers comprehensive 

information upon which to make their air travel decisions and to 

reasonably compensate them for travel disruptions. DOT regulations should be expanded to require all airlines that code share 

with a major international airline to report delay and mishandled 

baggage information. 

Given the fact that regional code sharing airlines now provide 

nearly 50 percent of daily departures, this change is long overdue. 

Additionally, DOT must more effectively measure how delays affect 

passengers. ACI North America agrees with the aviation consumer 

organizations that the current reports do not provide complete 

data. Lacking statistics on the impact of air—on air travelers of 

flight cancellations and diversions. 

Given the fact that airlines are operating at historically high 

load factors, it can take many hours or even days for passengers 

to be reaccommodated. DOT data does not adequately capture the 

impact of these rebooking problems which result in significant passenger delay and inconvenience. Involuntary denied boarding compensation should also been increased as we advocated in comments 

filed with DOT. We applaud the House for enacting legislation requiring the final regulations be promulgated within one year. We 

know that expanded capacity in modernizing the air traffic control 

system will address many of the delays experienced by passengers. 

Since 2004, six new runways at some of the busiest U.S. airports 

have opened, funded in part with PFCs including Atlanta and Los 

Angeles. Additionally, five important runway projects are projected 

to be completed by 2010, including the Chicago O’Hare modernization project. 

However, it is important to keep in mind that airport congestion 

management programs should be—should also be considered as 

part of the solution, in those limited circumstances, where additional airport capacity is not an available alternative, or the capacity will not be available for several years. It is in the best interest 

of passengers that airport proprietors be permitted to work with 

52

airline partners to manage capacity in ways that encourage more 

efficient use of airport infrastructure, maintain a safe environment 

and operational balance and respond to community complaints 

about delays. We thank you for this opportunity to testify and look 

forward to working with you to solve these problems. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Principato. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni. 

Ms. HANNI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kate Hanni and I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify on behalf of the now 20,500 members of the coalition for an 

airline passenger’s bill of rights on these timely and important topics. In addition, I would like to take a special moment to thank 

those Members who sent staffers to attend our strand-in last week 

on the Capitol Mall. Most importantly, the coalition is most grateful for the many passenger rights provisions that were included in 

the manager’s amendment, HR 2881, FAA reauthorization. 

We look forward to working with you to support the retention of 

these provisions in the House/Senate conference. Need to cover passengers in 30- to 60-seat aircraft. We hope you can fill one gap 

when you conference with the Senate. Under H.R. 2881 as passed 

in the House, there is no protection for passengers flying in aircraft 

with fewer than 60 seats. That leaves approximately 25 percent of 

all flights without protection or 167 million airline passengers last 

year. And 5,000 of the 16,000-plus diverted flights last year are ignored by the House passed language. Some of your communities 

aren’t served at all by larger aircraft, so without a language change 

in conference, your communities and passengers won’t get the protection of the airline contingency programs that you voted for last 

week. 

Ms. HANNI. Delays for reasons under control of the airlines. We 

appreciate the Subcommittee’s attention to this issue of delayed 

airline flights given the recent painful experiences of passengers 

during the summer months. We have included in an attachment of 

just a few of the hundreds of incidences experienced by our members. There are two elements of the airline delay equation that are 

often mentioned by the passengers who contact our Web site, and 

each is under the complete control of the airlines. 

First, the airlines who schedule more departures or arrivals than 

an airport can handle in a given period of time under the best of 

weather conditions are simply deceiving their passengers. They are 

collectively promising for marketing reasons a service that they 

cannot provide. The coalition wholeheartedly endorses the provision for mandatory reductions of airline schedules that was added 

to H.R. 2881 by the Committee leadership, and we will urge the 

Senate to adopt this approach in its legislation. However, individual airlines should bear responsibility for their own acts of deceptive behavior toward their passengers. An airline that continues 

to schedule a flight that is chronically canceled or delayed is deceiving its passengers and should be penalized and forced to correct 

the situation. We will urge the Senate at the House-Senate conference to amend existing law to make individual airlines eliminate 

these deceptive acts. 

Secondly, the airline sets flight schedules and airport staffing 

levels under the assumption that nothing will go wrong, which I 

53

heard talked about a lot earlier. When flights are delayed or canceled, the airlines simply do not have enough staff on duty to make 

alternative flight arrangements for the hundreds of passengers 

standing in lines or who are getting busy signals when they call 

the airlines’ reservation numbers. 

The missing report from the DOT Inspector General. This is 

where I am going to divert—I am going to make a flight diversion 

from my notes. I received the IG report last night as I arrived in 

D.C. I spent most of the night reading it and writing some notes 

to comment. We had only a few hours to review the IG’s report. 

Our initial thoughts are these. 

The report relies on the myth that American, JetBlue and others 

have developed policies for delays and have successfully adhered to 

those policies. Not true. In June and July, there were three JetBlue 

and a handful of AA violations. At the time of the preparation of 

this report, there was clear knowledge on the part of the Inspector 

General about a mass stranding on April 24th where there were 13 

jets that were all over Texas that were American Airlines jets, and 

I am glad to hear that you are going to have more hearings on 

what happened over the summer that clarifies that there will be 

more detail put into the IG’s report, but it was of grave concern to 

me last night that it was not mentioned in the report and that, apparently, the report sounded like American Airlines had taken care 

of this problem in their new policy. 

One of the things that we are very concerned about is the wiggle 

words in their contracts of carriage or in their rule, of which they 

first came out with a 4-hour rule, which, on April 24th, became an 

internal operational guideline that would not benefit consumers, 

and it was not until they realized they had to talk about what had 

happened and that there were jets stranded on the Tarmac that 

they admitted that it was not anything that would benefit consumers, that it was an internal operational guideline only meant 

to notify the pilots that there was a plane out on the Tarmac for 

4 hours. Now they are calling it a ′′policy.′′ So I am not really sure 

whether it is a rule, an internal operational guideline or a policy 

or what any of those three terms actually mean when it comes to 

their language. 

The IG report relies on a small slice of time, December 29th 

through March, in regard to the airlines’ performance, which I am 

grateful again that you will be reviewing in 90 days. If you are 

studying airline delays, study them over the holidays and during 

the summer. The IG appears to be recommending that the airlines 

police themselves again. That does not work. Fool me once, dot, 

dot, dot. 

We think the reasonable conclusion to make as a result of this 

IG’s report is that there is clearly a need for legislation. It is amazing to me to listen to a group of very bright, educated individuals 

avoid that question. I am stunned, just as a normal human being 

coming into this as recently as December 29th, to listen to a group 

of people not being able to answer the questions that were presented earlier. Depending upon a self-serving contract of carriage 

with wiggle words like ′′reasonable′′ and ′′as appropriate′′ are not 

specific, enforceable contracts, and this is acknowledged by the 

DOT. I know and the DOT knows that the rule adopted after DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
54

cember 29th by American Airlines quickly became an internal operational guideline only to notify pilots of the 4 hours on the ground. 

Now it is a policy. Their words hold no water. Their words are 

meaningless. 

Deregulation was not intended to give carte blanche to the airlines to do whatever they pleased. It was intended to provide increased competition and more choices for air travelers, not to let 

airlines violate the basic human rights of their passengers. So it is 

time for Congress to set minimum industry standards and for the 

DOT to monitor and to enforce the performance of those standards. 

However, the DOT has not done an adequate job of implementing 

consumer protection regarding these issues. 

In addition, the DOT must correct the collection of invalid statistics for Tarmac delays soon. Even where Tarmac delay data are reported, reports from our members show a glaring difference between the data reported and the actual passenger experience. 

Finally, it is imperative that the Committee take note that the 

DOT acknowledges that the customer service plans submitted by 

the airlines are not enforceable. We urge this Committee to provide 

oversight to ensure that the final plans are in compliance with your 

legislative intent and that they are enforceable. 

Again—and these are my thank you’s—I would like to thank 

Chairman Oberstar and especially Chairman Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Ms. Hanni. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 

the Business Travel Coalition to testify. My testimony today is also 

on behalf of the 400,000 members of the International Airline Passengers Association, IAPA. 

It is promising that the intention of this hearing is to move beyond service meltdowns such as the JetBlue debacle this winter 

and expand the analysis to customer service much more broadly 

defined to include long and unpredictable airport security lines, 

cramped planes and the unreliability of the system vis-a-vis delays 

and cancellations. The statistics about delays, cancellations and 

service failures are well-known, so I will not repeat them. 

We also hear about the projection of passenger growth from today’s more than 700 million to 1 billion passengers by 2015 and 

how there is a crisis looming. The reality in the U.S. commercial 

aviation system is, today, that there is already a crisis, and we are 

heading for a political and an economic nightmare in the years 

ahead. 

Conventional wisdom is that we will need to prepare now for 

these 1 billion passengers, but in just a short 24 months, we will 

be near 800 million passengers, rendering 2007 and its many problems a mere historical footnote. The aviation system for business 

travelers will simply be unreliable; traveler productivity will plummet, and commercial activity will be reduced. 

The public policy concern is that, on the one hand, if we choose 

ill-conceived remedies in the short-term, we will do harm to consumers ultimately and waste precious time laboring under ′′feel 

good′′ measures that do not address systemic problems. On the 

other hand, doing nothing is not an option given what is fast apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
55

proaching. Bad weather and the FAA are no doubt part of the problem as are ordinary citizens who, for example, will likely file lawsuits to block a more efficient airspace redesign in the New York 

area. 

However, it is BTC’s view that airlines, as an industry, and as 

the prime movers with respect to fundamental change are not energized and motivated to provide the level of leadership required to 

seriously move the dial in sufficient time. 

The airline industry is more than capable of united leadership and singleness of purpose as when, for example, it secured $5 billion from Congress in 2001 as partial compensation for the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. BTC supported that legislation. Stories in the 

press at the time told of a galvanized and united airline industry 

lobby, indeed, unprecedented but in the face of an unparalleled crisis, and that is what is required now in this growing crisis, but we 

are not seeing it. 

Our recommendation is that Congress should consider ReverseSunset legislation that would provide a very strong inducement for 

airlines to develop and implement solutions to immediately address 

its portion of the current crisis. BTC recommends that the National 

Academies of Sciences, Transportation Research Board be directed 

by Congress to produce two deliverables. 

First, Congress should request a set of well-vetted recommendations regarding solutions to systemic aviation system problems. For 

example, immunized DOT-moderated airline schedule-reduction 

conferences for major airport hubs, airport congestion pricing alternatives, operational meltdowns, and customer service recovery 

metrics and plans are all areas requiring exploration and decisions. 

Second, the TRB would be tasked with defining and stress testing criteria to determine if there is a true market failure with respect to the reliability and customer service levels of the commercial air transportation system. The failure could be caused by a 

lack of national aviation capacity in all of its forms and causes or 

by a lack of aviation industry action to address customer service 

problems broadly defined. Criteria might include auditable airline 

customer service recovery plans or metrics such as the DOTtracked on-time arrivals, mishandled baggage, involuntarily 

bumpings, and customer complaints. Such metrics have been legitimized by the airlines like Continental, who has used them to reward employee performance. Representative DeFazio’s consumer 

hotline idea needs to be implemented. 

After considering the ideas and strategies developed by TRB, 

Congress would pass under this concept a Reverse-Sunset legislation, embracing some or all of TRB’s recommendations. If at a point 

in the future it were determined that the airline industry had 

failed to deliver on its commitments, there would not be more hearings to determine if there is a problem. Rather, the already passed 

Reversed-Sunset legislation would become the new requirements 

for the airline industry. The DOT Inspector General would be 

charged with monitoring the industry vis-a-vis this legislation, and 

would report to Congress on a routine basis. 

The benefits of the strategic approach would be three—avoiding 

punitive, ill-conceived fixes in the near term that would ultimately 

harm the consumer, encouraging the airline industry to put energy 

56

and leadership behind a campaign to introduce sustainable, fundamental reforms to the industry, and developing a TRB-led strategy 

with useful ideas that the airline industry could consider implementing voluntarily. 

When I testified in 1999 before this Committee on this very subject, BTC believed then that the airlines could and should solve 

their own problems. BTC still believes that this is the case today. 

The difference today is that we are now out of time, and the airlines need some old-fashioned motivation to take this situation seriously and solve their own problems. BTC believes airlines have an 

historic choice to make—provide real leadership today or face regulation tomorrow. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Forrey, in your testimony, you indicate that O’Hare and the 

three airports in the New York area as well as Philadelphia International are the most overscheduled airports in the country, and I 

wonder if you might explain the consequences of airlines overscheduling. 

Mr. FORREY. Well, the consequence initially is going to be delays. 

You just cannot utilize more runways than what you have available. If you put too many airplanes on there, they are going to be 

pushed back. It creates congestion on the airport taxiways and the 

ramp-up areas. It could create confusion. It even could come to a 

point where some of the flight plan data that you have in the system times out. Then you have additional work that the controllers 

now have to do to put that information back into the system to 

make sure that it is consistent. 

It also adds to mistakes. If you have all of your runways jammed 

up with airplanes and delays are going on, particularly if you have 

places where there is low staffing, people get tired, and they make 

mistakes, and sometimes you get someone who knows, and sometimes you get someone in front of the other, the point being that 

people make mistakes, and with the more opportunity you create 

to do that, that is what is going to happen. Unfortunately, as these 

scheduling practices continue, the opportunity for a mistake or for 

an accident to occur increases. So those are the initial consequences. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You were here for the earlier panel, and I think 

you heard the testimony indicating, I think from Mr. Sturgell, that 

the FAA says that the system was adequately staffed and the productivity of controllers was down since 1999. I believe those to be 

his words. The system is adequately staffed, but productivity is 

down from 1999. I wonder if you would like to comment. 

Mr. FORREY. That reminds me of the old adage ′′liars figure and 

figures lie.′′

Currently, there are 14,807 controllers, according to the FAA, 

200 of whom are still at the academy in Oklahoma City, and 3,000-

plus are trainees who are not certified to work airplanes. So, looking back to 1999, there were about 12,700 controllers certified to 

work airplanes. Today, there are only 11,400. So, if you look at the 

statistics and you want to use the facts, the average operation, I 

think, in 1999 was 11.3. Today, it is 12.7. So, actually, we are 

57

working with more productivity today than we were back in 1999, 

but you know, that is what figures do. 

The same thing with the statistics on the New York airspace. I 

mean we have been working with the agency, or were up to 2 years 

ago, to develop that whole plan with New York, and like Chairman 

Oberstar said earlier, it is very complicated because you just cannot increase a bunch of fanned departures out of New York without 

affecting all of the other inbound traffic and all of the other overflight traffic coming from the west, the east, the north, and the 

south. 

So I am not quite sure where they are getting the statistics on 

the 20 percent increase on operational performance or productivity 

or the increase in reduction and delays. It may be possible, but I 

do not think you implement just a piece of the plan without the 

other parts involved. That is a very intricate thing. That goes from 

Chicago to Boston, all the way down to Miami—that whole airspace 

redesign—for which, basically, the agency told us 2 years ago they 

are not interested in our opinions anymore, and we are no longer 

participating. So I think there is a lot more to the story there than 

one would throw statistics out about. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you. 

Mr. May, you indicated that the airlines are a service industry 

and that the airlines are committed to finding solutions to the 

problems. We have heard testimony, and you have heard comments 

by myself and by others up here that, you know, these are complicated issues. There are weather delays, nonweather delays, and 

there are some things that the FAA can do that, in my judgment, 

they are not doing and some things that the airlines can do regarding scheduling that they are failing to do and will not do unless 

they are forced to do it, but that is how I see it. 

You did make the statement, if I got this correctly, that there is 

a lot the airlines can do to prevent delays in the holiday season, 

the coming season, and I wonder. As I asked the first panel, I 

would ask you because that is what people want to know immediately, the flying public today. They want to know what can be 

done and what can be expected between now and Thanksgiving and 

Christmas and the holiday season. 

Specifically, what are the airlines doing to try and prevent delays 

during the holiday season? 

Mr. MAY. I do not know that we have timed it, Mr. Chairman, 

specifically to the holiday season, but we have said, short-term, 

Delta Airlines announced today that they have revamped their 

schedule significantly at JFK. They have eliminated a certain number of departures an hour; they are moving a lot of their flights to 

a new morning bank for international travel, and they are rightsizing changing their fleet mix to do more to cabin service than single cabin service as they have in the past. If I remember the numbers off the top of my head, some 63 percent of their operations 

going forward after these changes are complete will be that. 

I think we have indicated to you that we think it would be appropriate for the Secretary to pull all of the parties together and to 

sit down. We are having an initial meeting tomorrow—as I indicated, no grass under the feet—with the Secretary and with the 

FAA to specifically discuss some of the issues of New York airVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38169 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
58

space. I think the dynamic here—those are just two examples. We 

have said we will be happy to sit down and address scheduling, but 

I think you have acknowledged already—and certainly, Chairman 

Oberstar has acknowledged already—some of the real problems 

with scheduling. You get one carrier to take down the schedule, 

and somebody else, as a new entrant, comes in and picks up on it. 

So what is the advantage to volunteering to do that? You get capacity constraints put on LGA, La Guardia, and there are two immediate exceptions—one for new entrants and the other for small 

markets. You know, if you are going to have constraints apply—

and it sounds to us like a lot of people are heading in that direction—then you have to do it fairly across the whole NAS and for 

all of those people who are moving through there. 

You have talked about the fact there are 40-plus airports feeding 

the New York TRACON. I think that is absolutely correct. It is one 

of the most complex and difficult jobs in the world, let alone the 

United States, to manage traffic coming through there with the en 

route and that which is originating and landing in that area. There 

are some 15 airports that have that sort of OMB status, all different sizes of aircraft, all sorts of different destinations. I think 

there are probably opportunities for the airlines, for Mr. Forrey on 

my right and for others to sit down and discuss ways we can try 

and optimize all that mix of traffic and see whether or not we cannot get something done. 

We talked about finding ways to open up that military restricted 

space that is sitting off of New York. I think that provides some 

options. The military does not like to give it up, but I have never 

known anybody more powerful than Chairman Oberstar. If there is 

somebody who is ready to take on the military, it is bound to be 

him. 

So I think we all recognize a need to get this done, but what we 

have not acknowledged is this is not just a scheduling issue. You 

know, we are moving 19,000-plus people a day more out of New 

York, itself. We are running at 85 percent loads—load factor—in 

our operations. We are right-sizing the size of the fleet. We have 

to take into account that there is far greater demand than there 

has been in the past. It is not going to stop, and there will be consequences of caps, limitations, congestion pricing, all of these ideas 

that are being floated around there, and there are going to be a 

whole lot of people in New York who do not have the choices they 

would like to have to fly to those 32 brand new international destinations that they have been able to fly to since the year 2000. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You know, I have other Members who want to 

ask questions, so I am limited here. 

Mr. MAY. We are happy to come in and have these conversations 

with you off line as well. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me say that it is interesting, and I think it 

is worth noting that, one, the Administrator on her way out on the 

very last day and in her last speech addressed the issue of overscheduling and that if the airlines do not do something about it 

that the government needs to—or that the government will, and 

that is very true. We have had conversations with her about scheduling in the past. 

59

Secondly, Delta, I think, did the right thing today. They looked 

at their scheduling. They are trying to move in the right direction 

to try and reduce the congestion and delays, and you indicated here 

today that, on behalf of the airlines, you are willing to work, and 

you have a meeting tomorrow with the Secretary, and you are willing to do what is necessary, but I have to tell you that there was 

not a whole lot of action in that regard before we started our hearings earlier this year. 

Mr. MAY. I do not think there was a whole lot of action before 

we had the really unfortunate incidents in Austin and in New 

York. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would disagree with you, and I would tell you 

that, if you go back and look at the record, it was the Administrator—Administrator Blakey and many others—saying, ′′Boy, we 

had a terrible year last summer, and this summer is not going to 

be any better,′′ and that was in February of this year, but the airlines did not come in and say, ′′Hey, let us sit down, and let us try 

and address this problem.′′ The Administrator at the FAA did not 

reach out to the airlines and say, ′′Hey, we have to do something 

about this,′′ and now we find ourselves where we are, and the FAA 

is saying and the airlines are saying, ′′Gosh, we have got to get together and work this out.′′

My point is that when we provide aggressive oversight, people 

act and they come together and try and solve problems. When the 

Congress does not act and we leave it up to others to act, a lot of 

times self-interests prevail and nothing gets done, and that is the 

point that I am making. 

At this time, I would recognize my friend and Ranking Member, 

Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask 

a few questions. 

First of all, to Mr. Forrey, the FAA has just completed, I guess, 

a major redesign of the New York and nearby airspace which they 

are hoping will, among other things, reduce delays by about 20 percent. 

Have you or your organization had a chance to look at that? Do 

you have any opinion on their redesign or whether the prospects 

are as rosy as they forecast? 

Mr. FORREY. Mr. Petri, thanks for the question. 

Like I said earlier when I answered the earlier question, we had 

been working collaboratively with the agency from 1999 up till 

about 2005. It not only developed the New York airspace but addressed how that interrelates to the traffic from Chicago, the traffic 

from Atlanta, the traffic down to Miami, the traffic up to Boston, 

to Washington, everywhere because you just cannot change one 

thing in New York and expect everything else to work fine. 

I am not quite sure what—we have not been briefed by the agency on their new airspace redesign or what they are going to do in 

New York. We have seen some of the pictures and plans from the 

GAO because they came to us and asked us about the same thing 

that you are asking right now. Some of what they are doing is pretty much identical. The environmental impact study that we had 

worked towards up to 2005 is, essentially, what the agency is going 

to run with as far as what kind of airspace changes they are going 

60

to make. However, we do not know that they are implementing any 

other piece to it, and you just cannot implement one piece and expect it to give you the results that you think it is going to give you. 

I do not know whether to say it is a complete failure. I do not 

know whether to say it is going to work. I think some of the elements of what they are doing have very little impact like the fanning of departures to the south. I think that is kind of a no-brainer 

in the New York area, but as far as how you increase departures 

out of that airspace and you do not impact other arrivals coming 

in and other overflights, I do not see that being addressed in this 

plan. It may be, but they have not briefed my organization on it. 

So that is probably the best answer I can give you on that. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. May, I do not know if you can really answer this 

or not, and Mr. Oberstar said that, you know, it is a very complicated system, and there are a lot of factors going into it. 

Is it, would you say, fundamentally that delays are caused by—

well, obviously, we have weather and things like that which are 

going to always be a factor, but are they problems specific to particular airports or to particular carriers? That is to say, once in a 

while, I suppose a carrier can lose control of its operations, and 

they have from time to time, and teams have to come in and 

straighten it out. So I suppose sometimes it is one way, and sometimes it is another. 

Looked at longer term from the point of view of the Nation, what 

do you think we can do to try to minimize, as far as humanly possible, these sorts of delays? 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Petri, I have said it before, and I will say it again. 

I think there is no single solution to the problem any more than 

there is a single cause to the problem. 

At the end of the day, we have extraordinary growth and demand. In New York City alone—I said it earlier—we are doing, you 

know, significantly more international destinations as well as domestic destinations. We are putting more flights on. There is real 

growth there, and it is not just a matter of overscheduling, and I 

would acknowledge there have been examples of overscheduling in 

New York, but it is overall demand in the system that is increasing. I think you have to take that into account. 

I think you have to take the need for the next generation system 

long-term. I think short-term we need to have a collaborative effort 

with Pat’s organization, the FAA, DOT and our guys and others to 

address some short-term solutions to the particular demands of 

that airspace. As I said, it is probably the single most complicated 

airspace in the world when you look at all of the different airports 

that are feeding it, both from an en route system on an OMB basis. 

So I do not know any better way to do it than what was suggested earlier in this hearing, which is to have all of the effective 

parties come in and sit down and try and work out a suite of solutions that are important, because at the end of the day, if we use 

artificial caps or some other kind of economic mechanism, your colleagues from New York are going to come to you, and they are 

going to say, ′′Wait a minute. Why is it that you guys are restraining those of us in New York, this great economic engine, from flying where we want to go and how we want to get there?′′ that is 

61

what we are enabling right now. We just have to do it in a more 

efficient and productive way. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Forrey, I think you were here when the Acting Administrator and I were engaging in a dialogue about overscheduling, and 

I was particularly impressed on how well you quantified it in your 

testimony. I just want to go back to one point where he seemed to 

disagree with you and with me, which is—you know, I said he 

seemed to imply that this is a very transitory problem. It is only 

a couple of hours, so what is the difference? You know, he said this 

gets cleaned out, but I mean, I think, as you pointed out, this can 

under optimal conditions cascade 3 or even 4 hours out in terms 

of delays, and obviously, with less than optimal conditions, it is 

going to be a mess. Is that a fair——

Mr. FORREY. I think your characterization of it is spot on. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I just happened to have been in a meeting 

with the manager of the San Francisco Airport yesterday where 

there is a growing problem. He has one major airline, United, 

bringing in about the same number of people it used to bring in 

on twice as many planes. Do you find that some of the congestion 

we are dealing with—I think we are talking about the number of 

RJs doubling, and regional transport folks are proud of that, but 

the problem is that a lot of that is supplanting what used to be 

mainline routes with larger planes. You just have a little—maybe 

you have more frequency to try and bring in the same number of 

people, but isn’t that causing also——

Mr. FORREY. I think it is—you know, I do not want to throw the 

regional jets under the bus, but you are getting fewer people coming in on an airplane. So, obviously, if you are going to bring the 

same number of people in on——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Except for weight turbulence, it is absorbing the 

same amount of space as a larger plane, correct? 

Mr. FORREY. Absolutely. When we used to have the props come 

in, you could off-load those on other runways, on shorter runways 

and everything. Now the RJs are just another jet. I mean it is. 

Now, if you have a heavy aircraft or even a large aircraft in front 

of an RJ, you need more space. You cannot use the 3 miles or even 

the 2-1/2 where you can do that at some airports, but that is the 

same thing with any large aircraft, heavy or anything else that you 

have. The RJs, sure, it is going to create those kinds of issues at 

those airports. If you schedule it properly—I will go back to that—

and spread it out throughout the day when you are not trying to 

jam everyone in there at the same time, it is probably less of an 

impact. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Now, Mr. Mitchell, when you were talking about business travelers, I kind of liked what you said. Bill Lipinski and I for years 

were talking about the ′′R′′ word. You said real leadership today or 

reregulation tomorrow. Bill and I were predicting that a number of 

years ago and used to applaud the industry, and then a few years 

ago when they were in big economic trouble, they said, ′′Well, 

62

maybe that is not a bad idea.′′ I think they are now back to where 

the free market is going to solve their problems here now that they 

have all gone bankrupt and have basically divested themselves of 

pensions and of other obligations, and you know, they are operating 

so efficiently. So I would like to put to you: 

What is the most important thing to a business traveler? Mr. 

May says business passengers demand frequent service. Now, is it 

frequent service on a schedule? Is that more important than, say, 

′′Gee, I really wanted to fly at 8:47, but you know, there is a plane 

at 9:30, and there is one at 8:00 that are actually going to go, but 

the one at 8:47 is going to be scheduled at a time when it will not 

go because we are overscheduled′′? Would realistic scheduling that 

is predictable be more important to business travelers? 

Like I say, in my job, it is the most important thing. I have got 

a very tight schedule. I have got to get where I am going or I miss 

a meeting or I miss boats or I miss doing things in the district. I 

assume that most business travelers feel that same pressure. 

Do you think they are demanding that planes be overbooked during a time period so they can just choose an exact moment they 

want, but in all likelihood it is going to be delayed? Do they like 

that? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, underlying what, I think, Mr. May was referring to in terms of business travelers demanding frequency is 

the fact that it is the old ′′S′′ curve thing in the airline industry 

where the competitor with the great number of frequencies reaps 

the disproportionate amount of the revenue and the profits. It is 

just an economic reality. 

Frequency is very important to business travelers, particularly in 

many of the large hub markets. However, what is paramount, only 

second to safety, is the reliability of the system, and that is what 

is at risk here. That is what is breaking down further every day. 

When we were leading into the year 2000 when we had a comparable situation where you could not rely on the system to get out 

to a meeting and back in the same day or simply to make a 9:00 

o’clock meeting sometime somewhere, you would go in the night before, and that is the kind of behavior that is back now. People are 

going out and are spending more time away from their families, incurring hotel bills and other expenses. So that is the critical thing 

at this point in time. It is the reliability of the system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You know, there are some services that provide 

some discreet information on delays, but they are nowhere near 

complete on a flight-by-flight basis. 

Would that be something useful for the government to require of 

the airlines that they make available an up-to-date percentage of 

on-time performance for every flight they offer? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. I mean it goes without saying that a consumer who has got complete and accurate information is going to 

make better choices and will actually drive the market, and I 

would say that there is yet another opportunity that may even be 

larger than that, and that is to show statistically, in some kind of 

graphic way, the relative efficiency of these various hubs so that, 

if you show that O’Hare is far less efficient from a business traveler’s standpoint than a competing hub, perhaps the traveler will 

63

then go through the other hub, and that is going to get the attention of the two hub carriers at O’Hare very, very quickly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Mr. MITCHELL. There is no reason that DOT could not produce 

that information. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So we are back to Adam Smith here, basically, that 

if we are going to run this with market forces in a competitive, free 

market system of capitalism, the consumers need perfect information or all information, better information? 

Mr. MITCHELL. They need better information, and there has to 

be a recognition that some markets work well and some markets 

do not work well, and I leave that up to the economists to say 

where this one is, but in a market that does not work particularly 

well, the premium is even greater on information to the consumer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging my overtime. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full 

Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Petri, 

for your patience in working through a long afternoon of an extensive list of witnesses and hearings and very important information. 

Mr. Principato, the airports are one of that three-legged stool 

that I talked about in addressing successfully the issue of capacity 

in our system. 

In the aftermath of September 11, airports put on hold a large 

number of AIP projects, capacity enhancement initiatives, in order 

to put the money into security. Some $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion in 

runway capacity projects was put on hold and the money shifted 

to security needs. None of that has been reimbursed to—I use that 

word loosely—has been repatriated to airports as I, at the time, 

suggested out of the DOD appropriation or out of the Homeland Security Department appropriation. None of that. You have had to 

issue PFCs. You have had to scale back on projects and still try to 

recapture some of that capacity. So, even if we gave you all the 

money in the world right now, you could not build all of that additional capacity this year or next year. It takes years to build, 

doesn’t it? 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. It does. It takes a long time. One of the best 

quotes on that is probably from Gina Marie Lindsey when she ran 

the Seattle airport. Maybe it was before this Committee she was 

testifying, and she said it took the Egyptians less time to build the 

pyramids at Giza than it is taking her to build her runway in Seattle. It takes an awful long time. You are right. It is not going to 

happen in just a year or two, but we want to begin now to try to 

catch up. You are right. We put a lot of projects on hold. We want 

to catch up. 

The new runway in Atlanta was referenced earlier by the earlier 

panel. Thirty more arrivals per hour, I think is the figure, and it 

is not only service to more communities but is certainly a more efficient use of that airfield, and then the round taxiway there, again, 

is a more efficient use of the airfield. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A footnote to your comment about Seattle is that 

I am not quite sure about the time it took to build the pyramids 

64

in Egypt, but I do know this, that from the time the planning 

began for the crosswind runway at Seattle, the 8,700-foot runway, 

until the time actual work began on the runway, Hong Kong built 

two 12,500-foot runways in the ocean at a depth of 600 meters and 

a terminal to accommodate 90 million passengers a year and had 

aircraft operating and a 23-mile connector rail, truck and passenger vehicle to downtown Hong Kong before Seattle got its runway out there. That is why we included permit streamlining in the 

2003 aviation bill. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. But there are limitations. You cannot add runway 

capacity at Newark—we had this discussion with the previous 

panel—unless you build it in the Passaic River. It is not a very 

good option. 

There is no ability to add capacity, runway capacity, at La 

Guardia, is there, or at JFK for that matter——

Mr. PRINCIPATO. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —or a Teterboro? 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You do have capacity at Stewart, and you have 

some potential capacity at Atlantic City. That is going to take airlines routing traffic into Atlantic City. It is going to take ground 

capacity to serve Atlantic City. It can be done and it should be 

done and it needs to be done, and we will create the additional capacity. 

Now, Mr. Mitchell, from the years when your organization went 

from the National Passenger Traffic Coalition to the National Business Travelers Association, you supported the passenger facility 

charge in the anticipation that it would add to capacity, but roughly 23 percent of PFCs have gone into air side capacity over the 16 

years that it has been in operation. We have put increased pressure on airports. The existing bill passed the House to invest more 

funds. 

What opportunities do you see for airport air side capacity to provide relief to the congestion problem? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think you may be confusing two different organizations. We have never commented on PFCs or——

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am sorry. I thought you had. I thought you had. 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. I think that might be another group, so I 

would defer to the other experts on the panel. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will answer the question myself. 

We expect the airports to do that, Mr. Principato. 

Mr. PRINCIPATO. If I could just say, we have heard you loud and 

clear on that point, and have talked to you, of course, many times 

this year. 

I think the other thing that is important to know is that the terminal projects, of course, are more expensive than runway projects 

for a variety of reasons, and there are actually more air side 

projects being funded with PFCs that are ongoing right now than 

terminal projects because the terminal projects cost so much more 

that the dollar figures are out of balance, and as to the air side 

projects that are planned into the future for PFCs that are on the 

books now and that are approved, there are far more air side 

projects than terminal projects. 

65

The industry is hearing you loud and clear on that, but I do want 

to make sure that it is said that, because terminal projects are so 

much more expensive than air side projects, the dollar figures are 

out of balance with the number of projects that are going on. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, following up, Mr. Mitchell, on Mr. DeFazio’s 

question to you about when business travelers want to travel and, 

Mr. May, your members and their scheduling flights, if you got together and if the airlines provided some incentives to business 

travelers to use less attractive periods of the day with a financial 

incentive attached to it, that would provide some incentive, 

wouldn’t it, Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. It certainly would, and it might help on the margins. It is already sort of in the airline pricing today. If a flight is 

at 3:00 o’clock—and traditionally, it has 50 percent load factors—

there are natural incentives to be very, very price competitive on 

that flight. 

I think that the reality is that we are going to have to do something to level off demand. The options are, you know, slot controls, 

auctions and congestion pricing, perhaps changing from weightbased landing fees to passenger fees. These are all extraordinarily 

complex economic concepts that you can debate on either side. Both 

sides of an issue, you know, can win on any given day. I just think 

we need some real expertise, neutral expertise, to wade through 

this. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have that expertise right here at this table. 

Mr. May, who bears the cost burden of congestion pricing? 

Mr. MAY. I think, ultimately, the passenger will bear the burden 

of——

Mr. OBERSTAR. But up front it is the airline? 

Mr. MAY. Up front it will be, but you know, congestion pricing, 

as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is little more than an economic 

transference of wealth from one party to another, and it is not necessarily going to affect consumer behavior. If a businessman needs 

to fly at 5:00 o’clock in the evening to London out of JFK to make 

an important meeting, then all that congestion pricing is going to 

do is to put a premium on that ticket. 

As to the other suggestion that we look for ways, we say with 

great affection to you, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to raise our 

prices, not lower our prices for our tickets. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you are doing a very good job of that. That 

is for sure. 

Mr. MAY. I wish we were doing a much better job. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And it is not moving the travel along. 

Now, you know, because you have been through this situation—

and I have cited several times—that you cannot have 57 flights all 

depart DFW at 7:00 a.m. Air traffic controllers cannot move that 

many aircraft departing at 7:00 a.m. 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Forrey has been reminding me of that ever since 

we have been sitting here, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. MAY. We have committed to sit down and to discuss scheduling but I would point out, in JFK’s instance in particular, there 

are about 80 airlines that are flying in and out of JFK. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is right. 

66

Mr. MAY. There is a huge demand coming on international because of the U.S.-EU agreements, and that is going to complicate 

our life significantly, and if we put artificial restrictions on flying 

in and out of there, the places that are going to suffer the most are 

the smaller communities and the underserved communities right 

now. So we just need to make sure we understand what the consequence is of all of these discussions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, as I discussed earlier—and you heard the 

discussion with Mr. Sturgell—the FAA has the authority to convene airlines and to work out scheduling. 

Mr. MAY. They do not, Mr. Chairman, have the antitrust——

Mr. OBERSTAR. But you do not need an antitrust exemption to do 

these things. 

Mr. MAY. Yes, sir. I would very respectfully——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, I think in the short-term you can reach accommodations, and we do not need to add—we did for a very brief 

period of time provide antitrust exemption, but it can be done in 

a way that is less cumbersome and that raises less concern about 

the outcome than to have antitrust exemption, and you can come 

together to discuss scheduling and to avoid that problem of the airlines that say, ′′Well, you are asking me, but you are not asking 

the others to make a sacrifice.′′ I cannot blame an airline like—I 

do not know where I have that specific language—but that says we 

do not want to—here we are. 

The delay reduction actions: ′′the Secretary of Transportation 

may request air carriers meet with the Administrator of the FAA 

to discuss flight reductions at severely congested airports to reduce 

overscheduling and flight delays during hours of peak operations.′′

Mr. MAY. Correct. 

My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that when they did O’Hare, for 

example—Chairman Costello is particularly familiar with this, as 

are you—there was a reason they had to use shuttle discussion, 

and that was because they did not have the antitrust authority to 

put both American and United in the room at the same time, and 

there is an airport where two very dominant carriers were in the 

operation. At JFK, you do not have that same dynamic, and there 

are lots and lots of different parties, some of them foreign flag. 

All I am pointing out is not an interest or a willingness to sit 

down and come up with an answer to the challenge, but it is a far 

more difficult legal environment than it was at O’Hare. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, tomorrow, apparently, the President is 

going to convene a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation 

and with the FAA and will discuss the congestion problem and the 

air traffic delays, and he may have some observations. 

Is there anything more that we could have done in the bill that 

we passed in the House to address delays? 

Mr. MAY. Specific to delays, I do not know, because I think what 

we are talking about is shorter term issues between now and this 

Christmas. I think those are administrative and operational kinds 

of challenges that we need to take on, and I think it is going to 

take a fully cooperative effort between the FAA, the controllers, 

airlines, reports, and others to address that. 

67

Mr. OBERSTAR. Right. Maybe the President has a rabbit in his 

hat that he is going to pull out, and the rabbit is going to be implementing NextGen in the next 6 months. 

Mr. MAY. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to 

hear an announcement on caps for both JFK and Newark, and as 

I said earlier, when you have artificial constraints of that sort——

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is going to have an economic consequence in 

raising costs and in reducing opportunities for travel. 

Mr. MAY. That is exactly right, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank each member of the panel. 

Ms. Hanni, thank you for the work that you have done on behalf 

of your coalition. You have really inspired Members of Congress to 

respond, and you have made it possible for us to include improvements in this legislation for air travelers during periods of delays. 

Ms. Hanni. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank Chairman Oberstar, and I thank our witnesses today. 

I just wonder, Mr. Forrey. Are you invited to the meeting tomorrow with the President and the Secretary? 

Mr. FORREY. What meeting? No. 

Mr. COSTELLO. As I said earlier, we were pleased with the announcement by Delta that they are looking at their scheduling at 

JFK and will reduce the number of flights. I think that is a step 

in the right direction. I think the Administrator’s observation was 

the right observation, and I think the Acting Administrator’s decision and announcement the other day that they are going to sit 

down with the airlines and try and take a look at scheduling to address the problem—I think all of those things are a step in the 

right direction, and we look forward to hearing from the President 

tomorrow, and we hope that it involves a cooperative agreement between some of our airlines reducing flights in congested areas and 

taking action that is necessary to address this problem. We thank 

you. 

Let me say to Ms. Hanni, as Chairman Oberstar said, we not 

only thank you but your members for your active involvement, and 

I would tell you that we are only halfway through the process, and 

I would encourage you to spend time over on the other side of the 

Capitol, in the other body, to inspire them and to make certain that 

they take a look at H.R. 2881. If they do, we think that if those 

provisions are contained in a final legislation signed by the President that it will go a long way to helping passengers in the future. 

With that, we again thank all of our witnesses for being here 

today. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

68


38169.013
69


38169.014
70


38169.015
71


38169.016
72


38169.017
73


38169.018
74


38169.019
75


38169.020
76


38169.021
77


38169.022
78


38169.023
79


38169.024
80


38169.025
81


38169.026
82


38169.027
83


38169.028
84


38169.029
85


38169.030
86


38169.031
87


38169.032
88


38169.033
89


38169.034
90


38169.035
91


38169.036
92


38169.037
93


38169.038
94


38169.039
95


38169.040
96


38169.041
97


38169.042
98


38169.043
99


38169.044
100


38169.045
101


38169.046
102


38169.047
103


38169.048
104


38169.049
105


38169.050
106


38169.051
107


38169.052
108


38169.053
109


38169.054
110


38169.055
111


38169.056
112


38169.057
113


38169.058
114


38169.059
115


38169.060
116


38169.061
117


38169.062
118


38169.063
119


38169.064
120


38169.065
121


38169.066
122


38169.067
123


38169.068
124


38169.069
125


38169.070
126


38169.071
127


38169.072
128


38169.073
129


38169.074
130


38169.075
131


38169.076
132


38169.077
133


38169.078
134


38169.079
135


38169.080
136


38169.081
137


38169.082
138


38169.083
139


38169.084
140


38169.085
141


38169.086
142


38169.087
143


38169.088
144


38169.089
145


38169.090
146


38169.091
147


38169.092
148


38169.093
149


38169.094
150


38169.095
151


38169.096
152


38169.097
153


38169.098
154


38169.099
155


38169.100
156


38169.101
157


38169.102
158


38169.103
159


38169.104
160


38169.105
161


38169.106
162


38169.107
163


38169.108
164


38169.109
165


38169.110
166


38169.111
167


38169.112
168


38169.113
169


38169.114
170


38169.115
171


38169.116
172


38169.117
173


38169.118
174


38169.119
175


38169.120
176


38169.121
177


38169.122
178


38169.123
179


38169.124
180


38169.125
181


38169.126
182


38169.127
183


38169.128
184


38169.129
185


38169.130
186


38169.131
187


38169.132
188


38169.133
189


38169.134
190


38169.135
191


38169.136
192


38169.137
193


38169.138
194


38169.139
195


38169.140
196


38169.141
197


38169.142
198


38169.143
199


38169.144
200


38169.145
201


38169.146
202


38169.147
203


38169.148
204


38169.149
205


38169.150
206


38169.151
207


38169.152
208


38169.153
209


38169.154
210


38169.155
211


38169.156
212


38169.157
213


38169.158
214


38169.159
215


38169.160
216


38169.161
217


38169.162
218


38169.163
219


38169.164
220


38169.165
221


38169.166
222


38169.167
223


38169.168
224


38169.169
225


38169.170
226


38169.171
227


38169.172
228


38169.173
229


38169.174
230


38169.175
231


38169.176
232


38169.177
233


38169.178
234


38169.179
235


38169.180
236


38169.181
237


38169.182
238


38169.183
239


38169.184
240


38169.185
241


38169.186
242


38169.187
243


38169.188
244


38169.189
245


38169.190
246


38169.191
247


38169.192
248


38169.193
249


38169.194
250


38169.195
251


38169.196
252


38169.197
253


38169.198
254


38169.199
255


38169.200
256


38169.201
257


38169.202
258


38169.203
259


38169.204
260


38169.205
261


38169.206
262


38169.207
263


38169.208
264


38169.209
265


38169.210
266


38169.211
267


38169.212
268


38169.213
269


38169.214
270


38169.215
271


38169.216
272


38169.217
273


38169.218
274


38169.219
275


38169.220
276


38169.221
277


38169.222
278


38169.223
279


38169.224
280


38169.225
281


38169.226
282


38169.227
283


38169.228
284


38169.229
285


38169.230
286


38169.231
287


38169.232
288


38169.233
289

Æ


38169.234