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

44–742 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–698 

A REVIEW OF THE AIRSPACE REDESIGN PROJECT 

AND FLIGHT SCHEDULING PRACTICES AT THE 

PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

APRIL 25, 2008—PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHARLES KIEFFER, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

PETER ROGOFF

WILLIAM SIMPSON

MEAGHAN L. MCCARTHY

RACHEL MILBERG

JON KAMARCK (Minority) 

MATTHEW MCCARDLE (Minority) 

ELLEN BEARES (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

TERI CURTIN
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Arlen Specter ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation ..................................................... 3 

Steve Kelley, Program Manager, Airport Redesign Project ................................. 3 

Mary McCarthy, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared Statement of Robert A. Sturgell ............................................................. 4 

Congestion and Delays—Understanding the Problem .......................................... 4 

Airspace Redesign Overview ................................................................................... 5 

Airspace Redesign Project Implementation ........................................................... 5 

Complementary Solutions—Enhancing Capacity ................................................. 6 

Complementary Solutions—NextGen ..................................................................... 7 

Complementary Solutions—New York ARC .......................................................... 7 

Environmental Stewardship ................................................................................... 8 

Statement of David James Gribbin, General Counsel, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 9 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 11 

The Problem ............................................................................................................. 11 

DOT Actions ............................................................................................................. 12 

Addressing the Problem and Not the Symptom .................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg ......................................... 20 

Operations During Peak Hours .............................................................................. 21 

Statement of Hon. Michael Nutter, Mayor, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

PA .......................................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 30 

Introductory Remarks ............................................................................................. 30 

Airport Update ......................................................................................................... 30 

New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia FAA Airspace Redesign .............................. 30 

Flight Scheduling Practices .................................................................................... 31 

Aviation Delays ........................................................................................................ 35 

Prepared Statement of Bryan R. Lentz, Pennsylvania State Representative .... 44 

Statement of Representative Joe Sestak, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Pennsylvania, Seventh District ........................................................................... 45 

Statement of John J. Whelan, Vice Chairman, Delaware County Council ......... 48 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 50 

Statement of Patrick Forrey, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association .................................................................................................................... 52 

Don Chapman, National Air Traffic Controller Association’s Facility Representative ............................................................................................................ 52 

Prepared Statement of Patrick Forrey ................................................................... 55 

Air Traffic Issues of Concern to the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area ................. 55 

De-Combination of Philadelphia Tower and TRACON ......................................... 56 

Dispersal Headings .................................................................................................. 57 

Airline Over-scheduling ........................................................................................... 58 

Air Traffic Controller Staffing and the Effect of the Imposed Work Rules ........ 59 

Statement of Stephen S. Aichele, Chairman, Saul Ewing, Representing the 

Philadelphia CEO Council for Growth ............................................................... 61 

Prepared Statement of Mark Schweiker, President and CEO, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce; Chairman of the CEO Council for Growth ... 63 

Statement of John Meenan, Executive Vice President and Chief Operations 

Officer, Air Transport Association of America ................................................... 65 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 68 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE AIRSPACE REDESIGN 

PROJECT AND FLIGHT SCHEDULING PRACTICES AT THE PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT 

FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Philadelphia, PA. 

The subcommittee met at 3:50 p.m., at the National Constitution 

Center, 525 Arch Street, Independence Mall, Kirby Auditorium, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter presiding. 

Present: Senator Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

Senator SPECTER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It’s 

3:50, the scheduled time for this hearing on the Philadelphia International Airport. At the outset, I thank the chairperson and the 

ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations, Senator Murray and Senator Bond, for authorizing the hearing. 

I am a member of the subcommittee, and of course, of the full 

Appropriations Committee. I regret the necessity of having to delay 

the hearing, but I appreciate your accommodating my schedule, it 

was a matter of necessity. 

The Philadelphia Airport is a very vital part of this region, 

southeastern Pennsylvania, really, to the middle part of the State, 

much of New Jersey, the State of Delaware—very, very important 

to the commerce of the city, the private activities of so many passengers. 

It serves some 29 airlines, providing 700 daily departures to more than 100 domestic and international cities, and has a $14 billion impact on the region. 

Philadelphia ranks 9th in the Nation and 10th in the world in 

the number of flights that it handles. Regrettably, 2007, Philadelphia ranked 29 out of the 32 major domestic airports in terms of 

on-time departures, with slightly less than a 70 percent on-time 

flight rating, and 28 out of 32, in terms of on-time arrivals, with 

only 66.5 percent of flights arriving on time. 

The subject matter of today’s hearings will take up the overflights over Delaware County, which have understandably created 

grave concern by the residents of that area, who have been impacted by the noise. The commitment has been made by the FAA, 
2 

that on the overflights from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 7 p.m., 

that there would be no overflights unless there were more than 10 

planes backed up. 

According to air traffic controllers, planes are sent over Delaware 

County as a first option, even when no other planes are waiting to 

take off, meaning that the overflights are being used as primary 

routes, not reliever routes, as the FAA earlier had indicated. 

We have had extensive correspondence with Acting Administrator Sturgell, who has been very cooperative in responding to the 

questions which we have had. We have had meetings with both Mr. 

Sturgell, and Mr. Kelley—(Air Controller Chief), on these issues— 

and have emphasized the need to have more done on this issue. 

And we’re going to explore that on the public record here today. 

And we have Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell, and Mr. 

Gribbin, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation. 

With respect to the overcrowding, the situation appears to me to 

be enormously serious—it’s like a restaurant with 100 seats and 

has 175 bookings, so what would you expect? People come for a 

7:45 reservation. 

The testimony of the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Patrick Forrey, on September 7, 2007, commented that Philadelphia is able to handle 12 or 13 departing aircraft per quarter hour, under optimal conditions, yet 15 flights are 

scheduled to depart from 9:45 a.m. to 10 a.m., another 15 from 

10:00 to 10:15, and 17 from 10:15 to 10:30. So that, in the course 

of a 45-minute timeframe, you have 47 flights scheduled to depart. 

I think I’ve been on those most of the time. 

According to Mr. Forrey’s testimony, 19 aircraft were scheduled 

to depart from 5:45 p.m. to 6 p.m., 18 from 6:00 to 6:15, 17 from 

6:15 to 6:30. 

Now, we want to really say what the overall picture looks like, 

and in our discussions—which, I appreciate, again, with Administrator Sturgell, and others, and we had a hearing before the full 

subcommittee in Washington last week, where some of these matters were aired—it may be that the Department of Transportation 

needs additional authority from Congress. 

Additional authority from Congress to give them the power to 

limit the number of flights which can come in and which can take 

off. And my sense of the Congress is that we would be willing to 

do that, because it is a very serious national problem—Philadelphia 

is only one part of it, but a very serious part of it, because of the 

size of our city. 

We appreciate the witnesses coming in today, and we will begin 

with the Honorable Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Mr. Sturgell, we’re going to limit your time to 5 minutes, we 

have quite an array of witnesses, and will enable us to have more 

time for dialogue, questions and answers. Thank you for joining us 

and the floor is yours. 
3 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

STEVE KELLEY, PROGRAM MANAGER, AIRPORT REDESIGN 

PROJECT 

MARY McCARTHY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. STURGELL. Senator Specter, thank you for inviting me and 

my colleague, D.J. Gribbin, the Department’s General Counsel, to 

discuss these issues today. 

The New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia Airspace Redesign 

Project is vital to the safety and efficiency of our national airspace 

system. As you indicated, in 2007 we did see record flight delays 

across the country—the system is stretched to the limit. 

Against this backdrop, the Redesign Project is a crucial piece of 

the solution—both near-term and long-term. We estimate that by 

2011, when Airspace Redesign is fully implemented and complete, 

we’ll see a 20 percent reduction in delay. It’s expected to reduce annual operating costs by $248 million, and severe weather delay 

costs by another $37 million. In the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia region alone, this could yield economic benefits to air carriers, passengers, and local businesses, of $7 to $9 billion. 

We’re not just doing this on our own. For the past 10 years, and at a cost of $53 million in appropriated funds, we’ve been studying 

and evaluating the airspace—for the pilots, for the airlines, for our 

controllers, and ultimately for the traveling public. 

And we have done our best to involve the public—the public that 

lives by this airport, and the public that uses this airport. With the 

input from the surrounding community, the airport operators, the 

carriers, the local businesses, the traveling public, I think we’ve 

been able to structure the airspace redesigns, so that we can balance the savings in time, money and delay reduction, with the environmental impact. 

I recognize and appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, which 

is why we’ve made extensive efforts over the past years to involve 

all of the affected communities. We’ve held over 120 public meetings throughout the region, published newsletters, considered the 

comments, and maintained a dedicated website with all of the relevant information. 

I want to emphasize that, not only did we conduct this public 

outreach, but we listened to what people had to say. Before we 

made any final decisions, we considered all of the feedback from 

the community, and we took it seriously. We went back to the 

drawing board, to design environmental mitigation measures into 

airspace redesign. 

So, I’d like to put this into context for you. The chart that’s being 

displayed, in grey, you will see the seven departure headings that 

we originally considered for Philadelphia going out to the west. 

They were part of what I call a ‘‘operationally ideal’’ plan. If we 

had our way, and were it only about air traffic, those are the seven 

headings we proposed, and would use—to give us the maximum 

flexibility to handle the traffic. 
4 

This second map shows the noise impact that would have occurred if—and I stress, if—we had implemented those seven headings without community—— 

Senator SPECTER. Would you please bring the chart and set it 

right between the, in front of the flags? 

Mr. STURGELL. You bet. 

So, the yellow, orange, and red-colored areas show the noise increases, while the purple-colored areas show noise decreases. 

Again, this is the noise level we would have seen if we hadn’t been 

acting on the comments and concerns of the community. I want to 

make it very clear that this map does not show what the FAA ultimately decided to implement. 

The second heading chart that you’ll see, after community input, 

this is, in fact, what we are actually implementing. We’re only 

going to implement three of those departure headings, as a direct 

result of the community input we’ve received. And then the noise 

map from those three headings. Once again, the yellow areas show 

an increase in noise, the purple areas, a decrease. As you can see, 

the areas affected by increased noise are substantially smaller, and 

we even have areas that currently hear airport noise showing an 

ultimate decrease in noise. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to reiterate that we recognize the sensitivity of these 

issues, and the delicate balance that must be struck. How do you 

relieve congestion delays without causing too great of an environmental impact? The FAA believes that we achieve the balance of 

interests with this redesign project, and we’ve done it by listening 

to, and hearing the input from the interested stakeholders. 

Senator, this concludes my prepared remarks, I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Sturgell. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. STURGELL

Senator Specter and Senator Casey: Thank you for inviting me to appear here 

today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) New York/New Jersey/ 

Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign (Airspace Redesign Project), a 

project that is vital to the safety and efficiency of our national airspace system 

(NAS). My colleague, D.J. Gribbin, the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, is also here to discuss airline flight scheduling practices at Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). 

CONGESTION AND DELAYS—UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

Growing congestion and delays in our aviation system are a serious threat to the 

U.S. economy and our quality of life. Successfully addressing this threat will require 

us to embrace new solutions and acknowledge that pursuit of status quo policies will 

do little, if anything, to reverse the substantial decline in system performance that 

we have experienced in recent years. While we are enjoying a record level of safety, 

we are at a critical point with congestion and delays. 

To give you some perspective, let me draw a national and regional framework. According to FAA Air Traffic Operations Network (OPSNET) data, in 2007, there were 

46,495,785 total air traffic control center operations in the United States. Approximately one-third of the Nation’s flights and one-sixth of the world’s flights either 

start or traverse the airspace that supports the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

(NY/NJ/PHL) region. 

During this same time period, we saw record delays in flights across the country. 

For calendar year 2007, delays were up approximately 10 percent nationwide, com-
5 

pared with calendar year 2006. Eighteen of our Nation’s largest airports, including 

PHL, have returned to their highest pre-9/11 commercial passenger levels. Throughout all of this, the FAA’s primary goal is one of safety, separating aircraft in the 

airspace so that they can navigate safely. In an airspace that is already operating 

at, or even beyond, capacity, any disruption, be it weather or equipment difficulties, 

requires the FAA to institute measures that can often translate into delays. From 

May 1–August 31, 2007 alone, we saw a total of 210,443 delays totaling 9,808,347 

minutes throughout the system. Of those, 77.6 percent occurred in the NY/NJ/PHL 

region. OPSNET data indicates that 72 percent of delays were caused by weather, 

while 14 percent were caused by volume, with the remaining delays were due to 

other causes (e.g., equipment outages, runway construction, etc.). Our aviation system is stretched to the limit. 

As we seek solutions to the problem of congestion and delays, we must recognize 

that aviation is one of the most complex industries in the world, consisting of an 

extremely intricate web of infrastructure, technology, and people. The FAA is addressing the congestion and delays problem in a variety of ways, with new technologies and procedures immediately, and in the long-term with the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), which will transform the aviation system 

and how we control air traffic. We must be able to handle the demands of the future 

for aviation travel, projected to be one billion passengers by 2015. The Airspace Redesign Project is a crucial piece of the solution to the congestion and delays problem. 

AIRSPACE REDESIGN OVERVIEW

The Airspace Redesign Project is the culmination of over 9 years of study and 

evaluation by the FAA to address congestion and delays at some of our Nation’s 

busiest airports. The complexity of the airspace in the NY/NJ/PHL area and its importance to the Nation cannot be overstated. There are 5 major airports (John F. 

Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, Newark Liberty International 

Airport, Teterboro Airport, and Philadelphia International Airport) and 16 other airports in the region that were studied as part of the Airspace Redesign Project. There 

are approximately 15 other commercial service, general aviation, reliever, or military airports that are located in the region, but were not individually studied as 

part of the Airspace Redesign Project. From an air traffic control (ATC) perspective, 

the sky can look like an anthill over each major airport, with hundreds of planes 

in transit, arriving, or departing at any given moment. For example, only a few 

miles separates the streams of arrivals at Newark and La Guardia, southbound La 

Guardia departures are ‘‘climbed over’’ Newark arrivals, and the approach path to 

La Guardia can depend in part on runway use at Kennedy; this represents only a 

fraction of the activity. This interdependency means that Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL) departures are frequently delayed because of volume in New York. 

As noted above, one-third of the Nation’s flights and one-sixth of the world’s flights 

either starts or traverses the airspace, making an already intricately choreographed 

system even more complex. 

The goal of the Airspace Redesign Project, then, is to enhance the efficiency and 

reliability of the airspace structure and the ATC system for pilots, airlines, and the 

traveling public. The project modernizes the structure of the NY/NJ/PHL air traffic 

environment in an environmentally responsible manner, while laying a foundation 

for NextGen. Moreover, it will accommodate growth while enhancing safety and reducing delays by 20 percent in the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area. From an environmental standpoint, by 2011, this project is expected to reduce noise levels for 

619,023 people who currently experience noise at or above 45 dB DNL, and reduce 

fuel burn and, in turn, emissions by the airlines. 

The FAA’s experience with the 2005 Florida Airspace Redesign emphasizes how 

these efforts save time and money, by successfully addressing delays. FAA calculates that in its first year, the redesign has reduced delays, reduced reroutes, and 

reduced foreign fees attributable to reroutes in the amount of $22.5 million in direct 

operating costs (e.g., fuel, crew, and hourly maintenance costs) for traffic inbound 

to South Florida and $11.7 million for traffic outbound from South Florida. In the 

Caribbean, a savings of $400,000 has been realized due to reduced reroutes and 

international user fees. The benefits of the Florida Airspace Redesign total almost 

$35 million annually. 

AIRSPACE REDESIGN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project is estimated to take 5 years, and 

will progress along four qualitatively different stages. Overall, the project represents 

an innovative approach to airspace design in the NY/NJ/PHL area. Air traffic rules 

differ between the ‘‘terminal,’’ or ‘‘en route,’’ or ‘‘center’’ environments. For example, 
6 

‘‘terminal’’ airspace has 3 nautical mile separation of aircraft criteria, while ‘‘en 

route’’ airspace uses 5 mile criteria. The project expands the terminal airspace over 

a larger geographical area than is currently designated, and expands it vertically 

up to 23,000 feet above mean sea level in some areas. Some airspace sectors that 

are currently worked in the en route or center environment, upon full implementation of the project, will be worked using terminal rules and terminal equipment. Expanding the terminal airspace permits ATC to use terminal separation rules as well 

as the more flexible terminal holding rules over this larger area, providing ATC 

with more flexibility. This ‘‘terminalization’’ of the airspace also permits ATC to incorporate expanded departure gates and to separate arrival and departure flows in 

the NY/NJ/PHL metropolitan areas, increasing the efficiency of the airspace. Practically speaking, this means that ATC can sequence aircraft further out from the 

airports, where there is more space to do so. This makes the flow of air traffic more 

efficient, even when there’s bad weather. 

Reconfiguring the airspace will enable the FAA to take several direct actions to 

take advantage of improved aircraft performance and emerging ATC technologies. 

Leveraging these technologies, the FAA can implement new and modified ATC procedures, including dispersal headings, multiple departure gates and simplified arrival procedures by 2011. The FAA will also use these technologies to employ noise 

mitigation measures, such as use of continuous descent approaches (CDA), and raising arrival altitudes. 

Implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project will be able to make use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), 

which collectively result in improved safety, access, predictability, and operational 

efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts. RNAV operations remove the 

requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid (i.e. flying only from radar beacon to radar beacon), thereby allowing 

aircraft greater access to better routes and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations. By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in efficiency. 

RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function. 

This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater 

access to airports in challenging terrain. RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport. It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate 

airports. While not all of these benefits may apply to every community affected by 

the Airspace Redesign Project, RNAV and RNP may prove useful in helping to reduce overall noise and aggregate emissions. 

The FAA has explored and will include several mitigation strategies to reduce the 

impact of the new routings on the underlying communities. We are instituting several measures in response to the concerns raised at the numerous public meeting 

that we have had for this project in the Philadelphia area. These measures include 

a reduction in the number of dispersal headings (33 percent in the east configuration and 50 percent in the west configuration), as well as time of day restrictions 

to help minimize the impacts on the surrounding residents. To illustrate, one of the 

mitigation measures is that during nighttime hours, we return to a one heading departure procedure to minimize the impacts while continuing aviation service to the 

community. 

The Airspace Redesign Project is very large and complex and the implementation 

will take several years. There will be four stages of the implementation, distinguished by the degree of airspace realignment and facility changes required to support each of the overlying operational enhancements. As noted above, implementation is estimated to take at least 5 years, with each stage taking approximately 12– 

18 months to complete. 

COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS—ENHANCING CAPACITY

Rest assured, however, that we are not simply relying upon redesigning the airspace to address the congestion in this region. Our preference is to expand capacity 

in order to meet demand. Philadelphia currently has two projects underway that 

would address this issue. 

On April 29, 2005, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Runway 17–35 Extension 

Project was signed. The ROD provided environmental clearance to extend Runway 

17–35 by 640 feet to the north and 400 feet to the south to a new length of 6,500 

feet. This project will include standard runway safety areas and will maintain the 

existing ship notification procedure with regard to ships in the Delaware River. The 

project also includes extension of the parallel taxiways to the east and west of Run-
7 

way 17–35, a new high-speed exit taxiway, a new holding apron, and relocation of 

1,000 parking spaces. 

The Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) is a major airfield redevelopment 

project aimed at enhancing airport capacity in order to accommodate current and 

future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area during all weather 

conditions. It is a more comprehensive, long-term solution. Two on-airport construction alternatives have been determined to be reasonable and feasible and will meet 

the project purpose and need. Both alternatives are in a parallel configuration with 

an additional southern runway. Each will provide for the capability of simultaneous 

aircraft arrivals or departures in bad weather conditions. Both alternatives are 

being examined as part of the ongoing EIS being prepared by the FAA. A Draft EIS 

is tentatively scheduled to be released in late Summer 2008. 

COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS—NEXTGEN

Additionally, our NextGen efforts will help with congestion relief in the long-term. 

To maximize the benefits as soon as possible, we have expedited implementation of 

some of the latest air traffic control technology at airports in the Philadelphia and 

New York region. With Philadelphia and New York airspace so interdependent, 

technologies deployed in one airport in the region will have a beneficial ‘‘cascade’’ 

effect on the others. Thus, deployment of technology and other solutions at JFK that 

reduce congestion means fewer delays at PHL. 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B), the backbone of 

NextGen, is a satellite-based technology that broadcasts aircraft identification, position, and speed with once-per-second updates (as compared to the current 5 to 12 

second refresh from today’s radar). While a time savings of 4 to 11 seconds may 

seem brief to some, this savings actually allows for far greater accuracy in determining aircraft position. Philadelphia has been selected as an initial key site for the 

installation of ADS–B. Philadelphia is scheduled to have coverage both in terminal 

airspace and on the airport surface by February 2010. 

Improvements at PHL can come from NextGen technologies at neighboring airports. At JFK, we have accelerated the installation of the Airport Surface Detection 

Equipment—Model X (ASDE–X) system, which provides the surface surveillance 

necessary to reduce runway incursions and can allow airport users and operators 

collaborative surveillance of aircraft so that everyone has the same picture of the 

airport and aircraft. The schedule for ASDE–X has been accelerated by 1 year, and 

the additional surface surveillance planned for collaborative decision making is 

being developed and installed at the same time. It is anticipated that the ASDE– 

X installation and additional surveillance tools will be operational by August 2008, 

with PHL scheduled for installation in 2009. 

The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) aids controllers sequencing aircraft 

through en route airspace into major terminals. This system calculates a specific 

time for each aircraft to cross a fixed point in the airport landing route and also 

considers minimum safe distances between aircraft. Appropriate direction to pilots 

are then provided using that data, allowing arrival streams to take better advantage 

of available landing slots. The FAA plans to expand deployment of this tool and integrate arrivals and departures in the New York area in July 2008, and plan to include a demonstration of the incorporation of enhanced weather detection and prediction into TMA in 2008. 

COMPLEMENTARY SOLUTIONS—NEW YORK ARC

Further, in response to the growing delays in the NY/NJ/PHL area, the President, 

Secretary Peters, and I met to discuss the unacceptable impact these delays were 

having on the Nation’s airspace. We formed a New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to work with industry and community stakeholders to come up with 

a list of potential solutions. My colleague, D.J. Gribbin, will provide more detail on 

this, but I would like to touch briefly here on some of those results. 

On December 19, the Secretary announced a number of steps being taken in New 

York as a result. These steps include a cap on scheduled operations at JFK, planned 

caps on scheduled operations at Newark, a list of 77 operational improvements to 

reduce congestion in the region, and establishment of a New York airspace czar. 

Many of these solutions can be implemented in the short-term, but longer-term efforts such as airspace redesign and NextGen will also be required in order to address the problems in this congested airspace. To date, we have completed 8 of the 

77 identified operational improvements, and we expect to complete an additional 9 

by this summer. We are working closely with the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey and the stakeholders to prioritize the remaining 60 items, which are 

either long-term projects or items that are under review for feasibility, and expect 
8 

to finalize the priority list this summer. Because the NY/NJ airports share common 

routes with Philadelphia, and are in many ways interdependent, there will be direct 

benefits to Philadelphia as operational improvements are put into place in NY and 

NJ. 

Beginning March 30, as a short-term solution, airlines agreed to cap operations 

at JFK at either 82 or 83 operations per hour, depending on the time of day. These 

caps will be in place through October 2009 and follow the conclusion of a schedule 

reduction meeting we held with the air carriers and airport authority. Hourly limits 

are also planned for Newark. On March 18, FAA published a proposed order limiting total operations at that airport at an average of 83 per hour. We propose to 

implement those caps on June 1. Additionally, on April 16, the Secretary announced 

a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for LaGuardia Airport. 

This proposed rule follows the FAA’s original congestion management proposal, 

dated August 29, 2006. Like the NPRM, the SNPRM would maintain an hourly cap 

at the airport and ‘‘grandfather’’ a majority of the existing Operating Authorizations 

to the carriers serving the airport today. However, we have decided to withdraw 

that part of the proposal that would require aircraft upgauging, which was not favorably received by most commenters. 

The SNPRM incorporates the use of auctions at the airport. Under the proposal, 

up to 36 slots would be auctioned each year, for the first 5 years of the rule. We 

believe that auctioning off a portion of the existing capacity will create a monetary 

value for this scarce resource, which will encourage carriers to use the limited number of slots in the most productive manner. The FAA is inviting the public to comment on the proposal. The comment period will be open for 60-days. 

In addition to the regulatory initiatives proposed and in place for the New York 

metro area, implementation of the latest air traffic control technology at airports in 

the Philadelphia and New York region is being expedited, and a permanent aviation 

‘‘czar’’ has been appointed to serve as director of the newly-created New York Integration Office. 

Nevertheless, expanding capacity is not always possible; neither is it an immediate solution, nor can physical expansion be limitless. As I have noted, the aviation 

industry is a major economic engine, providing support and jobs both for the country 

as a whole and for local communities. We need to continue to find ways to address 

congestion and allocate limited space efficiently and fairly. We believe that a market-based approach provides the best outcome because it sets the right incentives 

for efficient use of the system. That is why we are also looking at market-based 

measures for solutions to congestion. 

On January 14, Secretary Peters announced one of these solutions—a proposal for 

comprehensive market-based changes to the FAA’s Policy on Airport Rates and 

Charges. The amendments, if adopted, will provide airports with more tools to finance projects that reduce congestion and to encourage more efficient use of existing 

facilities. The amendments will allow a congested airport to raise the price of using 

its runways. This in turn could provide a financial incentive to aircraft operators 

to consider alternatives, such as scheduling flights outside of peak demand times, 

increasing aircraft size to use the congested runways more efficiently, or meeting 

regional air service needs through alternative, less congested facilities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

The FAA is ever-mindful of our environmental responsibilities. NextGen must be 

more efficient than the current system, but it must also be quieter and cleaner. Our 

goal for NextGen is to meet growing demand by developing a system capable of handling two to three times the operations in the Nation’s airspace while reducing significant environmental impacts. We want to ensure that the number of people in 

the United States who are exposed to aircraft noise continues to decline, and that 

we are reducing air and water quality impacts, addressing the impact of aviation’s 

greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, and supporting the development of 

alternative aviation fuels. Additionally, it is our goal to provide expertise and funding to assist in abating the impacts of aircraft noise in neighborhoods surrounding 

airports by purchasing land, relocating persons and businesses, soundproofing residential homes or buildings used for educational and medical purposes, purchasing 

noise barriers and monitors, and researching new noise projection and abatement 

models and new technologies. 

For example, the city of Philadelphia has an approved noise compatibility program for PHL that includes residential sound insulation. The city is just beginning 

to update that program, which is based upon a study completed in 2002. In the 

meantime, the city can continue to mitigate in areas that are known to be still im-
9 

pacted by significant noise levels and for which mitigation was approved. The FAA 

intends to support this program to the extent possible. 

CONCLUSION

Congestion and delays throughout our aviation system are at a critical point. The 

FAA has spent years considering the alternatives and determining the most effective solutions to relieving the problems in the NY/NJ/PHL airspace, without compromising our environmental stewardship. The Airspace Redesign Project is one which 

will enhance efficiency and reliability of the airspace, while also accommodating the 

projected growth. The project plays a crucial role in our overall solutions in the region, which include upgrades in technology and other short-term scheduling solutions. 

Senator Specter, Senator Casey, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you 

again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Senator SPECTER. We now turn to the distinguished General 

Counsel for the Department of Transportation, David James 

Gribbin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID JAMES GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator, thank you for this opportunity to update you on the initiatives that have been taken by the Department to address flight 

scheduling practices, as they relate to airline delays and consumer 

protection. 

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

most compelling statistics is that last year, almost 2 million flights 

operated by large carriers, did not land on time, because they were 

delayed, cancelled, or diverted. 

So, over a year ago, the administration identified the need to respond to the growing consumer impacts of aviation delays. We have 

launched a two-prong attack on this problem, and we are working 

to improve consumer protections, and we’re working to resolve systemic failures that resulted in delayed flights, missed connections 

and lost luggage. 

As a response to that, we’ve developed a suite of options, to reduce congestion and improve the consumer experience. The Department started by undertaking a number of consumer-specific measures. In fact, just last week, we announced final changes to the 

rule that will double the limit on compensation airlines must pay 

to passengers who are involuntarily bumped from their flights. The 

rule will also cover more flights. 

We have two other ongoing rulemakings that will help passengers know what to expect when they book a flight; that will 

allow us to step up oversight of chronically delayed flights, and enhance protections for consumers who are bumped, experience 

delays, or have complaints against airlines. 

Secretary Peters also formed a Tarmac Delay Task Force, to develop model contingency plans for airlines and airports. In addition 

to improving consumer protections, we are also working to address 

the underlying cause of much of the occasional misery attributed 

to air travel, that is, congestion and delays. 

Flight delay problems, including cancellations and missed connections, are the number one air traveler complaint. Along these 

lines, the Department has overseen the construction of 13 new run-
10 

ways, allowing for 1.6 million additional operations, worked on accelerating the deployment of NextGen technology, and proposed 

amendments to our rates and charges policy, to give airports more 

tools to manage congestion at the local level. 

We have taken a number of actions to address aviation congestion in the New York area, including caps and operational improvements. We focused on New York initially, because delays in New 

York cascade throughout the system, affecting flights across the 

continent and even across the ocean. 

Philadelphia, in particular, stands to gain from improvements 

made in the New York area. The changes we have made will help, 

but more work needs to be done. To really address congestion, we 

have a choice between two fundamentally different approaches, 

that are currently being debated—administrative remedies or market-based solutions. And we believe that moving towards a marketbased system will reduce delays and contribute to an improved flying experience for air travelers. 

Instituting administrative remedies alone, such as caps, is an effective—but not an efficient way—to reduce delays. Slots limit capacity, stifle innovation, and block competition. As a result, passengers get poorer service and pay higher fares. 

In addition, imposition of slots in the manner proposed by the 

airlines, would result in a massive wealth transfer from the public 

to the airlines. That is why last week, Secretary Peters announced 

a proposal for LaGuardia, with two market-based options that 

would require a limited number of flights operated by the airlines 

in a given day, known as slots, to be made available through an 

auction process. Both options will increase choices for passengers, 

and add competition, which is proven to lower fares. They also will 

cut delays and fund new aviation capacity projects for the region. 

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

It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Free access and a 

significant demand for a finite resource, ultimately dooms the resource to over-exploitation. Our current structure dooms airports. 

In fact, last summer, some airlines recognized this, and asked us 

to intervene and cap the New York City airports. And as you mentioned, airlines currently are incentivized to schedule more flights 

in a given time period, than airports can accommodate. 

Pricing, by contrast, balances demand with available capacity, resulting in less congestion and more reliable schedules. Pricing 

sends better signals as to where the system needs extra capacity, 

and it can supply the revenues to add such needed capacity. 

Pricing can also increase the number of passengers served in an 

airport, even if the number of planes does not increase. That is why 

we proposed changes to our rates and charges policy, allowing airports to use pricing to manage congestion at the local level. In fact, 

we are working on a meeting with the Philadelphia Airport to discuss how some of these new policies may benefit this area. 

Market forces, however, do not address every policy problem with 

aviation congestion. Market forces do an excellent job of allocating 

resources to those who can realize the most economic value from 

that resource, but they do not allow for the societal value placed 

on certain activities—such as access to airports by general aviation, 
11 

or small community service. The Department recognizes this, and 

will respond accordingly. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me conclude by saying I think we all agree that the American public deserves the safest and most efficient, reliable airline 

system possible. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify, Senator, I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID JAMES GRIBBIN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. Allow me to use this time to update you on the initiatives taken by 

the Office of the Secretary and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address the issue of flight scheduling practices as it relates to the broader issues of 

airline delays and consumer protection. 

The administration identified the need to respond to the growing consumer impacts of aviation system delays over a year ago. Since then, we have taken a series 

of important steps, including the President’s announcements related to holiday travel. At the direction of Secretary Peters, our Department has developed a comprehensive list of initiatives designed to improve air travel and reduce the impacts of 

lengthy delays on consumers. While we have maintained a strong focus on short 

term actions, it is imperative that we not lose sight of the ultimate objective: establishing a sustainable and economically efficient aviation policy that actually reduces 

delays, not simply treats the symptoms. In order to accomplish this objective, it is 

important that we reform our economic model for air traffic control services and airport pricing similar to what the administration proposed last year. Without changes 

of this magnitude and regardless of regulatory actions pursued, it is inevitable that 

millions of Americans will experience unreliable air travel options and growing dissatisfaction with the performance of the U.S. aviation system. 

THE PROBLEM

We are all too familiar with the litany of statistics that demonstrate without question that action is needed on behalf of air travelers and the aviation sector of the 

national economy. One of the most compelling statistics is that last year almost 2 

million flights operated by large air carriers did not land on time because they were 

delayed, cancelled, or diverted. That is almost 27 percent of the operations reported 

by these carriers. Imagine any other business telling its customers that 27 percent 

of the time the service they paid for is not available as advertised. The administration has made commitments at the highest levels to address this problem. When 

Secretary Peters met with President Bush last September, he said, ‘‘We’ve got a 

problem, we understand there’s a problem, and we’re going to address the problem.’’ 

Unfortunately, Philadelphia is not immune from the problems experienced by 

many air travelers. The departure and arrival statistics for Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) provide the proof as recorded by the Department’s Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS). In 2007, Philadelphia International Airport 

ranked 5th worst of the 32 major airports in the percentage ranking for on time 

arrivals—only about 67 percent of flights arrived on time. Similarly, PHL ranked 

4th worst of the 32 major airports in on-time departures for 2007 with approximately 70 percent of flights departing on time. 

I think we all agree that the air traveler deserves a better approach. Last year, 

according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, the satisfaction level with 

the airline industry overall fell to its lowest level in 7 years. The statistics we gather monthly at DOT confirm deteriorating service levels. In 2007, there was a sharp 

rise in the number of complaints received by the Department—13,168 complaints, 

which is over 58 percent more than the 8,325 complaints received in 2006. Complaints are continuing at a high rate in 2008—the Department received 3,152 complaints during the first quarter of this year. For us, the objective is not to parcel 

out the blame, but to get to the root of the problem—congestion. Consumer satisfaction would be vastly improved if flights simply arrived on schedule. The growing 

lack of reliability in air travel these days is one of the most significant impacts of 

congestion. 
12 

1The New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report can be accessed at: http:// 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/media/NY%20ARC%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

DOT ACTIONS

The Department began to address flight delays and related consumer issues over 

a year ago. In February 2007, the administration sent Congress a comprehensive 

plan for transforming our aviation system to meet our present and future needs. A 

central reform of the administration’s proposal was the overhaul of the FAA’s financing structure to replace the decades old system of collecting ticket taxes with 

a stable, cost-based funding stream and to facilitate equipping our aviation system 

with modern Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) technology. The 

proposal creates a stronger correlation between what users pay and what it costs 

the FAA to provide them with air traffic control services; thus, providing price incentives for systems users to reduce delays. 

Flight delay problems—including cancellations and missed connections—are the 

number one air traveler complaint. That is why addressing aviation congestion is 

a critical component to improving consumer satisfaction with the aviation industry. 

The year 2007 was the second worst year for delays since 1995, and the first 2 

months of 2008, while slightly better, are the third worst for flight delays during 

that time of year. Since one-third of the air traffic moves through New York airspace, the three airports in the New York City metropolitan area had the highest 

percentage of delayed flights last summer, and delays in New York cascade throughout the system, the Department chose to focus its initial efforts in the New York 

area. 

Given the record delays last summer, in July 2007, Secretary Peters formed an 

internal New York Air Congestion Working Group and tasked them with developing 

an action plan to reduce congestion and delays at airports in the New York City 

region and improve customer satisfaction. The working group developed a plan, 

which included establishing a New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), 

holding scheduling reduction meetings, implementing operational improvements, 

and enhancing customer satisfaction. Since forming the New York Air Congestion 

Working Group, the Department has taken a number of actions to implement the 

working group’s recommendations. 

Aviation Congestion Mitigation Efforts 

Last September, Secretary Peters formed a New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which was composed of representatives from passenger and cargo airlines operating out LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy International (JFK), Newark Liberty International (Newark), and Teterboro Airports, airline and airport trade associations, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), passenger rights advocates, and representatives from FAA and DOT. The ARC had the 

monumental task of researching and vetting the options for reducing congestion in 

New York’s major airports over the course of merely 3 months. The administration 

wanted to have a robust discussion and input from all interested parties before moving forward with a policy action. 

Incorporating the information received from the ARC, the Department is undertaking several actions to address aviation congestion in New York.1 These actions 

include: 

—Caps on hourly operations at JFK; 

—Proposed caps on hourly operations at Newark; 

—Completion of 8 of the 17 airport and airspace recommended operational improvements identified by the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We expect to complete the remaining nine 

recommended improvements by summer 2008; 

—Establishing an executive-level Director position at the FAA to head the New 

York Area Program Integration Office; 

—Further implementation of New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign; and 

—Proposed amendments to the Airport Rates and Charges Policy. 

During the holiday season, the Department also instituted other measures to mitigate flight delays, such as negotiating an agreement with the Department of Defense to open military airspace for commercial use. We are also continuing our outreach efforts with various stakeholders, including consumer groups, airports, and 

airline CEOs. 

We are making better use of our skies to limit the impact weather has on travelers. Last week, the Secretary announced new air traffic measures designed to help 

cut delays this summer. The first involves new and greater flexibility for aircraft 
13 

to use alternative routes in the sky to avoid severe weather. This includes a new 

routing alternative that provides an ‘‘escape route’’ into Canadian airspace from the 

New York metropolitan area so airlines can fly around summer thunderstorms and 

high winds. In addition, the FAA will open a second westbound route for aircraft, 

akin to adding another interstate highway lane in the sky. This would in effect provide a parallel route along a heavily-traveled aviation corridor, helping cut westbound delays from the New York area. 

Straight caps (hourly limitations on flight operations during certain peak hours) 

without some mechanism to ensure an efficient allocation of scarce slot resources 

is not economically efficient and, therefore, not our preferred option. Given the urgent need for action, however, it was necessary at the New York City area airports. 

The Port Authority elected not to pursue various delay reduction approaches, and 

the President and Secretary Peters would not tolerate delays like those that occurred last summer. The caps at JFK took effect on March 30, and we expect to 

issue a final order for Newark soon (the comment period on the notice proposing 

caps at Newark closed on April 1). The caps at JFK (and Newark, if adopted,) are 

scheduled to expire on October 24, 2009. It is also worth noting that because it is 

so heavily influenced by events in New York airspace, Philadelphia stands to gain 

from improvements that can be made in the New York area. 

We still believe that there is a need for market-based measures to allocate capacity, and the Department continues to explore such measures. For example, there are 

options available to airports in lieu of caps. Our preference is to see airports address 

their challenges locally; however, the Federal Government will be involved once a 

congested airport impacts the rest of the national airspace. New York air congestion 

causes delays throughout the United States. 

In January, we issued a notice that proposed providing airports with a new and 

useful tool to price access to their facilities better. The FAA proposal would make 

three changes to the airports rates and charges policy. The first change would clarify that airports may use a two-part fee structure with an operation-based and 

weight-based element. The second change would permit an operator of a congested 

airport to charge for work under construction. Finally, the third change would expand the authority of an operator of an airport system to charge users of the congested airport in the system for the airfield costs of other airports in its system. If 

adopted, the amendments would allow a congested airport to charge prices commensurate with the true costs of using its runways. In return, this will provide users 

better incentives to consider alternatives, such as scheduling flights outside of peak 

demand times, increasing aircraft size to use the congested runways more efficiently 

or meeting regional air service needs through alternative, less congested facilities. 

The comment period ended on April 3, and we hope to act on the proposal soon. 

Per landing charges are a much better proxy for costs than weight-based charges. 

Since 2002, the amount of small aircraft (planes with fewer than 100 seats) flying 

into New York area airport increased substantially. Small aircraft flights at JFK increased 393 percent; Newark increased 53 percent; and LaGuardia increased 48 percent. The way we charge for airport use is an important contributor to this trend. 

Economists on both sides of the political aisle have acknowledged this relationship. 

We share the view that expanded capacity is a critical component of the long-term 

solution to relieve congestion and get travelers to their destinations on time and in 

a humane fashion. We are intensely focused on such solutions, both at the FAA with 

NextGen and at the Department level. The FAA is hard at work bringing new technology and techniques on-line to unsnarl air traffic delays, and we appreciate the 

funding Congress has appropriated for these purposes. In recognition of these critical enhancements, the President’s fiscal year 2009 Budget Request would more 

than double the investment in NextGen technology—providing $688 million for key 

research and technology to help meet the Nation’s rapidly growing demand for air 

travel, including the transformation from radar-based to satellite-based air traffic 

systems. 

The FAA will begin rolling out several elements of the NextGen system this summer. This rollout will include the national debut of Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) technology in Florida. The ADS–B program will change 

the Nation’s air traffic control system from one that relies on radar technology to 

a system that uses precise location data from a global satellite network. The FAA 

has chosen Miami as the key site for installation and testing of two broadcast services of the ADS–B program—Traffic Information Services—Broadcast (TIS–B) and 

Flight Information Services—Broadcast (FIS–B). These broadcast services transmit 

weather and traffic information to the cockpit of properly equipped aircraft. The 

FAA plans to commission these broadcast services in November 2008 and can then 

begin nationwide deployment. 
14 

Over the next few years, the FAA will also install and test ADS–B for use in Air 

Traffic Control Separation Services. Philadelphia is one of the key sites for this initiative. The FAA plans to commission the ADS–B services in September 2010 and 

a nationwide rollout by 2013. 

Consumer Protection Initiatives 

While relieving congestion will go a long way in addressing consumer issues, the 

Department also is undertaking a number of consumer-specific measures. Our consumer protection initiatives have advanced a great deal in the last 6 months. This 

is due in part to the appropriation by Congress of $2.5 million targeted to improving 

consumer protections, and I can assure you we are putting it to good use. The funding is being used for additional staff to pursue investigations and enforcement actions, improvements to our aviation consumer protection website and consumer complaint system, brochures for air travelers to help them understand their rights and 

responsibilities, and a series of public forums to listen to air travelers and the problems they have experienced. 

The Department has initiated three rulemakings to enhance passenger rights and 

protections. In November 2007, the Department issued a proposal to double the limits on the compensation required to be paid to ‘‘bumped’’ passengers and extend the 

compensation requirement to smaller aircraft. Just last week Secretary Peters announced final changes to the so called ‘‘bumping rule,’’ which takes effect next 

month. Under the revised rule, fliers who are involuntarily bumped will receive up 

to $400 if they are rescheduled to reach their destination within 2 hours of their 

original arrival time or 4 hours for international flights, and up to $800 if they are 

not rerouted within that time frame. The new rule also covers more flights, including those operated with aircraft seating 30 people or more; the current rule covers 

flights with 60 seats or more. The amount of these payments are determined by the 

price of the ticket and the length of the delay, and are in addition to the value of 

the passenger’s ticket, which the flyer can use for alternate transportation or have 

refunded if not used. As the Secretary has noted, it is difficult to compensate for 

a missed family occasion or business opportunity, but this rule will ensure flyers 

are more fairly reimbursed for their inconvenience. 

The Department also published a proposal to enhance the on-time performance 

data that carriers currently report to the Department so that the Department, the 

industry, and the public have access to more complete information on flights that 

are cancelled, diverted, or experience gate returns. We hope to take final action 

soon. 

The third rulemaking, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, requested 

comments on various proposals designed to provide consumers information or enhance consumer protections, including proposed requirements that airlines: create 

legally binding contingency plans for extended tarmac delays, respond to all consumer complaints within 30 days, publish complaint data online, and provide ontime performance information for international flights. The Department is currently 

considering the comments received. The next step would be issuance of a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on any proposals the Department decides 

to advance after reviewing the public comments. 

In addition to these rulemakings, the Secretary formed a ‘‘Tarmac Delay Task 

Force’’ in December. The purpose of the task force is to study past delays, review 

existing and other promising practices, and develop model contingency plans that 

airlines and airports can tailor to their unique operating environments to mitigate 

the impact of lengthy ground delays on consumers. The task force also will consider 

possible unintended consequences that solutions to tarmac delays may pose for travelers. The task force is composed of 35 individuals representing a broad cross-section 

of airlines, airports, consumer groups, and other stakeholders. The first meeting of 

the task force was held February 26, and the next meeting is scheduled for April 

29. The Department expects that the task force will meet at least three more times 

in 2008 and will complete its work by the end of the year. In my opinion, the Task 

Force is working well and will be the source of best practices that will improve the 

travel experience when things do go wrong. 

Three other important initiatives of our Aviation Enforcement Office deserve mention. The office has plans to conduct on-site enforcement investigations of five large 

airlines this fiscal year to evaluate their compliance with consumer protection requirements. In addition, the office will be holding three Aviation Consumer Protection Forums across the country to educate consumers regarding their rights as air 

travelers and to hear first-hand their concerns about air travel. The office is also 

continuing its investigation of unrealistic scheduling by large airlines, targeting 

chronically delayed flights. During the fourth quarter of 2007, the number of such 
15 

flights decreased dramatically, and in 2008, the Aviation Enforcement Office will be 

applying a somewhat more rigorous set of criteria during its review. 

Some have argued that airlines have individually or collectively scheduled flights 

during periods of the day in which the system is simply unable to handle the volume 

without resulting delays. I would like to assure the committee that the Department 

of Transportation has sufficient authority to investigate unrealistic scheduling and, 

if necessary, penalize actions that we deem to be unfair or deceptive trade practices. 

Although a congested system is not necessarily evidence of unfair or deceptive practices, we will continue to diligently investigate potential evidence of such practices 

and take any appropriate action. 

We are well aware that tarmac and flight delays are making air travel an unpleasant experience for passengers. The Department will continue to take action to 

ease uncertainty and reduce inconvenience for passengers. 

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SYMPTOM

While we are working to improve consumer protections, we do not want to lose 

sight of the fact that the underlying cause of much of the occasional misery attributed to air travel is congestion and delays. For this reason, the Department has 

been engaged in a discussion over the last several months with a wide variety of 

stakeholders on the efficacy of using a better economic model to balance supply and 

demand in a sustainable way. 

Some have incorrectly suggested that expanding capacity should be the only Government response to congestion in New York City and around the country. This 

view largely ignores the tremendous short-term opportunities to utilize existing capacity efficiently. It also ignores the physical, economic, and political constraints on 

capacity expansion in many parts of the U.S. aviation system. 

The Department looks to increase capacity whenever and wherever possible. Our 

support for expansion of Philadelphia International Airport and O’Hare International Airport are concrete examples. Philadelphia in particular is proposing 

major capacity enhancements to accommodate current and future aviation demand 

in the Philadelphia metropolitan area during all weather conditions. Key features 

of the proposal consist of major airfield improvements, including construction of one 

or more new runways and related facilities. Capacity increases must be part of the 

solution, particularly considering that we expect more than 1 billion air passengers 

by 2016. However, capacity increases, both physical and operational, often take a 

long time to implement and may be limited in scope. Sometimes physical capacity 

cannot be expanded; such as is the case with LaGuardia Airport. Operational improvements can help to address congestion, but sometimes they cannot provide 

enough capacity to meet demand. For example, in New York, even with the implementation of all the operational improvements initially suggested by the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Port Authority, congestion was expected to double 

this year, assuming the FAA took no further action and the airlines moved forward 

with planned increases in their schedules. 

There are additional solutions. Basically, we have a choice between two fundamentally different approaches—administrative remedies and market-based solutions. We believe that outdated Government policies relying on administrative remedies have led to an inefficient allocation of the airspace, and that moving towards 

a market-based system will reduce these inefficiencies and contribute to an improved flying experience for air travelers. 

Administrative Remedies 

Instituting administrative remedies, such as caps, is an effective, but not efficient 

way to reduce delays. Limiting the number of flights into an airport will reduce congestion at that airport. The Department decided to institute a short-term cap at 

JFK and Newark airports because something needed to be done to avoid a repeat 

of the flight delays that we experienced last summer. However, caps are not the best 

solution for improving travel options for passengers. 

Airlines are often enthusiastic in their support of caps at an airport they already 

serve. When a cap is established, incumbents are protected because they typically 

maintain their market share and the potential for new competition is diminished. 

The legacy airlines’ support for such a policy makes sense, because limited competition makes them more profitable and protects them from new entrants that might 

want to compete by offering lower fares. 

Although caps protect existing airline business, they also prevent airlines from 

adding capacity at an airport unless they are able to obtain a slot from a competitor. 

As a result, one of the best-known problems with slots is that they encourage airlines to ‘‘baby sit’’ slots; i.e., underutilize the slot by flying multiple small aircraft 

into an airport to maximize the number of slots an airline can occupy at the lowest 
16 

2GAO report GAO/RCED–99–234 notes on p. 16 that ‘‘For example, because the regulations 

allow a slot to go unused for up to 20 percent of the time, a carrier with five slots in 1 hour 

must operate only four flights in that hour on any day to obtain 80-percent use for each of its 

five slots. The carrier is allowed to ‘rotate’ its four flights across the five slots over the 2-month 

period to prevent FAA from withdrawing the slot. The practice of a carrier’s rotating actual 

flights among its allocated slots is commonly referred to as ‘babysitting.’ FAA officials emphasized that babysitting is not prohibited by existing regulation, provided that a slot meets the 

minimum-use requirements.’’ See http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99234.pdf. 3 73 Fed. Reg. 20846 (April 17, 2008). 

possible cost.2 As a result, slots do not always go to those who value them the most 

and who will use the capacity in the most efficient manner. 

This limitation on capacity and competition naturally leads to fare increases at 

an airport, because it creates a scarce commodity, and passengers pay a premium 

for that commodity. 

A less apparent problem is the perverse incentive that appears when caps are 

being contemplated at an airport for the first time. In such a situation, incumbents 

are encouraged to build up flight operations in advance of a capping action, simply 

to generate a better base for the future allocation of slots. Thus, the talk of a heavy 

handed and artificial solution to a problem actually exacerbates the congestion problems at the airport. For example, when the FAA began to intervene at Newark Liberty and JFK airports by designating both airports Level 2, Schedule Facilitated, 

airports under International Air Transport Association guidelines, the schedules 

that the air carriers proposed for the summer of 2008 reflected growth that appeared to be enhanced by the signals that the FAA intended to address the congestion problem with a cap. 

If caps are not the answer, then the question arises—what is the solution? 

Market-Based Remedies 

Alfred Kahn, an airline economist and former Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics 

Board said, ‘‘Whenever competition is feasible, it is, for all its imperfections, superior to regulation as a means of serving the public interest.’’ Secretary Peters echoed 

that sentiment when she said, ‘‘Our preference is to find a way to let market incentives do the job, and not to return to the days of Government-regulated flights and 

limited competition.’’ Although the Department instituted caps as a short-term 

measure, we continue to explore market-based remedies as a longer-term solution 

to congestion. 

Last week, Secretary Peters announced the Department’s proposal for a new way 

to manage congestion at New York’s LaGuardia Airport in a Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (LaGuardia SNPRM).3 Even though this facility has been 

capped since 1968, it is still consistently one of the top three most delayed airports 

in the Nation. Under a supplemental rulemaking, the Department is proposing two 

market-based options that would require a limited number of flights operated by the 

airlines in a given day, known as slots, to be made available through an auction 

process. 

Under the first option, all air carriers would be given up to 20 slots a day for the 

10 year life of the rule. Meanwhile, over the next 5 years, 8 percent of the additional 

slots currently used by an airline would be made available to any carrier via an auction. An additional 2 percent of the slots would be retired to help cut the record 

delays at the airport. Proceeds from the auction would be invested in new congestion reduction and capacity improvement initiatives in the New York region. 

The second option also gives airlines permanent access to up to 20 slots a day for 

a 10 year period. Beyond those flights, 20 percent of the slots currently used by the 

airlines would be made available over the next 5 years to all other airlines through 

an auction. Under this option, the carriers would retain the net proceeds of their 

auctioned slots. 

Both options provide financial stability to the airlines operating at LaGuardia by 

providing them with a defined right to operate at the airport for a decade, something they do not have today. These rights are given in recognition of the significant 

financial investment the airlines have made in the airport’s infrastructure. 

This plan strikes a sound balance between protecting investments by incumbent 

carriers and ensuring that all airlines have the ability to fly to New York’s 

LaGuardia. While the status quo at LaGuardia has led to stagnant service, delays, 

and unnecessarily high fares, open access and competition will help give flyers more 

choices, fewer delays, and lower fares. 

It is clear that the current system does not allocate airspace capacity efficiently. 

Solving that problem, however, should not entail Government picking ‘‘winners and 

losers,’’ particularly when, as currently structured, everyone involved in air travel 
17 

feels like they are the loser—both those getting terrible service and those getting 

blamed for providing terrible service. 

Market-based pricing has been demonstrated time and again as the most effective 

way to allocate a scarce resource that is in high demand. Space in a movie theater, 

use of cell phone infrastructure, or flights during certain times to certain destinations are all examples that illustrate that such pricing works. Pricing can balance 

demand with available capacity, resulting in less congestion and more reliable 

schedules. Also, pricing sends better signals as to where the system needs extra capacity, and it can supply the revenues to add such needed capacity. Increases in 

fares under a pricing regime would be an indicator that more capacity is needed. 

In terms of efficiency, the current system focuses on airplane throughput. Instead, 

the objective of airspace and airport management policies should be passenger 

throughput. Proper pricing can increase the number of passengers served at an airport, even if the number of planes does not increase. And a framework to establish 

proper price signals need not be disruptive to the operations of airports. 

Changing from the traditional, increasingly inefficient administrative controls to 

a market-based system has generated a fair amount of concern, primarily from the 

airlines. The following discussion outlines the issues related to pricing that were 

considered by the ARC. It details concerns expressed about pricing and how those 

concerns can be addressed. 

Track Record in Aviation.—Some opponents to market-based pricing believe it 

does not have a proven track record in aviation, and that implementation of such 

pricing for airspace will devastate the industry. Further, they do not believe that 

experience with such pricing in other industries provides a meaningful parallel for 

application in the airline industry. 

We live in a market economy which allocates scarce resources through pricing. 

This model has been adopted because history has demonstrated repeatedly that 

markets are the most efficient means of allocating a scarce commodity. While the 

aviation industry is unique in a number of respects, there is no reason to believe 

that market-based methods will fail if applied to this industry. 

In fact, market-based pricing has been used effectively in the United States for 

aviation. Boston’s Logan International Airport applied a pricing plan in 1988 that 

dramatically reduced congestion at that airport. While the plan was later found to 

be out of proportion to the need to reduce congestion, because it operated during 

non-congested as well as congested periods market-based pricing at Logan Airport 

did reduce congestion. In addition, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

applied pricing in 1968 to control congestion. The pricing worked initially; however, 

the fee was not increased with time and eventually became ineffective. 

Those questioning the efficacy of market-based pricing in aviation need look no 

further than airline pricing policies. Airlines already apply a market-based pricing 

model to airline travel. When searching for low fare flights to your destination, inevitably the cheapest flights to be found are those departing or arriving at the least 

desirable times. By pricing flights at less attractive times at a lower level than 

flights at popular travel times, airlines are incentivizing consumers to move to a 

less congested flight. However, this congestion fee does not reduce overall congestion 

in the system, because it does not impact the way the airlines themselves are 

charged for air traffic control and airport services. 

Cost to Consumers.—Arguments have been made that market-based pricing could 

increase the monetary cost to travelers, if airlines pass congestion fees on to consumers. This argument, however, ignores two facts: (1) limiting competition by capping an airport creates significant upward pressure on fares: and (2) congestion fees 

will be offset by congestion savings. 

The increased cost of a congestion charge is likely to be more than offset by the 

downward pressure on fares brought about by additional competition. Statistics 

show that when a low cost carrier enters a new market, the additional competition 

results in a fare decrease. When Southwest entered the market in Philadelphia in 

May 2004, the result was an immediate fare decrease of 24 percent. Three years 

later, in the 4th quarter of 2007, the average air fare in Philadelphia was still down 

12 percent from the 4th quarter of 2003, before Southwest entered the market. 

While it is still unclear how much airlines will pay in an auction for slots at 

LaGuardia, it is likely that competition from new entrants will result in greater fare 

savings, which will offset any increases as a result of the purchasing slots. 

Similarly, we need to explore the costs of instituting market mechanisms compared to the costs of various alternatives (including capping access to an airport or 

allowing substantial increases in delays). 

In fact, congestion is expensive. According to the ATA, congestion costs the economy over $12.5 billion a year. The New York City Comptroller has estimated that 

congestion costs travelers to New York City an additional $187 million. Reducing 
18 

congestion will produce increased system reliability and dramatic savings for consumers. Market-based pricing would decrease congestion and thereby decrease the 

costs that flow from congestion. 

Market-based pricing makes the costs consumers already pay for flying into a congested market transparent and gives them the ability to avoid the higher costs by 

traveling during less congested periods. When scarcity exists, consumers pay higher 

costs. In the case of aviation, those costs are paid in terms of wait times or higher 

fares due to slot controls or pricing. Only with market-based pricing do consumers 

have the choice of avoiding higher prices. Some airlines now charge more for additional leg room. If passengers will pay for additional leg room, they almost certainly 

will pay to arrive on time. 

Government Tax.—One of the principal points argued by those opposed to marketbased mechanisms is that the organizations that control airport and airspace access 

are both monopolies and, therefore, are themselves not market-based. For this reason, pricing of airport or airspace access would operate as a Government tax, rather 

than a market price between two private entities. 

The details of how the proceeds of a pricing mechanism might be spent are important and if the proceeds are dedicated to expanding capacity and funding specific 

projects at the airports, then the revenue would be directly used to alleviate the congestion that generated the proceeds and would not be a tax. In recognition of this 

concern, under first option proposed in the LaGuardia SNPRM, the FAA would 

spend any proceeds from an auction on congestion and delay management initiatives 

in the New York City area, after recouping the costs of the auction. Under the second proposed option, the airlines would retain the proceeds of the auction. 

Relationship Between Physical Assets and Investments.—Many airlines have invested hundreds of millions, and even billions, of dollars in terminals, gates, hangars, and other facilities at airports. Those airlines using special revenue facility 

bond financing gain tax preferences due to the public nature of the facilities whose 

financing they underwrite. They give up the facility to the airport proprietor at a 

predetermined date. The airlines also realize that the airport proprietor ultimately 

controls the use of the facilities for the benefit of the public. Nonetheless, those airlines are concerned that they would lose the ability to realize a return on those investments, if a pricing program resulted in the airlines not being able to fly their 

traditional schedule. Conversely, if reallocation of slots is achieved through imposition of a market-based pricing mechanism that does not recognize historic rights, 

some are concerned that the new owners of slots would not be able to gain access 

to the gates and ticket counters controlled by the former owners of the slots. 

Any pricing mechanism pursued by the Department will recognize these concerns. 

Since the advent of the competition plan requirement in AIR–21, the Department 

has been educating airport proprietors about their responsibilities to accommodate 

all requesting carriers on a reasonable basis. Airlines are aware that their unused 

gate leaseholds may be accessed by other carriers, due to the unavailability of common-use gates and if the need arises. In addition, the Department would manage 

any market-based system in such a way as to recognize the legitimate interests of 

those airlines, which have made significant investments in existing infrastructure, 

to realize an adequate return on those investments. The Department does not want 

to create a disincentive for future airline investment in aviation infrastructure. 

We recognize the concern about disruptions to the industry in the LGA SNPRM. 

The proposals would grant 10-year leases to airlines currently serving LaGuardia 

for at least 20 of their current slots. Such an approach recognizes the historical investment by airlines at the airport and the community, and will avoid disruption 

to the national air transportation system. 

Additionally, the Airport Council International, North America, expressed concerns that the Department’s LaGuardia SNPRM might interfere with the airport’s 

ability to manage its own facilities. The Department has consistently worked with 

airports to give them additional tools to manage their airports and reduce delays— 

such as through our rates and charges policies—and we will continue to work to develop better delay and congestion management tools that do not overstep our regulatory authority to manage the airspace and respect the airports need to manage 

its own facilities. The Port Authority has failed to use this tool and not managed 

congestion at LaGuardia for 40 years. 

Reduced Demand for Air Travel.—Some civic leaders were particularly concerned 

about the impact market-based pricing might have on the affordability of traveling 

to the New York City. As noted above, however, consumers are paying a heavy price 

in terms of congestion. It is unlikely that slightly higher prices during peak periods 

would serve as a greater deterrent than the chronic delays New York City currently 

experiences. In fact, a USA Today article published last year noted that savvy trav-
19 

elers avoid New York City whenever possible. That can change if market-pricing can 

play an appropriate role. 

Additionally, by establishing a market mechanism whereby slots will be allocated 

to the most efficient user, the incentive will be for the slots to go to the airline with 

the most efficient use of the slot—which will likely be the airline that is able to 

bring the most passengers in on a plane. This should result in increased passenger 

throughput at an airport—even as the physical number of planes coming through 

the airport remains steady—and result in greater availability of seats and downward pressure on ticket prices. 

Economic Disruption.—Given the sharp increase in fuel prices, airlines are understandably concerned about any additional financial burden generated by pricing. In 

addition, the airports have billions of dollars of debt and other financing tied to the 

financial health of the airlines. The Department understands the financial environment in which airlines and airports are operating. Any market-based solution will 

need to be implemented in a manner that does not unduly disrupt the current system. 

The recent LaGuardia SNPRM will result in a very small number of flights being 

auctioned off annually—under options 1 and 2, 14 or 36 slots out of 1,168 slots, respectively, will be auctioned annually for the first 5 years of the rule, with no required auctions for the last 5 years of the rule. This is a very small number of slots 

that will be auctioned—and while some will claim that any disruption is problematic, we expect that numerous experts and economists will chide the Department for 

having auctioned what they view as too small of an amount. This SNPRM is attempting to strike a balance between competing views and to spur a secondary, voluntary market whereby airlines can freely trade slots and excess capacity to the 

highest bidder able to realize the best economic use of the slot. 

Impact on Small Communities and General Aviation.—There are concerns that 

market-based pricing would limit general aviation access to airports and would 

make it difficult for carriers to continue adequately serving small communities. 

While market-based pricing does an excellent job of allocating resources to those 

who can realize the most economic value from that resource, such pricing does not 

allow for the societal value placed on certain activities. The Department will monitor whether modifications to market-based mechanisms are necessary to provide for 

continued service to small communities and continued access for general aviation. 

If the Department were to publish a final rule that would auction slots at 

LaGuardia, the Department will carefully analyze and consider the impacts an auction will have on service to small communities. 

CONCLUSION

Our objective is to address the fundamentals of the problem of aviation congestion 

and achieve solutions that are long-term and that provide maximum benefits to the 

traveling public and the vital industry that serves them. The basic question for us 

is whether to continue to apply temporary band-aids to the problem, or whether to 

seek solutions that will do a better job of allocating our scarce airspace. We believe 

that we must take positive, immediate steps to deal with a dynamic air transportation system that has far outpaced earlier efforts at improvement. Air travelers deserve to fly the safest and most reliable air system possible. The time has come to 

bring aviation into the 21st century and more fully allow market forces to work. 

Change is difficult, and the airlines’ concerns are understandable. In fact, very 

similar arguments were made by the airlines in opposition to deregulation. Concerns 

were raised about disruption to the industry, lack of a track record, and disruption 

to business models. However, the ATA Airline Handbook includes a long list of benefits that resulted from deregulation. The Handbook notes that deregulation stimulated competition, led to rapid growth in air travel, and reduced fares by more than 

50 percent in real terms. We believe that market-based remedies directed at congestion will improve airline service like deregulation did. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell and Mr. Gribbin bring excellent 

qualification to their job. Mr. Sturgell had been a Senior Policy Advisor to the National Transportation Safety Board, before becoming 

Acting FAA Administrator. He was, prior to that, a pilot for United 

Airlines, graduated the U.S. Naval Academy and Virginia Law 

School. 
20 

Mr. Gribbin, before becoming General Counsel to the Department 

of Transportation, was Chief Counsel to the Federal Highway Administration, got a degree from Georgetown University undergrad, 

and Georgetown University Law School. 

Without objection, a statement made by Senator Lautenberg will 

be made part of the record. He expressed his regrets that he could 

not be here, because of a longstanding prior commitment. Senator 

Casey wanted to be here as well, but again, time was not something he could accommodate to, and I can tell you, they’re both following these proceedings very, very closely. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

One month ago I stood on the bank of the Delaware River in West Deptford, New 

Jersey, across from the Philadelphia Airport and spoke out about the dangers of the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Airspace Redesign project. 

Since that time, leaders at the FAA have continued to march the agency toward 

worsening problems in our skies, on our runways, in the maintenance hangars and 

over our homes. 

The FAA has failed to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the flying 

public, treat its professional safety employees with the respect they deserve, and 

preserve the quality of life of New Jersey residents. 

Although the project has taken nearly a decade to complete, FAA spent less than 

a year sharing its final plans with the public and then rushed to implement them. 

This process has been unfair for New Jersey residents and has put the traveling 

public at risk. 

In its rush to get the newly designed flight patterns in place last December, the 

FAA began using the new ‘‘dispersal’’ headings before it even published new official 

documents showing pilots and controllers the new roadmaps to our region’s 

skyways. 

The resulting confusion has caused some planes to take off in the wrong direction 

and put travelers and residents at risk of a major catastrophe. This is a senseless 

risk to take with air safety, but the FAA has used these procedures at both Philadelphia International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport. 

Even FAA’s own employees at the Philadelphia Airport—the air traffic controllers—tried to point out the problems with rushing the project, but the Bush administration’s FAA told them that if they had safety concerns they should essentially 

‘‘go find another job.’’ That’s unacceptable and an outrageous response from this administration. 

When I heard New Jerseyans were turned away at FAA public meetings held in 

Philadelphia about this plan, I insisted that the agency come back and hold additional meetings—in New Jersey. 

While FAA seemed intent on quietly and quickly pushing the project ahead, I 

wanted each affected New Jersey resident to be able to learn about how their lives 

and homes would be impacted by the FAA’s plan—and to express their concerns to 

the FAA. 

For these reasons, I have continued to block, along with my colleague Senator 

Menendez, President Bush’s appointment of Robert Sturgell to be Administrator of 

the FAA. 

Mr. Sturgell, the FAA’s Deputy Administrator for 5 years before taking over as 

Acting Administrator last year, helped create many of the failed policies which led 

to our country’s current air travel problems. 

Worse, he has shown no indication that he can or will change the direction of the 

agency to address these key problems. His appointment represents a continuation 

of failed aviation policies by the Bush administration, and I will continue to block 

Mr. Sturgell’s Senate confirmation until we see evidence of real change from the administration on these important issues. 

We have seen a sad pattern of failure from FAA leaders over the past several 

years. The agency has failed to hire sufficient numbers of air traffic controllers we 

need to ensure our safety. A report I requested from the Government Accountability 

Office last year found that nationwide, at least 20 percent of the controllers at 25 

air traffic control facilities, including towers at major airports, were working 6-day 

weeks. This overworking can lead to fatigue and tired eyes on our skies and our 

runways. 
21 

The FAA has also failed to hire enough safety inspectors to keep up with the airline companies’ level of outsourcing to foreign maintenance facilities. Only recently 

we learned the extent to which FAA has been relying on the airlines to self-regulate 

much of its inspection work, as the problem of the lack of safety inspectors came 

to light. 

Since runway safety continues to be a major concern, I will introduce legislation 

shortly to ensure the agency focuses on this major problem. Near-collisions on our 

runways continue to increase, and FAA has not taken a leadership role in coordinating its efforts to address these problems. 

This is not a new problem. The improvement of runway safety has been on the 

National Transportation Safety Board’s list of ‘‘most wanted’’ safety improvements 

since 1991. 

I will continue to fight to ensure the FAA does not neglect the Nation’s air safety 

needs—and New Jersey’s quality of life. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell, would you identify the other two 

individuals who are sitting at the witness table with you? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. 

To my far right is Steve Kelley, the Program Manager for this 

project, and then to my immediate right is Mary McCarthy, from 

the Counsel’s Office at the FAA, who’s also involved in this project. 

OPERATIONS DURING PEAK HOURS

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell, I’ll begin with you. 

Set the time clock at 10 minutes, please? 

I begin with you on the basic question about the understanding 

that on the so-called peak hours from 9 o’clock to 11 o’clock, and 

2 o’clock to 7 o’clock, there would not be more than—there would 

be no overflights over the Delaware County route, unless there 

were 10 or more aircraft waiting to depart. That is the understanding, is it not? 

Mr. STURGELL. That is not quite accurate, Senator Specter, and 

if you permit me to expound on this for a little bit. 

We have both dispersal headings being used at Philadelphia and 

at Newark. At Newark, we are using a demand trigger for those 

three headings, which goes to the number of aircraft—— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell, before you have at it, let me 

quote your letter from March 20. I had written to you about that 

commitment, and you responded, on March 20, ‘‘Your assertion 

that my representative advised your staff that Philadelphia dispersal headings over Delaware County would initially only be used 

during peak demand hours, which we define as periods where 10 

or more aircraft would be waiting to depart in the absence of the 

dispersal heading, that is correct.’’ 

Now, you’re not backing off from your statement in that letter, 

are you? 

Mr. STURGELL. No, I’m not. We do define peak demand hours as 

generally the hours where 10 or more aircraft are waiting for departure. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, aren’t the peak hours defined as—you 

have defined them, I don’t know if they’re necessarily correct, but 

you have defined them as 9 o’clock to 11 o’clock and 2 o’clock to 

7 o’clock. 

Mr. STURGELL. Those are the hours where we are currently using 

the two available dispersal headings. 

Senator SPECTER. Those are the hours where you’re doing what? 
22 

Mr. STURGELL. That we are using dispersal headings to the west 

at Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay, and that means subject to the rule that 

there would not be overflights over Delaware County, unless there 

were 10 or more aircraft waiting. 

Mr. STURGELL. So, the chart shows those hours, and it shows the 

number of departures—— 

Senator SPECTER. Before what the chart shows, I want to ascertain, with precision, your commitment. I’m trying to establish the 

commitment that—on the peak hours, which you define as 9 o’clock 

to 11 o’clock and 2 o’clock to 7 o’clock, as your letter of March 20 

said, there wouldn’t be dispersal unless there were 10 or more aircraft waiting to depart. 

Mr. STURGELL. So, the peak demand hours generally equate to 

the aircraft waiting to depart. And at Newark, that is what we are 

using, because we did not reduce the number of dispersal headings. 

At Philadelphia—— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell, why go to Newark when I’m 

pressing you hard to find out about your commitment to Philadelphia. 

Mr. STURGELL. I’m trying to distinguish between the two, because—— 

Senator SPECTER. But I’m not asking you for a distinction, I’m 

asking you for what your commitment has been. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 

The issues have arisen together in various forms, Senator Specter, that’s all—— 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t care about that. What I care about is 

our exchange of correspondence where it is pretty plain that your 

commitment is what I have said. No routings over Delaware County, unless there are 10 or more aircraft waiting, during those designated periods. 

Mr. STURGELL. I think that correspondence says that we are 

using them during those hours, because those are peak demand 

hours. And that generally, peak demand hours are hours where 

you have those kinds of aircraft waiting for departure. 

Senator SPECTER. But you said, well, the difficulty with what 

you’re saying is that you have the commitment, we have on the 

record, departures over Delaware County where you don’t have 10 

aircraft waiting, don’t we? 

Mr. STURGELL. So, if we didn’t use these dispersal headings during those hours, we would have those kinds of delays in terms of 

aircraft waiting for departure. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, if you—if you have fewer than 10 aircraft 

waiting, you made that commitment, because that was a standard 

where you could avoid using the departure route over Delaware 

County, right? 

Mr. STURGELL. Senator, I believe the commitment we made to 

you, and in that correspondence was that we would limit the use 

to peak demand hours, and then we tried to explain that generally, 

a peak demand hour is an hour where you would have 10 or more 

aircraft waiting for departure. 

Senator SPECTER. And if you have less than 10? You would not 

use the overflights over Delaware County? 
23 

Mr. STURGELL. We are trying to limit the use to the peak demand hours. And in fact, we could be starting earlier, we could be 

ending later, we were trying to very narrowly limit the impact to 

people by reducing these hours until we get further into the 

project, and we get the third dispersal heading, and we get other 

things accomplished. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, alright. Take it on your re-interpretation 

of what your commitment is, as I read it, aside from the so-called 

‘‘peak hours’’ where you have 10 or more waiting, if you’re at a 

time period, or if you’re in a situation where there are fewer than 

10 waiting, would you concede, at least in that situation, you’d be 

obligated not to send flights over Delaware County. 

Mr. STURGELL. We are not using the headings in non-peak demand hours. From 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., we’re not using the dispersal 

headings. 

Senator SPECTER. You’re not using—in situations—never mind 

non-peak—let’s talk turkey, let’s talk specifics, if we can, for just 

one question. If you have nine or fewer waiting, you won’t go over 

Delaware County? 

Mr. STURGELL. Senator, the mitigation strategies we had in place 

for this project at Philadelphia do not equate to the number of aircraft, they equate to peak demand hours. Which, as I tried to explain, generally does mean 10 aircraft. But, if you’re using the 

headings, you won’t see those kinds of delays. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Sturgell, I wrote to you on February 15. 

‘‘I’m advised that Federal Aviation Administration representatives 

claim that in November 16, 2007, congressional staff briefing, that 

the heading over Delaware County would initially only be used 

during periods of moderate and heavy traffic at Philadelphia, or 

when approximately 10 to 15 aircraft were waiting to depart.’’ 

We rely on these representatives, and I would fairly call commitments, and you responded, on March 20, ‘‘Your assertion that my 

representatives advised your staff that Philadelphia dispersal 

headings over Delaware County would initially only be used during 

peak man hours which we define as periods when 10 or more aircraft would be waiting to depart, in the absence of the dispersal 

heading, is correct.’’ 

Now, Mr. Sturgell, isn’t a fair—really, the only realistic reading 

of our exchange of correspondence, a commitment not to fly over 

Delaware County? If there weren’t 10 to 15 aircraft waiting to depart? 

Mr. STURGELL. Senator Specter, what I’m trying to convey is that 

the peak demand hours, yes, generally equate to those types of 

numbers of aircraft being lined up, but if you’re using the headings 

during those hours, the point is not to have those kinds of departure delays for the traveling public, so you would not end up with 

10 aircraft in line. 

And if we’re using these over a period of 2 hours where we have 

peak demands, you’re going to reduce those number of aircraft in 

line. So then, do we stop using them until we’ve got 10 more lined 

up, and start using them again? We were trying to do this on a rational basis that has a limited impact to the community, by restricting the hours during those peak demand hours. 
24 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t understand your last answer, about are 

you saying that there are times when you have fewer than 10 airplanes you consider indispensable to fly over Delaware County? 

Mr. STURGELL. First of all, I’m not saying that every airplane out 

there is flying over Delaware County. 

Senator SPECTER. You’re not saying what? 

Mr. STURGELL. That every airplane is flying over Delaware County. 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t care about the others, on this question. 

I do care about the others on other questions, which I’ll come to. 

But let me repeat the question, this is only about the seventh 

time. Are you saying that there are circumstances where you have 

nine or fewer aircraft waiting to depart, do you find it indispensable to fly over Delaware County? 

Mr. STURGELL. I would say that when we are using these dispersal headings, that they are probably reducing delays, such that 

we don’t have those types of numbers of aircraft waiting in line 

during the hours we’re using them. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Gribbin, you’re a lawyer, do you understand that question—answer? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to understand, but you’re a lawyer, Mr. Gribbin. And I know you have a 

certain bias and relationship here, but you also are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which requires telling the truth. I’m not suggesting that anybody’s not telling the truth. 

Mr. STURGELL. I appreciate that. 

Senator SPECTER. I’m not swearing the witnesses. I’m trying to 

find out what’s happened in as a relaxed atmosphere as we can. 

This is not the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Right. Actually, what Administrator Sturgell is saying is that—— 

Senator SPECTER. Speak into the microphone, Senator Thurmond 

used to say, ‘‘Pull the machine closer.’’ 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Talking into the machine. 

What Acting Administrator Sturgell is saying is that we define 

peak periods as, if there were no use of dispersal headings, 

then—— 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t want to know what you define, I want 

to know if you understood his answer. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, his answer was—— 

Senator SPECTER. All right. You understood his answer. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Now, tell me what his answer was? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. His answer was that we will use the additional dispersal headings. If we did not use them, there would be more than 

10 aircraft in line. As a result of using them, it reduces the line, 

which is the point of having the dispersal headings. 

Senator SPECTER. So, there are some times when there are 9 or 

fewer aircraft waiting, that you fly over Delaware County. 

Mr. STURGELL. If they depart on the 268 heading—— 

Senator SPECTER. May the record show that Mr. Gribbin looked 

at Mr. Sturgell, nodded in the affirmative, and now we’re listening 

to Mr. Sturgell’s answer. 
25 

Do you agree with him? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, yes. If they use the northern dispersal heading on the departure. 

Senator SPECTER. So, it’s a qualified ‘‘yes.’’ 

Mr. STURGELL. Because there is a dispersal heading that goes to 

the south, away from Delaware County. 

Senator SPECTER. But, sometimes the headings going away from 

Delaware County are not used, so that you have Mr. Gribbin’s answer, but you are flying over Delaware County with fewer than 10 

aircraft waiting. 

May the record show, Mr. Sturgell is nodding, in the affirmative. 

You’re saying that’s right. 

Mr. STURGELL. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Good. We’re only 14 minutes and 32 seconds 

into this question. 

Now we have enough questions that will take us past midnight 

at that rate. 

Mr. Sturgell, put the chart up, with the various flight patterns 

around, and I think it would be useful to everyone if you would 

come up and show what you’re doing here, by way of generalization, to give you an opportunity to state what you are trying to do 

to avoid the Delaware County problem. I don’t think you’re there 

by the last answer, and by my full understanding of it, but I think 

it would be helpful if you would—why had that chart been withheld from us, Mr. Sturgell? 

Mr. STURGELL. I’m sorry? 

Senator SPECTER. Why had that chart been withheld from us? 

May the record show that we had a group of charts first, and 

now this one comes from the closet. I just want to put that for the 

record. 

Mr. STURGELL. So, the original project proposed seven headings 

in grey. When we were looking at this from completely an operational efficiency and delay-reduction perspective, we came up with 

seven different departure headings, in grey, which permitted us to 

get more airplanes off the runway faster, and reduce delays. 

Then we heard from the citizens. And what we did was we went 

back, and tried to find ways to reduce noise impact on the citizens, 

and, in particular, for the four headings right here—270, 29, 310, 

330—all flowing off into Delaware County. 

So, we heard from the community, and what we did was, we 

came up with three headings. So, we took an operational hit, and 

helped mitigate the impact to the communities. And we ended up 

with three headings, in purple. We moved 270 to 268, to try and 

reduce the noise impact in this area, and we got rid of the headings 

flying up to the north. 

We kept 245, we have not yet put in 230—I think that’s going 

to take us about 2 years to do, because we have some internal airspace changes we have to do—— 

Senator SPECTER. Why should it take 2 years to put in two-thirds 

of the dispersal and dotted lines? 

Mr. STURGELL. Because it involves airspace changes within our 

facilities, which impacts the workforce and our operating environment, and they take longer to do. These two did not require those 

changes. 
26 

And we’re also using the red heading, 255 down the river, during 

the off-peak hours, at night, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and then 

there’s a slot during the middle of the day, from 11 o’clock to 2 

o’clock or so, where the demand drops off, we’re using those headings during that time. 

Senator SPECTER. Now, now, now, now, now—wait, wait. You’re 

saying—as you had explained to me in our meeting earlier this 

week—that from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m., you are using only—use the 

chart, which has 255 on it. That chart. And you told me that from 

10 p.m. to 9 a.m., you were using only 255, correct? 

Mr. STURGELL. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, how can you do that, Mr. Sturgell, in 

view of a very heavy traffic at the airport, in the 7 o’clock time 

zone? 

Mr. STURGELL. So, you can see, from 5 o’clock to 7 o’clock, the 

traffic picks up, 7 o’clock to 9 o’clock—— 

Senator SPECTER. Pull that chart up. 

Mr. STURGELL. Five to seven starts ramping up, 7 o’clock to 9 

o’clock, it’s fairly high, it’s above the average, which is the green. 

But it’s not at some of the peak hours. So we are taking hits by 

not using the headings during that time. But it is part of our mitigation strategy to try and reduce the noise impact to the community at early times of the day, were we to be using those dispersal 

headings. 

Until we get the third heading in, we’re going to monitor these 

hours very closely, and try to limit them to our peak demand 

hours. 

Senator SPECTER. And you’re talking about the third heading 

coming in, as 230. 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. And you say that’ll be in 2 years? 

Mr. STURGELL. Approximately. 

Senator SPECTER. And when 230 is in, will that eliminate the 

flights over Delaware County? 

Mr. STURGELL. It will not eliminate the flights over Delaware 

County. It will more evenly distribute the flights among three 

headings, vice two headings. 

Senator SPECTER. Will it reduce the flights over Delaware County? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think it will reduce the noise impact once it will 

be implemented. 

Senator SPECTER. Reduce the noise impact? 

Mr. Gribbin, would you explain that answer to me? 

Mr. Sturgell, if it reduces the noise impact, wouldn’t that necessarily mean that’s because the number of flights were reduced? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, I think they directly relate to each other. 

I’m—— 

Senator SPECTER. They directly relate to each other. 

Mr. STURGELL. I don’t specifically know whether the actual 

flights are reduced, I don’t have that knowledge. I do know the 

noise impact will be less, because we will have a third heading to 

use. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I’m just trying to understand your testimony. The question is, will the number of flights be reduced over 
27 

Delaware County? The answer to that, unresponsive, the noise impact will be reduced. Well, if noise impact is reduced, doesn’t that 

mean the number of flights will be reduced? Answer: Well, there 

is a direct correlation, there. 

Do you want to— 

Mr. STURGELL. Senator, I think that’s a safe assumption, I just 

don’t—— 

Senator SPECTER. I’m not interested in assumptions. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 

Senator SPECTER. I want to know conclusions. Will the number 

of flights be reduced? 

Mr. STURGELL. I don’t know the actual numbers that are involved. 

Senator SPECTER. But you know the noise impact will be reduced. 

Mr. STURGELL. But I know the noise impact. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. It’s like pulling teeth, Mr. Sturgell. And 

I’m trying to work through to get your best presentation, give you 

a chance. 

I think your best presentation has lots of problems, but I want 

to give you a chance for your best presentation. 

I’m advised that Mayor Nutter has to leave very, very shortly. 

And of course we’ll accommodate the Mayor. 

Mayor Nutter, would you step forward and would you four take 

seats on the front row and I’ll recall you in just a few minutes? 

While the Mayor is coming downstairs, let me introduce him to 

you. Not that he needs an introduction. The Mayor comes with a 

very distinguished record. Elected on November 6, former Councilman from the 4th District, Democratic Ward Leader, University of 

Pennsylvania, Wharton School, 1979, and he has hit the ground 

sprinting as Mayor, and I have had the pleasure of talking to him 

informally, worked with him when he was on the City Council, we 

were on panels together, we’ve had a long friendship and I’m 

pleased to see what he’s doing in so many, many areas, and especially in this area, because he convened a meeting of the airlines 

in the past couple of weeks to tackle this problem. 

And no longer introduction, Mr. Mayor. I’ll give you the maximum time you can spend with us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL NUTTER, MAYOR, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Mr. NUTTER. Senator Specter, thank you very, very much for this 

opportunity and the honor of testifying before this Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 

and Related Agencies. And I might, to ease my way into it, given 

the last panel—as happy as I am to be here, I think Mr. Sturgell 

might be happier that I’m here to provide a bit of a break. 

These are my opening comments, Senator, I will not take a significant amount of time, but this is a very important issue. And 

you are correct, we did have an opportunity to talk with the airlines about these issues and many others. 

And for the record, my name is Michael A. Nutter, I’m Mayor of 

the city of Philadelphia. The city of Philadelphia owns and operates 
28 

Philadelphia International Airport, which I will subsequently refer 

to as PHL. 

The gateway to America’s fourth most populous metropolitan 

area, the airport sustains over 34,000 jobs, and contributes more 

than $14 billion annually to the regional economy. It is a key component of my strategic plan for economic development, job creation, 

and customer service in Philadelphia and our region. 

Twenty-nine airlines fly over 650 daily departures from Philadelphia to 122 non-stop domestic and international destinations. 

I’d like to also add for the record that I am pleased and proud 

to—in our continuing efforts with our Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler, 

and our airport director Charlie Isdell, to continue to develop working partnerships with our good friends in Tenniken Township, and 

Delaware County—critical and important stakeholders and partners in our efforts from a regional standpoint, to make Philadelphia International Airport work for all of us. 

Senator Specter, I’d just like to give you a bit of an update on 

the airport. Our airport has achieved yet another record year in 

2007 by accommodating over 32.2 million total passengers. This 

continues the steady rate of passenger growth, which we have been 

experiencing since 2004. PHL landed 499,653 aircraft take-offs and 

landings in 2007, making it the 10th-busiest airport in the United 

States. 

Unfortunately, along with its record-setting passenger growth 

and robust contribution to the regional economy, PHL was ranked 

among the most-delayed airports in the United States for some— 

has ranked among the most-delayed airports in the United States 

for some time. 

In terms of total delays in 2007, PHL ranked 6th worse among 

the 30th largest U.S. airports, behind only Chicago, Newark, 

LaGuardia, JFK and Atlanta. 

However, over the past 3 years, the number of annual takeoffs 

and landings at PHL has declined by nearly 7 percent. This decline 

in activity has primarily resulted from a change in airline behavior. 

The current state of the economy—especially the price of jet fuel— 

has forced the airlines to find new ways to accommodate continued 

passenger growth. 

Rather than simply increase flights, they have been reducing 

overall seat capacity by eliminating underperforming routes, consolidating activity at fewer hub airports, and strategically introducing newer, larger, more fuel efficient regional jets. In addition, 

at Philadelphia, US Airways has been working to reduce delays, by 

improving their facilities and operational efficiency. 

Total delays at PHL over the past 3 years have declined by 11 

percent. The total delays at JFK in 2007 were 30 percent greater 

than those experienced at PHL. Total delays at LaGuardia, Newark, and Chicago were 2 to 2.5 times greater than those at PHL. 

The delay situation at Philadelphia is certainly worth of this subcommittee’s attention, but it is not yet comparable to those airports 

which have been forced to consider and, in some cases, implement 

strict demand-management measures. 

We do not intend to allow our airport to ever reach that level of 

intervention. The city has completed an Airport Master Plan proc-
29 

ess, which recommended short-term and long-term airfield improvements, aimed at needed delay reduction. 

The short-term recommendation was a 1,000-foot extension of 

runway 17–35, to make it usable for a broader range of aircraft 

types. The Federal Aviation Administration approved this project 

in 2005, and it is scheduled for completion later this year. It is expected to reduce overall delays in Philadelphia by 8 percent. 

The long-term plan involved continued development of the airfield, including a new runway, extension of two other runways, and 

several important improvements to the taxiway system. This program is currently the subject of an environmental impact statement being prepared by the FAA. The EIS process was set back by 

a full year, when the recent Airspace Redesign Process was implemented, because of a great deal of airfield design work had to be 

recalculated in light of the airspace changes. 

The FAA is not scheduled to complete the PHL airfield EIS until 

the end of 2009. Following FAA approval, the city expects to embark on the initial phase of the program expeditiously. 

This multi-year process will result in airfield infrastructure improvements that will increase the capacity of our airport, reduce 

delays, and allow PHL to accommodate projected growth while offering a higher level of service to our passengers. 

A couple of last points, Senator Specter. We are also fully aware 

of a variety of other topics, and I’ll just touch on the sub-headings, 

here. Of course, the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia airspace, 

FAA Airspace Redesign, we are actively involved in that process. 

Flight scheduling practices—there are three that we are primarily looking, of course, first is voluntary adjustment of airline 

flight schedules, the second, administrative approaches, and third, 

market-based approaches, as well. 

In summary, Senator Specter, I would say that our primary concern with all of these approaches is their potential impact on airfares. Much progress has been made in recent years at Philadelphia to increase competition. Prior to the approval of Southwest 

Airlines in 2004, PHL’s passengers consistently paid some of the 

highest average airfares in the Nation. 

For the past 4 years, our passengers have consistently enjoyed 

some of the Nation’s lowest average airfares. This accomplishment 

could be undone by demand management measures, particularly if 

they are not carefully planned and implemented. 

I do not mean to diminish the seriousness of our delay problems 

at PHL, at all. We are committed to considering any and all responsible measures to address this problem. Our present focus is 

on the implementation of a long-term airfield development program. We would gratefully accept any assistance this subcommittee 

can provide in prioritizing that initiative. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today, 

I would submit the fuller testimony for the record, and I would certainly be glad to answer any questions that you might have that 

I might be able to answer on my own. 

Thank you, sir. 
30 

Senator SPECTER. Your full statement will be made part of the 

record, without objection, and I very much appreciate your coming 

in, Mr. Mayor. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL NUTTER

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

I am Michael Nutter, Mayor of the city of Philadelphia, which owns and operates 

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), the gateway to America’s 4th most populous metropolitan area. The Airport sustains over 34,000 jobs and contributes more 

than $14 billion annually to the regional economy. It is a key component of my strategic plan for economic development, job creation and customer service. Twenty-nine 

airlines fly over 650 daily departures from Philadelphia to 122 non-stop domestic 

and international destinations. 

AIRPORT UPDATE

Our Airport achieved yet another record year in 2007 by accommodating over 32.2 

million total passengers. This continues the steady rate of passenger growth, which 

we have been experiencing since 2004. PHL handled 499,653 aircraft take-offs and 

landings in 2007, making it the 10th busiest airport in the United States. Unfortunately, along with its record-setting passenger growth and robust contribution to the 

regional economy, PHL has ranked among the most delayed airports in the United 

States for some time. In terms of total delays in 2007, PHL ranked 6th worst among 

the 30 largest U.S. airports, behind only Chicago, Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and Atlanta. 

However, over the past 3 years, the number of annual take-offs and landings at 

PHL has declined by nearly 7 percent. This decline in activity has primarily resulted from a change in airline behavior. The current state of the economy, especially the price of jet fuel, has forced the airlines to find new ways to accommodate 

continued passenger growth. Rather than simply increase flights, they have been reducing overall seat capacity by eliminating under-performing routes, consolidating 

activity at fewer hub airports and strategically introducing newer, larger, more fuelefficient regional jets. In addition, at Philadelphia, US Airways has been working 

to reduce delays by improving their facilities and operational efficiency. 

Total delays at PHL over the past 3 years have declined by 11 percent. The total 

delays at JFK in 2007 were 30 percent greater than those experienced at PHL. 

Total delays at LaGuardia, Newark and Chicago were 2 to 2.5 times greater than 

those at PHL. The delay situation at Philadelphia is certainly worthy of this subcommittee’s attention but it is not yet comparable to those airports, which have 

been forced to consider and, in some cases, implement strict demand management 

measures. We do not intend to allow our airport to ever reach that level of intervention. The 

city has completed an Airport Master Plan process, which recommended short-term 

and long-term airfield improvements aimed at much needed delay reduction. The 

short-term recommendation was a 1,000-foot extension of Runway 17–35 to make 

it useable for a broader range of aircraft types. The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) approved this project in 2005 and it is scheduled for completion later this 

year. It is expected to reduce overall delays in Philadelphia by 8 percent. 

The long-term plan involves continued development of the airfield, including a 

new runway, extension of two other runways, and several improvements to the taxiway system. This program is currently the subject of an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) being prepared by the FAA. The EIS process was set back by a full 

year when the recent Airspace Redesign process was implemented because a great 

deal of airfield design work had to be recalculated in light of the airspace changes. 

The FAA is not scheduled to complete the PHL airfield EIS until the end of 2009. 

Following FAA approval, the city expects to embark on the initial phase of the program expeditiously. This multi-year process will result in airfield infrastructure improvements that will increase the capacity of our airport, reduce delays, and allow 

PHL to accommodate projected growth while offering a higher level of service to our 

passengers. 

NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY/PHILADELPHIA FAA AIRSPACE REDESIGN

For the last 10 years the FAA has been exploring ways to improve the flow of 

air traffic in the Philadelphia/New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace, which 

is the most congested in the Nation. The city of Philadelphia has a vested interest 
31 

in the outcome of this process. We hope to benefit from any new procedures that 

may help reduce delays. The city offered comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released by the FAA in 2006. The FAA was evaluating several 

alternatives, some of which introduced new flight routes for aircraft operating here. 

The city commented that the FAA’s ‘‘integrated airspace’’ alternative would offer the 

most potential benefit for delay reduction by creating additional flight paths for use 

by aircraft departing from Philadelphia in a westbound direction. The proposed 

headings would allow FAA controllers to release departing flights faster and reduce 

the number of aircraft that are delayed while waiting to take-off. 

The city simultaneously expressed concern over the potential for increased noise 

over Delaware County. We were pleased to see that when the final FAA report was 

released, it had been revised to eliminate some of the proposed departure headings, 

and also included time-of-day limitations on when the new headings could be used. 

Significantly, the city’s own noise policy, calling for planes to stay over the Delaware 

River until they reach 3,000 feet, has been maintained. The use of the new headings 

was approved last year and implemented on December 19. The FAA has not yet 

published any data with which their effectiveness can be evaluated. The FAA Philadelphia Tower Manager has assured us that controllers are limiting use of the new 

headings to peak activity periods and adhering to the time-of-day stipulations. 

FLIGHT SCHEDULING PRACTICES

In addition to airspace redesign and the expansion of airport facilities to reduce 

delays, ‘‘demand management’’ strategies have been considered and, in some cases, 

implemented at a limited number of airports in the United States. There are three 

primary demand management techniques: 

—Voluntary adjustment of airline flight schedules during peak periods to shift operations to off-peak hours. This typically involves a request to the airlines that 

they voluntarily ‘‘de-peak’’ their flight schedules. The opportunities for this 

practice to be effective at PHL are limited because we have already experienced 

a significant de-peaking of the daily flight schedule. As demand for air service 

has grown at PHL over the last several years, the airlines have responded by 

adding flights during the available low activity periods in the daily schedule. 

This has effectively resulted in a de-peaking of the schedule. We do not believe 

there is much room for additional schedule adjustments that would reduce peak 

period operations. Furthermore, the flight schedule at PHL is largely made up 

of the domestic and international operation of our hub carrier, US Airways, 

which accounts for 62 percent of Philadelphia’s market share. Their scheduling 

is driven by the need to link their connecting flights. Transatlantic and transcontinental flights in particular have limited windows of time in which to operate and be available to passengers at a reasonable time of day. Shorter domestic 

flights carrying passengers who will connect to those transcontinental or international flights must be scheduled accordingly. Thus the hub airline has limited 

flexibility to further adjust flight schedules. Airlines in general need to schedule 

flights at the times preferred by travelers in order to remain competitive in the 

marketplace. This also hinders the Airport’s ability to secure airline cooperation 

in voluntarily adjusting schedules. 

—Administrative Approaches to reduce delays have been used by the FAA at a 

limited number of airports, including the imposition of operational limitations 

or ‘‘caps.’’ Caps strictly limit the number of flights that can be operated during 

a day, or a given peak period of a day. In recent years this approach has been 

implemented as a ‘‘temporary’’ measure at Chicago O’Hare, LaGuardia, JFK 

and Newark International Airports. As previously stated, these airports are experiencing delay levels that are significantly greater than PHL’s. As a result we 

believe that caps are not appropriate at Philadelphia. They would limit opportunities for continued growth in air service and competition. The associated benefits to travelers, such as direct access to markets and competitive airfares, 

would be lost. Caps are not a reasonable long-term solution to Philadelphia’s 

delay problem. We believe that long-term delay reduction is attainable through 

development and expansion of our airfield. 

—Market-based Approaches can take several forms, including the establishment 

of peak period pricing, whereby an airport could charge higher fees during peak 

periods to encourage airlines to move some of their flights to off-peak periods 

or to other airports. Currently, the FAA prohibits this type of differential fee 

structure. However, the FAA has recently embarked upon a rule-making process that could enable peak-hour pricing in the future. Philadelphia, along with 

many other airports, submitted comments on the FAA’s draft proposal last 

month. Among other points, we noted that the continued FAA requirement that 
32 

such new pricing must be ‘‘revenue neutral’’ for the airport undercuts the expressed purpose of the new rule. 

Additionally, the city has recently executed a new Lease Agreement with the airlines at PHL. Unless the FAA preempts it, this agreement would not permit any 

type of peak period pricing structure to be effected during its 4-year term. As previously stated, we believe that peak-hour pricing would have little effect at PHL because the airlines have already voluntarily de-peaked to the extent feasible. 

SUMMARY

Our primary concern with all of these approaches is their potential impact on airfares. Much progress has been made in recent years at Philadelphia to increase 

competition. Prior to the arrival of Southwest Airlines in 2004, PHL’s passengers 

consistently paid some of the highest average airfares in the Nation. For the past 

4 years, our passengers have consistently enjoyed some of the Nation’s lowest average airfares. This accomplishment could be undone by demand management measures, particularly if they are not carefully planned and implemented. 

We do not mean to diminish the seriousness of our delay problem at PHL. We 

are committed to considering any and all responsible measures to address this problem. Our present focus is on the implementation of a long-term airfield development 

program. We would gratefully accept any assistance this subcommittee can provide 

in prioritizing that initiative. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will 

be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me pick up on a comment you just made 

late in your testimony, at Philadelphia that there are the highest 

airfares in Philadelphia in the country. Do you have any idea as 

to why that is so? 

Mr. NUTTER. Well, I would certainly suggest—and not just because of Southwest, but certainly Southwest Airline’s arrival in 

Philadelphia set off—as I best recall—a good healthy round of competition among the various airlines. And I would only suggest, help 

to drive prices down, helped us to attract more customers, and 

Philadelphia International Airport, and our passengers, were the 

true beneficiaries. And there have been some other entrants into 

the market who have stepped up their presence. 

Senator SPECTER. So, before Southwest—and I agree with you, 

they’ve driven down prices. Before Southwest, the prices were even 

higher. But why should Philadelphia be among the highest airfarecost cities? 

Mr. NUTTER. Well, I would agree with you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. And that may be a question that neither of us 

can answer. 

Mr. NUTTER. Right. We shouldn’t. 

Senator SPECTER. But, I think we ought to find out. 

Mr. NUTTER. Yes, I would agree with that. We should not be. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mayor, on the impact on commerce and 

encouraging corporations and other business to settle here, has to 

be impacted by the difficulty of getting in and out of the city. Without quantifying it statistically, just off the cuff, what would your 

overall impression be, having been city government on council for 

many years, and now Mayor and an aircraft flyer yourself, on how 

people look at Philadelphia and how they think about settling here, 

contrasted with a city which has a good record. 

Mr. NUTTER. Senator, I can tell you from direct personal experience and conversations that this issue does arise, more oftentimes 

than not. After we get past, you know, discussions—especially with 

major companies that we may be trying to attract or encouraging 

others to expand, when you get beyond taxes and public safety and 
33 

a number of other factors, invariably, issues related to Philadelphia 

International Airport do arise. 

It is, unfortunately, something that we’re known for. Not necessarily in the most positive light. And so, that was why I convened 

the meeting of the airlines, our primary airlines in Philadelphia, 

and of course you were a participant in that discussion. 

I look at Philadelphia International Airport, as I mentioned in 

my testimony, as a key component of the economic vitality, not just 

of Philadelphia. Everyone knows that two-thirds of the airport is 

actually in Delaware County and Tenniken Township, this is a regional asset, it is a regional economic engine. 

In our uniquely—what I refer to as our unique situation—almost 

perfectly situated between New York and Washington, I believe 

there’s actually a strategic advantage for the city of Philadelphia, 

but we have to be able to get people on the ground and in the terminal, or out of the—away from the gate and in the air much 

quicker. 

It does nothing for our reputation if you can technically land on 

time but no—I guess the formal term is, deplane—for the rest of 

us, get off the aircraft, as opposed to sitting on the runway. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I think you point up a good factor. If 

you’re delayed in getting into the terminal, it oughtn’t be landing 

time, it ought to be foot in the terminal time. 

Mr. NUTTER. I mean I have to agree with you. I mean, you know, 

the fact that I got on the plane at 9:30 a.m. for a 10 a.m. departure, and maybe then sit on the runway for another half hour—yes, 

I did get on on-time, and we pulled away on-time, but we didn’t 

leave. So, the goal is not to be on the tarmac of Philly International. I think you’re trying to get to, you know, Boston or Baltimore or New York or wherever it is that you’re trying to go. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mayor, what consideration, if any, should 

be given to charging the airlines for these peak hours? To try to 

discourage them from using them? 

Mr. NUTTER. That issue certainly came up during the course of 

our meeting, and I’ve had other discussions about it, you know, 

one—I don’t know what the reaction by the airlines would be, two, 

I don’t know what impact, ultimately, that would have on fares. 

Speaking now, more from a business standpoint, I would wonder 

whether that ‘‘fee’’ would be passed on to passengers, and if that 

were the case, it may put Philadelphia back in the uncompetitive 

status from a fare standpoint, which of course we’re constantly 

seeking to drive our fares down, use fares as a competitive advantage, in addition to our strategic location. 

I need a well-functioning airport that is fairly priced, competitive 

with many other cities up and down the east coast. It is—it puts 

Philadelphia in an uncompetitive situation if the alternatives are 

to leave Philadelphia or our region—with no disrespect to Baltimore or other locations—but to go to BWI, or Newark or somewhere else, to avoid Philadelphia International Airport. That is an 

untenable situation for us, and I can not accept that, under any circumstances, as Mayor of Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mayor, there has been action by the FAA 

to go into New York and to try to do some rational scheduling. And 

the testimony earlier today was New York causes a cascade, and 
34 

it’s a national problem. I know the answer to this question, but 

let’s put it on the record—is there any reason why New York 

should get more consideration for the FAA on trying to work out 

a rational airline schedule for arrivals and departures in Philadelphia? 

Mr. NUTTER. Well, as long as we’re still as part of the United 

States, I would say the answer is no. 

Senator SPECTER. The Equal Protection Clause? 

Mr. NUTTER. You’re much better at arguing those—making those 

arguments, but yes, Philadelphia should at least receive the same 

consideration from our Federal Aviation Administration. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mayor, I’ve been discussing with key officials in the Department of Transportation legislation—the FAA 

does not have the authority to impose restrictions, or at least if a— 

it is highly doubtful, something they are not inclined to do. And I 

believe the mood of the Congress is really very angry about what’s 

going on with these arrivals and departures all over the country. 

It would behoove the airlines to try to take some action in advance of congressional inaction—whatever the market does, or the 

airlines do, as a private matter is always more sensible than waiting for somebody to come down and impose it. It also takes a long 

time to get the legislation through and implement it. 

So, it may be that as a supplement to what—and I appreciated 

the invitation to your meeting—the supplement to what you have 

done, and what we’re trying to do on this subcommittee, that we 

might encourage the airlines to come up with a voluntary plan— 

they know what these delays are, ask them to sit down and figure 

it out themselves, with the obvious implication really flat statement that the Sword of Damocles is not far away. Try to get them 

to do it. And for all I know, you’d be prepared to provide leadership 

on that subject—— 

Mr. NUTTER. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. And something I believe we ought to consider, 

as a follow-up on your meeting with them, and this session. 

Mr. NUTTER. Well, Senator, I can certainly report to you that 

after that meeting, and you had a—I know you have another meeting to attend, but I can report to you, we haven’t talked since. The 

airlines were quite inspired, based on your comments, with regard 

to the Federal legislative option, to start exploring ways that they 

may be able to—away from any, you know, anti-trust or occlusion 

issues, but they were more than optimistic about trying to explore 

ways to voluntarily sort out these scheduling challenges. 

Senator SPECTER. Volunteerism may come to the fore with imminent Federal action in the rear. 

Mr. NUTTER. I think, Senator, when you mention the Sword of 

Damocles—that was the point where they really were looking at 

the voluntary action. Most of them try to avoid that sword. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mayor, we’d be glad to hear anything 

you’d care to add. In the absence of that, I thank you for revising 

your schedule to accommodate what we had to do on scheduling at 

this end. 

Mr. NUTTER. Thank you. Any time for you, Senator. 

Thank you very much. 
35 

AVIATION DELAYS

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 

I’d like to recall, now, the four witnesses from the FAA. 

Welcome back. Let’s move to the subject of overbooking, delays 

on takeoffs and landings. 

On those calculations, Mr. Gribbin, do they count the time 

when—or they don’t count the time the plane takes off after waiting on the tarmac for all that time? They count the time from the 

scheduled departure? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, they count the tarmac delays—we keep 

tarmac delay statistics, also. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, if the statistics are that the planes—so 

many of the planes left late, that’s late from the time they take off 

on the tarmac, not from the time they pull away from the gate? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. No, we’re counting delays as based on arrivals, 

so—— 

Senator SPECTER. You count delays based on arrivals? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. On arrival times. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you also count delays based on takeoffs? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, we count tarmac delays, and then we count 

arrival time delays. 

So, I think the challenge that you mentioned earlier during your 

opening statement, is that airlines will over-schedule certain periods of time for departure times, because consumers want to leave 

at those times. Right now, there is no disincentive for them to do 

that, in fact, they’re incentivized to over-schedule key departure 

times. But, there’s nothing that prohibits them, currently, from 

padding their schedule. And even if they end up departing late, if 

they arrive on time, that is counted as an on-time flight. 

Currently, the Secretary has asked my office to—— 

Senator SPECTER. Excuse me, Mr. Gribbin? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. If the plane is scheduled to leave at 7 a.m., 

and it pulls away from the gate at 7 a.m. and it takes off at 10 

a.m., is that a delayed flight? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That is a delayed flight. 

Senator SPECTER. And if a plane, you’re scheduled to arrive at 

5 p.m., and pulls into the gate at 5 p.m.—pulls into the gate area, 

but can’t get a gate to allow the passengers to depart the plane 

until 6 p.m., is that a delayed arrival? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That is a delayed arrival. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, the issue of delayed takeoffs and delayed 

arrivals is of enormous import—don’t have to talk too much about 

it to establish the nature of the problem, you’ve heard the Mayor’s 

testimony, and I can testify personally to the problems, over a long, 

long period of time. And beyond the commercial aspects, which we 

talked about, that’s what I wanted to focus with the Mayor, didn’t 

want to keep him any longer than absolutely necessary because of 

his other commitments, but the experience I’ve had, and the experience with passengers I’ve been with, you’re due to come in at 6 

o’clock and it’s foggy and rainy and you circle back to Harrisburg 

and back, and a terrible anxiety as to what’s going on. Especially 

with the limitation on air controllers and all of the issues on safety 
36 

in the sky—and let me commend you for the hearing you had last 

week, and the efforts that are being made there. 

Had a surprising story in the New York Times today about the 

biggest problem in flying is collisions on the ground. 

But getting back to the anguish, flying, foggy, rainy, just takes 

a tremendous, tremendous toll, it’s like something you really have 

to come to grips with. 

Mr. Gribbin, you talk about New York having a cascade across 

the country. Well, I think Philadelphia qualifies for that. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That’s right. 

Senator SPECTER. I note that you are on the Study Group for 

New York, in addition to your duties of General Counsel, you’re 

chairman of the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which 

convened meetings in New York area airports in October to come 

up with findings for dealing with air congestion. Why not a similar 

meeting for Philadelphia? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, when we started the Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee, the question was, how big a scope did we want to have? 

We talked about doing something that was nationwide, and then 

we decided to focus on the New York area, and then we decided 

to collapse that even further, and focus just on the Port Authorityowned airports, since most of the Nation’s delays were triggered by 

those three airports. 

However, there’s nothing that prohibits us from taking us—— 

Senator SPECTER. Pull the mike a little closer. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. There’s nothing that takes us—— 

Senator SPECTER. You say you started with three—just three airports? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We started with just the Port Authority airports— 

Newark, LaGuardia, JFK. And what we wanted to have with New 

York, which was represented by airlines, consumer groups, State of 

New York, State of New Jersey and the Port Authority—— 

Senator SPECTER. Isn’t Philadelphia really indispensable for that 

consideration because of the confluence of the airspace? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, Philadelphia is considered to be part of the 

New York City airspace, and the changes being proposed in New 

York will benefit Philadelphia, as well. 

Senator SPECTER. My question was different, my question is, isn’t 

Philadelphia travel—air travel, the airlines, so integral with what 

happens out of New York that they ought to be included in those 

studies? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, we are including Philadelphia in future actions. The ARC has concluded, so that action has finished, and we 

had a set of recommendations that came forward out of that exercise. But that does not preclude us from taking what we learned 

from the ARC, and applying it to Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, will you schedule one of those meetings 

for Philadelphia? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We would be glad to schedule a meeting for Philadelphia. In fact, I handed the mayor my card—— 

Senator SPECTER. Within 90 days? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, sir, we will do that within 90 days. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay, that’s a nice, direct answer. We’re making progress. 
37 

With respect to the question of imposing limitations on the airlines, Mr. Gribbin, does the Department of Transportation need authority from Congress to do that? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The Department of Transportation currently has 

legal authority to convene schedule reduction meetings with the 

airlines, similar to what the FAA did for JFK and Newark, during 

the end of last year and the early part of this year. I think that 

our concern is that—and the mayor touched on this—if you cap an 

airport, as in, you say there’s only so many operations allowed per 

hour, you grant that to the incumbent airlines, and effectively 

you’ve locked out competition. 

The mayor talked about the importance of Southwest entering 

into the Philadelphia market and what that did for fares—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I wouldn’t do that—come back to the central question which I’d like to have answered, and then I can move 

on—could, does the Department of Transportation have the authority, now, to establish a limited number of flights, say from 7 a.m. 

to 8 a.m., 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., et cetera, at Philadelphia International Airport? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. It does. The question is, if it does that, what does 

that do to fares and competition, and is that in the public interest? 

Senator SPECTER. So, you do not need congressional authority? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Currently we do not need congressional authority 

to place flight limitations on an airport. 

Senator SPECTER. Flight limitations on the airport. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, when you talk about freezing out competition, I agree with you—you can’t do that. But that could be accommodated by a monthly reevaluation, or 45 days or some realistic period, so the schedules can be made for an appropriate period 

of time. Has that consideration been given by the Department of 

Transportation? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, as part of our focus on New York, which will 

soon include Philadelphia, we just talked about what term limit— 

if you impose slots on an airport, what term should that slot take 

for the airlines? The airlines argue that it should be for incumbents 

in perpetuity, new entrants suggest, that it should be a matter of 

a year or two. 

So, there’s significant debate over, once you impose slots, what 

property interest you’re giving to incumbent airlines. 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t really understand your position on that. 

Is the Department of Transportation giving serious consideration to 

limiting the number of flights into New York City so that there are 

only as many flights scheduled as New York, LaGuardia, JFK, 

Newark, can handle? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Currently what we have done is similar to what we 

have historically—LaGuardia has been capped since 1968. So, 

those caps have been in place—— 

Senator SPECTER. New York caps in 1968, are they realistic? Or 

are they still having lots of delays? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. There is concern that the current cap that is in 

place is too high, because there are significant delays at 

LaGuardia. It remains one of the top three—— 

Senator SPECTER. Cap is too high, or too low? 
38 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Too high—too many flights per hour. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay, so has consideration been given to lowering the cap, something which is realistic with what the airport 

can handle? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. As part of the supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that the Department put out a couple of weeks ago, 

one of the options would reduce the number of operations at 

LaGuardia. As you can imagine there’s—— 

Senator SPECTER. And what are the other options? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. There are two options. What we are suggesting is, 

capping the airport, and then allowing for options for some of the 

existing capacity. This would allow the new entrants of the world, 

the Southwests, to compete in that market and keep fares low. 

So, the two options—— 

Senator SPECTER. Is that option two? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Auctions are in both options. Under the first option—— 

Senator SPECTER. Option one is to lower the cap. What’s option 

two? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Option one is to withdraw 10 percent of the slots, 

auction 8 percent of them, and retire the 2 percent that are not 

auctioned. That’s option one. 

Option two does not have a retirement. So, it doesn’t reduce the 

number of slots, it would just require the airlines to auction a piece 

of the slots that they have to another airline, and then the airlines 

could keep the proceeds from that auction. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, option two is not going to help the congestion. Is—you’re going to offer 8 percent to other airlines, or 2 

percent? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Eight percent and then 2 percent would be retired. 

Senator SPECTER. Isn’t 2 percent a pittance? Not realistic, at all 

to solve the congestion problem. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Well, what we’re trying to do is accommodate, sort 

of, the public interest. Because the Port Authority would prefer 

that it not be lowered, at all. Airlines, similarly, would prefer that 

it not be lowered at all. 

Senator SPECTER. Why is it so hard to answer my question and 

then move on to whatever you would like to say? That’s what the 

chairman is supposed to be able to do, or the member who raises 

the question. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Yes, sir, to answer your question—— 

Senator SPECTER. Yes, I would—— 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I would—— 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Much if you would start with answering my question. Then if you want to answer some of your 

questions, I’ll let you take the time to do it. 

The pending question is—is a 2 percent reduction, de minimus? 

Meaningless, virtually? To deal with the congestion? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I would not consider 2 percent meaningless. It is 

small. But again, what we anticipate, with the improvements that 

the FAA is going to make to New York City airspace, is that over 

time capacity will grow. And therefore delays will be reduced without having to lower the cap. 
39 

Senator SPECTER. Well, that’s fine, over time. And if I had 3 days 

for your testimony, here, we could go into all of the hypothetical 

things that might happen. 

But, in terms of getting something done now, isn’t 2 percent a 

pittance? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Remember, similar to the comment you made about 

the Philadelphia Airport, these airports are operating in a system, 

and the FAA is currently making up improvements in Philadelphia, 

as Acting Administrator Sturgell mentioned earlier, making improvements at Newark, and we’ve put in place caps at JFK. So, I 

think, overall, we expect a reduction in the amount of delays. 

Second, I think the goal is not to reduce the delays to zero. In 

other words, we could cut in half the number of flights that are 

coming in—— 

Senator SPECTER. What are the caps at JFK? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The caps at JFK are an average of 82 or 83 per 

hour. 

Senator SPECTER. And what’s the reduction? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The delay reduction is from an average of—— 

Mr. STURGELL. I think it’s about a 13 to 15 percent delay reduction, based on our modeling. 

Senator SPECTER. Thirteen to 15 percent? 

Mr. STURGELL. I believe that’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. I don’t consider that adequate. I won’t ask you 

if you do, but I don’t consider that adequate to leave 85 to 87 percent of the delays in effect. I don’t think my colleagues in the Congress would consider that adequate, either. 

It would not be a desirable situation to have the Congress come 

in, and start to establish standards for the FAA. But, gentlemen, 

and lady, I don’t think what you’re talking about is realistic, in 

terms of that kind of minimal reduction. And 2 percent, I think, is 

laughable. And 15 percent is a start, but only a start. 

We have the authority, as you say, Mr. Gribbin. That might 

leave Congress the only option to mandate, which we can do. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. We can mandate the standards. I think that 

would be a very bad governmental policy, for the Congress to try 

to micromanage the Department of Transportation and the FAA. 

But if you don’t do it, we will. 

I can’t go into all of the long-range undertakings that you have 

in mind to make this Newark 10 percent meaningful. But, I’d like 

you to submit, in writing, within 30 days the projections which 

would support your argument, that 2 percent is meaningful. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. I’d be glad to, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. And LaGuardia? What is the proposal for delay 

reduction there? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The 2 percent was LaGuardia. 

Senator SPECTER. I thought 2 percent was Newark, well, what’s 

Newark? 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Newark, we just put in place caps to prevent the 

growth of delays. Those are the caps I mentioned that were averaging 82 to 83 per hour. 

Senator SPECTER. Doing what? 
40 

Mr. GRIBBIN. The caps average 82 or 83 operations per hour. And 

the delay reduction would be—— 

Mr. STURGELL. I don’t recall those off-hand, Senator, but we’ll get 

you that information, also. 

[The information follows:] 

Dear Senator Specter, thank you for your April 22 letter about the use of departure dispersal headings at the Philadelphia International Airport and your request 

to consider a method for restricting access to the airport to avoid chronic overscheduling. In addition, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share these discussion items with you and your constituents at the field hearing you hosted on 

April 25. 

While we agree that 10 aircraft waiting to depart is a problem, the Federal Aviation Administration’s use of departure dispersal headings at Philadelphia is intended to avoid and prevent having too many aircraft waiting for departure. We are 

using dispersal headings during periods of peak demand as a tool to prevent long 

departure lines and avoid excessive delays. Once long lines form, it can take significant time for delays to be reduced or eliminated. 

You also requested that we consider demand-triggered headings at Philadelphia 

in the same way. we use them at Newark Liberty International Airport. At Newark, 

we use one departure heading during light demand (fewer than 5 departures waiting), 2 departure headings during moderate demand (more than 5 departures waiting), and 3 departure headings during heavy demand (more than 10 departures 

waiting). This is the most viable way to provide noise mitigation at Newark because 

all of the original headings proposed in redesign were retained. Mitigation at Philadelphia was provided by reducing the total number of departure dispersal headings 

from six headings to three. These measures were selected at each location independently to provide the optimum mitigation while still meeting the purpose and need 

of this valuable project. 

I appreciate the offer to assist with legislative authority to address overscheduling. I agree congestion and delays at key airports may result in far-reaching 

impacts throughout the NAS. We have limited operations at several airports 

through existing authority to manage the NAS safely and efficiently. In Vision 

100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Congress specifically authorized the 

Department of Transportation to convene scheduling reduction meetings when necessary. We believe sufficient authority exists to address congestion and delays 

caused by schedules that routinely exceed the average available capacity of an airport or the NAS. We prefer to improve system efficiency and accommodate demand 

rather than impose operating limits that may have unintended consequences. 

There were two points raised at the field hearing that I would also like to address. 

The first is the scheduling adjustments and delay reduction efforts by the FAA at 

Newark. The second is the potential impact of reducing the number of slots at 

LaGuardia Airport under one of the options proposed by the FAA in a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on April 17. 

The FAA requested schedule information from carriers planning Newark operations for the summer 2008 season. The schedule requests included about 100 new 

operations, many in the busiest hours when delays were already high. If implemented, some delays would have increased by as much as 50 percent above the summer 2007 levels. We worked with the airlines to re-time flights to periods when the 

airport has unused capacity. By doing this, about 50 new operations were scheduled 

outside peak hours. This was not an easy task as carriers made choices on which 

flights needed to be rescheduled and, ultimately, we simply did not approve the addition of new flights by some carriers at their preferred times. Additionally, we expect some operational improvements because of the implementation of the initial 

stages of Airspace Redesign and other measures to improve operations. We were 

also concerned that operating limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport 

could indirectly encourage carriers to operate new flights to Newark. On May 15, 

the FAA issued a final order to adopt operating limits at Newark continuing 

through summer 2009. We also issued a proposed rule that would extend limits at 

JFK and Newark and introduce market-based approaches to assign slots. The comment period closes July 21, 2008. 

In the recently issued proposal for LaGuardia, one option includes a measure to 

phase out 18 slots, or about 1 slot an hour, over the first 5 years of the rule. We 

recognize this would only provide minimal delay mitigation. We expect to receive 

comments on the appropriate level of operations at the airport. The comment period 

closes June 16. As is the case of other airports in the area, we are also seeking effi-
41 

ciency gains and delay reduction by implementing Airspace Redesign and other 

measures. 
42 
43 

Senator SPECTER. Well, within the 30 days, tell us what will be 

the specific impact on delay reduction at Newark. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. We’d be glad to. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I think we all have—we all have a lot of 

work to do. And I know that you’re overburdened in your administration, I know your budget requests have not been fulfilled. That’s 

true, isn’t it? 

Mr. STURGELL. We have received support from the Congress for 

the budgets we have submitted. So, the Congress is funding what 

the administration is requesting. 

Senator SPECTER. You’ve gotten what OMB allowed you to ask 

for? 

Mr. STURGELL. We got what the administration submitted, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. And those—— 

Mr. STURGELL. And we have received great support. I do want 

to say, we’ve received great support from the Congress, especially 

on our staffing levels, both in aviation safety and oversight, and for 

our—— 

Senator SPECTER. And beyond safety? 

Mr. STURGELL. For our controller workforce, and for our modernization programs, and this year we are asking for increases in 

the 2009 budget in all of those areas. And it would be great if Congress would support those increases. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let’s follow up on the open-ended questions which we’ve come here today, and I would ask you, Mr. 

Sturgell, to really review those flight patterns. And the commitment not to fly over Delaware County when you have fewer than 

10 waiting. 
44 

And, Mr. Gribbin, I’ve left you with the lion’s share of the work 

on these delay issues. 

And I know it’s always a delicate subject, in fact, it’s not a delicate subject you can’t communicate with the Congress on your 

ideas for what is adequate funding, that’s not permitted. You submit your request through channels, and they go through the Office 

of Management and Budget and that puts together the entire budget, but your budget comes out of the discretionary pot, and that is 

very, very tightly circumscribed. 

So much so that there are cuts in funding for the National Institutes of Health and inadequate funding for the Centers for Disease 

Control and title I on Education. But those are not—not your overall problems, those are problems for the Appropriations Committee. 

But I believe that the issues we’ve dealt with today are top priority and I will do my best through the subcommittee and the full 

committee to help provide the adequate funding. 

Thanks very much for coming up and for modifying the schedules 

today. I appreciate it. 

Mr. STURGELL. All right. 

Mr. GRIBBIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. I will now call the second panel. vice chairman 

Jack Whelan of the Delaware County Council, former Governor and 

president Mark Schweiker of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of 

Commerce, executive vice president and chief operating officer of 

the Air Transport Association, president of the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association, Patrick Forrey. Congressman Joe Sestak 

has requested to be added to the panel, and we will hear from him, 

as well. 

We’ll take a 5-minute recess while the panel is assembled. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in. For the record, 

State Representative Brian Lentz has submitted testimony for the 

record, which will be made a part of the record without objection. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRYAN R. LENTZ, PENNSYLVANIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Senator Specter, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the airspace redesign at Philadelphia International Airport. As you know, 

two-thirds of Philadelphia International is located within Delaware County. As a 

State Representative in Delaware County, increased air traffic over our communities is an issue of grave concern to the citizens I represent. Residents of Delaware 

County know about air traffic congestion and the harm it causes because it directly 

affects them and their neighbors. Delaware County residents, however, are not the 

only citizens of the Commonwealth who should be tracking the dramatic increases 

in air traffic. All of Pennsylvania should be concerned that our State is not prepared 

to handle the historic increases in air traffic coming over the next 20 years. If we 

do not plan for and develop systems to properly manage the massive increase in 

flights, communities like the ones I represent will suffer, as will Pennsylvania’s 

economy and security. 

The simple fact is we have no choice but to start to look elsewhere to accommodate our air traffic needs. At the same time Philadelphia International is bursting 

at the seams, other regional airports like Lehigh Valley International are dramatically underused and have ample capacity and desire for increased airline business. 

Right now, more than half of all Lehigh Valley residents rely on airports other than 

Lehigh Valley for air travel. Airports in Trenton, New Castle, and Atlantic City also 

have ample capacity but are underused. 

Unlike cities such as Boston, New York, Chicago and Washington, commercial air 

traffic in our area is heavily concentrated at a single airport—Philadelphia International—instead of being spread out among existing airports in the region. Philadelphia International had over 530,000 aircraft operations in 2005 alone. That is 
45 

more than any other airport in the northeast corridor, including LaGuardia, JFK 

and Newark, and it is at or above the airport’s capacity. Demand at Philadelphia 

International is expected to increase to over 700,000 takeoffs and landings per year 

during the next 20 years. 

The FAA wants to address this problem by redirecting flights and aggressively expanding the airport. The airspace redesign is about increasing capacity. By directing 

flights along multiple paths, the airport can increase its ability to handle more takeoffs and landings. In 2005, the airport also began extending a commuter runway to 

handle larger planes, a $60 million project that will address only 8 percent of the 

traffic problems. Later this year, a report is expected on the impact of Philadelphia’s 

proposal to spend over $2 billion to add a parallel runway at the airport. No matter 

how much Philadelphia International is expanded or improved, the airport will still 

continue to operate at its saturation point. The runway expansion and airspace redesign combined account for 20 to 30 percent of a projected 50 percent increase in 

traffic. Despite the stunning cost and impact of these proposals, Philadelphia International and the FAA did not consider greater use of regional airports as a way to 

relieve the coming air traffic congestion. 

To address the problem of congestion we must address development, growth and 

traffic needs on a regional basis instead of each airport fending for itself. Regional 

authorities have worked and are working in other States, and an authority can work 

in Pennsylvania. In Massachusetts, the Port Authority, known as MASSPORT, monitors air service levels at more than half a dozen airports. It continually analyzes 

airport development, how to improve and distribute service, and how the region as 

a whole can market itself to air carriers. The New York Port Authority follows a 

similar approach, and recently purchased Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York 

in order to expand the authority’s regional capacity. Stewart will be the fourth 

major airport in the New York Port Authority airport system. 

As a freestanding facility, Philadelphia does not have the options for system expansion that are available to the New York Port Authority or similar authorities. 

Philadelphia International is also limited by its size, sitting on approximately 2,400 

acres. By way of comparison, Denver International, a similarly busy airport, occupies 36,000 acres. 

To help solve the problem of airport congestion, I have introduced House Bill 1182 

in the State legislature. House Bill 1182 would create a regional authority to replicate the success of these other State authorities. The authority would coordinate 

activities of regional airports along with rail and mass-transit agencies. 

In addition to the harm it does to neighboring communities, concentrating all regional air travel at a single airport has other negative effects. Over 50 percent of 

the flights to and from Philadelphia International are to destinations within 500 

miles. This preponderance of commuter traffic hinders the airport’s ability to expand 

international routes. International traffic has a greater economic benefit to our region, yet the concentration of shorter flights is so great that international terminals 

are being used for domestic flights. These frequent short distance flights also contribute to the traffic congestion on the roads and highways in and out of Philadelphia International. In the long-term, a high speed rail system like the proposed 

MAGLEV train would be best suited to move people to and from destinations within 

500 miles. 

Achieving the goal of managing air traffic needs is a challenging task. If we do 

not start following the example set by other regions, we will be unprepared for the 

increase in air travel in the years ahead and left out of the economic benefits that 

air travel will create. Before billions are spent to expand Philadelphia International, 

I would urge this committee to scrutinize any funding for airports that is not linked 

to a regional approach to dealing with increases in air traffic and development of 

alternative means of travel. 

Senator SPECTER. And we will begin our panel with Congressman Joe Sestak, graduate of the Naval Academy, Admiral of the 

United States Navy, and now a Congressman. 

Welcome Congressman Sestak, and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOE SESTAK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PENNSYLVANIA, SEVENTH DISTRICT 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Senator, and Senator, first off, thank 

you very much. You and your staff have been a gem to work on 

this issue, not just today, but for months on end, and I appreciate 

that very much. And I also appreciate, personally, the best advice 
46 

I got when I entered Congress, when I met you, right after the election, which was remember you’re a public servant and everything 

should be transparent. 

Senator SPECTER. Pull the mike a little closer. You weren’t in the 

Congress when Senator Thurmond was there, but he’s famous for 

saying, ‘‘Pull the machine a little closer.’’ 

Mr. SESTAK. But thank you for your support sir, both in personal 

advice and for this issue. 

I want to start off by saying the Philadelphia International Airport is, as Mayor Nutter so well pointed out, it’s absolutely critical—absolutely critical to the economic growth of our community. 

But delays in the departures are well documented. However, I’ve 

spoken up about this Air Space Redesign, because I honestly believe that it inadequately addresses the safety and health of residents here in the community, as well as those who are traveling, 

and it fails to take into account other options, such as unused capacity at regional airports. 

As you notice, Michael Nutter spoke up and said, ‘‘I’ll fly into 

Baltimore/Washington.’’ Over one-third of all aircraft that come 

into Philadelphia International Airport come from less than 200 

miles away. And so, not only other options might be looked at, like 

unused capacity or the others that you were questioning Michael 

Nutter—Mayor Nutter upon, but also, can we not be a model, the 

pilot model, for a true inter-modal type of transportation policy 

that this Nation so badly needs? 

And that’s part of the major reason I’ve spoken up on this. Yes, 

it affects my district, but it also cries out for an inter-modal approach for this Nation. 

This airspace redesign began 10 years ago in a meeting down in 

Baltimore. And then in 2003, something occurred that I think, Senator, really made it go amiss. Congress approved the streamline 

legislation that gave FAA exclusive authority to determine the objectives and the options that were to be studied. About that time, 

they removed from the Philadelphia Airspace Redesign Project, 

Senator, the objective of noise abatement. And then they really 

only studied one option, although they listed four. And I think 

that’s a large reason you’ll hear from someone who’s led this fight, 

Mr. Whelan here, of why there are 12 separate communities, including ours, that have 13 lawsuits pending. 

I was very fortunate, after the election, to have established an 

Expert Advisory Board led by Mr. and Mrs. George Loveless, who 

have worked with your staff. The resulting study, which we briefed 

the FAA Administrator on over a year ago—about a year ago— 

looked at the benefits and the costs. Without a question, the benefits that the FAA has listed, Mr. Senator, are well documented, the 

dollars that the airlines will save. 

And also, as they stated, there’ll be 4 minutes saved in delays 

for each flight, 4 minutes. Other studies have shown, and their own 

website data has shown, it’s actually 29 seconds. Whether it’s 29 

seconds or 4 minutes, that’s not much of a benefit, not when you 

consider the cost. 

When you look at the cost, Senator, you look at the cost of the 

environmental impact statement on sound, noise, and air emissions, how they were supposed to adhere to the Clean Air Act, for 
47 

example. And when the EPA objected to how they said it was de 

minimus, they then declared, on their own, a ‘‘presume to conform 

activity,’’ inserted into the Federal Register, and then said, ‘‘There 

is no air emissions that are going to harm anyone.’’ 

And however, they (the FAA) absolutely ignored the law as well 

as their own implementing order on NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, where it said that you are supposed to do a separate study if it impacts children. As we briefed documented studies to show that these flights under 3,000 feet would mean one— 

a child who starts in first grade, Senator, and ends in high school, 

will lose 1 year, documented, statistical studies, of 1 year of education. In addition, my community will be at risk of the deadliest 

disease killer in the Nation, cardiovascular disease. 

That’s why it was galling to us when the U.S. Department of 

Transportation spokesman, Brian Turmail said, ‘‘We hope they 

won’t let a small thing like a slight change in noise level’’—a slight 

change in noise level—‘‘affect us.’’ Senator, I was in charge of the Navy’s $70 billion warfare program. We studied and the Navy input, millions of dollars into 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts to understand what’s the impact of the 

noise from sonar upon mammals. Millions of dollars I spent for the 

U.S. Government, under direction of the U.S. Government. We 

know they had a health impact, we haven’t spent a cent on children. And then, most galling, is when we briefed Administrator 

Blakely, and Representative Andrews has been a stellar star on 

this, said to her, ‘‘What’s the cost after 10 years of this?’’ She said, 

‘‘We don’t know.’’ We don’t know the cost, but we sure can tell you 

what the benefits are to the airlines. And then most galling, sir, 

I think, and of most concern to me, is the safety considerations. 

The FAA Administrator—spokesman said several times, ‘‘We can 

not institute this plan that they announced last September,’’ or documented—they announced it 2 years ago, but then put into action, 

that they would last September, for 8 to 12 months, Senator, because of safety concerns, that they would have to have the New 

York airspace open up better, as was alluded to earlier. And where 

we get our aircraft up and into their airspace, because it’s their airspace that’s causing our delay. 

And yet, when asked—— 

Senator SPECTER. Representative Sestak, you’re more than a 

minute over, how much more time will you need. 

Mr. SESTAK. May I have one minute and summarize? 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Senator. 

I’ll summarize just by saying that this safety concern for ours is 

enormous, as they will turn at 500 feet with these 747s at center 

over our district, particularly with their safety record. As you saw 

on the front page of the newspaper today, once again FAA has hidden safety revelations. Now, one more airline, Southwest. 

In summary, I think Chairman Oberstar is right, the FAA, yes, 

needs to clean the house from top to bottom, but more so, we need 

to take care of our citizens, say, just stop. There are other options 

before we implement this and harm our children. 

This was to be a cost-benefit analysis. We know the benefits of 

the airlines, but never have they addressed the cost per the proce-
48 

1GAO Report: July 2008—FAA Airspace Redesign, Report No: GAO–08–786. 

dure, which is why we’ve asked for the Government Accountability 

Office—which will be done this summer—to look over of how they 

have failed in doing this, not to have implemented this unsafe and 

very costly procedure that they are having for our District.1

Thank you for abiding me my overrun, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much. 

We turn now to the vice chairman of the Delaware County Council, the honorable Jack Whelan, partner in the firm of Whelan, 

Doyle, and Pressman. He was the Delaware County Assistant DA 

from 1986 to 1991, a graduate of the Temple University School of 

Law. 

Welcome for joining us Jack, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WHELAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, DELAWARE COUNTY COUNCIL 

Mr. WHELAN. Thank you, Senator Specter, for the opportunity to 

explain how the changes in flight paths at the Philadelphia International Airport have impacted and distressed Delaware County 

residents. Specifically today, I want to stress how the new departure headings implemented in December have disrupted the lives 

of the residents in Delaware County without achieving many benefits, or minimal benefits, at best. 

Not only do we want to use flight—not only do we want the flight 

paths curtailed, but we want the planes in the—flying over, to remain at an altitude of 3,000 feet before they turn. Senator, I believe that the prior practice was, when an aircraft would take off 

from the International Airport, it would reach an altitude of 3,000 

feet before it was permitted to turn over Delaware County, thus it 

would have a minimal impact in noise and pollution. 

There’s no compelling evidence from the FAA to show that putting more planes over Delaware County homes and neighborhoods 

would reduce delays at the airport, except to a very de minimus nature. 

It is important to point out that two-thirds of Philadelphia International Airport is located in Delaware County, which of course, as 

the Senator knows, is a built-up suburb of Philadelphia, having 

about 550,000 residents, first generation communities, which are 

densely populated, all near the airport. 

On December 19, 2007, the FAA implemented a new departure 

heading right over Delaware County homes, schools, and businesses. Since the new departure heading went into effect, the complaint calls to the airport noise hotline increased by a remarkable 

1,400 percent. 

Prior to December 19, there would be, at best, one or a half a 

call per day averaged, but however, after the 3-month period, specifically between December 19, and April 3, there have been 881 

calls to the airport noise hotline, which has increased it to the 

1,400 percent. And we believe, Senator, that there are only a handful of people calling. I get calls from my constituents at the County 

Council offices constantly, beyond what is being reported at the airport noise hotline. 
49 

What’s really disturbing is also the fact that 10 percent of these 

calls are between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., so that a resident is being disturbed after midnight and between 5 a.m. when 

they’re trying to sleep. 

These are numbers that have been calculated during the winter, 

and we’re very concerned, now that the weather’s getting nice and 

we’re approaching later into the spring and summer, that we’re 

going to have a myriad of additional complaints. Delaware County 

is at ground-zero when it comes to increased air traffic in Philadelphia and the FAA consistently fails to take into consideration the 

negative impacts these flights have had on the health and quality 

of life for people in the county. 

I speak for those people and I want to relate some of those complaints directly to you, Senator. Terri Lummy, a resident of Middletown Township, about 7 miles from the airport, works at home, 

can’t schedule any phone calls between 3 and 5 p.m. because of the 

airplane noise. One day airplanes were going over their house 2 

minutes apart, non-stop, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and again at 

9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The next morning airplane noise bothered 

her for 21⁄2 hours. 

Mary Keefer, a resident in Chester Heights, about 10 miles—and 

this is the western part of Delaware County, not the eastern part— 

complained about loud flights between 3 and 3:30 a.m. The noise 

was so loud it woke her up right out of her bed. 

One really disturbing complaint came from Barbara White, the 

Principal at Lakeview Elementary School in Ridley Park. This 

school is approximately 3 miles from the end of the runway. Ms. 

White said flights over the school and playground on February 1, 

were so loud that they frightened the students and staff. Ms. White 

has been a principal at Lakeview for 14 years and the change has 

been very noticeable. She said that the multiple over-flights cause 

school staff to say it felt like a subway train was going through the 

building. 

Natalie Coleman, her 8-year-old son attends Lakeview School. He 

said between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. the planes were so loud they 

thought they were in a war. The girls got really scared and the 

teachers had to yell at the kids so that they could be heard. He 

said that, ‘‘Lately the noise at the school has been really bad, we 

all get headaches, we’re very angry. At recess it is so loud that I 

hate it.’’ 

People are also worried about their safety. Philadelphia air traffic controllers say they’re concerned about safety of the new takeoff 

headings. One of the county’s concerns from the beginning was the 

increased risk of airplane crashes or objects falling from airplanes. 

Before the flight changes occurred, two recent instances of airplane debris falling through the roofs of Delaware County homes, 

miraculously resulted in no injuries. And I can say, Senator that 

I personally visited the one house on Donna Avenue, and it was 

devastating to see the hole in that roof and how close it came to 

hitting that mother and child. 

The bottom line is that the Airspace Redesign Project is not 

achieving its goal, the reduction in flight delays in Philadelphia. In 

fact, the only reduction we see is the quality of life in our communities. 
50 

Mike Wagner, air traffic manager, Philadelphia, says there has 

been a slight reduction in delays between December 19, 2007 but 

not because of airspace redesign, it’s because there has been fewer 

flights. And I would, it’s been a very mild winter. There’s been 

about 4 percent, as they’re touting, of improvement, however I 

would again suggest to you, respectfully, Senator, that is because 

of weather and because of reduced flights. 

We would ask you to consider common sense strategies to improve airport service and reduce negative impacts on Delaware 

County residents. The FAA should encourage airlines to use regional airports that are grossly underutilized, such as Lehigh Valley International, Atlantic City International, New Castle County, 

Trenton/Mercer Airports. This would take the pressure off of Philadelphia and give people near those airports a more convenient way 

to fly. 

Based on the reduction in flights and the resulting reduction in 

delays, the FAA should consider putting a reasonable cap on the 

number of flights during peak hours, consistent with the flights 

that the airport can physically handle. 

Finally, I would point out that the airport and the airlines should 

be encouraged to adopt a congestion pricing—— 

Senator SPECTER. Chairman Whelan, you’re a minute over. How 

much more time will you need? 

Mr. WHELAN. I’m done, Senator. I would just simply point out, 

and it was referred to earlier today, that if we charge—even if it’s 

passed on to the consumer—a higher price during peak hours, that 

would encourage consumers to go off peak hours. So, if we could 

get people—I have a family of six, if it was cheaper to fly at 10 

o’clock in the morning or 12 noon, I would be encouraged to do so 

instead of peak hours where the congestion is most problematic. 

I thank you for considering my comments. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN J. WHELAN

Thank you, Senator Specter and members of the hearing panel, for the opportunity to explain how changes in flight paths at Philadelphia International Airport 

have impacted—and distressed—Delaware County residents. 

Specifically, I want to stress how the new departure heading, implemented in December, has disrupted the lives of residents in Delaware County without achieving 

any benefits. 

Not only do we want use of this flight path curtailed, but we want all planes departing the airport to remain over the Delaware River until they reach an altitude 

of 3,000 feet. We are not wavering from this position. 

There is no compelling evidence from the FAA to show that putting more planes 

over Delaware County homes and neighborhoods will reduce flight delays at the airport. 

So why subject our residents to more noise, more air pollution, and the threat of 

safety hazards, if it’s not going to improve air service at the airport? 

In all the hearings, in all the reports, in all of the FAA’s statistics . . . NO ONE 

has been able to answer that question for us. 

It’s important to point out that three-fourths of Philadelphia’s airport is located 

in Delaware County, a built-up suburb of Philadelphia, having about 550,000 residents. Our first-generation communities, which are densely populated, are all near 

the airport. 

December 19, 2007, was a defining moment in this whole, misguided airspace redesign plan. 

December 19 is when the FAA implemented a new departure heading, right over 

Delaware County homes, schools and businesses. Since the new departure heading 
51 

went into effect, complaint calls to the Airport’s noise hotline increased by a remarkable 1,400 percent. 

During the 3-month period before December 19, there were an average of .54 calls 

per day to the noise hotline and a total of 58 calls in those three months. 

During the 3 months after the change was made (between December 19, and April 

3, 2008), County residents called the Airport’s noise hotline 881 times to report an 

airplane that was too close or too loud for comfort. That’s an average of 8.23 calls 

per day, or a daily increase of about 1,400 percent. 

What’s more disturbing is that after December 19, 10 percent of the complaints 

(88) were made between midnight and 5:00 a.m., a time when the FAA admits traffic is light. The FAA said it would only utilize this new departure heading when 

traffic was backed up during airport rush hours. But these headings are being used 

in the middle of the night, in blatant opposition to what was promised. 

And these numbers are for winter. Wait until summer, when people want to have 

their windows open, or be outside in their yards, and are bombarded by airplane 

noise. 

Delaware County is Ground Zero when it comes to increased air traffic in Philadelphia. And the FAA consistently fails to take into account the negative impact 

these flights have on the health and quality of life for people in the county. Today, 

I speak for those people and want to relate some of their complaints directly to you. 

Terri Lunny, a resident of Middletown Township, about 7 miles from the airport, 

works from home and can’t schedule any phone calls between 3 and 5 p.m. because 

of the airplane noise. One day, airplanes were going over her house 2 minutes apart 

non-stop from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., then again from 9:30 to 10:30 p.m. The next morning, airplane noise bothered her for 21⁄2 hours. 

Mary Keefer, a resident in Chester Heights, about 10 miles from the airport, complained about loud flights at 3 or 3:30 a.m. The noise was so loud, it work her up. 

One really disturbing complaint came from Barbara White, the principal at 

Lakeview Elementary School in Ridley Park. This school is 3 miles from the end 

of the runway. Mrs. White said flights over the school and playground on February 

1, 2008, were so low and loud, they frightened the students and staff. 

Mrs. White has been principal at Lakeview for 14 years and the change has been 

very noticeable. She said that multiple overflights caused school staff to say that 

it felt like a subway train was going through the building. 

Natalie Coleman’s 8-year-old son attends the Lakeview school. He said that between 8 and 10 a.m., ‘‘the planes were so loud they thought they were ‘in a war.’ 

The girls got real scared and the teachers had to yell so the kids could hear them. 

He said that lately the noise at school ‘has been real bad, we all get headaches and 

we are angry. At recess it is very loud and I hate it.’ ’’ 

Mrs. Coleman said at her house, the new departure flights mean: ‘‘We can’t sleep, 

my clients can’t hear me on the telephone in my home office, we have seen the volume on our TV go from a 24 to a 49 just to hear it and we still hear the planes, 

the windows shake... and my home value has gone down.’’ 

That’s just a small sampling of the hundreds of complaints we’ve heard. 

People are also worried about their safety. Philadelphia air traffic controllers say 

they are concerned about the safety of the new takeoff headings. One of the county’s 

concerns from the beginning was the increased risk of airplane crashes or objects 

falling from airplanes. Before the flight changes occurred, there were two recent instances of airplane debris falling through the roofs of Delaware County homes, miraculously resulting in no injuries. 

In Delaware County, we are working to revitalize our eastern and riverfront communities, the same areas where airplane noise is now having a negative impact. The 

county is providing funding to these older, inner-ring suburbs to revitalize their 

business districts, parks, and streetscapes. We are trying to stem the tide of migration to more distant areas and encourage home ownership in these communities. 

But major airplane noise impacts threaten to undo this work. 

The bottom line is the airspace redesign project is NOT achieving its goal of a 

reduction in delays at PHL. In fact, the only reduction we see is a reduction in property values and quality of life in our communities. 

Mike Wagner, the air traffic manager at PHL, said there has been a slight reduction in delays since December 19, 2007, but it’s NOT because of the airspace redesign changes. It’s because there have been fewer flights. 

Between January and November 2007, about 67 percent of PHL flights were on 

time. In January and February 2008, about 71 percent of flights were on time. Prior 

to December, approximately 1,500 flights per day were arriving or departing. After 

December, about 1,400 flights have been arriving or departing every day. Economic 

conditions, fuel costs, and larger airplanes are contributing to the reduction in 
52 

flights. About 330 daily flights during the hours of 9 and 11 a.m. and 2 and 7 p.m. 

are using the new flight headings. 

Our aviation expert, Williams Aviation Consultants, estimated that the FAA’s airspace redesign would reduce delays at PHL by a mere 3 percent, which translates 

to a couple of minutes. 

Historically, 84 percent of PHL delays have been caused by factors that cannot 

be addressed by airspace redesign, such as bad weather and equipment problems. 

The impacts on Delaware County residents and school children are not worth the 

tiny delay reductions. 

Truth is, experts can manipulate these numbers, this flight data, a million ways. 

Two things remain clear. The FAA overestimates any benefit the airspace redesign 

will have; and underestimates the impact on our residents. 

Delaware County Council stands strong in this battle and we are even expending 

tax dollars to fight these changes in court. Be we would prefer a legislative remedy. 

We don’t want to spend tax dollars fighting the FAA, an agency that’s supposed to 

protect people. So we are looking to members of the House and Senate to find an 

alternate way to accomplish these transportation goals. 

We’re not here to stand in the way of progress and success at the airport. The 

County supports a viable airport to serve the region. But putting more planes over 

the county is not the answer. 

We propose three common-sense strategies to improve airport service and reduce 

negative impacts on Delaware County residents: 

—The FAA should encourage airlines to use other regional airports that are grossly underutilized, such as Lehigh Valley International, Atlantic City International, New Castle County, and Trenton-Mercer airports. This would take 

some of the pressure off of PHL and give people near those airports a more convenient way to fly. 

—Based on the recent reduction in flights and the resulting reduction in delays, 

the FAA should consider putting a reasonable cap on the number of flights during the peak hours, consistent with the number of flights the airport can physically handle. 

—The airport and airlines should also be encouraged to adopt congestion pricing, 

charging more for flying during peak times and less for off-peak times. In January, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters introduced a policy to allow this. 

This would encourage some flyers to change their flying times to off-peak times. 

A combination of these strategies would reduce the need for flying over Delaware 

County homes and schools at low altitudes. 

Thank you very much. I’ll be happy to answer questions. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Whelan. 

Our next witness is executive vice president of the National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association, Mr. Paul Rinaldi, 15 years as an air 

traffic controller at Washington/Dulles, attended the University of 

Dayton. He is accompanied by Mr. Don Chapman, the National Air 

Traffic Controller Association’s facility representative for the Philadelphia International Airport to respond to questions if any arise, 

specifically of local questions. 

Mr. Rinaldi, thank you for coming in, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION 

ACCOMPANIED BY DON CHAPMAN, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER ASSOCIATION’S FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. FORREY. Senator Specter, thank you, and my name is Patrick Forrey, I’m the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Mr. Rinaldi, somehow must have got mixed up in 

this whole process, but he’s not here. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we need—we accept your qualifications 

and—— 

Mr. FORREY. I appreciate that. 
53 

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. But without an introduction—I 

know that there are many, many occasions where I have vastly 

preferred no introduction. 

Mr. FORREY. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. I would like 

to say—start by thanking you for showing such leadership on this 

important issue of aviation. The men and women I represent in 

this State, as well as throughout the Nation, are grateful to you because you treat their profession with respect and you are a champion for their cause and the safety of the system. 

I also want to thank Senator Lautenberg who isn’t here today, 

but who sits on this important subcommittee. Like you Senator, he 

continues to be a champion for the working men and women of 

NATCA, by making sure that our aviation system is safe and working conditions for air traffic controllers and other FAA employees 

are adequate. 

Air travel is an integral part of the economy and life in Philadelphia, where the airport is ranked ninth busiest in the world and 

among the fastest growing in the United States. Over the past 3 

years, more than 83 million passengers flew into or out of Philadelphia Airport for business or leisure. 

But flying into Philadelphia has become less efficient. Philadelphia is ranked 30th out of 32 major airports for on-time departures, a rate which has fallen 9 percentage points in 5 years, to a 

low of 70 percent. Arrivals are even worse, with only 67 percent of 

flights arriving within 15 minutes of their scheduled landing time. 

Rather than working with stakeholders to identify and address 

the root of this problem, the FAA has endeavored to follow its own 

flight plan, unilaterally enacting changes to Philadelphia’s airspace 

design and to aircraft control facilities. It is the opinion of NATCA 

that neither the dispersal headings nor the de-combination of 

Philadelphia’s air traffic control operations will have any positive 

impact on air travel, in or out of Philadelphia Airport. 

Rather, both changes will introduce additional safety risks into 

the system, and increase the potential for confusion and inefficiency. We believe that a status quo is unacceptable, as well, but 

that changes must directly address the two key components of 

Philadelphia’s airspace woes, airline over-scheduling, and the 

understaffing of air traffic control facilities. The actions already underway by the FAA are, at best, ill-advised, and at worst, downright harmful. 

First, the plan to separate tower and radar approach functions 

at Philadelphia Airport will result in, with increased staffing pressure, at a facility already too thinly spread. Philadelphia is currently operating with 61 percent of the controllers authorized by 

the FAA in 1998, and traffic has grown since that time. 

With only 67 of the authorized 109 controllers working at Philadelphia, and an additional 15 eligible for retirement, we are becoming increasingly concerned with the inexperience, over-work and fatigue controllers are now subjected to. 

While the FAA has stated that splitting this facility will require 

an increase in the overall staffing of controllers, they have not addressed how the need will be filled, or how long it will take. One 

major importance to note—splitting this facility will narrow the 
54 

field of knowledge for the controllers, and introduce barriers for 

communication and smooth operation. 

Trainees assigned to the new split facilities will have no knowledge of the tower operations or TRACON operations, depending on 

where they’re assigned. They will, therefore, lack a clear understanding of how their actions affect operations at the JC positions. 

The co-location of tower and TRACON functions allows for a 

more comprehensive understanding of operations, simpler communications and more face-to-face interactions, resulting in greater efficiency. Barriers to communications caused by physical separation 

reduce efficiency, potentially causes additional, unnecessary delays. 

Second, the hastily introduced dispersal headings of Philadelphia 

have increased risk of miscommunication between air traffic controllers and pilots. FAA has published no official guidelines governing the uses of dispersal headings, nor have they updated 

Standard Instrument Departure routing charts, we call SIDs, to include these new headings. 

Without new SID charts, controllers have had to verbally override SID instructions, requiring pilots to depart using unfamiliar 

procedures, without the benefit of written instructions, which opens 

up the potential for miscommunications. An audit of 23 hours of 

tape revealed nine communication errors, in that short span of 

time. 

These, and all areas, have high stakes, particularly when dealing 

with such constrained airspace. Additionally, these headings have 

not been tested for use during hot weather, where aircraft are 

known to climb and turn much more sluggishly. 

But, while the FAA has made these ill-advised changes, they 

have addressed neither the issue of airline over scheduling, nor 

that of air traffic controller staffing. The work rules imposed by the 

FAA on the controller workforce have resulted in unprecedented attrition of air traffic controllers. Controllers are leaving the workforce at a rate of 5.2 per day. Most of them are retirees who have 

not yet reached mandatory retirement age. Resignations have also 

tripled to 345 since the implementation of the imposed work rules. 

For Philadelphia, this has meant running operations at 61 percent 

of the authorized staffing levels. 

There are fewer eyes watching the skies and runways in Philadelphia, and throughout the country, and those that remain are 

suffering from fatigue. This fatigue has resulted in more frequent 

lapses in safety, and a less efficient, and therefore, more delayed 

operation. The FAA has taken no steps to stem that flow. 

As for the issue of airline over scheduling, while the FAA has determined that Philadelphia can handle 13 departures per quarter 

hour in optimal weather conditions, they do not require airlines to 

take these rates into account when planning their schedules. 

Therefore, the airlines are free to use marketing as their only driving force in their schedule development—a practice which may 

maximize profits for the airlines, but results in losses for airline 

customers in the form of delays. Airlines frequently schedule departures in excess of optimal airport capacity. 

These excess departures automatically result in delays, before 

weather or even air traffic control staffing are factored into the 

equation. 
55 

1Federal Aviation Administration Philadelphia International ATCT/TRACON De-combining 

Staff Study. 2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airport snapshot for PHL. 

Although we are gathered here to discuss the issues facing aviation in Philadelphia area, it must be understood that the situation 

is Philadelphia is not unique. Overall airline delays in 2007 were 

second-worst on record, with nearly one-fourth of arrivals, 21 percent of departures experiencing delays. This number has consistently risen over the past 5 years, and with arrival delays increasing by 12 percentage points since 2001. 

Meanwhile, total staffing—— 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Forrey, you’re more than a minute over, 

how much more time will you need? 

Mr. FORREY. Just 30 seconds. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. 

Mr. FORREY. Meanwhile, controller staffing nationwide is at a 16- 

year low, with the number of certified professional controllers at 70 

percent of authorized levels. 

Our hope is that, for this hearing, that by using Philadelphia as 

an example, we can bring about meaningful and substantive 

changes that will benefit the flying public throughout the country. 

Therefore, we recommend the following: the FAA should abide by 

their clause in S. 1300, and realign facilities only after receiving 

input and approval by review board, consisting of the representatives from all stakeholder groups, including NACA, pilots, Members 

of Congress, and the community. 

The FAA must discontinue use of dispersal headings until such 

time as full testing is complete, and proper procedures have been 

established with collaboration from all stakeholder groups. 

The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling, to prevent scheduling over the maximum arrival and departure rates, 

and Congress must pass the FAA reauthorization bill, that will require FAA to return to the bargaining table for fair negotiations 

with the controllers, in order to curtail a rapid attrition rates in 

the workforce. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK FORREY

AIR TRAFFIC ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA

Air travel is an integral part the economy and of life in Philadelphia. Ranked the 

9th busiest airport in the world and among the fastest growing in the United 

States,1 Philadelphia International Airport has had more than 83 million passengers arriving and departing over the last 3 years.2 But flying into Philadelphia 

has become less efficient; Philadelphia is ranked 30 out of 32 major airports in percent of on-time departures, a rate which as fallen from 79 percent in 2001 to only 

70 percent in 2008. Arrivals are even worse, with only 67 percent of flights arriving 

within 15 minutes of their scheduled landing time. 

Rather than working with stakeholders to identify and address the roots of this 

problem, the FAA has endeavored to follow its own flight plan, unilaterally enacting 

changes to Philadelphia’s airspace design and air traffic control facilities. Neither 

the dispersal headings nor the de-combination of PHL’s air traffic operations will 

have any positive impact on air travel into and out of Philadelphia Airport. Rather, 

both changes will introduce additional safety risk into the system and increase the 

potential for confusion and inefficiency. The status quo is unacceptable, but changes 
56 

must directly address the two key components of PHL’s air traffic woes—airline 

over-scheduling and the understaffing of air traffic control facilities. 

NATCA therefore makes the following recommendations to this committee: 

—The FAA should initiate realignment activity only after receiving input and approval from a review board as per the FAA reauthorization bill passed by the 

House of Representatives and under consideration by the Senate. This board 

would include representatives from all stakeholder groups including air traffic 

controllers, pilots, members of congress and the community. In the case of the 

PHL, the FAA should work with NATCA and consider our alternate plan to reduce the number of positions required for full certification while maintaining 

the integrity of the combined facility. 

—The FAA must discontinue the use of dispersal headings until such time as full 

testing—including hot weather testing—is complete and proper procedures—including revised Standard Instrument Departure (SID) charts—have been established. This too must be developed with active participation of all stakeholder 

groups including air traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress and the community. 

—The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling and prevent scheduling 

over the maximum arrival/departure rates. 

—Congress must quickly pass the FAA reauthorization bill, which would require 

the FAA to return to the bargaining table for fair negotiations with NATCA in 

order to curtail the rapid attrition from the workforce. 

DE-COMBINATION OF PHILADELPHIA TOWER AND TRACON

On March 31, 2008 the National Air Traffic Controllers Association was officially 

informed of the FAA’s plan to de-combine the Philadelphia International Airport’s 

air traffic control facility by separating tower and radar approach functions in separate facilities. This decision was made entirely without the participation of those 

with most intimate understanding of air traffic control operations at Philadelphia 

Airport—the air traffic controllers who work there each day. The FAA did not seek 

input from these controllers who are best able to identify benefits and pitfalls and 

make informed suggestions for plan improvement. This shows not only contempt for 

the air traffic control workforce, but also a lack of sincere desire to develop a plan 

with the greatest benefit to users. It is the opinion of NATCA that the plan to decombine PHL ATCT/TRACON is deeply flawed and will bring no benefit to users 

but will instead introduce into the system additional safety risks and opportunities 

for delays. 

It must be understood that NATCA is not categorically opposed to all realignment 

initiatives. In the past, we have worked alongside the FAA to plan some of the most 

successful realignments of ATC facilities. This includes the formation of TRACON 

facilities in New York, Southern California, Chicago, Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth, 

Northern California, Atlanta, and the Baltimore/Washington/Virginia Tri-State (Potomac) area. However, it is our firm belief that all realignment decisions must be 

made with a specific operational need in mind. These changes must serve the public 

by improving safety, efficiency and service. To date, the FAA has been unable to 

satisfactorily justify their PHL plan on any of the above grounds. Instead, the administration has chosen to focus on reducing its own operating costs while ignoring 

the cost of delays for those who depend on our airspace for travel and commerce. 

As the facility is currently structured, controllers must learn all aspects of operations required for safe and efficient arrivals and departures from PHL. This wellrounded training enables controllers to understand how their actions at one position 

effect the operation of the adjacent positions. With this knowledge, controllers are 

able to optimize their performance for both safety and efficiency. By splitting this 

facility, the FAA will narrow the field of knowledge for controllers. New trainees 

will not only be denied the opportunity to train on all dimensions of the operation, 

they will not even have the opportunity to observe operations at other sectors. 

Creating two separate facilities will also introduce barriers to coordination between the Tower and TRACON. The collocation of tower and TRACON functions allows for simpler communications and more face-to-face interactions, resulting in 

greater efficiency. Philadelphia has a unique and very intense crossing runway operation which requires continuous interaction between tower and TRACON. Barriers 

to communication caused by physical separation necessarily reduce efficiency, potentially causing additional unnecessary delays. 

Perhaps the deepest flaw in the de-combination plan is that by creating two facilities, the FAA increases the number of controllers necessary to conduct operations. 

The combined tower/TRACON facility allows for flexibility in staffing. If, for example, the tower finds itself short-staffed on any given day, they can call upon the 
57 

3Federal Aviation Administration Philadelphia International ATCT/TRACON De-combining 

Staff Study. 

TRACON to supply the additional staffing, and vice versa. If these facilities were 

separated, this flexibility would be lost, and each facility would be required to maintain a higher level of staffing in order to ensure uninterrupted service. The FAA 

acknowledges this fact in their staff study stating that de-combination ‘‘will require 

an increase in the overall staffing of controllers, administrative, and support staff,’’ 

but they did not discuss how that need would be filled. 

Already PHL is in the midst of a staffing shortage, one that is likely to grow only 

more severe. PHL currently employs only 67 certified professional controllers 

(CPCs), only 61 percent of the staffing level jointly authorized by the FAA and 

NATCA in 1998. Of those 67, 3 are scheduled for transfers and 15 are already eligible to retire. De-combination would encourage retirement of those that are eligible, 

as the split would result in the downgrading of each of the daughter facilities causing an estimated 4 percent pay cut to employees. The 2006 imposed work rules have 

already removed incentives for experienced controllers to transfer to new facilities, 

as doing so would reduce their pay by placing them in the new pay bands. 

The FAA’s key justification for the separation of these facilities is that it would 

‘‘reduce the lengthy training time required for developmental and prior experienced 

controllers in attaining full performance level certification. By reducing the total 

number of positions a controller is assigned to work maintaining currency would be 

easier and controllers would become more proficient in the areas they are assigned 

to work.’’ 3 NATCA agrees that there are advantages in reducing training time. 

However, we believe that this same objective can be met without losing the benefits 

of an integrated air traffic environment. Larger Centers and TRACONs throughout 

the country have their operations divided into sectors, a structure that has used successfully in Miami, a facility similar Philadelphia. There is no reason why similar 

structural changes should not be an equal success in Philadelphia. 

The FAA’s refusal to consider this reasonable alternative calls into question the 

agency’s true motive for change. The agency has shown itself to be motivated primarily by its own bottom line, without regard for safety or delays. We also have 

reason to believe that this realignment is but the first in a series of changes that 

the FAA is planning for the Pennsylvania area. If we use past FAA behavior as a 

predictor, PA can expect to see consolidation, closing or outsourcing of air traffic 

control towers at smaller local airports in the region. Allentown, Wilkes-Barre 

Scanton, Reading, Atlantic City, and perhaps Harrisburg airports are all at risk. We 

base this prediction on the FAA’ behavior in southern Florida—where a similarlyjustified de-combination of Miami tower and TRACON ultimately resulted in the 

consolidation of Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) TRACON and potential outsourcing of the remaining tower functions at PBI—and Texas—where in recent 

weeks we have seen the consolidation of Beaumont Airport’s (BPT) TRACON functions with operations out of Houston. 

DISPERSAL HEADINGS

On December 19, 2007, misguided FAA management unilaterally implemented 

dispersal headings to be used for aircraft departing out of Philadelphia airport. 

These new headings were supposed to reduce delays by cramming more aircraft into 

the already-constrained airspace surrounding PHL. The theory was that if we were 

to fan out aircraft along multiple vectors from PHL, we could speed the rate of departures as the new departures would not be following in trail and would therefore 

not need the same buffer of time between takeoffs. As with de-combination, the FAA 

failed to seek collaboration from Air Traffic Controllers, pilots and other stakeholders and therefore overlooked major pitfalls and consequences of their plan. 

Such constrained airspace poses a risk to the safety of aircraft by eliminating 

room for error. Small misjudgments, pilot error, or imperfect aircraft handling could 

have disastrous consequences in an operation run too tightly. For example, if a pilot 

landing on runway 27R or 9R has to abort a landing while the dispersal headings 

are in use, they may be faced with departure traffic coming towards them on the 

268 heading. Further complicating matters in this situation is the fact that the departing and arriving aircraft are communicating on different frequencies. 

The implementation of these dispersal headings has also created an environment 

ripe for miscommunication. The US Airways ALPA safety chairman, an active airline pilot wrote: ‘‘It is now a practice where a different heading is being assigned 

as part of the takeoff clearance. This practice can easily result in confusion as it 

is a change to the briefed departure heading. It also occurs during a very busy time 

in the cockpit and possibly while only one pilot is on the radio.’’ In response to pub-
58 

lic pressure on this issue, the FAA conducted a random review of 23 hours of tape 

and found 9 communication errors in that short span of time. Further contributing 

to the potential for miscommunication is the increased frequency congestion caused 

by a combination of overutilization of airspace and understaffing of Air Traffic Control. With more aircraft in the same space and no change to controller staffing, each 

single controller must communicate with and monitor read-backs from an increased 

number of pilots. This congestion of the communication frequencies increases the 

likelihood that a controller will overlook—and therefore fail to correct—a 

miscommunication between himself and a pilot. Needless to say, controller-pilot 

miscommunication poses an additional risk to safety. 

Another leading cause of miscommunication over dispersal headings is the complete lack of published procedures. As of the writing of this testimony, the FAA has 

published no official guidelines governing the usage of the dispersal headings, nor 

has the FAA updated Standard Instrument Departure (SID) charts to include these 

new headings. Under ordinary circumstances controllers refer to these charts when 

issuing departure clearances to aircraft, giving pilots and controllers a great level 

of clarity regarding the departure plan. Without new SID charts, controllers have 

had to verbally override SID instructions, requiring pilots to depart using unfamiliar procedures without the benefit of written instructions. Without SID charts, 

miscommunications have increased. One of the instances of miscommunication discovered in the above referenced investigation—of which NATCA maintained audio 

records—resulted in an aircraft traveling ten degrees off course. 

Relatedly, neither Air Traffic Controllers at PHL nor pilots have received meaningful training on this change in procedure. Controllers had been briefed that a particular procedure would be used, and then on the day of implementation the agency 

changed the procedures and required controllers to ‘‘read an initial’’ the changes on 

the day of implementation. 

There still exists the possibility of additional dangers caused by the headings, as 

the FAA failed to comprehensively test them prior to implementation. Notably missing from the FAA testing was testing in hot weather conditions. Aircraft are known 

to perform sluggishly in hot weather and climb and turn rates often suffer as a result. Controllers have already reported issues with constrained airspace design, an 

issue which will be exacerbated in hot weather and could pose serious safety problems. This must be tested prior to using these headings during such weather. 

The FAA hastily implemented these dispersal headings in order to appear to be 

addressing the issue of delays in the Philadelphia area. While delays are a serious 

and growing problem at PHL, the dispersal headings do not address the root of the 

problem and will have little if any impact on the situation. The key culprits in the 

problem of delays in the Philadelphia area are airline over-scheduling, and understaffed air traffic control facilities. Unfortunately, the FAA would prefer not to address either of these issues in a meaningful way, as they have proven resistant both 

to regulating airline behavior and to negotiating with air traffic controllers. 

AIRLINE OVER-SCHEDULING

Due to the laws of physics and FAA separation requirements, there is a finite 

number of aircraft that can safely arrive or depart an airport in a given span of 

time. The FAA has developed an estimate of the maximum number of operations 

each airport can handle in optimal weather conditions called the Airport Arrival 

Rate (AAR) and the Airport Departure Rate (ADR). The ADR at PHL is 52, meaning 

that 52 aircraft per hour—13 per quarter hour—can safely depart Philadelphia airport. However, the FAA does not require airlines to take these rates into account 

when planning their schedules. Therefore the airlines are free to use marketing as 

the only driving force in their schedule development, a practice which may maximize profits for airlines but which results in losses for airline customers in the form 

of delays, as airlines frequently schedule departures in excess of optimal airport capacity. Although PHL can depart only 13 aircraft per quarter hour in the best of 

conditions, there are some 15-minute intervals in which more than 20 aircraft are 

scheduled to depart. 

The graph below is a snapshot taken from the Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM), 

built from data in the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS), tools used by 

traffic management specialists to manage traffic flow. This was taken at 12:35 p.m. 

local time on March 25, 2008 and depicts scheduled departures until 11 p.m. The 

horizontal white line indicates the departure rate for that day. In this case, PHL 

was operating at full capacity, with 13 aircraft able to depart per quarter hour. 
59 

4This figure was calculated by estimating 15 minutes of delay for each aircraft carried over 

from one interval to the next. 

The green bars indicate the number of aircraft scheduled to depart from PHL in 

each 15 minute interval. Each instance in which the green bar goes over the white 

line, the airlines have scheduled beyond optimal capacity for the airport. In each 

of those cases, aircraft must be delayed. 

This type of scheduling automatically builds delays into the system before weather, understaffing or other mitigating factors are taken into account. In the example 

above—a typical day not during the peak travel season—this is what happens: 

—At 2:00 p.m. (1800Z) there are 22 flights scheduled to depart, 9 more than the 

maximum. So nine flights must be delayed and carried into the next interval. 

This begins the backlog. 

—At 2:15 there are 16 flights scheduled to depart, plus the 9 that were carried 

over for a total of 25. This is 12 beyond the maximum, so 12 must be carried 

over. —At 2:30 there are 10 flights scheduled to depart, plus the 12 that have been carried over for a total of 22. Because the scheduled number was below the maximum, we were able to absorb some of the backlog; however the backlog was 

so great that, nine must still be carried over. 

—At 2:45 there are 6 flights scheduled for departure, plus the 9 that have been 

carried over for a total of 15. Again, we are able to absorb some of the backlog, 

but 2 flights must still be carried over. 

—At 3:00 we are finally able to absorb the entire backlog. There are six flights 

scheduled plus the two carried over, for a total of eight, which is below the maximum. 

—However, the process begins again at 4:00 p.m., when 21 flights are scheduled 

to depart. 

Therefore, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. airline scheduling alone caused an estimated 480 minutes (8 hours) of delays at PHL.4

It is the FAA’s responsibility to ensure that NAS customers—the flying public— 

are protected. This means taking all possible steps to ensure not only a safe passage 

through the skies, but to help them avoid unnecessary delays. Rather than look out 

for the flying public, however, the FAA chose to protect a corporate bottom line, letting marketing, rather than logic or physics dictate airline scheduling practices. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER STAFFING AND THE EFFECT OF THE IMPOSED WORK RULES

On September 3, 2006, the FAA unilaterally imposed a set of work rules on its 

air traffic controller workforce. These rules instituted unpopular changes to the an-
60 

5 All staffing data is based on FAA payroll information provided to the union by the FAA. 

6 Rogers, Mark D, Richard H. Mogford, Leslye S. Mogford, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine The Relationship of Sector Characteristics to Operational Errors, May 1998. 

nual leave policy, removed career advancement opportunities, established new pay 

bands that decreased controller wages significantly, and eliminated rest periods, 

among other provisions which left many controllers dissatisfied with their work environment. Recent NATCA research has shown that as a result of these imposed 

work rules the total number of CPCs has fallen to a 15 year low, attrition from the 

ATC workforce has reached record levels and exceeded all expectations—the attrition rate in fiscal year 2008 has been 6.8 per day—and facilities throughout the 

country are severely understaffed. 

The FAA has repeatedly claimed that the increase in controller attrition is due 

entirely to the increase in retirement eligibility as those hired following the PATCO 

strike reach eligibility age. NATCA research shatters those claims. Ninety-eight percent of Air Traffic Controllers who left the workforce in fiscal year 2007 did so with 

time still left on the table. Resignations—of which there were only 64 5 in the last 

year of the signed contract—more than more than tripled to 202 in fiscal year 2007. 

Similarly the percent of those eligible to retire who chose to do so has increased 

from 21 to 30 percent since the imposition of the work rules. 

Practically, this means that there are fewer eyes watching the skies and runways 

throughout the country, and those that remain are suffering from fatigue. At Philadelphia Tower/TRACON, there are currently only 67 CPCs, 2 of whom are scheduled 

for transfer within the next several months. This is less than 65 percent of the 109 

jointly authorized by the FAA and NATCA in 1998. Smaller facilities in Pennsylvania are similarly strained. Wilkes-Barre airport has 14 CPCs rather than the authorized 25, while Harrisburg is down to a staggering 13 full performance level controllers 43 percent of what had been authorized. 

Left with understaffed facilities, management is faced with two choices for handling the ever-increasing volume of air traffic: call in overtime or work short-staffed. 

Both of these options—which are often used in tandem—create fatigue among air 

traffic controllers. Regular use of overtime limits a controller’s ability to recover 

from work-related stress and fatigue, while short-staffing increases workload and 

limits opportunities for rest and recovery during the shift. On short-staffed shifts 

managers are forced to reduce the number of Radar Assistants (RAs), giving one 

controller the responsibility of not only for communication with aircraft but also coordination with other controller positions and facilities and updating flight progress 

information. Additionally, managers may be forced to combine positions, creating 

greater complexity by requiring each controller to monitor greater numbers of confliction points and an increased volume of aircraft. According to the FAA’s own research, ‘‘evidence was found that increased sector complexity may be associated with 

reduced situational awareness and may lead to a larger number of, and more severe, 

errors.’’ 6 Fatigued Air Traffic Controllers are more likely to make errors, less likely 

to identify pilot error, and are more likely to increase the safety buffer, which would 

result in delays. 

PHL currently has 15 CPCs who are eligible to retire. If they left, this would further exacerbate the staffing shortage and the threat of fatigue-related errors and 

delays. Rather than encourage the continued outflow of experienced controllers by 

continuing to enforce the imposed work rules, the FAA must return to the bargaining table to bargain fairly with NATCA. Congress can do its part by quickly 

passing the FAA reauthorization bill, which contains provisions that would force the 

FAA to resume bargaining with NATCA and would send any unresolved disputes 

into binding arbitration. While this would not reverse the damage that has already 

been done, it would significantly slow the rate of attrition and give the system more 

time to recover. 

CONCLUSION

The FAA has repeatedly shown that it is either unable or unwilling to govern the 

usage of our Nation’s airspace and runways in a way that maximizes the benefit 

and minimizes risks to the flying public. Time and time again they have ignored 

offers from subject-matter experts like air traffic controllers to assist them in their 

endeavors, just as they have ignored the pleas from elected officials. In this way, 

Philadelphia is not unique. The issues facing this city, and indeed the entire State 

of Pennsylvania are being experienced in various incarnations throughout the country. Mismanagement has become endemic in this agency, which is determined to 

focus only on its own bottom line. Today we are given the opportunity to identify 
61 

the problems facing air travelers in the Philadelphia area—many of which have 

been either caused by the FAA or ignored by them—and begin taking steps to correct them. It is the sincere hope of this union that this hearing will lead to meaningful action and that positive changes will be made throughout the country. 

We therefore recommend the following: 

—The FAA should initiate realignment activity only after receiving approval from 

a review board as per the clause in the FAA reauthorization bill passed by the 

House of Representatives and currently under consideration by the Senate. This 

board would include representatives from all stakeholder groups including air 

traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress and the community. In the case 

of the PHL, the FAA should work with NATCA and consider our alternate plan 

to reduce the number of positions required for full certification while maintaining the integrity of the combined facility. 

—The FAA must discontinue the use of dispersal headings until such time as full 

testing (including hot weather testing) is complete and proper procedures, including appropriate revisions to the PHL7 SID chart have been established. 

This too must be done with the active participation of all stakeholder groups 

including air traffic controllers, pilots, members of congress and the community. 

—The FAA should take steps to control airline scheduling and prevent scheduling 

over the Maximum Arrival/Departure Rates. 

—Congress must quickly pass the FAA reauthorization bill that would require the 

FAA to return to the bargaining table for fair negotiations with NATCA, in 

order to curtail the rapid attrition from the workforce. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Forrey. 

Mr. Chapman, would you care to add anything to that? 

Mr. CHAPMAN. No, Senator, I just want to thank you for inviting 

us to participate today, and I’m here to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, on a number of occasions I’ve visited 

your towers. It’s dark, a lot of funny-looking symbols on the 

screens, and we thank you for what you do, even though we wonder 

what it is, sometimes. 

Our next witness is going to be Mr. Steve Aichele. He is a key 

member of the Philadelphia CEO Council for Growth. Graduate of 

the Naval Academy, now he’s the Chairman of Saul Ewing, a very 

distinguished Philadelphia old-line law firm. 

He appears here instead of former Governor Mark Schweiker, 

who’s President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, 

but this hearing had originally been scheduled for 11 a.m., when 

the Governor was available, and couldn’t miss—couldn’t make it 

because of the necessary change in scheduling. 

So, we welcome you here, Mr. Aichele, and look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN S. AICHELE, CHAIRMAN, SAUL EWING, ON 

BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA CEO COUNCIL FOR GROWTH 

Mr. AICHELE. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank 

you for having the business community here today. 

On a personal note, and off the record, please, thank you for 

being here. Keep up the fight, you’re an inspiration to those of us 

who are fighting a similar battle, so thank you very much for being 

here. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. 

Mr. AICHELE. I’m here today, as you said, on behalf of the regional business community, specifically the CEO Council for 

Growth, which is a group of over 60 CEOs of major businesses 

throughout the 11 county region of Greater Philadelphia. They’ve 

formed an alliance with the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Com-
62 

merce, which we’ve named Select Greater Philadelphia. Our President and CEO, Tom Moore, is in the audience today, as well. 

Our objective is to increase the competitiveness of Philadelphia 

as a world-class city, and to make sure that the rest of the world 

knows about that. One of the major points in achieving that objective would be for the PHL, which we’re calling the Philadelphia 

International Airport, to become—and remain, remain and become—an even better world-class airport, that’s absolutely essential. 

In today’s global economy, having a world-class airport is, as I 

said, absolutely essential. Throughout history, commerce has occurred where trades routes cross, and in our century, the 21st century, that’s going to be airports. 

Philadelphia International Airport is already a gateway to the 

world, and a critical driver of the regional economy. Tens of thousands of jobs rely on the airport, currently, and the ability to easily 

travel in and out of the region is a significant factor for professionals who choose to do business here, and for residents seeking 

convenience. 

Our region currently enjoys one of the most rapidly growing air 

travel markets, there are a whole bunch of data cited in the testimony, that’s on the record, I’m going to skip over that. But clearly, 

airport provides benefits to businesses, residents, and travelers, 

and to follow up on the question you asked Mayor Nutter—we have 

had businesses cite Philadelphia International Airport as a reason 

not to locate in this region. So, it is definitely having an impact, 

currently. 

In a very dynamic airline competitive environment, the city of 

Philadelphia, the management of PHL have done a very effective 

job of attracting both domestic and international flights to serve 

our region. Sizable projects currently under construction will solve 

most of the irritating problems that all of us encounter from time 

to time. Recent facility improvements such as Terminal East have 

set a standard of quality at PHL that’s appropriate for major market communities, such as ours. 

However, the growth in quality of service at PHL can provide is 

dependent on its ability to expand its capacity, both in the air and 

on the ground. Currently, Philadelphia International Airport is 

among the five worst U.S. airports, we’ve heard about that over 

and over, so I’m not going to go into any more of the detail here. 

As a result, however, of all of that, we’ve garnered a somewhat 

negative reputation for travelers, in that the delay detracts from 

the region’s quality of life, ability to attract and retain businesses, 

which are highly dependent on airline travel. With an eye to addressing such delay, the FAA is taking the actions that you’ve 

heard about today, and which is the subject of a lot of your discussion and questioning. 

We favor, obviously, the improving the efficiency of the operations at PHL, however, we believe that every effort should be 

made to ensure the important goal of reducing delays at PHL be 

balanced with efforts to mitigate noise impacts on our community. 

We commend the FAA for listening to the concerned citizens of 

Delaware County and other communities, resulting in significant 

mitigations of the proposed heading over the county, over which 
63 

was originally proposed. We urge the new headings over Delaware 

County be used only when necessary to reduce the delays—much 

as your line of questioning intimated. We’re committed to working 

with the airport, the FAA, and the region’s congressional delegation to help make sure that these appropriate mitigation measures 

are undertaken. 

We also believe that preserving and enhancing the airport’s ability to serve as an economic engine for the region will directly benefit Delaware County by providing job growth and increased tax 

revenues. 

In addition, we believe that the airport and its adjacent areas 

should be viewed strategically—as this is Delaware, Philadelphia, 

South Jersey—should be viewed strategically as a prime development opportunity, where adjacent land uses could enhance PHL’s 

ability to create jobs for nearby residents, and tax revenues for everybody. 

We recently articulated our vision for the future of PHL in a letter to Mayor Michael Nutter, and his Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities, Rina Cutler. I think it’s realistic to say, after 

you heard the mayor today, that the new mayor and his administration share many of the same priorities for PHL as the city and 

the region’s business community and we’re ready to work together 

to leverage and improve this great infrastructure asset. 

To that end, we are certainly interested in Federal funding, and 

in assistance for developing the airport and its adjacent areas, so 

it can truly become a global hub. 

Therefore, in order to accelerate recent progress, we hope that all 

of the stakeholders—the city of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth, 

neighboring jurisdictions, regional Federal officials, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, air 

carriers, and our business community, can dedicate ourselves to 

completing a series of actions and facility projects over the next 10 

years, that will improve the quality of customer service, increase 

the availability of more non-stop flights, enhance the efficiency of 

operations, and maximize the contributions of PHL to the quality 

of life and growth of regional prosperity here. 

With shared commitment and foresight, we believe PHL can be 

the first-class airport that this region needs. With that in mind, 

we’re here today to offer the support of the Greater Philadelphia 

region’s business community, to these efforts. 

In closing, Senator, let me thank you again for the opportunity 

to provide comments this afternoon, and I also would be happy to 

answer any questions and I should just for—correct the record, sitting next to an admiral and a real graduate of the Naval Academy—I’m a retired Naval Reserve Captain, but I was ROTC, I 

went to Cornell University. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Aichele. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK SCHWEIKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GREATER PHILADELPHIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; CHAIRMAN OF THE CEO COUNCIL FOR GROWTH

Thank you, Senator, for inviting me to testify before you today on behalf of the 

business community. And best wishes for good health. For the record, I am Mark 

Schweiker, President and CEO of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, 

which is the premier advocate of the region’s business community, representing 
64 

5,000 companies and organizations in 11 counties across 3 States—southeastern 

Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and northern Delaware. 

Today, I am here in my role as Chairman of the CEO Council for Growth, which 

is a group of prominent business executives committed to Greater Philadelphia’s 

growth and prosperity and an affiliate of the Chamber. The mission of the CEO 

Council is to enhance the competitiveness of the Greater Philadelphia region in the 

global economy. One key to successfully carrying out this mission would be the ability of Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) to serve as an economic engine for 

Greater Philadelphia. 

In today’s global economy, having a world class airport is essential. Throughout 

history, commerce has occurred where trade routes cross; in the 21st century, that 

means airports. Philadelphia International Airport is our gateway to the world and 

a critical driver of our regional economy that also provides very real benefits to local 

communities. Tens of thousands of jobs rely upon the airport. The ability to easily 

travel in and out of the region is a significant factor for professionals doing business, and for residents seeking convenience. 

Our region currently enjoys one of the most rapidly growing air travel markets 

and has both hub and low fare operators that are committed to air service expansion at PHL. Between 1997 and 2006, total passengers at PHL have increased 42 

percent. There are currently 700 daily departures to 120 cities, including 52 daily 

non-stops to 36 international destinations. By 2009, US Airways will initiate nonstop direct service to Beijing, a route that provides direct and indirect economic impacts to every region that can secure the service. With 34,000 employees and over 

200 employers, PHL is estimated to provide $14 billion in regional economic impact. 

Clearly the airport provides important benefits to businesses, residents and travelers. 

In a very dynamic airline competitive environment, the city and management of 

PHL have done an effective job of attracting both domestic and international flights 

to serve our region. Also, sizeable projects currently under construction will solve 

some of PHL’s most irritating problems. Recent facility improvements such as Terminal A East have set a standard of quality at PHL that is appropriate for a major 

market community such as ours. 

However, the growth and quality of service that PHL can provide is dependent 

on its ability to expand its capacity, both in the air and on the ground. Currently, 

Philadelphia International Airport is among the five worst U.S. airports for departure delays. Routinely, the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas are 

among the top 10 that experience regular airport delays. As a result, PHL has garnered a negative reputation among air travelers that detracts from the region’s 

quality of life and ability to attract and retain businesses who are highly dependent 

on airplane travel. 

With an eye on addressing such delay, in 2007, the FAA made the decision to redesign airspace along the eastern half of the United States. This area has the most 

complex and densely traveled airspace in the world. Travelers in and out of Greater 

Philadelphia will benefit from better air traffic flows, as will people traveling to and 

from Boston, Washington, DC and New York City. 

We favor improving the efficiency of operations at PHL. However, we believe that 

every effort should be made to ensure that the important goal of reducing delays 

at PHL be balanced with efforts to mitigate noise impacts in our community. We 

commend the FAA for listening to the concerned citizens of Delaware County and 

other communities, resulting in significant mitigation of the proposed headings over 

the County. We urge the new headings over Delaware County be used only when 

necessary to reduce delays on the ground as originally proposed by FAA. We are 

committed to working with the airport, the FAA and the region’s Congressional delegation to help make sure that these appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken to preserve the quality of life in Delaware County and other communities. 

We also believe that preserving and enhancing the airport’s ability to serve as an 

economic engine for the region will directly benefit Delaware County by providing 

job growth and increased tax revenue. In addition, we believe that the airport and 

its adjacent areas should be viewed strategically as a prime development opportunity where adjacent land uses could enhance PHL’s ability to create jobs for nearby residents and tax revenues for Philadelphia, Delaware County and the region. 

We recently articulated our vision for the future of PHL in a letter to Mayor Michael Nutter and his Deputy Mayor for Transportation and Utilities, Rina Cutler. 

For the first time, I think it is realistic to say that the Mayor shares many of the 

same priorities for PHL as the city and region’s business community and we are 

ready to work together to leverage and improve on this great infrastructure asset. 

To that end, we are certainly interested in Federal funding and assistance for devel-
65 

oping the airport and its adjacent areas so that it can truly become a global hub 

for travel and business growth. 

Therefore, in order to accelerate recent progress, we hope that all stakeholders— 

the city of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, neighboring jurisdictions, regional Federal officials, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, air carriers serving PHL and the business community— 

should dedicate ourselves to completing a series of actions and facility projects over 

the next 10 years that will improve the quality of customer service, increase the 

availability of more non-stop flights, enhance the efficiency of operations and maximize the contribution of PHL to the quality of life and growth of regional prosperity 

here. 

With shared commitment and foresight, PHL can be the first class airport that 

this region needs. With that in mind, I am here today to offer the support of the 

Greater Philadelphia region’s business community. 

In closing, let me thank you for the opportunity to provide comments this morning 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator SPECTER. We’ll work out the seating arrangements more 

carefully next time. 

Our next and final witness is executive vice president and chief 

operating officer of the Air Transport Association, Mr. John 

Meenan. Had been Assistant General Counsel with the Association, 

9 years in the U.S. Secret Service, a Bachelor’s Degree in Political 

Science from Holy Cross, a law degree from Santa Clara. 

Thank you for being with us, Mr. Meenan, and we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, thank you very much. I hope my written 

testimony can be submitted for the record, but I do want to thank 

you, on behalf of the airlines for the opportunity to appear here 

today to discuss both redesign and our scheduling practices. 

We’ve heard the airspace, the east coast airspace and the issue 

here affects the entire country, and that’s absolutely true. What 

amazing about that is, is that that airspace today is being managed 

essentially the same way it was in the 1960s. We—it doesn’t reflect 

current technology, it doesn’t reflect the integration of airspace between New York and Philadelphia and Washington, it doesn’t reflect the air traffic control technologies that exist, and are coming 

into being today. 

As a result, it’s managed in a very complex way, and what Airspace Redesign is all about, is trying to eliminate and reduce those 

complexities, to make the flow of traffic move more smoothly, to 

better the working conditions for the air traffic controllers, we 

know there are a lot of issues that need to be worked through, but 

we’re confident that those can be addressed. 

We’re, of course, also mindful of the concerns expressed about the 

airlines’ scheduling practices. And on that note, I would simply 

point out that at $4 a gallon for jet fuel, it’s unrealistic to really 

think that airlines aren’t doing everything they can to go after 

every passenger and every shipment they can, but they’re certainly 

not wasting fuel for the purpose of simply flying around in the air. 

Now, how does this reflect itself at Philadelphia International? 

The FAA’s published capacity rate for the airport, under optimal 

conditions, shows between 104 and 116 operations an hour. Under 

IFR conditions, that drops to 96. Looking at projected June sched-
66 

ules for this year, in only 1 hour of the day do those scheduled exceed by 4 operations—the 96 level that the FAA publishes as the 

acceptable IFR rate for that airport. What that tells me is we’re not 

over scheduling at the airport. Philadelphia should be able to handle that level of operations, it shouldn’t be handling less than it did 

before. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Meenan, if they are not overscheduled, why are these enormous delays? 

Mr. MEENAN. In part, sir, because of the inadequate design of the 

airspace. That’s one of the reasons for redesigning the airspace, so 

that we can move those airplanes more efficiently. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, how do you know that? When the schedules were established, what did you say? In 1999? 

Mr. MEENAN. What I’m saying is that the FAA publishes rates 

based on data that the FAA analyzes to determine what an airport—— 

Senator SPECTER. Publishes rates? 

Mr. MEENAN. Rates of acceptable levels of operation at an airport, optimal conditions, as I say, 106 to 114. Under Instrument 

Flight Rule conditions, at Philadelphia, it’s 96. 

Senator SPECTER. But, the schedule that they establish is reasonable flight—planes coming in and out—is based upon the current 

system. You talk about a revised system not using the air properly, 

well, that may be so, or it may not be so, but what we do know 

what is so, is what it’s on now—are those allotments realistic with 

what is happening today? 

Mr. MEENAN. I think, sir, what we know is that the rates have 

been published for more than a decade. We would be surprised, 

based on the billions of dollars that’s been spent on the air traffic 

management system over the last decade, that we’re handling 

fewer operations today than we were able to operate a decade ago. 

That’s disappointing to us. 

Senator SPECTER. Handling fewer? 

Mr. MEENAN. That’s essentially what we would be saying, if we 

can’t handle the levels of operations that the FAA told us a decade 

ago that that airport can handle. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, when they posted them a decade ago, 

was that for the flight patterns they had at that time? 

Mr. MEENAN. It was for the flight patterns they had at that time. 

Senator SPECTER. And were there enormous delays on takeoffs 

and landings? 

Mr. MEENAN. Those flight patterns, unfortunately, are still based 

on 1960s aircraft design characteristics, aircraft operating capabilities, FAA’s air traffic control management—— 

Senator SPECTER. Aren’t there more planes now, then—— 

Mr. MEENAN. There are more planes, but they can perform better. They can perform much more precisely, they can climb more 

rapidly, they can move much more precisely through the airspace. 

Senator SPECTER. But there are many more planes. 

Mr. MEENAN. There are, for example, there are 18,000 business 

jets in operation today that we don’t hear much about. All we seem 

to want to talk about is commercial jets—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, do they figure into the—— 
67 

Mr. MEENAN. Very much so. They’re 20 to 30 percent of the operations, for example, in the New York airspace during peak hours. 

We’re not talking about them, we seem to only want to focus on 

the commercial operators, that are really looking to benefit the 

broader community. 

And on that, I would like to just briefly, the rest of my testimony 

touches on the fact that if you look at what we think is an indication of what—— 

Senator SPECTER. You will have all of the time I took from you. 

It’s not the Supreme Court of the United States where Chief Justice Rehnquist bangs the gavel at the end of the—— 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, I certainly don’t want to prolong this—— 

Senator SPECTER. I’ve been there, when I defended the Philadelphia Navy Yard. And the rumor was—you’ll get this time, too—the 

rumor was Chief Justice Rehnquist is looking for an opportunity to 

interrupt a lawyer in the middle of the word ‘‘if.’’ 

Your turn, Mr. Meenan. 

Mr. MEENAN. There’s 6 million people in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, there are 24 million passengers a year at Philadelphia, origin and destination passengers. Those are people who are 

coming from the community and using the airport. There’s another, 

20 or 30 percent more of connecting passengers there. 

Right now, this last summer, looking at the busiest period of the 

year, our load factors at the airport were over 80 percent—83, 84, 

85 percent. That’s an extraordinarily high level of people getting on 

each and every airplane leaving that airport. What that tells me 

is, we’re just meeting the demands of the community. We’re trying 

to respond to the economic needs of the Philadelphia area. 

That’s what we want to do, that’s what we’re in the business of 

doing. We want to be able to do that as efficiently, and as an environmentally friendly way as possible. We think the Airspace Redesign, for example, can help reduce emissions by 20 percent in the 

region. We think it can help reduce exposed noise population rather 

substantially, for the most part. There are always going to be small 

communities, they’re going to be affected differently. We can’t avoid 

that, at this point. 

One final note I would really like to emphasize, and that is that 

the airline industry today is in a far more serious financial meltdown than it was following 9/11. 

There are fundamental questions about the future of aviation in 

the United States. We think this is a particularly inappropriate 

time for the Department of Transportation to be talking about extracting more money from the airline industry for some economic 

experiment, rather than getting at the heart of some of these problems, and helping us move more airplanes as efficiently as possible. 

Senator SPECTER. You—are you finished? 

Mr. MEENAN. I will end on that note. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. I just—— 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. MEENAN. But I—one more—we look forward to working with 

everyone—with you, with Congress, with the FAA, with the controllers, with the communities, with the airports—that’s the business we’re in. 
68 

1 ATA airline members are: ABX Air, Inc.; AirTran Airways; Alaska Airlines, Inc.; Aloha Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines, Inc.; ASTAR Air Cargo, Inc.; Atlas Air, Inc.; Continental Airlines, 

Inc.; Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation; 

Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Midwest Airlines; Northwest Airlines, Inc.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Airlines, Inc.; UPS Airlines; and US Airways, Inc. ATA Airline Associate Members are: Air Canada, Air Jamaica Ltd. and Mexicana. 

Senator SPECTER. I just wanted to be sure you felt that you were 

getting all of your 5 minute allowance. 

Mr. MEENAN. I appreciate it very much, sir. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MEENAN

On behalf of the Air Transport Association,1 let me begin by thanking the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear at today’s field hearing. The level and quality of air service to and from Philadelphia is of vital importance to us and we look 

forward to discussing both the ongoing airspace redesign and airline scheduling 

practices. 

As to the former, as the subcommittee is aware, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has undertaken a multi-year, four-stage project to re-engineer the way 

the Nation’s airspace is utilized in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. This project has been in development for 10 years and has been the 

subject of an extensive environmental review. It is critically important. 

Why? The airspace under review is among the most heavily congested in the 

United States. This is not surprising given that the aviation marketplace in the 

metroplex both fuels and benefits from the vibrant economy of the region. What is 

surprising, however, is the fact that the way this airspace is currently being managed is based on aircraft performance characteristics and air traffic control technologies dating to the early 1960s. 

As a result, the way the airspace is managed is extremely complicated—and that 

complexity leads to avoidable delays. By re-engineering the airspace to take greater 

advantage of modern aircraft climb capabilities, improved speed, higher altitude capability and more precise navigation technology—and by better integrating the way 

the airspace is managed in relation to adjoining airspace—we can move more aircraft even more safely and with greater efficiency. Aside from the obvious benefit 

of reduced delays, the FAA projects a drop in people exposed to noise levels above 

45 DNL of 619,000 and a reduction of aircraft emissions by 20 percent. In an era 

of $4 per gallon jet fuel, of course, we would also welcome the associated reduction 

in fuel burn. 

In addition to these benefits, the redesign is also intended to reduce and improve 

the balance of air traffic controller workload by permitting the more efficient flowing 

of traffic through the airspace. It will enhance departure capabilities with additional 

headings—a key to reducing delays—and provide greater flexibility in routing aircraft during significant weather events. 

We are, of course, also mindful of concerns expressed about airline scheduling and 

the often expressed concern with ‘‘over-scheduling.’’ To return the focus to $4 per 

gallon jet fuel for just a moment, I would simply note that airlines are intensely 

motivated to schedule flights to meet public demand for air transportation—they are 

seeking every passenger (or shipper) possible. Excess capacity or over-scheduling 

makes no sense. 

How does this reflect itself at Philadelphia International Airport? The FAA’s published capacity rate for the airport under optimal conditions is between 104 and 116 

operations per hour. Under instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions that rate drops 

to 96 per hour. Looking at projected June 2008 airline schedules, reflecting the busiest travel season, there is only one hour in which scheduled operations exceed (by 

4) the published IFR capacity of the airport. At no point do scheduled operations 

exceed the optimal conditions rates. These levels of demand are consistent with 

what Philadelphia Airport is capable of handling. 
69 

The data is also strongly suggestive that these schedules are driven by consumer 

demand. The best indicator is to look at the load factors expected on flights at Philadelphia Airport. For the June 2008 schedule cited, looking back to last summer offers the best picture of what to expect this summer. What we see is that the average 

load factor for the two largest carriers operating at Philadelphia Airport exceeded 

84 percent for this time frame. That is an extraordinarily high percentage of filled 

seats on each and every flight and we have every reason to believe that will be 

equaled if not exceeded this summer. Rather than over-scheduling it would appear 

that the carriers are hitting the mark in meeting the market demand. 

WN/US AVERAGE PHL LOAD FACTORS 

Percent 

June 2007 ................................................................................................................................................................. 84.16 

July 2007 .................................................................................................................................................................. 84.43 

August 2007 ............................................................................................................................................................. 83.37 

In conclusion, the stakes for airspace redesign are high. This is a program with 

tremendous potential to pay noise, emissions, reduced fuel consumption and delay 

reduction dividends. Properly implemented, the long-term benefits to the regional 

and national economies are tremendous and we look forward to working with the 

FAA, the controllers, the airport, the community and all interested stakeholders to 

assure that those benefits are realized. 

Thank you and I would, of course be pleased to respond to any questions. 

Senator SPECTER. With an exception I took. 

I will begin the questioning with you, Mr. Meenan. 

Will you set the clock at 5 minutes please? Not that I’ll observe, 

but I’d like to know what the time is. 

The chairman doesn’t have to observe the time limit. The witnesses do, and that’s only to try to inject some mortar into focus 

as to what, at least the subcommittee thinks is relevant. 
70 

You said, Mr. Meenan, something about the Government extracting funds from the airlines and you were in disagreement with 

what they were doing. Would you expand on that? 

Mr. MEENAN. The—the subject is this—this economic experiment 

that’s being tried up at LaGuardia to take more money, effectively, 

out of the airline industry and turn it over to the Government. And 

the putative purpose behind that is to—to move airplanes out of 

particular slots in the day. 

Senator SPECTER. You think that’s a bad idea? 

Mr. MEENAN. We think that’s a very bad idea. We think that the 

industry is—— 

Senator SPECTER. Especially since the FAA thinks they’re adequately financed? 

Mr. MEENAN. The FAA does think they’re adequately financed, 

but I—— 

Senator SPECTER. So why are they asking for more money at 

LaGuardia? 

Mr. MEENAN. The—— 

Senator SPECTER. That’s a question for them, not you. 

Mr. MEENAN. That’s a question really that I can’t answer. But 

the—our point in it is, the airline industry needs every penny it 

has today to try to improve the way we fly people around the country, the service we provide to the public, the way we replace our 

fleet. The U.S. airline fleet is aging rapidly and we are unable to 

replenish that fleet, because we don’t have the money to do it. 

That’s why we are opposed to things that simply take more 

money off the table. We think they’re hurting the end-game—the 

end-goal here, which is improving service. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Meenan, you heard the testimony about 

the enormous delays in the Philadelphia Airport, takeoff and landing, and the way they’re scheduling 35 flights in 45 minutes, can’t 

possibly handle it. Do you think that is satisfactory? 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator, the carriers are always looking at the way 

they schedule to try to improve their performance, to try to improve their on-time performance overall. We think that—and I will 

say that the carriers are precluded from talking to one another 

about how they schedule those flights, as you know. 

But on balance, we think an airport like Philadelphia, with a 

published capacity of 96 instrument flight rule operations per hour, 

ought to be able to handle, pretty comfortably, 96 instrument flight 

rule operations per hour. 

Senator SPECTER. Now would you answer my question? 

Mr. MEENAN. And that was—— 

Senator SPECTER. Forgot it. 

Mr. MEENAN. I’m not sure—— 

Senator SPECTER. With the enormous delays, takeoff and landing, which you hear, and I repeated something just now, is that 

satisfactory? 

Mr. MEENAN. Not at all. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. And if you 

look for the years ahead, on a speculative basis, it is too long to 

wait and who knows what we’ll get at the end of the wait. 

What—do you think—well let me go to Congressman Sestak, do 

you think, in light of the fact that the FAA has the authority now 
71 

to impose caps and they haven’t done it, that the House and Senate—I put the House first—that the House and Senate ought to impose mandates? 

Mr. SESTAK. No sir, I don’t think they should do that right now. 

Senator SPECTER. Should do that? 

Mr. SESTAK. I do not think that they should do that right now. 

It is an option later. I think that there is a better way to approach 

this. 

Senator SPECTER. Congressman Sestak, would you follow the 

suggestion of your colleague, Congressman Dent, from the Lehigh 

Valley who—understandably on grounds of representing the Lehigh 

Valley—would like to have that airport used more. He makes an 

argument of accessibility from a good part of the metropolitan area, 

not too far—if you start, say at Willow Grove, probably closer to 

the Lehigh Valley Airport than the Philadelphia Airport. Do you 

think there ought to be a big effort made to use that airport more? 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes, sir. Lehigh and New Castle. And as you know, 

when the BRAC Commission closed Willow Grove, it was inserted 

in the language that the future use of this was to be used as a civilian airport. 

Senator SPECTER. You had mentioned Washington and Baltimore 

and flights, do you think that there ought to be a prohibition on 

flights from those cities, to use alternative transportation like Amtrak? 

Mr. SESTAK. No sir, I don’t think that there should be, right now, 

a prohibition. I think a better way to do it is to invest in a bulletlike type of train, like Shanghai has or Maglev capability, which 

you well know, because I know your office is following this, that 

Pittsburgh is developing—and Delaware County Community College is investing in—so that someone can get on a train and be 

there in relative minutes. 

I think that type of positive incentive to move to a different type 

of inter-modal transportation is the way to do it, if you can avoid 

mandating it from the Government level. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you see a way to integrate Pittsburgh, Congressman Sestak, into the issues and problems we’re facing here, 

for some of the answer? 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes sir, I do. There has been a proposal, and I believe Brian Lentz the State Representative has, that there should 

be much more of a regional airport approach to this. We have, as 

Mr. Whelan’s pointed out, two-thirds of this airport is actually in 

Delaware County, but the authority resides in Philadelphia. I believe that, both on the—as you, I believe, are addressing—I hope 

I’m answering the question—there are all these airports in the region—— 

Senator SPECTER. And you think the Pittsburgh Airport could figure in that? 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes sir, I do, in the sense that what—where does 

Pittsburgh fly to? For example, does it fly to Harrisburg? Or does 

it fly to—and I don’t know the answer to that. But if you then look 

at where it is flying to, can we then, not just on the Airspace Regional Plan, but on the Surface Regional Plan, actually alleviate 

the demands. 
72 

Senator SPECTER. But how could that take pressure off of the 

Philadelphia Airport? 

Mr. SESTAK. I’m not sure, sir, right now. I just—as I said, I believe it can work itself in. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Meenan, is there any realistic way to utilize Pittsburgh to take pressure off of Philadelphia? 

Mr. MEENAN. I think it obviously is something that individual 

carriers have to decide where they want to base their operation. 

But when you’re running a network system, if that’s what you’re 

talking about, you pick a particular spot for a hub, and that’s 

where you work out from. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, the airlines have made their choices. 

Mr. MEENAN. But other—other carriers certainly have decided 

Pittsburgh is a great spot for business. There are carriers providing 

a lot of service there. 

Senator SPECTER. But the question is, would it take pressure off 

of Philadelphia? 

Mr. MEENAN. I don’t really think it, I mean, when you—if you 

want an airport like Philadelphia to grow and expand into a worldwide airport, the more service you have in and out of there, the 

more rapidly that worldwide service will develop. By dispersing 

yourself into, you know, backyard sort of steel mills isn’t going to 

get you there. 

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Senator, may I ask—— 

Senator SPECTER. Of course, it looks like you have something 

critical, because I do want to move on to some of the other panelists quick. 

Mr. SESTAK. May I just—the critical issue I think in this is, a 

lot, a vast majority—when you take off from Philadelphia, air traffic goes into New York airspace. The delays are not caused by 

Philadelphia, the delays, as the controllers can tell you, are caused 

because they wait on the tarmac, waiting for New York airspace to 

open up. If Pittsburgh airspace—aircraft are also jamming itself 

into that New York airspace, that’s part of the delay in Philadelphia. So there is an interconnection. 

Mr. MEENAN. Senator? 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Forrey, you talked about shortage and fatigue. Could you amplify your thought that that is contributing to 

the delays? 

Mr. FORREY. Well, the fewer controllers you have, the fewer positions you can open, so the controllers are now required to work 

more aircraft, they’re busier, it’s a greater workload, they get tired 

quicker. And when you get tired you make mistakes, so when you 

are prone to make mistakes, you try to be more careful. As you’re 

being more careful, you may end up causing more delays. So, it’s 

just a question of the ability to manage traffic in a safe and efficient manner, and the more tired you get, the harder that is. 

Senator SPECTER. I was distracted for a moment, would you repeat that answer? 

Mr. FORREY. Yes, sir. I’d certainly be happy to. 

Senator, when you have fewer controllers and they’re working 

more positions combined, they’re working more aircraft combined, 

the workload is greater and it creates quite a bit of mental fatigue. 

And when you know you’re prone to making mistakes, you try to 
73 

be more careful, so you try to be more precise and direct and slow 

down. So, that’s part of the difficulty. Or, you get jammed up 

quicker and now you’ve got a mess on your hands and you have 

to shut things off before you can clean it up, because you have to 

be safe before you are anything else. 

Senator SPECTER. Vice Chairman Whelan, I’m very much impressed with the specific situation, you commented about people 

being kept awake 12 a.m. to 5 a.m., because the FAA says they 

don’t use that flight—in that timeframe. That from 10 p.m. to 7 

a.m. they fly across the river. 

I would ask you, how do you account for that, but there’s no way 

you can. What do you think of that? 

Mr. WHELAN. Well, you’re correct, I can’t account for it, but I can 

tell you, I’m getting a myriad of complaints at that particular timeframe. 

Just last week, I received a complaint from a couple of senior 

citizens that live on Colonial Drive in Nether Providence Township. 

They say they are constantly being awoken in the night, but their 

problem area is anywhere from 8 p.m., right through the middle of 

the night. I was going to schedule a visit to that particular neighborhood to see what’s going on, but it’s contrary, clearly, to what 

the FAA testified here today. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Whelan, I’d like to get those specifics from 

you, and have my staff contact you to get those specific people, copies of your correspondence, so we can confront the FAA. 

You’ve heard what they’ve had to say here about the hours they 

don’t fly over Delaware County, at a very minimum, they really 

ought to be observing that. We heard what might be characterized 

as double-talk about peak hours and not more than 10 flights waiting, et cetera, et cetera. We’re going to have to see to it that at 

least they abide by their own rules. They try to make a case of necessity for some of those flights, but they’ve established times 

where they say they won’t fly, they at least ought to be held to 

that. 

Mr. Aichele, how serious do you think this problem is of retarding growth of business? 

Mr. AICHELE. It’s clearly—— 

Senator SPECTER. In the region? 

Mr. AICHELE. It’s serious. It’s clearly having an impact today, 

and to the extent that you try to resolve the issue by laying off 

flights or moving flights to more convenient times, you will end up 

further exacerbating the issue of the convenience for business travelers coming and going from Philadelphia. 

We have had situations where meeting planners have told our 

folks that when they’re coming to Philadelphia, they schedule a, 

you know, an hour or 2 hour earlier flight, just to make sure they 

account for the delays. And if they’re telling us that, imagine what 

they’re telling their people, the folks that are scheduling, what do 

you call that—bringing businesses into town—they’re the site selectors. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Aichele, what do you think about the proposition that the FAA on its own ought to impose limits, and see to 

it that schedules are established so that they’re not overbooked to 

have the long delays? 
74 

Mr. AICHELE. It seems—as a business person—I’d always rather 

have less Government regulation, then more. 

On the other hand—— 

Senator SPECTER. You’re not just a business person, you’re a lawyer, you’re the head of a very big law firm. 

Mr. AICHELE. Who very much appreciates the importance of convenience in getting in and out of our airport to the rest of the cities 

we need to be at. 

Where I was going is—— 

Senator SPECTER. How many cities do you have offices in? 

Mr. AICHELE. Eight different cities throughout the region. 

Senator SPECTER. You must use air traffic. 

Mr. AICHELE. All the time. And we suffer the delays in spades. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you have to schedule 2 hours early, to be 

sure you get there? 

Mr. AICHELE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. What’s your hourly rate? 

You don’t have to answer that question. 

Mr. AICHELE. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. But those 2 hours are costing a lot of money. 

Mr. AICHELE. Yes, sir. There’s no doubt about it. And that inefficiency, that exact inefficiency is—— 

Senator SPECTER. I used to—I used to do that. 

Now, you might be interested to know, not relevant to this subject, that I’ve asked Laurie Frankly to appear before the International Trade Commission. The U.S. Steel Industry wants me to 

appear there. 

I’m not sure they like the quality of my argument, but they certainly like my hourly rate. I don’t do case law. 

So, what do you think about FAA establishing schedules so that 

you don’t have to leave 2 hours early? See to it that we, if not 

eliminate, at least minimize these long waits? 

Mr. AICHELE. If it maintains or increases the capacity of the airport to bring people into this town and get people out of the town, 

then it’s something that should be looked at. 

Senator SPECTER. Anybody else have anything they’d like to have 

added to this fund of knowledge? 

I thought you might, Congressman Sestak. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Senator. I just wanted to make it clear that 

all we want is to ask this to stop and have a true cost-benefit study 

done, where the costs are transparent and the benefits are transparent. 

Then society, the citizens, the Government can make a decision 

objectively—what are the right options? I honestly believe that 

when all of the costs are out there, that it will force you to look 

at these other options that you’ve, at least, asked questions about— 

regional airports, or caps, or other ones, and then you can look at 

the fair spread of options. 

Because it is true, this is an important economic development. 

We just believe that this has come to a—since that 2003 legislation 

to a single-source solution that has not—as FAA Administrator 

says, where they have—don’t even know the cost financially, never 

mind the impact on education and health—and then have an objective assessment done. 
75 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. We’re 

now approaching the 21⁄2 hour mark, and it had run longer than 

I had anticipated, but I did not want to cut anybody short, I wanted to explore one of the issues fully. It took months to schedule this 

hearing, to get the FAA to come to Philadelphia—very, very hard 

to get them to do that, had a lot of preparation time when they appeared before the subcommittee in Washington, and a lot of correspondences. And I sat down for an hour with them earlier this 

week, to get a background so that we—it wasn’t too easy to illicit 

information today. But you should have been with me on Wednesday for an hour. 

But these are complex matters, and they require a lot of explanation. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

But we very much appreciate your coming, and that concludes 

our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., Friday, April 25, the hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to 

the call of the Chair.] 

Æ