BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC

In the matter of
Airlines for America (A4A) and Regional Airlines Association (RAA) Motion for a temporary exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 259.4 Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0084

COMMENTS OF MASFLIGHT

ON THE
MOTION OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA (A4A) AND REGIONAL AIRLINES ASSOCIATION (RAA) FOR A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR 259.4

Submitted by: Dr. Tulinda D. Larsen Vice President
, masFlight 4833 Rugby Avenue, Suite 301 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (888) 809

- 2750 tulinda@masflight.co m

DATED: April 26, 2013masFlight Comments Page 1

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC

In the matter of
Airlines for America (A4A) and Regional Airlines Association (RAA) Motion for a temporary exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 259.4 Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0084

DATED: April 26, 2013
COMMENTS OF MASFLIGHT ON THE MOTION OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA (A4A) AND REGIONAL AIRLINES ASSOCIATION (RAA) FOR A TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR 259.4

On April 19, 2013, industry trade associations Airlines for America (“A4A”) and Regional Airlines Association (“RAA”) requested temporary exemption (the “Motion”) from the Department’s tarmac

- delay regulations for a period of at least 90 days, or until the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) sequestration furloughs end, whichever is longer. The Motion was based on predictions of substantial delay and disruption at U.S. airports from the FAA’s decision to implemen t daily ground delay programs and reduce air traffic control personnel as part of the sequestration implementation plan adopted in response to the Budget Control Act of 2011. A4A and RAA requested the Motion to increase operational flexibility, minimize f light cancellations and address the disruptions caused by the FAA’s sequestration plan. After conducting a quantitative review of flight operations data before and after sequestration, we find that (1) the not able increase in
taxi

- out times suggest long t armac delays are likely under sequestration; (2) that airport operational gridlock conducive to long tarmac delays is driven by furlough

- related FAA delay measures; and (3) FAA and industry estimates of 6,700 daily flights impacted this
summer are reasonab le based on initial experience under sequestration programs.masFlight Comments Page 2
Background

In mid

- April, the FAA notified airlines and the public that beginning April 21,
2013 ground delay programs (“GDP”) and traffic management initiatives (“TMI” ) would be implemented as a result of employee furloughs necessitated by sequestration

. The Motion filed by the A4A and RAA on April 19, 2013 articulated the following key points in support of a temporary waiver of Part 259.4 during the sequestration period.

1. F AA ground delay programs and traffic management initiatives would impact 6,700 daily flight delays and persist through September 30, 2013.

2. The FAA notified airlines of furloughs on April 16 th providing no opportunity for airlines to adjust operations head ing into the peak summer season. The FAA gave no prior indication that planned volumes for the summer season were unrealistic.

3. The tarmac delay regulations in 14 CFR Part 259.4 may force airlines to cancel flights and disrupt passenger itineraries dur ing FAA

- imposed delay programs.

4. The FAA is unable to forecast the severity of delays in advance for a given airport

o n a given day to provide sufficient advance notice to airlines and passengers.

5. Operational gridlock resulting from furloughs will likely result in large

- scale tarmac rule violations unless airlines cancel flights to free gate and ramp capacity.

6. Strict interpretation of the tarmac delay regulations would be inappropriate and
harmful for FAA

- imposed delay programs, at least until airlines ca n (1) make systemwide schedule adjustments without disrupting passengers during the peak summer season, (2) develop the operational procedures to manage FAA

- imposed delay programs while minimizing the impact on tarmac operations and (3) airlines
and the FA A can collaboratively address the as

- yet unknown challenges from
weather and staffing issues this summer

.
The Motion concludes by requesting a n exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. Part 259.4 for a period of 90 days, or until the Federal Aviation AdministrationmasFlight Comments Page 3
sequestration furloughs end, whichever is longer, to provide the flexibility to address unpredictable and unprecedented flight de lays cause d by the FAA.

In its notification to airlines and the public, the FAA pointed specifically to likely staffing

- related measures at New York and Los Angeles En

- Route Facilities, and the DFW and Las Vegas TRACONs. During the first five days of FAA sequestration

measures , from April 21 through April 25
, GDP and TMI programs related to staffing and furloughs were implemented at a number of facilities including major airline hubs
such as Newark, New York LaGuardia, New York Kennedy, Charlotte, Washing ton Reagan, Los Angeles International and Chicago O’Hare

. An analysis of delay reasons cited in FAA Air Traffic Control Advisories shows that from April 21 through April 25, 15 airports were directly affected by FAA ground delay programs, ground stop prog rams, airborne delays and traffic management initiatives. The chart below shows the number of 15 minute periods each day that an airport was reported to have staffing

- related arrival or departure delays. LAX and the New York area airports (LGA, EWR, JFK, a nd TEB) have been most affected, but the delays have been widespread, impacting major hub airports across the country. The delays almost tripled in five days from 45 quarter hour periods with staffing

- related delays on April 21, to 169 by Thursday.

Count o f Quarter Hour Periods with Staffing

- Related Delays Source: FAA Air Traffic Control Advisories Airport April 21 April 22 April 23 April 24 April 25 Total

CLT 29 29
DCA 34 34
DFW 17 17
DTW 9 9
EWR 4 22 30 56
HPN 9 9
IAD 5 5
IAH 2 5 7
JFK 11 9 41 61
LAX 7 36 9 23 12 87
LGA 18 23 10 50 101
ORD 16 20 36masFlight Comments Page 4

PHL 34 34
SFO 9 9
TEB 22 20 11 53
Total 45 88 110 135 169 547

These same airports are gate constrained, and the FAA impact was most acutely felt during the peak hours when substantially all gates are occupied. In cases where FAA delays are expected, airlines can hold aircraft at the gate before boarding, or after boarding with the oppo rtunity to deplane, thus delaying the start of the “tarmac clock” by DOT standards. While the departure is protected from the tarmac rule, that gate remains occupied, and cannot be used to temporarily deplane passengers from flights already off the depart ure gate. Flights subject to extended delays after gate departure are unlikely to have gate resources for deplaning, and the FAA’s inability to pinpoint where and when delays can be expected to occur increases the likelihood that airlines will cancel flig hts to ensure gate availability if the tarmac rule is enforced.

masFlight Comments

masFlight is a software company that offers cloud

- based big data analytics solutions to the air transport industry. masFlight has real

- time visibility into current airsp ace and airport movements and tracks airline delays, diversions, and cancellations based on our gate

- to

- gate flight records for substantially all airline, charter and cargo flights in North America

. Our data sets are collected in real

- time from multiple sources, including airlines, airports and commercial data publishers including OAG . masFlight is
also a subscriber to the FAA Aircraft Situational Display for Industry (“ASDI”) radar
feed

.
masFlight conducted a data review of flight operation s during the FAA furlough period beginning Sunday, April 21, 2013

. We reviewed 241,918 flights that operated on or after April 21, 2013 (measured by local time). For our factual review, we identified

ta xi

- out times, departure delays, and concurrent aircraft “on the tarmac” awaiting departure during staffing

- related delay programs during the first week of sequestration. The analysis was prepared with data through Thursday, April 25, 2013. Since the fivemasFlight Comments Page 5
days of data available under FAA sequestration measures are not sufficient to draw long

term conclusions, we reserve the right to file updates into the docket as operations continue under staffing

- related delay programs.

For the flights we analyzed :

• 120, 940 departures and 120,978 arrivals at the affected airports ;

• 113 distinct airlines were analyzed, including both U.S. and non

- U.S. flag s ;

• 105,836 (43.7%) were operated by regional airline affiliates; and

• 222,844 were domestic (92.1%); 19,074 were internat ional (7.9%).

To create a historical baseline , we analyzed 968,372 flights that operated on Sundays through Thursdays for the period between March 24 th and April 18 th . We excluded flight operations that occurred on Fridays and Saturdays to preserve consis tency with our post

- sequestration sample set.

Scheduled Flight Levels Under FAA Sequestration Measures Did Not Change Significantly Source: masFlight and OAG Schedules

Flights Scheduled Sun 4/21 Mon 4/22 Tues 4/23 Weds 4/24 Thurs 4/25 Flights Week of 4/21 23,547 24,754 23,787 24,070 24,782 Average Prior 4 Weeks 23,446 24,756 23,876 24,147 24,806 % Change 0.4% 0.0%
- 0.4%
- 0.3%
- 0.1%

An increase in flight operations levels has historically been associated with changes in taxi

- out times and tarmac rule exposure. That is not the case this week, as the
table above indicates. We confirmed that the level of scheduled flight operations und er sequestration is similar to the level before. If sequestration continues, airlines may need 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Week of 3/24 Week of 3/31 Week of 4/7 Week of 4/14 Week of 4/21masFlight Comments Page 6
to reduce flight schedules and cancel flights , especially during the peak summer season

. However, an increase in scheduled flights is not to blame for the delays and disruption
observed during the first five days of FAA sequestration measures

.
FAA staffing

- related delay programs create a nota ble increase in flights at risk for tarmac rule violations. We reviewed the number of aircraft awaiting runway departure under FAA staffing

- related delay programs, and compared to normal operating periods. We found that staffing

- related delay programs do create a backlog of flights awaiting departure and therefore put airlines at substantial risk f or tarmac rule violations

.
The following chart counts the number of aircraft that were “on the tarmac” at LaGuardia on April 22 nd

– flights that had departed from the gate and were awaiting
clearance to take off . It is a direct measure of the departure q ueue that the airport and regional air traffic controllers must absorb. Since schedule patterns vary by day of week, we compared the 22 nd to the prior Mondays in April

– the 1 st , 8 th , and 15 th

.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 455:00:006:00:007:00:008:00:009:00:0010:00:0011:00:0012:00:0013:00:0014:00:0015:00:0016:00:0017:00:0018:00:0019:00:0020:00:0021:00:0022:00:0023:00:00 New York LGA: Aircraft on Tarmac Awaiting Departure Post

- Sequester (Apr 22) vs. Maximum Count for prior 3 Mondays

Maximum for Prior 3 Mondays Monday Apr 22nd Period of Staffing

- Related GDP ProgramsmasFlight Comments Page 7

The blue line in the chart indicates the maximum number of aircraft on the tarmac
for that five

- minute interval for each of the prior three Mondays. The red line counts the number of aircraft on April 22 nd , and the shaded gray box represents the period of time when the FAA directly blamed delay program s on furlough staffing. Through out this shaded period, the inability for FAA controllers to absorb departing aircraft is clearly indicated as a surge in aircraft awaiting departure from the runway.

The surge in aircraft “on the tarmac” illustrates the im portance of granting airlines
the operational flexibility to manage extended taxi

- out times . When FAA staffing returns
to normal levels

– as occurred in the above chart after 5pm

– the number of aircraft on the

tarmac quickly returns to historical levels. We observed similar patterns at other U.S. airports during the past week.

Since April 21 st , at major U.S. airports the rate of flights that have one hour or greater taxi

- out times doubled (from 0.7% of all flights to 1.4%) versus the month prior
to sequ estration. Similarly, the rate with 31

- 60 minute taxi

- out times increased from
7 .2% to 9.5% of all departures. These increases were most pronounced at the airports impacted by sequestration delays.

We conclude that FAA staffing is the primary cause of ab normal taxi

- out times, and the data show compellingly why airlines have requested flexibility with the tarmac rule. The surge in (1) aircraft held out on th e tarmac by the FAA and (2) taxi

- out times in general portend gridlock in the ramp area if airlines must return flights to the gate by the
three hour mark. This will w reak havoc on flight cancellations, disruption and passenger itineraries. The FAA’s inability to pinpoint when and where staffing disruption will

occur with sufficient advance notice for airlines to adjust schedules accordingly ( minimizing passenger disruption) justifies the Motion’s assertion that operational problems will occur this summer at key hubs if flexibility is not granted

.

Conclusions

masFlight ’s preliminary review of airline flight operational performance beginning on April 21, 2013 demonstrate d that t he FAA’s sequestration responsemasFlight Comments Page 8
significantly increases the risk of extended tarmac delays. FAA staffing measures create delays and disruption that are unpredictable and severe when they do occur

. During a period of relatively good weather and few thunderstorms , FAA furloughs disrupted travel for up to 130,000 passengers daily. The disruption during severe weather events can be expected to be even greater and cause sign ificant operational issues at airports. During the summer season when thunderstorms are commonplace, the FAA’s projection of 6,700 daily flights being delayed due to sequestration impact seems to be reasonable. We project that more than 500,000 daily pas sengers will be impacted. 1

A core issue is the FAA’s inability to pinpoint where and when staffing

- related delay programs will occur . As our LaGuardia example illustrates, staffing

- related delay measures create an immediate and substantial backlog of flights trapped on the tarmac awaiting takeoff. Extended delays block the taxiways and ramp area needed to return to gate, deplane pass engers and service aircraft before the three

- hour tarmac limit. Airlines are subjected to tarmac delay risk that is outside of their control. When FAA staffing returns to normal levels, the flights held on tarmac are released for takeoff and equilibrium returns.

In the absence of a tarmac rule exemption, it can be expected that airlines will be required to cancel flights to free gate resources and redirect pe rsonnel. These
cancellations can be expected to increase with the peak summer season and delay

su bstantially more passengers when the ability to re

- accommodate travelers in a timely

manner is constrained by high load factors. We respectfully request that the Department consider all measures to increase airline flexibility in responding to FAA

- driven tarmac delay risks.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Tulinda Larsen Vice President masFlight 4833 Rugby Avenue, Suite 301

1 Based on an average scheduled departure capacity of 118.1 seats for all flights departing JFK, LGA, EWR, DFW, LAX, LAS and ORD on April 24, 2013.masFlight Comments Page 9
Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (888) 809

- 2750 tulinda@masflight.com