Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
AIRLINE DELAYS: THE SUMMER OF OUR DISCONTENT
Thursday, September 28, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DUNCAN. I want to go ahead and call this meeting of the Aviation Subcommittee to order.
Today's topic is the continued problem of air traffic control delays. This is the third hearing that we've held specifically on this subject, although we certainly get into it in other hearings that we've had in this Subcommittee. And I want to welcome all of the witnesses and thank everyone for taking time out of their busy schedules to be with us today.
The public is certainly demanding action in this area. It's hard to pick up a newspaper today without reading another story about passengers being stranded in airports or waiting on runways or similar problems. So clearly, there are problems and certainly it's something that we need to work on and see if there's something that can be done to make this situation better.
Last week, the FAA reported that delays in August totaled 47,893, a 7.8 percent increase over July and a 28.8 percent increase over August of last year. These delays have led to an increase in consumer complaints which more than doubled between 1998 and 1999, and increased an additional 47 percent during the first seven months of this year.
I think, though, that what is often lost in these statistics is that most flights still arrive on time. Indeed, in July, which was not a particularly good month, it was a bad month under our standards, over 70 percent of flights arrived on time, and usually the on-time percentage is around or over 80 percent. And most importantly of all, the safety records has been phenomenal. We're now flying 675 million passengers a year, air passenger traffic is going way up. Air cargo traffic is going up, I'm told, at a rate two and a half times air passenger traffic.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And the safety record is phenomenal. It always amazes people when I tell them that unfortunately there are more deaths in four and a half months on the Nation's highways than in all U.S. aviation accidents combined since the Wright Brothers flight in 1903. And indeed, even as to the delays, I remember several years ago hearing a report on NPR news one morning that in the Russian Aeroflot system there were sometimes delays as long as four days. People would come to the airport and they would tell them that their airplane was not going to fly that day, and come back tomorrow.
So I think compared to almost any place in the world, we have an outstanding system. But yet if anyone loses the desire to improve and get better, it's a sad thing for them and for the people they're working for. And certainly, all of us want to try to make this system work as efficiently and effectively as possible and get better in any way that is possible to do.
Last month, I flew from Knoxville to Chicago and then Chicago to San Francisco to speak to a AAAE conference. I then flew from San Francisco to Ontario to go meet and do an event in Mr. Miller's district. The next day I flew from Ontario to Houston and Houston to Knoxville. All five of those flights got there early. But there were no cameras present, no one interviewed me to talk about the fact that all my flights were early.
Of course, not everyone is so fortunate. But I think there has been some exaggeration or sensationalism applied to this. At the same time, there is room for improvement and I think our goal should always be to make the air traffic control system the best it can possibly be.
Help is on the way. Chairman Shuster just finished conducting a press conference to talk further about AIR-21. This is the largest investment ever. It basically triples the funding in certain areas for airport and aviation infrastructure. Under AIR-21, there will be substantially more money to invest in air traffic control and airport improvements of all types.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But these investments will take time. They don't really start kicking in until the start of this fiscal year, and you can't build new runways overnight, obviously, and new gates and so forth. In this hearing, we will try to see what can be done at this time, here and now, to alleviate the delays that have so many people upset.
I do want to say that we have invested huge amounts of money in new equipment at these air traffic control centers in the last two or three years, and we're going to do even more. So when people talk about antiquated air traffic control equipment, when I see that in a story I know that a reporter has not done his or her job.
And I am pleased that Mr. Carr, the new President of the Air Traffic Controllers, has a statement in his testimony that he will give later. He says, many are quick to point the finger at the outdated or antiquated air traffic control system as a major cause of delays. However, I am here to tell you that not only is this not true, but to refer to the air traffic control system as outdated and antiquated is no longer an accurate characterization. And I think that's certainly true.
We are pleased today to have on our first panel two outstanding leaders who have been before this Subcommittee on numerous occasions, Secretary Rodney Slater, the Secretary of Transportation, and Administrator Jane Garvey of the FAA. Secretary Slater and Administrator Garvey, we're certainly pleased to have both of you with us this morning.
We will also hear then from Mr. Don Carty of American Airlines, Mr. Fred Smith of Federal Express, and Mr. Kerry Skeen of Atlantic Coast Airlines on how their companies are handling these problems.
We are also very pleased to have, as I mentioned, Mr. John Carr, the newly elected President of NATCA, as well as Mr. Steven Baker of the Federal Managers Association and Mr. Mark Howes, Vice President of New Business Development at Honeywell.
So we've got a wide variety of witnesses. We had many more who wanted to testify today, we could not accommodate all of the witnesses. So we're trying to get a broad cross-section, and we are pleased to have everyone with us this morning.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And Mr. Lipinski has notified us that he's running late. So we will now proceed, Mr. Boswell, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. BOSWELL. Only briefly. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We're all interested, we're all users. I would just add this, I think I should say it up front, I'll probably say it later, to talk about it some more, but I think today that we'll hear some of the things that are needed, as we discuss and go on. What I want to say is not only as a passenger riding once a week, but as a user, I'm still driving a little Comanche around, and I use the services of ATC frequently. I can just tell you that I think they're very good in the area that I fly in.
And I'm mostly working with the Des Moines approach and Cedar Rapids approach and Chicago when I travel. And I think they're good. I think they're professional, I think they're responsive, and I really don't have any criticism.
I would like for us to have a frank discussion from you, Mr. Secretary, from you, Ms. Garvey, about really truly plain straight out what you need in equipment and personnel. Just lay it right out there boldly and knowing the two of you, I think you will. But I hope that will happen here today, so that it's back on us, Mr. Chairman, what are we going to do to provide them the tools they need, if they need tools. I know having talked with you that you feel strongly about that as probably all the rest of us do.
So thank you for being here, and I'm looking forward to what we might learn together. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an extremely complex topic, and I'm sure that will come out in the testimony. And I would point out of course that delays are due to many causes, not just air traffic control, but also to weather, which is very difficult to control, mechanical problems, which should be controlled much better than they are now, and other general problems such as lack of capacity at an airport.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I do want to say though that in regards to the air traffic control, I've been a defender of the FAA for a long time. They have horrendous problems to deal with. But they do have to get active, much more active, in solving some of the problems.
But one that can be solved immediately, I believe, is better wisdom on the part of the controllers. Just to give you two examples that have happened to me, and I'm sure everyone could give examples, but one night I arrived home on a flight from Detroit to Grand Rapids about an hour and a half late, because the traffic controllers had decided to test some new equipment and therefore they were holding to a 20 mile separation between airplanes westbound out of Detroit.
This was on a Friday night, one of the heaviest traffic nights of the week. And I couldn't help but wonder why in the world the traffic controllers wouldn't decide to test it on a Saturday night, rather than a Friday night, when it affects far fewer people and the number of flights is less severe.
Another flight out of Detroit heading to Washington, we sat on the ground for 20 minutes, the pilot blamed air traffic control, as they almost always do. So I decided to check into it, and in fact, it was an air traffic control problem. They had decided to test their emergency system, their emergency power system. So they turned their main power source off, the emergency power system didn't work. So it's a good thing they tested it.
However, this again is at a high traffic time. So for 20 minutes, the airport was without air traffic control. Once again, I think there would be better times to test that. In that case, it was 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
So I think better wisdom in the part of the controllers would certainly help eliminate instances like that.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the hearing, Mr. Chairman. I hope that working together we can address these problems. And in particular, take care of the easy ones first. The airlines have to do better on the mechanical maintenance, and I think the air traffic control people have to use better judgment.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. McGovern.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. I think that there are several reasons why we have air traffic delays, such as one reason, we're going to hear about all those today, but whether it's weather or over-scheduling of flights by airlines or changes in air traffic control technology or the inefficient use of air space and the proliferation of regional jets. I fly into Boston a lot, a lot of times what ends up happening is, even if you land on time, you sit on the runway for a while, because there's not a gate open for you to be able to pull into.
But there are a whole bunch of reasons. One of the things that I think that airlines can do a little bit better job of, and that is, communicating with passengers as to why there are delays. I mean, we all fly every week. I think the most frustrating experiences for me have been when there are delays and you can't seem to get an answer as to why, no one knows. It's like playing a game of Ouija board or something, trying to figure out what the reason is.
And it's frustrating to passengers who pay hundreds of dollars to fly and people whose schedules get all messed up because of delays.
One other thing that I think is important to bring up here, and I hope that it's the focus of some of the testimony, is that one way I think we can alleviate some of the delays is by better promoting regional airports. I live in Worcester, I have to fly into Boston or into Providence and then drive into Worcester, about an hour, hour and a half. We have a great airport in Worcester that I think is under-utilized. There are regional airports all around the country that I think can be better utilized. And we need to find ways to encourage airlines to try to use those airports. We need to try to provide more incentives and more grants for these communities to be able to upgrade their equipment so they can accommodate some of these new jets.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I really think that a big focus in the long term needs to be not on how do we expand these mega-airports, because I don't care how many new runways you want to build, it may alleviate congestion in the short term, but in the long term, you're still going to have these problems again. We need to figure out a better way, I think, to promote regional airports. And that's one of the things I hope you'll address in your testimony. But I appreciate your holding these hearings today.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaHood? Mr. Bass? Mr. LoBiondo?
Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first of all, for your leadership in this particular area. Secretary Slater, Administrator Garvey, thank you for being here. And from the Second Congressional District, proud home of the Federal Aviation Administration technical center, thank you for all your support for the research and development those folks are doing there.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Baldacci?
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And also, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding regional hearings in Maine and throughout New England to address the issues about air service and the quality of it or the lack of it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the testimony that's going to show today and that we've been hearing from our constituents and that we experience ourselves at the airports is that there's a growing level of frustration. And it is a very difficult situation for people because there are so many interrelated agencies and personnel and overlapping responsibilities.
I guess all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is I think this is probably going to be a hearing, a beginning hearing, and keeping a focus both with the FAA, the Department of Transportation, the airlines and all affected. Because I think at some particular point, people's frustration levels are going to get to a point that they're going to want some type of Congressional action.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think that this hearing and the focus on this issue and the need to address this over a period of time is going to be something that we're going to have to do probably on a periodic basic, just to see what's happened, and what improvements have to be made. So I want to thank you for that, and leave an opportunity later to put in additional comments.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think you're right, and you certainly can put in an additional formal statement later on.
Mr. Kuykendall.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. This summer, we saw the collapse of what I understand as our air transport system. It just damn near came to a halt in some places, and I represent one of the largest airports in the country.
We seemed to have troubles with every layer of it, whether it's the airline, labor, government, regionals, nationals, internationals. And I am very concerned that from the executive side of our Government, we have not focused on how to put an air transport system in place for the economy we have today.
This economy didn't grow to this stage in a month or a year. It grew here over decades. And I'm concerned that we now have to figure out how to make up for lost time. And I hope it does not have a dampening effect on our economic growth in the future, because our Nation is now much more dependent upon air transport than we were 20 years ago or even 10 years ago.
And we're dependent on it for our lifestyle, whether we do it for pleasure or for our work. And we're dependent on it to be one that's kind to our neighborhoods, because we've put greater emphasis now around, as we've grown in around these airports. And I don't know what answers we're going to find this morning or what explanations we'll hear today.
But this needs a significant, greater focus on it in the coming years than we have had in the past, in my opinion. Because this is a very critical element of our society, both from our work environment and our economy and our economic growth, as well as to the lifestyles we in America like to lead and those who come here like to see, and the lifestyle we like to live when we live near an airport and enjoy the benefits of being near an airport.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I had the benefit of being able to finance this industry for a few years back as we transitioned from regulation to deregulation. And I watched airlines disappear, in fact, every airline in my area disappeared, because it went out of business as we did that transition. Deregulation and restructuring has been good for America. We've had greater air service, we've got more frequencies, more airplanes, more profitable airlines. But I don't think Government kept up with it. And I'm anxious to hear some of your thoughts on how Government can keep up with a market based airline industry, so that we aren't the hindrance rather than the help.
Thanks.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuykendall.
Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm particularly pleased to welcome Mr. Ben DeCosta, who's the General Manager of Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, to this hearing today. My statement is really going to be to quote Monday's Atlanta Constitution, where Mr. DeCosta said the following: ''We've got to stop placing blame and all members of the aviation industry have got to work together to address the crisis.''
My observation from being on this Subcommittee is that the Chairman has done an excellent job today in really, in this two panels bringing forth all of those players. And I hope as each of them testify they will address those things that they can do within their area of responsibility, in coordination with everybody else, to solve the problem, and not point a finger at one point or the other.
It kind of reminds me of telecommunication. You used to, you could call the phone company if you had a problem, they'd fix it. Now you call who you bought the phone from and they blame the people that run the line who blame the people that operate the satellite who blame the people that run the broad band or whatever it might be.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So this is a complex issue. Air service is critically important to the economy, certainly of my area, but really to the entire country. I think a coordinated effort, as Mr. DeCosta has referred to, is critical to solving these problems. And everybody that's going to testify today has a role to play in seeing to it that we address it. And I hope they will address their specific role and what they're doing to help make it all work better collectively.
And I thank the Chairman for the time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Isakson. And you're certainly correct, it's much more important to come up with solutions than it is to place blame.
We'll go ahead now with the first panel. And the first panel is, as I have previously stated, the Honorable Rodney Slater, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation. He is accompanied by the Honorable Jane F. Garvey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. And while I believe that Mrs. Garvey has come primarily to answer questions and to accompany Secretary Slater, I would like to ask Mrs. Garvey, if you don't mind, if following Secretary Slater, if you would give a statement and tell us your assessment of the current situation also.
Secretary Slater, we'll begin with your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Secretary SLATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be joined by Administrator Garvey, as we with you address an issue of critical importance to American travelers, the airline industry, the Congress and this Administration. That is unacceptable airline delays and cancellations, and the customer service problems they cause.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the dawn of this new century and new millennium, we together, no one pointing fingers, but all joining hands, industry and Government, management and labor, must build on the tremendous economic and aviation success that we have brought into being as we implement our flight plan for aviation's second century. We must focus on putting passengers first. But we must also ensure that we have a system where safety and security are paramount.
We face three broad challenges in that regard. The challenge of continuing to open new aviation markets around the world, and moving beyond Open Skies, the framework for international aviation agreements in years past. We also must face the challenge of enhancing access and competition in the aviation marketplace and the challenge of improving system safety, efficiency and capacity. We have actually moved forward on all of these fronts, significantly in the area of international aviation with 47 Open Skies agreements and many, many more liberalized aviation agreements.
We have also taken actions to enhance the opportunities of new entrant and low cost airlines as well. And we have made measurable improvements in the safety of our aviation system, and we're moving closer to our stretch goal of an 80 percent reduction in aviation fatalities over the coming decade.
But the area that we focus on today is improving system efficiency and capacity. I can tell you that from the first days of this Administration, President Clinton and Vice President Gore reached out to the airline industry. And at that time, the industry was not as it stands today. Actually, the industry had collectively lost some $10 billion over the first three years of the last decade. The aviation industry was on the verge of slipping into an economy abyss.
Well, the President, in the first few months of his Administration, traveled to Washington State to meet with airline industry leaders, labor leaders and others, almost immediately upon taking office. The President and the Vice President advocated the creation and the purposes of the Baliles Commission to ensure a strong competitive airline industry soon thereafter. And then, a White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security was supported in 1996, and a National Civil Aviation Review Commission headed by one of your former colleagues, Norm Mineta, was established in 1997.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
All of those reports deal with the challenges that we address today. We know where we stand, and we know the distance that we have come. Eight years ago, we were focused upon the health of the industry, and of course on continued safety and security.
Today, the industry is back on its feet, as you noted, Mr. Chairman. Six consecutive years of growth, a safety record that steadily improves and is the envy of the world. Carriers are experiencing record level passenger demand and revenue growth. We have focused on opening new markets abroad and also enhancing access and competition, domestically and internationally.
We have met our Y2K challenge, and we have moved forward very methodically and successfully in the modernization effort. And here, clearly, Administrator Garvey will provide more details as we proceed.
Also in a concerted effort with the Congress and through the leadership of this Committee, we have passed the most comprehensive and significant aviation bill in recent history. As a result of this success, and the growth that it has brought, today the issue is not the health of the industry—it is as strong, frankly, stronger than it has ever been.
The question today is, how this economic expansion—the longest in our Nation's history, and this increasing demand on the use of the system, 675 million passengers, as you noted, and freight traffic growing on a daily basis—how our capacity needs can be met in this environment? In a nutshell, how do we deal with success?
Well, let me take an opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Lipinksi and also Committee Chair Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar and all of the members of this Committee, for giving us the new tools that you have provided in AIR-21. Together, we have forged a remarkable bipartisan consensus with the Congress to support the necessary cost of upgrading the air traffic control system.
And I think some of the comments that Administrator Garvey will share with you in that regard will truly be revealing. I'll just give you one, that at our major air traffic control sites, we have no equipment that's older than 1996-1997. All of the equipment is actually of those years or even newer.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me also acknowledge the responsibility that we share with the airlines and the airports, and that we at DOT have a large part in addressing. And that deals with the operational aspects of the air traffic control system.
In the FAA, and in the Department, our strategy has been to focus on clear, definable issues, modernization of the air traffic control system in an incremental fashion, and on infrastructure growth. We have also focused on more efficient operations, such as ''Free Flight'' Phase One and Two. And again, Administrator Garvey will get into the details of this.
Modernization has enhanced our reliability and has provided a platform on which to grow the system. Administrator Garvey's approach, an approach supported by industry and labor, has been to build a little, to test a little and to deploy a little.
Earlier this year, we also announced the creation of our Spring-Summer plan. At the heart of this initiative is a collaborative plan developed by industry, labor and Government to better manage air traffic during severe weather. We have also worked with NATCA and the airline industry to identify the seven top choke points in the air space system. And Mr. Chairman, since we both share the Mississippi as it borders our home States, you should know that all seven of these choke points are actually east of the Mississippi.
The FAA has also developed specific routes and approaches and procedures designed to reduce congestion in these areas. In addition, as we have dealt with the challenge at hand, I have asked my Associate Deputy Secretary, Stephen Van Beek, to head up a task force on airline service quality performance that will draw on many areas of the Department and the industry and provide for the Committee and for the Department an action plan by November 21st.
And that is again to deal with the immediate and long term challenges we face as it relates to service quality performance. And also getting everyone on the same page when it comes to the kind of data we rely on.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have also asked Assistant Secretary Francisco Sanchez to put together a report on current best practices, best practices of airlines and airports as they provide high quality customer service when you have to deal with a cancellation or delay. And also, this deals with providing accurate, reliable information to air travelers. I know Congressman McGovern mentioned this particular issue in his opening remarks.
We are assembling an extensive set of innovations that fall into two general categories: improved information flow, both within the air traffic system and between airlines and their travelers; and reducing traveler stress and inconvenience. And Mr. Chairman, many of you talked about your own travels, and that includes, clearly, service to the members of Congress as well.
Our spring-summer plan initiative is one good example of implementing best practices that pay off in concrete terms. For instance, Northwest Airlines, though not represented here today, as far as their leadership and a member on the panel to come before you, has credited this initiative with improving its annual on-time performance at its three hubs over the course of this spring and summer, which gave us the most challenge experience that we have faced ever. And they have also again said that because of the effort they were actually able to improve their performance over last year.
I have also recently met with stakeholders in the aviation industry, much in the same way the Committee meets with all of us today. These stakeholders have included representatives of airlines, consumer organizations, labor unions, airports, trade associations, travel agencies, consultants, State and local governments, to discuss the current challenges facing the industry. These meetings took us outside of Washington as well, where we listened to those front line employees around the country who have direct experience with aviation and the difficulties that we're now facing.
These contacts in the field also should remind us how valuable it can be to consult first-hand those who confront the problems that we are here to address on a daily basis. And here, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that I remember your colleagues noting that you, too, have taken the Committee out beyond Washington to listen to and to hear from people who do this important work on a daily basis.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When we went forth, there was one example that I'd like to highlight here as I bring my comments to a close. We noted at the Miami International Airport an effort that has brought about significant reductions when it comes to the amount of time it takes to process incoming passenger baggage. And I underscore the significance of this effort in Miami, because Miami is the largest international airport when it comes to freight, and the second largest international airport when it comes to passengers.
But the federal government established there a reinvention lab to deal with the clearance process. And we have seen a 50 percent reduction in the amount of time that it takes now to process passengers and goods as they move through this airport. Working together, I believe we can see the same kind of improvements at airports across the country.
And here I'd like to lift up specifically a challenge that we're now facing at LaGuardia airport. And I would submit that we could establish this kind of reinvention lab there, with the focus on customer service, but especially as relates to the issue of the operation of the airport itself, specifically, cancellations and delays. And we would like to discuss this particular issue over the course of this hearing with the members.
In closing, let us recall again, we have come a long way. This industry is strong. And this Committee, the Administration, all of us, working with the leaders of the industry, have brought this moment into being. Record level ridership, record level passenger loads, record level revenues. But also a real challenge when it comes to capacity and serving the demand that a strong economy has created.
I believe that just as we defeated the pull of gravity by introducing, powered aircraft, and just as in doing so, we lifted our sights to ever higher heights, we can do the same when it comes to facing the challenge that is now before us. And again, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a wonderful leader at the FAA in doing just that when it comes to our air traffic control system and the other important operations carried out by that agency.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I'd like to at this time turn to my colleague, Administrator Garvey, who will share additional insights. Then we will respond to any questions that you and the Committee might have.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Secretary Slater.
Administrator Garvey?
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lipinski, members of the Subcommittee. It's a pleasure to be here with the Secretary this morning to discuss airline delays.
As the Secretary has pointed out, airlines, airports and Government share the responsibility for action. I'd like to take just a few minutes to focus on what we are doing at the FAA, the actions we're taking. And if I could, I'd like to focus on three areas: the tactical steps we're taking, that is the short term; where we are with technology; and finally, where we're headed for the long term.
The Committee, I know, is very familiar with the spring-summer plan of 2000. It was a collaborative effort between the airlines and the FAA. It changes the way we do business, it centralizes much of the planning, the coordinating and the decision making at the command center. It involves real-time collaborations with the airlines to manage severe weather operations.
We've used for the first time common weather information with the airlines, we've tried some new technologies and we've changed some of our procedures. I have to say, we still have a great deal to learn and we're asking ourselves every day how we can improve the process.
Both the airlines and the FAA, though, I think would agree that we are on the right track. An evaluation with the airlines of the spring-summer plan will be completed by the end of October. Any initiatives that come out of that evaluation will be incorporated into next spring's plan.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've also, as the Secretary said, identified seven choke points, or bottlenecks in the system. No surprise, it's a triangle from Chicago to Boston to Washington, D.C. And our controllers in those very critical areas are making procedural changes to more efficiently use the air space. We've identified 21 initiatives. We'll have 11 in place by the end of October, and again, we'll be evaluating those both with the airlines and with our colleagues at Mitre as well.
We've in addition reached agreement with the airlines to use some of the lower altitude routes. Again, it's a little more expensive in terms of fuel, but it gets people there. It's like opening up a new highway.
We're looking at greater use of the military air space, great cooperation from DOD. And we're negotiating with NavCanada to use Canadian air space. Both Monty Belger and I will be meeting with NavCanada the week of October 23rd and we hope to make some progress in that area.
We're developing capacity benchmarks. The Inspector General has talked about this as well. We're going to be developing those benchmarks for the top 30 airports. This is going to give us a far greater understanding of the demand rate and the capacity rate at our busiest airports.
Secondly, where are we with technology? First, let me say that in 1994, my predecessors made what I think was the right decision, to abandon the large scale approach to modernization. It was a tough decision, and I know this Committee appreciates how difficult that was. But that decision has allowed us to move forward with a much more sensible approach, as the Secretary said. It's build, test, deploy. And I think that approach is working.
The 20 enroute centers are fully upgraded with new equipment. The Secretary referred to that. DSR, the new host, voice switching, and it came in on time and on budget. We've seen a 50 percent reduction in delays due to equipment failure at those centers.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Just as important as reliability, though, those improvements give us the platform for future enhancements. That's very important.
We're now turning our attention to the upgrades in the terminal environment. Much more complex, much more challenging, more difficult. But again, we're making progress. The Communard system, which includes hardware and software upgrade, is deployed at 136 TRACON. And thanks to AIR-21, thanks to this Committee, and thanks to NATCA and PASS, we're on the right track with STARS.
We've having successes with Free Flight Phase One. It's a program based on consensus with industry and labor, our labor unions. We're deploying five technologies. Now, while they are deployed at limited locations, they are bringing very real and very tangible benefits. For example, there's a 5 percent increase in the arrival rate at DFW. And I want to say, for the Free Flight office, because they've done a great job, they've met every benchmark on time. And with AIR-21, again, thanks to AIR-21, we're able to move out on Free Flight Phase Two.
We've taken on air space redesign. Congressman Kuykendall referred to a very difficult challenge of balancing both the community needs with the efficiency needs. And he's absolutely right, and he's, I know, living it, in the communities that he represents. It's a tough community issue, tough environmental concerns. But we absolutely need to take it on.
Looking farther ahead, what about the long term? Well, the Secretary's challenged us and the airlines to come up with a comprehensive modernization plan by the end of the year. This is a plan that's going to take us beyond the Architecture 4.0, which was a great document produced by both the airlines and the FAA. But this plan that the Secretary is calling for will include both technology but also the operational procedures, the certification requirements, the budgets needed and the benchmarks.
As the Secretary said, this is a vibrant, a very strong economy. It's presented us with some great challenge. And I want to say, we don't underestimate those challenges in any way. We know the challenge difficulties with WAAS and some of those other technologies.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I'm here to say that for the FAA, we'll do our part. We'll continue to work closely with the airlines, continue to work closely with our colleagues at the airports. We'll be aggressive in our implementation, but always mindful that safety is still at the heart of our mission. It's still our most important priority.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Administrator Garvey.
Our Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski, was in a meeting with the Speaker and arrived during Secretary Slater's statement. I'm going to call on him for any statement or comments that he wishes to make at this time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I simply want to welcome my two very good friends, the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the FAA. I enjoyed hearing the testimony, thought it was very informative.
I apologize to everyone here for being late, but sometimes other duties do interfere with this particular duty over here. And I'd like to yield the remainder of the balance of my time to the earliest arriving Democrat who has a question. Mr. McGovern, you were here first. Do you have a question?
Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, I guess my question again would be more toward the long term issues that you addressed. I mean, am I right or am I wrong in terms of my view that we need to stop looking at constantly expanding these mega airports and start looking more in terms of supporting some of these regional airports? I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, we've been working together on a couple of regional airports in Massachusetts, with some mixed success.
I'm trying to figure out, what are we missing here? How could we better encourage airlines to try to take advantage of some of these regional airports? What do we need to be doing that we're not doing to provide the necessary funding for infrastructure? I mean, AIR-21 is a step in the right direction. But clearly, all the pressure that we're getting, or I'm getting anyway, seems to be from the big airports saying, we want to expand, not, we want to look someplace else, we want to expand. And that's all the pressure we get from the airlines, as well.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congressman, and I would ask Administrator Garvey to please join me here, clearly we need some additional capacity at major airports, airports that are critical to the overall efficient functioning of the system as a whole. But we can bring additional capacity through enhanced technology, and we clearly can make better use of regional airports.
And frankly, you made mention of the effort in Massachusetts. That is one of the most promising efforts, actually. I note that you made mention of the difficulty of promoting alternatives. But still, you've got people working together and trying to look at all of the assets and deal with the challenge in a collaborative fashion. Now, you definitely will have to have the support of the airlines in that regard. And we have encouraged airlines in that respect. You will have a panel a bit later and you can clearly bring that question more directly to them.
But we stand firmly on the policy position that we do need to make better use of regional airports.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, I think you're absolutely right. AIR-21 was a great step forward, because I think the resources, not only for the larger airports, but there's a great deal of money now being, more money being directed to even some of the smaller and mid-size airports. I think that is a recognition that it really has to be a network.
And I think some of the technology improvements that the Secretary referred to and the ground side improvements at those small and regional airports will help in attracting some of the airlines. I know the airlines really have to look at the market, as well they should. But I think in some of those places, as you pointed out, the market really is growing and developing. And airlines are recognizing that.
Massport, to their credit, in your home State and our home State, Massport has done a very good job, I think, of working with you and also of reaching out to the airlines and asking them, how can we encourage you to use this airport. And I think that is good news.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. Yes. We should also make mention, Administrator Garvey, of the pilot program that AIR-21 provides that deals with medium and small airports. And this is an initiative that we'll be moving on soon. That will serve to continue to enhance the capability and the capacity of small and medium airports.
Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the testimony. It's a good one-two punch from our dynamic duo. Every time you both appear, we learn a lot.
When we passed AIR-21, we hoped that we had helped to provide a solution to this by helping to increase airport capacity and provide better air traffic control. Is that a fair judgment?
Secretary SLATER. Definitely.
Mr. EHLERS. Is it going to be enough, or is it too early to tell?
Secretary SLATER. Well, it's clearly a major step forward, Congressman. But many of the modernization efforts will take a number of years. It's a process where we will have to be eternally vigilant, meaning that as you modernize with new discoveries, you have the ability to continue to modernize. But AIR-21 is a major step forward. It's record level investment. The AIP program, and you gave local authorities the ability to raise the PFCs. We have a focus on small and medium size airports. We're also going to look at some other innovative financing opportunities.
So it's a major step forward.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I just wanted to comment on some aspects of it. As Mr. Isakson observed earlier, there's lots of different facets to it. I think one very simple step the airlines should take is providing, and you hear this over and over, providing better information to the passengers. But I find the real problem, the real sticking point there, is that the gate agents are not given the right information, or given incomplete information.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And when you have centralized control systems, as most airlines do, with one location, those people are very busy when the weather gets bad. But at the very least, there should be one ombudsman there who is sending out messages over the computer to all the gate agents, saying, we can't fly because the clouds are too high or the thunder heads are too high, we just simply can't cross them. Because everyone assumes you can fly over anything in jets. You can't.
And that's just one example of a common misconception. So the airlines have a lot of work to do on that.
Communities have to do a better job of improving their airports. They keep trying, they can't catch up because of the growth.
I think the States have to take the responsibility for looking at the question of new airports. I often hear that Denver is the last new airport we'll ever see in this Nation. If that's true, we're going to have a lot of problems, particularly in areas like Chicago. And I think the States have to step up to the plate on that. Because siting an airport is a major effort these days, and I don't think communities can handle it.
I would like to see, and maybe you're doing this, but I believe regional jets are going to have a major impact. They are certainly going to help reduce congestion at hub airports. But they're also going to have a major impact on air traffic control, because they require as much air space as the big ones.
So I hope you're factoring that into your planning, because I see a big boom coming there.
The last question is for you, Administrator Garvey. This is my third meeting with you this week, I hear the testimony all the time. What I'm looking for this time is something concrete. I hear about all these different projects going on, whether it's WAAS or STARS or Free Flight, etc. It would be very helpful to me as a member of this Committee to just see a time line, not a huge report, but just simple time lines of every project, as you see them now, where they stand, what the steps are going to be, what the various completion dates are and so forth. I hope that wouldn't be too much trouble to prepare.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, we'd be very happy to provide that. It's actually up on a wall in one of the offices we have. We'll reproduce that for you.
Mr. EHLERS. I was sure you had those all around. At least send us Polaroid pictures of it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, could I just mention one other point? Because the issue that you mentioned about doing work at sort of more sensible times, because I remember you mentioning that to me in the summer. We actually came back and talked to folks, we are very much focused on that idea of trying to find the right time to get the equipment in. It is challenging, 24 hours a day, and while I can't explain exactly what happened to you on those two times, I hope it won't happen again, and please let us know if it does.
Mr. EHLERS. Well, I know, but it's a culture that you have to deal with. The planes move first. Everything else, get those planes out, keep them moving. And we work around that to the extent possible.
You're not the only one with a problem. We had the INS in Detroit, which the supervisor sent the inspectors out for target practice when seven jumbo jets were coming in. And people sat on the ground for an hour and a half waiting just to pass through the INS. And that's a very thoughtless thing to do.
But I would appreciate if you'd provide those time lines, and I assume everyone on the Committee would like to see them as well. I thank you very much, and yield back my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the Secretary and the Administrator. Because of their leadership, I think the public has a lot more confidence in their safety, which is their primary concern. And I appreciate their leadership, both in transportation and at the FAA.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I want to follow up with Representative McGovern, being part of that little triangle that comes from Boston to Washington, as we venture down from Maine. It is one in which we appreciate the efforts that have been going on, and understand the complexities of all the parties working together. But I'd also like to reinforce the importance of some of the under-utilized airports in Maine, to be able to utilize those airports, to balance the transportation load.
In discussing the new markets initiative, there's an effort by the Administration to try to make sure that every part of America and every person in America sees that rising tide. And it would be kind of important, I think, as you collaborate on utilizing AIR-21 to make sure that in those areas of rural America, that we try to make sure that we're augmenting those efforts by the Administration to see what incentives we can give for regional jet service and for being able to take some of the pressure off some of the major hubs. It would be very, very helpful.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I had. I wanted to share that with them.
And also just one other thing. We held a hearing earlier about the increased general aviation flights, and how they were going to increase many-fold. In recognizing that that's one of the issues that you have to deal with, do you have any general thoughts at this time in terms of being to not just handle the large commercial air industry, but also the growth in general aviation?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, again, a reflection of a good, strong economy and general aviation is growing by leaps and bounds. Some of the hope is in technology, some of the avionic equipment that they will have, that general aviation has. And our challenge, of course, is to make sure we have the certification and the procedures in place so that they can use it effectively and well.
I think there are also, though, a number of initiatives that we have underway with general aviation to deal both with some of the safety issues as well as some of the increase in growth issues. General aviation, using some of those smaller airports, again, I think we get back to the importance of the smaller and mid-size airports. They're often strong customers for those airports, and making sure the infrastructure is there to handle that. You're right, it is a growing part of the economy.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary SLATER. Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one thing. It's not directly related to aviation, but to transportation in a more general sense. And especially as we deal with the two Congressmen talking about Maine and Massachusetts.
We also will unveil high speed rail along the northeast corridor in a few weeks, hopefully. And that is going to do a lot, we believe, to relieve the transportation challenges of the region. And we're also talking about extending the line from Massachusetts up through Maine.
So we'll be talking more about that. But I just thought it good to introduce that aspect of transportation into consideration of an answer to the challenges we face in this particular region.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much.
Mr. Bass.
Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, between Maine and Massachusetts is a State known as New Hampshire.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BASS. We have two airports, one of which is really a showcase for expansion and development and success. And I can't recall the numbers right now for enplanements, but they're really extraordinary. And then in Manchester, Pease, which is growing very fast, due to, in my opinion, at least in the case of Manchester, the willingness of the city and the State to put the money together to build one of the best terminals for that type of airport in the country without having any commitments for ongoing business. But the business came, because the facilities were there.
And Pease Air Force Base, or former Pease Air Force Base, is undergoing the same kind of change, which is very heartening.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Garvey, I note here on our summary sheet that the FAA reported that operations in August were only half a percent higher than they were a year ago, but yet delays were 60 percent higher than the previous year. Besides weather, and I don't know whether weather was a major factor, are there any other reasons for this?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, weather was certainly a factor. But it's also important to note that while that may be true nationally, if you look at some of the key hubs, those figures are actually much higher. And very often, it's at some of those key locations where, if it really becomes difficult to move, if the delays are great, that it really does affect the whole system, that's why we're pretty focused on the choke points and trying to relieve some of those points.
Mr. BASS. What happened from August of 1999? Is this August of 2000? I'm assuming it's this last August.
Ms. GARVEY. Actually, I think the operations, I need to check that, but I think it's actually a little bit higher than that. But weather was a big factor, even in August, as well as June. June of this year we had, I think, 19 bad weather days, 12 consecutive, as opposed to about 5 from the previous year, and very similar in August.
Mr. BASS. Real quick, do using, running these big jets at lower altitudes create any kind of safety concern? What do you mean by, not low altitude, you must mean mid-altitude.
Ms. GARVEY. That's right, it's slightly lower.
Mr. BASS. But it's over 12,000 feet, though?
Ms. GARVEY. Yes.
Mr. BASS. You're talking about the teens and the twenties?
Ms. GARVEY. Yes.
Mr. BASS. So you really have positive control air space, so it isn't a safety issue there?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely. And I really want to stress that. I mean, we would not do that. We would not compromise safety in any way. But it is in a sense almost opening up, as I said, another highway.
Mr. BASS. What is the status of software development for the—you remember, I think we can be very proud of the hardware development in the ATC. But what's the status of the development of software? We've discussed this, as you know, over the last week or so.
Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely, Congressman. The software for HOST, as you know, we made the decision to go to replace the hardware a couple of years ago, both to meet the Y2K challenge, get it in place by 2000, and also because it was the hardware that was failing. The software, though old, is pretty stable and pretty reliable.
We are, though, and again thanks to AIR-21, we've been able to move that schedule up a little bit. But it's very complicated, very challenging. We're into a development, the development stage of replacing the HOST. It will be a complicated, challenging issue, but we are underway. And again, we've been able to do that in large part because of AIR-21.
Mr. BASS. And you believe that the process of upgrading this software mechanism, or the process itself is good enough so it will be flexible enough to incorporate state of the art technology so that you don't end up with an out of date software system the day it opens?
Ms. GARVEY. Yes. That is true, Congressman. Again, if we had had a perfect world five years ago, it probably would have been better to, it would have been great to do both. But we knew the software was complicated, we knew where we had our real problems was with the hardware. So that's what we focused on, and now moving into the software.
But we are able to increase the capabilities. DSR is already doing that for us in places like Memphis, and STARS, of course, will do that as well.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, if I may, one issue that had to be addressed this summer was the issue involving United Airlines and its pilots. And one of the first efforts we made over the course of the summer to deal with the delay and cancellation question was to go to Chicago. And Congressman Lipinski, you know we discussed the issue at the time. We met with the leadership of United, Mr. Goodwin and also Mr. Dubinsky, the head of the pilots, to really encourage the leadership of the largest publicly owned airline and the largest airline in the country to get together with labor and to work out their concerns. Because that situation was having an adverse impact on the entire system.
They in fact did that, and I think we're going to see some improvements in the numbers as we go forward. But clearly, August and all of the other months of the spring and summer were affected by that issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Bass.
Mr. Boswell.
Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you've answered my question. With AIR-21, you've got the resources. But I want the specifics. Do you have the resources to do the hiring for personnel, the people that have to run the equipment? It sounds like you're on the way, getting the hardware and the software. But do you have the resources to hire the people, to retrain your people, upgrade and so on? Could you answer that, and then we'll do a short follow-up.
Secretary SLATER. Clearly, Administrator Garvey can provide some of the specifics. But I will say this, that we have the resources guaranteed on the capital side with AIR-21. We still have to battle during the appropriation process for operations resources. And those are the resources that go to the heart of the points that you've made.
We appreciate the Congress for giving us a major supplemental on our year 2000 budget. And we are very hopeful that as the Appropriations Committee deals with our 2001 budget, that we will have significant resources for operations, so that Administrator Garvey can have the resources she needs to move forward.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I know that she also appreciates, as does the entire Department, the personnel reform legislation, the acquisition reform legislation, that has been passed in years past by this Congress to give her and her team the kinds of tools that they need. And they've done a tremendous job in this area.
The last point, before turning to her, is when it come to consumer affairs, and some of the responsibilities that we have as a Department as a whole in dealing with these issues, we have not gotten the resources that we need in those areas. AIR-21 proposes an amount, I think, about $2 million. The President's proposed mark was about $1.4 million in this area. and the best mark that we've gotten from the House and the Senate as we go forward is about $300,000.
So we do need some support and assistance in that particular area.
Mr. BOSWELL. I think that makes my point. And a lot of us on this Committee take the opportunity to visit centers, watch these highly skilled people operate. And it's particularly your busy places, which you've alluded to several times, you know, to have the personnel given the relief they need. I can't imagine, I used to know how much time was spent on the screen before they stepped back and had a rest period and kind of let themselves get settled back down. But it's nerve wracking to sit there and be responsible for all that.
Are there, in your opinion, adequate personnel there? Do we need to hire more? Do we need to upgrade? And then I'll stop.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, as the Secretary said, I think if we can get the operations numbers that are close to what the President has suggested, that would be just terrific news for us. Certainly from F&E side, on the capital side it's been very positive. I know the House numbers, too, on operations were very good.
So we're hopeful with that, and I think that does provide the resources. I worry about the technicians. I will tell you, some of those numbers are tough. And we really need to work hard, both to give them the right kind of training for the new technology, but also make sure we have the right numbers.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've arrived at a number with the controllers. And again, you're absolutely right. They are extraordinarily skillful, I think the best in the world. They do a terrific job and sometimes under extraordinary circumstances. So we're focused on it, we know it's an issue. We think the numbers that at least we have heard about sound very promising. Thank you.
Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, thank each of you. And I'll close, but Mr. Chairman, I think this makes the point we're concerned about. We've given the authorization to this Committee. Now our colleagues that are on the appropriations side of it, I'm going to pledge to do it, and I know that you and Mr. Lipinski as well have been working on that. But we've got to ensure that the appropriation is adequate to the need. Then we can expect the success that I think would come forth. Thank you very much for your time, thank you for your efforts.
Mr. DUNCAN. That's certainly correct, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Thune?
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening the hearing. And Secretary Slater and Ms. Garvey, good to have you here as well.
Just a couple of things. Of course, all of us as members of Congress travel a lot back and forth. And there are certain times of year in my State where it's much busier than it is other times of the year, and we're coming into one of those now. It's hunting season in South Dakota. There have been times when I haven't been able to get into my home State, I've had to go into Iowa just to get there.
But I had an interesting experience last year, in fact. I was leaving the Minneapolis airport and we were getting ready to taxi out and get on the runway. And the plane started to turn around and go back to the gate. The pilot came on the intercom and said, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but we have to go back to the gate, we have a dog that is on the plane that isn't scheduled to go out until tomorrow.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That was my first dog delay. We had to go back and drop the dog off. And as someone who appreciates the value of a good dog when it comes to hunting, I don't mind that sort of a delay.
But I think it's an example of a lot of the issues that we deal with on a regular basis. I remember another experience I had recently where we got in and the connecting flight was not going out, had gone to another destination. And they said it was going to be a three and a half hour delay. And then the question was, that got us into the middle of the night, and would in fact the pilots and the crew have enough hours left to fly. And there was some question as to whether or not they would or not.
To me, it seemed fairly simple that if there were any communication between the aircraft and the ground, the gate attendant would be able to transmit that information to the passengers. And of course, the passengers, who were all very disgruntled, expect their Congressman to do something about it. So I'm threatening to call Aviation Subcommittee hearings and all that.
But in any case, and I realize some of these issues are operational and communication issues with the airlines. But to what degree does the FAA have any control over those types of delays? And I guess a related question would be, how many of those delays are attributable, would you say, to operational issues with the airlines versus ATC issues? And my experience tells me that a lot of times, air traffic blames the airlines and the airlines blame air traffic and the passenger is sitting there trying to figure out exactly what's going on. And it just seems like we suffer from a bad lack of communication.
Secretary SLATER. I'll just say, Congressman, that's a dog day for us when that occurs, everybody pointing fingers.
[Laughter.]
Secretary SLATER. But we have a new spirit in that regard. I think that now we're getting a better take on what the actual cause is, when we have the improvements in the data that we're now working on, as we work with industry and all the players, we'll be able to move beyond the different pieces of data that we use to make our judgments.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And again, I think one of the best examples of that is the spring-summer plan, where we all work off the same weather plan, the same weather forecast, the same strategy for dealing with that. And we're trying to bring that into play across the board. And it happens through a collaborative process, not the pointing of fingers. But we're trying to get on top of this much better.
Now, we can have a general breakdown, and we can share that with you. And in most instances, it's weather, as the big challenge that we face. But we do have mechanical challenges that we have to address as well, and also you'll get into this with the airlines, but we also have some scheduling challenges that have to be addressed, especially during peak periods. And all of that can cause a delay.
The fortunate thing is that we don't have as many of those equipment failures as we used to have. And that's because of the significant investments and improvements that we're making in that area in particular.
Mr. THUNE. And I think from our standpoint, you know, the question of capacity, hopefully with AIR-21, some of those things will be worked out. But it just is an observation, it seems like from an operational standpoint that the apparent lack of communication leaves passengers extremely frustrated. And I hope the things you're talking about in terms of better coordination become a reality, because I know there are some things you can't account for, and weather obviously is one of them.
But there are a lot of other, you know, people, there's a sort of credibility gap, because I think people believe a lot of times that they're not getting the straight scoop. And sometimes the gate attendants, to their defense, maybe don't know all the facts about what's going on out there. But I hope we see some improvement. Because we continually hear about all the improvements that are being made, and yet the statistics bear out the fact that delays continue to increase. And to the degree that those are attributable to weather, I realize that there's not anything, that that's beyond any of our control.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I think from the standpoint of passenger satisfaction, and there are more and more people using air travel today to get where they're going, it's going to be very important that some of these issues be worked through.
And so I would encourage you to step up your efforts even further in terms of, and I realize again this is probably questions maybe better asked of the airlines. But I do think that to the degree that there is, and there is a cross-pollination there, whatever you want to call it, between FAA and the airlines in trying to resolve some of these issues. So thank you for your answers. And keep after it.
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, we should mention that the IG has actually done a snapshot, a mid-year snapshot of the voluntary plans of the airline, and has offered, we think, insightful feedback. We in our discussions with the airlines have talked about how we, working together with them and with the airports and all interested parties, can deal with some of those issues as we close out the year, and approach a time when we have an obligation to do another report to the Congress on this particular question. That is born out of AIR-21 as well.
I also would like to acknowledge that as we have worked with the airlines to identify best practices, especially as relates to information flow, and the airlines are doing a lot of work in that area. They are enhancing their own software and communications network. They are dealing with the fact that all players in the process need the same timely information. And especially those closest to the customers.
And I think we're going to have some good stories to tell in that regard, and you're going to have some leaders to come before you in the next panel who have really played a leadership role here.
The last point I'd like to make is something that we've just raised in our discussions with the airlines. And here again, this involves Amtrak. Amtrak has what they call a customer guarantee, it's a satisfaction guarantee. It's not an on-time guarantee. It goes to the bigger issue of customer satisfaction, which allows you then to take into account the fact that the customer can appreciate challenges that are obvious that you have to address. And at the end of the day, there is the question of whether you were up-front, whether you worked with them, whether you helped them to make the necessary changes in their schedule to take another flight or to have accommodations overnight, those kinds of considerations.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I can tell you that the airlines are working hard, I think, to really address those kinds of issues. Now, where that will take us, we will come to you at the end of the year to share that. But we wish to acknowledge, as the IG did, that the effort is being put forth. The results are somewhat mixed. But we have an opportunity at this mid-course to benefit from the insights that his report gives us, and to build for a much better report at the end of the year.
Mr. THUNE. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, Administrator Garvey, thank you for being here today. Administrator Garvey, let me compliment you on your testimony yesterday before the Science Committee and your quick response to the GAO report on those issues. We appreciate everything that you're doing.
Everyone, I think, recognizes that we need to increase capacity. We recognized that in the AIR-21 bill. Air traffic has increased by 27 percent in the last five years. We have over 650 million passengers, expected to go up to over 1 billion passengers in the next 10 years. The cargo industry is growing with e-commerce, I don't think there's any question that we're going to see an explosion in that industry.
There have only been nine new runways built in the last five years, three of those nine runways at major hub airports, some of our busiest airports. We know that with many of the hub airports and busy airports that we have limited capacity. Many of those airports are landlocked, many of them have problems expanding, putting additional runways in.
My question is, long term, what is the plan at the FAA working with the airports and the industry to increase capacity, number one? And number two, what is our plan at the FAA to use reliever airports in order to provide some relief to the system currently today that is overburdened, and we know will be increasingly overburdened in the future?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, first of all, I think in terms of the reliever airports, I think again AIR-21 has been extraordinarily helpful. A great deal of the money that has been targeted for smaller and mid-size airports I think will help with the infrastructure that's need there to really build up those airports.
We've spent some time recently talking about the whole airport issue. And I'm eager to meet with the airport directors next week in New York. I think a number of them are gathering for a conference there.
But one of the issues that we've talked about is that there are such extraordinarily difficult sometimes environmental challenges, community challenges. We in no way want to shortcut those, or shortchange those issues. They are important issues, as has been mentioned earlier, those are issues you need to deal with.
But we do think that on a national level, particularly for those airports where the building of the airports or the runways, rather, will have a positive impact on the system, we think that we at the FAA could be even more aggressive and more helpful in moving those through the process a little faster. We are right now thinking about how we might develop what could be called an airport swat team at the national level that might focus on those key airports. You're going to hear from some of those airport directors, where having a runway in place will make a huge difference to the system.
So we think that's one way that we could provide some needed assistance and leadership.
We think developing the capacity benchmarks will also help us in those areas determine which airports we should focus on. We also think that there may be things that are even separate from runways, some procedural changes, some technology changes that could be in place in those airports where, if they're not working, the whole system is affected.
So I think through technology, through procedure changes, through a kind of concerted effort at the national level to streamline those really critical environmental documents, I think we can help.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTELLO. Specifically, of course, I'm in the St. Louis metropolitan area. We have a plan to expand Lambert International Airport, put in an additional runway. Lambert, of course, is the hub to TWA.
The other hub airports around the country, do they have plans? How many of those airports, one, have plans under AIR-21 to add additional capacity, and number two, are there hub airports out there that are limited because they are landlocked, or other environmental problems where they cannot expand? For instance, with Lambert, a plan that I support, we are putting an additional runway in. But it will only increase our ability to meet the demand for so many years down the road, 20 or 25 years.
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, clearly there are environmental challenges in certain areas. But certain communities actually can accommodate additional runways, additional capacity if there is the local political will and community support for those kinds of investments. We're now working with some of those communities, Cleveland, in particular. We were just in Memphis last Friday and we opened up a new runway there.
We've also had, actually, 18 runways open in the last decade, from 1991 to 1999. And we've actually had six new airports. Now, they are different sizes and one is for cargo in particular. But we've had, again, some pretty significant investment. But with AIR-21, and with the innovative financing tools that we hope to bring forth, and hopefully with the political will and the community support, we hope to build, working again collectively, we will be able to see more investment as we go forward.
We also have, Congressman, a list of major capital investment initiatives at airports around the country. And we can share that with the Committee. One in particular, we've talked about involves the New York, New Jersey Port Authority plan for all of the airports in that region. They're looking at an investment of about $10 billion in the coming years.
And so I think that there are plans that are developing. But AIR-21 is clearly going to stimulate a lot more activity in that area.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. COSTELLO. A final question, if I can. Of the six new airports that have opened, one cargo and five passenger of various sizes, what if anything is the FAA doing to encourage traffic from other airports to go to these new airports?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, Congressman, I know that that's a particular interest of yours. And quite honestly, I think our encouragement is probably somewhat limited. I think very often airlines will of course say that they are responding to demand. I think what we can do is to try to get the right infrastructure in place, make sure that infrastructure is in place, so that that might be an incentive to bring the, to shift the markets, if you will. Because I do think sometimes that is a concern, is the right infrastructure in place. Airlines obviously need to have the right infrastructure to go there as well as the market.
Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I'd like to thank Secretary Slater for his visit recently to Atlanta, and Administrator Garvey for increasing our personnel at Hampton and making FAA much more effective in Atlanta over the last year. We appreciate that very much.
I really don't have questions. I have two specific requests, one for the Secretary and one for the Administrator. And it relates to your last response, Mr. Slater, with regard to environmental concerns, political will and community support. As you are aware from your visit to Atlanta, we have both the political will and the community support to build a fifth runway. And I would imagine one of those seven choke points you referred to is probably Atlanta.
And that capacity issue, although it has not been addressed tremendously, is critically important to the reason we're all here, which are our passengers. Which in the end, we're all here not because we fly every week, because we want to make flight better for our passengers.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So my request is this. I hope the DOT will recognize as you go through the environmental process of approval, once the political and the community support is there, that to facilitate those approvals in a timely way is critical to us, in able to be able to get the infrastructure in.
Now you were very helpful about nine months ago in working with Secretary Browner to approve the Atlantic Steel 14th Street overpass, even though we in Atlanta were and still are in a containment situation on highway funds. But that was an example of where, at the Executive Branch level in the Administration, two agencies can facilitate the right thing happening for the passengers. I'm not making you raise your hand or anything, but I hope you will help us as we go through that process in Atlanta.
If you have any comment on that issue, you certainly may comment on it.
Secretary SLATER. We raise our hand to say we will definitely work with you, as we will work with your colleagues and other interested parties across the country. Clearly, we can play a leadership role in that area. And where afforded the opportunity, as was the case in Atlanta, where there was the political will, the community support, we were able to do it on the highway projects, and we're hopeful we will be able to do it with you and with Mr. DeCosta and your team as relates to aviation as well.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you.
And Administrator Garvey, Congressman Ehlers made an interesting statement with regard to the gate agents of the airlines are oftentimes the deliverers of bad news. They're the person you walk up to and you look up and it says, the flight's leaving an hour later and the gate agent's supposed to explain why. It puts them in a tough position. But under the current system, that's understandable.
My experience with air delays are that we do a disservice to ourselves, because in my opinion, 90 percent of them are in the interest of the safety of the passenger. But nobody ever kind of talks about that.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'd like for the FAA to consider doing something. The Federal DOT approved, back five or six years ago, sign boards on many interstates, Atlanta installed some of the first test ones, that actually give traffic information while people are driving. It would seem to me like the FAA could do a great service as a part of this trilogy of players if it put flight safety boards in the initial terminal entrances to our airports, that when there was a safety delay due to weather, or due to an incident or due to whatever, that the passengers, when they came in, before the started going through the mazes of getting to the gate, which oftentimes is a frustrating experience in itself, if it said, due to weather in Boston, flights to New England may be delayed, check with your airline, or due to hurricane in Florida, flights to Latin America may be delayed, check with your airline.
My experience with passengers is, the reason they get so bent out of shape is they have to go through every hoop, from checking their bags to parking their car to picking up that last minute item that they've got to pay about three times as much for to get to wherever they're going. Then they get to the gate and then they get the information.
It would seem it would help a lot if we had a notification, and I think it's FAA's role to do that, if we had a flight safety information board that in fact told people, you're going to have a delay but it's in the interest of your safety. Because as the Chairman mentioned, after all, we have a tremendous safety record in this country in our airlines, due to the FAA and due to the Department.
So I'd like to suggest that you think about doing that. Because customer information at a timely point in that process of flying can be extremely helpful.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman. We'll do that and factor that into the work that I know the Secretary has encouraged on some of the best practices and how can we share better information, get better information to the customer. Thank you.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. We're going to have to break. If anybody has a couple of minutes worth, if they can limit their questions to just a couple of minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I just make one observation? I'll not be able to return.
Mr. DUNCAN. Sure, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I just wanted to say how refreshing it is, at last, to have the DOT team come to this Committee and say, we're on track, the modernization is going ahead, we've done what we said we could do, we've delivered on the technology, we've put in place what is necessary. I think that is just so refreshing and so encouraging.
And a second observation is, if you take the United on-time schedule out of the mix, and go to an industry average of closer to 73 percent of operations on time, and if you compare the domestic U.S. to the European situation, where on average the delays are 30 minutes per flight, per airport, all across Europe. And only two-tenths of 1 percent of those delays are due to weather, you see what a gap we've opened here in progress and improvement in the air traffic control system.
And third, what Mr. Belger discussed with me previously, of the coordination of FAA and the airlines on a daily communication system where you agree on what the weather is going to be for the day, coordinating every airline and every FAA TDWR information. And then you operate on that basis. Great improvements. I think this is just terrific.
And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your opening statement underscoring it. The only thing I can't—I'll just raise the issue. We've talked about having super-high sectors, creating four to five ultra-high or super-high sectors. And I just think that's something we need to continue working on at the FAA. Thank you.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberstar.
We will be in a brief recess for this vote, and we'll be back in just a moment.
[Recess.]
Mr. DUNCAN. I'd like to go ahead and call the hearing back to order.
And we closed out with Mr. Oberstar, so that means the next person in turn would be Mr. Kuykendall.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an observation, and I'd like you to comment a little on it. There's probably not any right answer to it. But for the FAA, my impressions have been historically the FAA has been an agency who stood in line to obviously guarantee safety of our air transport system, but also the principal persons they served were those who operated the air transport system, whether it was the airline company or the crews that flew those planes for them or the controllers to do it, that run the system.
And unfortunately from my perspective, the one that I've got to deal with is that 650 million passengers that ride on it, and they're the ones that pay our salary. They pay all our salaries.
And I don't know whether it's a, I mean, Mr. Isakson also touched upon it a little bit. But at some point I think we have to, in the FAA, we have to say, you know, one of the constituencies that I am accountable to is the passenger. I mean, yes, I'm accountable to them for a safe airplane ride and that the crew is properly trained to drive the plane.
But I'm accountable to them for what they're getting. And an airline passenger right now has to create all kinds of separate groups and everything else to have an advocate on their behalf, and they end up turning us into their advocates in many cases, because we have a lot more experience that most riders do on airplanes. So we can empathize with them very directly. That's the airline customer.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The other is this customer, and Ms. Garvey, you and I have talked about this before, is the communities that surround these airports. And in many of our major airports, I happen to have one big one, but in many of the other ones, you have got a community who to some extent feels like they're not being listened to very much, because there's such strong pressure for more air space or more runways or more gates that they just feel like they're being run roughshod over.
I don't know, maybe you can just comment generally on that subject, on how the FAA should behave in the future, what should be its role as an advocate for this consumer. And only one item that I'll throw into that pot, and that is, I'm talking about on-time statistics. The passenger only cares about the time he's supposed to leave and arrive. And we hear on-time statistics from everybody. It's the airline's version of on-time, it's the ATC's version of on-time, it's caused by crew, caused by weather, caused by mechanical, caused by you name it.
But the passenger cares about when I leave and when I arrive. The same thing goes for a cargo ship, but it's when I leave and when I arrive, because that's what they're getting paid to do, is beat a time frame. And maybe we need to have only one statistics on on-time. And you can have all those subsidiary categories but only one statistic that we talk about.
The other general area that I'd like to go into, and if Ms. Garvey can touch on this one as well. Capacity benchmarks, you were talking about. We've got an air space redesign program that we're not sure how long it's going to take. It keeps saying eight years. And I don't know when the eight years started and when it ends. We've got air space utilization study, I know, going on as well. I don't know how those two interrelate, but they must interrelate, because they're all talking about air space.
And we're now talking about capacity benchmarks. And I would like you to talk about those three items together and tell me, kind of start to stop on when some of this is going to be going on, these studies, and are we really going to a road where we're going to start now putting a capacity number and what effect that will have on our ability to increase or decrease flights at given airports. Two areas, mostly for Ms. Garvey. Obviously, Mr. Secretary, if you'd like to comment, you're welcome to.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, first of all, the issue about the customer, I think you articulated that very well for us. I think that is something we can never lose sight of, and we probably always need to do a better job about serving the customer. We deal most directly obviously with the airlines. And I think that obviously their customer is the traveling public as well. So one might say, in a perfect world, we're all heading in the same direction.
So we probably do need to constantly keep reminding ourselves that we are ultimately all serving the American people. The issue about trying to balance the community concerns, the concerns about airport expansions, with, as you pointed out, of ever-increasing, ever-increasing challenge for more air space, more efficiencies and so forth. I think that's going to be one of the great challenges as we move forward. I think this Congress is getting even more focused on that.
How do we find the right balance? I don't think there is a perfect answer to that. We have to keep working it, keep trying to deal with it, recognize we're going to have to make some compromises. Sometimes we may have to compromise on some of the efficiency pieces in order to deal with the community issues. But also somehow try to convince our communities of how important aviation is and how vital it is for the economy.
So it is, I think, something that is going to demand all of our focus and attention. I wish there were a sort of clear-cut, easy answer. I certainly don't have it.
You talked about the capacity benchmarks and how that relates to the air space redesign. The air space redesign, as you pointed out, is very, very challenging. It's a big job, it's scheduled to be finished about 2006. It involves a great number of environmental issues and a great number of environmental processes that we'll have to go through.
What we're trying to do, though, in the short term, is to focus on those things that are less controversial. The choke points is one effort in that area. For example, some of the procedural changes that we're doing that will increase the efficiency to some degree, we hope, in some cases, even improve some of the noise issues, those are not issues where we need to do a whole lot of environmental, in fact, any environmental work. So we're trying to look for those sort of low-hanging fruit, if you will, the strategies that we can put in place as we're moving forward on the larger, bigger issue.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The capacity benchmarks is, as I indicated a little bit earlier, it's a way for us to understand what is the capacity, what's both the capacity ability at any given airport and what are the demands at that airport, what can it handle. And we will break it down by hours. So in a sense, of course, it's dealing with the air space. It's not the major redesign, not the sort of change to the procedures, but really saying, what is it that this airport can handle, what are the demands.
The next step, though, once you've understood that, you might be, we might ask ourselves, are there technologies we ought to put in place, do we need to do some redesign of this particular area. So depending on what those numbers tell us, we'll look at what the right solutions are.
One more data point, though, I guess as we're putting together the big picture—
Mr. KUYKENDALL. So these capacity benchmarks are going to be determined, and then are they going to be posted so people will start comparing, how's my airport, compared to its capacity benchmark?
Ms. GARVEY. We're certainly going to work very closely with the airport directors. And obviously with the airlines as well. In fact, the airlines are very involved with it. And that's one of the issues we'll be talking with the airport directors about. It's the top 30, by the way, I just want to make that clear, we're focused on the busiest ones.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. I don't have any trouble falling into that category.
Ms. GARVEY. Right. That includes your airport.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Because that's clearly one of the specific issues that this surrounding community is throwing in. They're saying, we've got a lot of airports, and we have a tremendous need for capacity. Why does it all go here, or all go here, versus spread. And I don't know how this tool might be either useful to the process or hinder it. I can't tell right now.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Well, actually, that's an excellent point. It could be very helpful. It could say, if you looked at Massachusetts, for example, Congressman McGovern was saying, if Logan has too much or if LAX has too much, is there another place that we might be able to think about diverting or encouraging additional growth.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Thank you very much. I just want you to keep looking out for that 650 million of them that ride on you every time. They pay the taxes that pay the salaries.
Ms. GARVEY. Good point.
Secretary SLATER. Mr. Chairman, can I add juste one or two points?
Mr. DUNCAN. Sure, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary SLATER. One is, Congressman, on the issue of the passenger first and customer service, that is really the focus that we're taking as we work with the airlines to identify best practices. And many of the airlines have actually brought on board what they call customer advocates within their own ranks, so that the issue from the customer's vantage point is always front and center.
And this is a new development. And we commend the airlines for taking this approach.
But the task force that we have in place that's headed by Mr. Sanchez will lift up many of these best practices out there with the customer, the passenger as the focal point. And we'll be sharing that with the Committee very, very soon.
On the issue of surrounding communities, here again in AIR-21, the Committee actually gave us tremendous dollars that can be used for mitigation purposes. I think that that will be very helpful as we address this issue. But also, I think more and more those in the transportation community are stepping forward to say, we can actually make transportation investments that enhance not only the economy but the environment as well. And that, too, is a paradigm shift.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think that's a way of at least repositioning ourselves and thinking about things differently, so as to address some of these environmental and community concerns that are there and must be addressed, either on the front end, or you clearly have to address them before you can move a project forward.
The last point, about just the one sort of, you made the point about statistics, and having some common use, uniformity there. There I should note that that is the objective that the task force that's being led by Dr. Van Beek to deal with a common way of judging cancellations, delays and the like, and having a uniform data base for that purpose, that's the objective of that initiative.
So we will be addressing those key concerns that you have raised.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think perhaps we should have held this hearing at an airport, maybe at a gate with delays. I'm a bit puzzled, we're really in the bubble here. I've only flown a little over 100,000 miles here in the U.S. But the anger that I see in the American public, the cynicism I see in the American public, is not being well reflected. Perhaps the next panel will get to that.
I do want to thank the Secretary for intervening and helping United out of its denial. It was months that I was taxiing at one and two miles per hour on late airplanes before United was willing to admit they had a problem with the pilots.
And now they have a problem with the mechanics. I was delayed in Denver because it took an hour and a half to file the paperwork on an intercom that had been fixed on the plane. And when I said something to the flight attendant, she said, well, it would help if they had a contract with the mechanics. We're now going to have a mechanics slowdown.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So you may have to intervene again and help the executives at United out of their denial and get them to deal with their employees in a fair manner.
Ms. Garvey, I as always happen to have a minor issue regarding Eugene. I had some correspondence provided to your staff. Apparently we could experience delays because of some bureaucratic snafu. My air traffic controllers tell me they have filed whatever it is they need to file with the FAA to get updated and get in some book that comes out the end of November. And if we're not in the book, then we have delays because they can't use our category two runway system. And the people at your office say they have received no request.
So I would really hope that we can get this expedited. It just seems to be a bureaucratic issue.
Mr. Costello started on a very good line of questioning, and I think it's very current. If we look at LaGuardia, who has the authority? What Mr. Costello asked was, how could we get the airlines to not overschedule? They say they're not overscheduling, but we have testimony later saying they are scheduling impossible numbers of planes to land at certain hub airports during a certain period of time, even if the weather was perfect and if you have the most up to date system in the world working. They couldn't get that many planes in and out physically.
LaGuardia has taken a step and said, no, we're not going to allow more departures and arrivals during these certain time periods. Do you think they have the authority to do that? If they don't have the authority to do that, should they have the authority to do that? If they shouldn't have the authority to do that, should the FAA?
Somebody has to deal with this issue. The airlines are driving this. And they're driving it in a way that has huge, billions of dollars of public costs, in terms of new construction, and billions of dollars in costs to their passengers with delays, because of their hub and spoke system. They're in denial. The ATA is in denial. When I asked them this question some time ago, they came up with an absurd response.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What is the FAA doing? We've got to deal with this issue. We can't let them say, well, we're going to just take as many planes as we want there, even if they can't land. And we'll just circle around or hold on the ground, and then we'll blame the FAA because we couldn't land the plane. What are we doing about that?
Secretary SLATER. Well, first of all, Congressman DeFazio, I think that you are right to say that there is more concern, be it anger or cynicism, or some other form of concern out there than might be clear from the way that we have been conducting our meeting here. But clearly, we have tried to respond to that concern, and again, we commend you and members of the Committee for your response to the concern.
More specifically, let me say that we have actually been in touch with the leadership at LaGuardia on a number of occasions. We visited with them when we were at Newark International Airport, as we stared out effort, moving around to airports in the region. We were with them also at LaGuardia not long ago. And then Administrator Garvey and Assistant Secretary Sanchez, and also our Deputy Assistant Secretary, Brad Mims, have had more recent discussions with LaGuardia.
We have the authority to deal with the issue at hand as relates to the action that they have taken. That, though, does not necessarily mean that we deal with the underlying challenge that they face. So we have taken an approach where we have engaged them, meaning the leaders of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, and we have engaged the airlines and all of the interested parties to come together to work through this issue in a way that addresses it in its many facets, as you alluded to. Scheduling and over-booking and those kinds of concerns play into this as well.
We wish to do it in an atmosphere that acknowledges all of the benefits that we have gained from a deregulated industry and the market forces that clearly, over time, will resolve the issue. But can we come to the table now as we see the problem continuing to manifest itself and collectively and collaboratively work together to resolve the issue? We are committed to doing that.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Secretary, if I could, I'm not saying, what about the market forces. The market forces are, they create costs and the public pays for them. So that's called an external economy, which means that the market is working just the way they want, which is maximizing their profits and shifting the costs somewhere else. They have no incentive to do anything else. Until we have huge under-utilized capacity in this country, it's called the back of the clock, I mean, if everything isn't between 6:00 and 8:00 and 5:00 and 8:00 at night, there is huge under-utilized capacity.
So should we spend billions of taxpayer dollars to increase the capacity at those times and say, oh, people want to fly at those times. Well, there's an awful lot of leisure folks on the flights I take, and they wouldn't mind leaving at a different time of day, or maybe flying overnight and getting a cheaper ticket. But the airlines are going to schedule it, because the business travelers are going then, and then cram as many cheap seat people in there as they can.
We have to provide an economic incentive or disincentive to these people. The market is not going to work. Because they're shifting the costs.
Secretary SLATER. And we have, within the tools at our disposal, the ability to do just that.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Do it.
Secretary SLATER. Okay. And we're working with the parties to do it.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I would like to hear more about that. We don't have time today. But I would like to know what sort of incentives or disincentives we're looking at to move the airlines. Because we're going to hear testimony later, we have documentation here on arrivals and departures at DFW that exceed the physical capacity of the airport, no matter what air traffic control weather conditions we have. And yet the CEO of American testifies that they don't over-schedule. And a majority of the flights are American flights that can't possibly land at the same time.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So there is a problem. And it's a growing problem. And I would hope that we're supporting LaGuardia. I think they're leading edge here, to say, wait a minute, we've got to deal with this. And there are other times in the day. And if you're not driven by hub and spoke and maximizing your own profits and capacity, but in terms of utilizing the capacity of the air traffic control system and the airports, we would have a very, very different problem before us. I really would like to hear more about the tools that you're going to use and how we might aggressively use them.
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, you're absolutely right. And when you put a focus on the passengers first, I think you can resolve a lot of these competing interests. And we intend to make that effort with all of the interested parties. And we will put those tools on the table that are at our disposal.
And we will report back to the Committee on the results of our effort.
Mr. DEFAZIO. That's great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, question. I'm going to list several possible causes of delays, and could you just give me rough ballpark percentages. Of the delays in this country, what percentage would you say are due to weather, either at one hub or another hub, that changes the whole system.
Ms. GARVEY. The numbers that we've looked at are somewhere around 70 percent are due to weather. And I offer that not as an excuse, it's something we have to deal with. But it is a factor.
Mr. COOKSEY. Well, some members of Congress think you should be able to control weather. And I think you're doing a wonderful job. My expectation is not that high.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me ask you this. What percentage are due to mechanical problems with the airlines?
Ms. GARVEY. I don't have the exact figures.
Mr. COOKSEY. Ballpark?
Ms. GARVEY. Could we provide that for the record?
Mr. COOKSEY. It's got to be less than 30 percent.
Ms. GARVEY. Yes, and we will provide that for the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COOKSEY. So if 70 percent is weather, 5 percent, would that be a good number, 10?
Ms. GARVEY. Don Carty is saying less.
Mr. COOKSEY. Two? Okay. Let's say two. How about mechanical problems with FAA? This means your computer systems, your air traffic controller systems, the fact that maybe you're not using flight management computers on arrivals, or New York air space is too small? I know my friend Mr. Sweeney thinks it's too small.
Ms. GARVEY. That too, is a very small, that is a very small number.
Mr. COOKSEY. Let's say 2 percent?
Ms. GARVEY. About that, yes, Congressman.
Mr. COOKSEY. Now, how much of the delay is due to—and I was really surprised to see Mr. DeFazio making such a brutal attack on the pilots unions and the machinists unions. I think there are some wonderful, fine professionals that are members of the pilots union and the machinists union. I think it's just wrong for him to attack these people, but that's his prerogative, to attack unions if he wants to.
But what percentage, what percentage of the delays are due to the pilots unions? United's slowdown, for example. It's got to be less than, we're now at 74 percent, so it's got to be less than 26 percent.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. I don't have those figures, Congressman.
Mr. COOKSEY. Okay. And what percentage would be due to the machinists union?
Ms. GARVEY. Those are not figures that we actually collect at all. I think, though, a little bit earlier when we talked about the difficulties in August, we said that a number of those difficulties were due to the difficulties that United was having. They were having to have some cancellations and so forth.
Mr. COOKSEY. Well, I know they had some problems, and I've flown with United. It's not one of my airlines that I normally fly. But there is law in this State that unions have a right to exist, they have a right to negotiate. And apparently sometimes there are some slowdowns involved. I really hate to see a member of Congress, particularly from the other side, criticize unions just because they're involved with airlines.
I would like to make a suggestion. I'm not going to tell you this is a possible solution to this. But one of the things that, if 70 percent of the delays are due to weather, I think there are a lot of people that have never flown through a thunderstorm. I noticed that Mr. DeFazio was born in Massachusetts. Apparently he was never in the military, and you don't want to get into that, because all of us old veterans are not very kind and benevolent to people who weren't in the military 30 years ago.
But when I was in the Air Force, I flew from Otis Air Force Base one time, at your home State, to Wright Patterson. And we got into a terrible thunderstorm, scared the daylights out of both of us. We were a two man fighter plane. My helmet was bouncing on the canopy. I was afraid to eject and afraid to stay in, but fortunately we made it.
I think if you get with, and this is the solution I'm suggesting. If you get these people that are such vocal critics of the delays when they are related to weather, number one, I would tell them that they're being delayed because of weather either in one part of the United States or another part of the United States.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Number two, if you get people that are still adamant that you're doing so many things wrong, I think you ought to take these people and put them in an airplane and fly them through a thunderstorm. I still have my old Air Force helmet. The foam rubber's not too good, but I will even let Mr. DeFazio use my helmet.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COOKSEY. And then fly them through and let their helmets or their heads bang against the canopy. And I think that they would understand that you don't want to fly through thunderstorms, and it's better to delay the planes than it is to fly through a thunderstorm. And we don't have to fly through thunderstorms much any more, we've got a lot better navigation equipment, you've got better equipment.
But part of the problem may be that the airlines and the FAA are not conveying this message to people that they don't want to fly through a thunderstorm. But for those people that still complain, my suggestion, strap them in. I'll strap them in, fly them through a thunderstorm and then I think you'll have far fewer complaints.
And I do apologize for Mr. DeFazio attacking the labor unions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Dr. Cooksey.
Ms. Millender-McDonald was next.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement for the record.
Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, you may do so.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary and Ms. Administrator, we thank you so much for stepping up to the plate soon after this whole, as I'm now repeating what the Secretary said, these dog days that we had this summer. They were clearly dog days for a lot of us. And while you talked about the regional airports and those delays, don't forget the bi-coastal folks and those of who travel trans-continental, because there were many delays. In fact, I was told that there were around 18,000 delays or more from LAX, going from here to LAX.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I just want to submit some statistics for the record, because after all, our constituents were upset as well as those who travel throughout this region here. I'm told that the airlines really lost over $3 billion because of the delays. But we want to also put a bigger amount on those passengers. Because with them missing meetings, productivity, I'm hearing that it was around $2.1 billion as well. So we're talking about a $5 billion, as in boy, dollars in terms of the economy due to the delays.
And we do recognize that you have nothing to do with the weather. And I agree with Mr. Cooksey, I do not wish to be up there either bumping around, as so often we do. Because we travel twice a week, back and forth here to do the people's business.
I have statistics showing that flight delays increased, though, from 11 percent to 58 percent. I have most delays occurred on the ground during departure with taxi-out delays of one hour or greater, increasing by 130 percent. We're getting these numbers, I'm told, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, as well as FAA. And the cancellations increased by 16 percent.
We simply do understand that this was a summer of our discontent, in that I've been told this is the worst in five years. And I was not here five years ago, but I tell you, I used to look at the folks via television being so upset at being delayed, until I became part of that crowd. So when I became part of the crowd, I really did become quite concerned about that.
My questions, though, on this, and before I do that, I want to go back to what Mr. Kuykendall said on air space design, on capacity benchmarks, as well as mitigation purposes. We do have, Los Angeles, LAX and many airports in California that we've gone to look at that will have capacity concerns. Because of course, with LAX alone, as you know, we're talking about a 61 million passenger load now. And they are contemplating having some 30 added on.
Now, again, this is not what we're suggesting. This is what the prediction and the request has been.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What I want to ask is that with this AIR-21, how soon can we expect to see the air traffic controllers getting up to full speed with new computer system, with the extended or improved training that must be done, I'm sure, with the new runways that must be done in the State of California, as well as having someone to tell us when these delays are going to be perhaps, how long they can, if we can have such information imparted to us. Because we must have someone there at those airports talking to the passengers, circumventing the frustration that is there, because no one is telling them anything other than we have a delay, we have a cancellation, we have a delay, we have a cancellation.
And I have been on the runways sitting for two and three hours when the airplane has had to taxi back in because of whatever reasons, some of which were the labor disputes that we've heard about.
So how soon can we look at AIR-21 coming up to the plate to start providing the infrastructure building, the capacity issue benchmarks and all of the other things that have been cited today? And I just want to say to Mr. Ellis, who I suppose has left, if we're going to do, if we're going to have communications, there needs to be an ombudsman or ombudswoman. Do you want to respond to that?
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congresswoman, I can tell you that the FAA and the Department as a whole, where appropriate, have already moved on many aspects of AIR-21. We've put out about $900 million, additional dollars, already. When we have the appropriations bill for next, for the next fiscal year, we'll be able to move forward immediately on LOIs and other distributions. We have also started to receive enhanced or renewed requests from communities, because they know that the stream of resources is there now.
And so we've made some tremendous progress already and we'll be able to do even more when the appropriations process is completed for the next fiscal year.
Administrator, you may want to say a bit more about this as well.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. GARVEY. Only to add, Congresswoman, I think your point about training is very important. We can't lose sight, as we're getting the technology out, about how important the training is. In some ways, though, modernization is never going to be completed. Because there's always new technologies, always new procedures that we need to look at. So I think that is part of the challenge.
We need to be very aggressive. I know we need to do an even better job of looking at issues like certification, can we get the certification on board in time, can we get it in place, rather, in time to really keep up with some of the technology. So those are the challenges we face, never finished, never done. But I think we are on the right track. And I think as the Secretary said, AIR-21 has already begun to make a difference for us.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That's very good to know, because I served on the conference committee for that particular piece of legislation. Excellent legislation, so well needed for us.
I just want to thank the two of you for your input, your report, testimony today. And we will continue to work with you to improve air traffic for all of us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership and for Mr. Lipinski's for holding this hearing.
Hi, Mr. Secretary and Administrator Garvey. Let me just tell you how continuously impressed I am by the professional staff that you have. Good people to work with, responsive. I think that you actually run one of the best parts of the Government. And I think that they're not only good to work with, but they understand that my constituents are professional travelers. In my district, in the Bay Area, I've got people that are very concerned about traffic on the ground. That's one of the reasons why I'm on this Committee, worker productivity is everybody's issue.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But traffic for them isn't just about transit and the roads. Because they're tired of looking at the tailpipes of their neighbors and friends as they try to get to work in San Francisco or Silicon Valley. But they're also looking at the tailpipes of the 757 on line ahead of them as they're trying to take off out of San Jose or Oakland or San Francisco. And it's a huge issue for us, obviously. We desperately are looking toward the opportunity of a new runway at San Francisco. But we have major environmental issues that we have to mitigate.
So I know that you're working, we've talked about this before, we're working very closely with you. We need to streamline the environmental process as we continually improve it. And thank you for making that a focus of what you're trying to do here.
What I'm impressed about and I think is very important is that the business modeling that you're putting forth, the way you're talking, the attitudes that you have, really enable people in the kind of job that I have, which is public policy, tinged with politics, to go home and build the political will, to do the things that we need to do to invest in our economy and in our people. Making safety the fulcrum and the nexus of what we're talking about is very, very important.
When my constituents that I see in the Safeway or I see in the airport say to me, oh, you know, I was delayed, I couldn't get there, it was a mechanical, it's almost like people know too much now. Everybody knows what a mechanical means, it's like the head fake. Everybody knows weather is weather. And we have a lot of weather in the San Francisco Bay area, as you know.
But I think if we continue to strive to make people understand that it's about safety, it's always about safety, and that is what the airlines care about, it's what the pilots care about, it's what the mechanics and the flight attendants care about, it's what the FAA cares about, it's what the executives and stockholders of airlines care about. Because we're all essentially a shared constituency. We have the most impressive records, we want to keep those records up. We can always do better and we will continue to do that.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But thank you for your hard work. Thank you for always being there for us. Thank you for being there this summer. It was not pretty at times, and I too sat on the runway.
But the truth of the matter is, if we continue to make safety first, if we continue to have a professional attitude, if we continue to work with everyone to make sure that we're always doing our best, that we allow the paradigm to continue to grow and move, that we're never finished with modernization, and that this is an investment strategy for safety and a sustainable economy, liveable communities and a clean environment, if we continue to do that, I think that your legacies with the FAA and the Department of Transportation will be a great one.
So thank you for all your hard work. I really don't have any questions. I have a statement to submit.
But from the Bay area, let me thank you and continue to work hard for us.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, and your statement will be placed in the record.
And before we go to Mrs. Johnson, I believe Ms. Millender-McDonald also has a request.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, you spoke eloquently today, but I did not get a copy of your testimony. And you spoke about seven bottlenecks. May I please have you submit that to me? And I'm sure other members also would like that.
Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely, we will, Congresswoman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Johnson.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me apologize for being late and I hope I'm not too redundant. Let me appreciate the presence of our witnesses, both those who have spoken perhaps and those who might be, our Secretary of Transportation and our Administrator of FAA. Let me just associate myself with the remarks made in your compliments, because I do think you have one of the best departments and the best run departments there is.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I know the passenger facility fee will help with additional runways. I believe that AIR-21 hopefully will help with the new technology. I think we're going to have to help God with our environment for the rest of it.
But I do want to ask comments about the air space design. And I apologize if that's already been answered. Congressman Cooksey and I are proposing to emphasize more training rather than a lot of codification of new things and demanding new technologies. Because you know, they change pretty frequently now. And we didn't want to do a lot of unnecessary things.
We also recognize that due to the change in environment, a lot more people are suffering from allergies and lung conditions and are likely to become overheated or whatever in the long delays. No one can deny there have been long delays.
But I can tell you, I am very grateful to the airlines when they do delay, I'd much rather be on the ground during those times. And I've been on the ground a lot of times lately, on the plane waiting for the weather to change. I've missed votes coming back here waiting for the weather to change.
But I don't blame the airlines. I think more about what we can do about the air space design, and also what we can do about the environment that influences a lot of that.
In my area, the population has doubled in the last five years, so there's going to be more air traffic. We have a very moving, high-tech environment, and people move around the world frequently. So we're not, I think, going to have a decrease in air traffic. But we're going to have to do what we can to assist in that area.
So could you comment, briefly, if you've already talked about it in depth, the air space design progress?
Ms. GARVEY. Congresswoman, I'll do this very briefly. It's a very ambitious project. We're redesigning the entire national air space. We've tried to do it in a kind of building block incremental fashion. We're focusing on the east coast, where there are some particular difficulties and some areas on the west coast as well. The full project will be finished around 2006.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But what we're trying to do is find some strategies in the meantime, between now and 2006, strategies that we can implement fairly quickly, that are not nearly as controversial environmentally, that don't have the kind of community concerns associated with them.
So we're looking for those short term strategies that we can put in place quickly to alleviate some of the congestion that we see and deal with some of the environmental issues. Any time, of course, that you change a flight pattern from one area to another, it involves a great deal of environmental review and work. And obviously, oftentimes a number of community concerns are raised in that process.
So dealing through that and working through that is challenging. But looking for those shorter term strategies, from the choke points to even some additional ones as we move forward is what we're trying to do.
Mrs. JOHNSON. What kind of dollars are we talking about?
Ms. GARVEY. The total cost is about $8 million, in total, about that. Could we submit that for the record?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes. Because I've been hearing little rumors like it's a lot of millions. I'll wait to get the information.
Ms. GARVEY. I hope my number will look better, if that's what you've been told, then.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. JOHNSON. I hope so, too.
Ms. GARVEY. I think it will be good news.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have anything else.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Vice Chairman Sweeney.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for conducting this important and timely hearing.
Mr. Secretary, Madam Administrator, it's great to see you again. As you know, I appreciate all the work that you do and the work that you do with us.
I'd like to, very briefly, because you've been here for a while, and we have more witnesses to hear testimony from, I'd like to go back and touch on the LaGuardia situation. I'm a little bit confused, I think we all are. The situation is rather nebulous, we understand that. But come this Sunday we're going to have, I think, circumstances that are going to have to be addressed, and they will primarily have to be addressed by each of you.
My first question is simply, does the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have the authority to limit slots, yes or no?
Secretary SLATER. No.
Mr. SWEENEY. This Sunday, then, when the Delta connection leaves Burlington, Vermont, an area not too far from my district, an area underserved, as my district is, what will happen? Have you played out that scenario? Do we know what to expect here?
Secretary SLATER. Well, we have been in touch with the Authority. We have been in touch with not only Delta, but other airlines that could be affected. And we are going to continue to work with the parties to ensure that at the end of the day, at the appropriate time, that the various interests are addressed, and addressed in ways that protect and respect the interests of the traveling public.
Mr. SWEENEY. You said earlier during some questioning that the Department doesn't have the means to deal directly with the underlying problem, as it relates to LaGuardia. And as a New Yorker, I'm conflicted, because I serve an underserved area, yet I recognize the metropolitan problems, the congestion problems at LaGuardia, and believe that structurally, this is breaching crisis proportion. Flight delays this past August, as compared to August of 1999, were 60 percent greater. The delays account for a quarter of all the delays nationally.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I think it's at the crux of all of the issues that are attendant to delays as it relates to service throughout the Nation.
In terms of a time line, has the Department set a time line for addressing those issues? My sense is, your decisions and some modification of the current system has to occur in a very short period of time, days, in fact, or at least the beginnings of that. Could you expound on that a little bit and give us some sense of what the decision making is going to be and how it's going to happen?
Secretary SLATER. Well, Congressman, I think at the end of the day, this issue is going to be resolved, and it will be resolved in a way that again respects the interests, the safety and interests of the traveling public. And we're going to work with the parties to ensure that.
We do have the power to deal with this particular issue. But it's not just the question of the call that is being made by the Authority. There is the underlying challenge that you have alluded to. And that is not something that the simple exercise of authority can resolve. We have to engage the parties, come to the table together and work through this. And that's the approach that we're taking.
Administrator Garvey and Assistant Secretary Sanchez have been in ongoing discussions with Mr. Boyle. We also on yesterday had meetings with Mr. Boyle and leaders of the Port Authority and Delta on the question. And we'll continue to work with the parties again to ensure that we do what we have to do to address this issue and to do so effectively.
Mr. SWEENEY. I have a past relationship with both Mr. Boyle and those in the Authority, as you probably know, from my work. I represent an area, as I said, that is underserved. And I would stress the point maybe for the fifteenth time today, that the concerns of those of us who live in areas that are underserved needs to be considered, that the advent and the expansion of regional jet service was part of the beauty of AIR-21.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Secretary SLATER. That's exactly right.
Mr. SWEENEY. At the same time, because of that prior service, I also recognize the difficulties and the challenges that are presented on the other side in terms of congestion issues. And whatever assistance I could lend to that process, I'd like to offer that.
Secretary SLATER. Congressman, we really appreciate your comments in that regard. Clearly, you have the support of your colleagues on the Committee and the Congress as we address this issue in AIR-21. But now we have to deal with the implementation. And that is the challenge we face. And it's a challenge we can meet and will meet.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Secretary. I will say that if Mr. Sweeney had not asked about that, I was going to. Because the situation in LaGuardia, I've been given a list just by Delta that it affects service to and from Buffalo, Albany, Charleston, Columbia, Greensboro, Manchester, New Hampshire, Portland and Bangor, Maine, Savannah, Rochester, New York, Lexington, Kentucky, Syracuse, Burlington, Vermont, Birmingham, Alabama, and most importantly of all, Knoxville, Tennessee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DUNCAN. So we do have some concern about that. Because it also affects other airlines as well. So I think this is something that need to get worked out as soon as possible.
Is part of the problem there what Mr. DeFazio touched on? Is it at particular times, or is it spread throughout the day?
Secretary SLATER. Clearly particular times. Peak periods are more difficult than other times. But with the increase in flights, more than 200 million more passengers moving at the beginning of this decade as compared to the last, we don't have a lot of peaks and valleys any more. I'm sure you'll hear that from Mr. Carty and others.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So while there is the room there across the board, there is not as much room as there used to be. We have filled in that with a strong economy and a strong industry. It is a matter of capacity, added capacity, greater efficiency through technological advancements and the like. And we have just worked ourselves, through our success, into this moment. And it's a moment that presents challenges that we've never had to face before, but now we do face them and we have to meet them in the successful manner in which we've met other challenges in the past.
And we have to do so working collaboratively.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, talking about that, I frequently mention the great increases in air passenger traffic and air cargo traffic. But I have been given information that says that according to the FAA, the number of operations in August, the landings and takeoffs, increased only by a half of 1 percent from the previous August. But yet the number of delays due to volume was up by 60 percent.
How does such a small increase in volume cause such a large increase in volume delays?
Secretary SLATER. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask Administrator Garvey to join me in responding to the question. But two things that we can mention right off the bat. The weather this past August as compared to August of 1999, the weather was much worse. The same was the case in June. So we had those challenges to address.
Then we also had the issue of United, and working with United to get through a particularly difficult period.
But those two factors would account for a significant portion of those delays and cancellations.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, volume delays, of course, we would not be talking about weather delays. But Ms. Garvey, before you respond, talking about the weather, a September 14th article in the Wall Street Journal describes the airlines' claim, ''that the FAA's command center in Herndon consistently overreacts and ignores evidence from pilots and regional controllers that the weather in certain areas is better than the national map suggests.''
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, I'm sure you're familiar with that, or that you saw that article. Is that a problem? Are there some weather delays that really aren't necessary if we relied more on local information that was coming directly from pilots and controllers on the scene, rather than a national map?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I am actually very familiar with that article, Mr. Chairman. Let me make a couple of comments.
First of all, I think that the airlines and the FAA would agree that having more control, if you will, from the command center, where they can really look at the whole system, is the right thing to do. Having said that, we have not fully come to, I think, the right balance between the command center calling the shots and as you've suggested, what's the role of the local facilities. And when I said a little bit earlier that we still have a lot to learn, I think that's one of those areas that we're still very focused on, with the airlines for trying to find the right balance.
But I will also tell you that we find different approaches with the airlines. You know, not unlike, I guess not as a surprise, there are different approaches to sometimes the same problems. Some airlines really like predictability, they want to call that ground program early in the day and they want that kind of predictability as they move forward. Other airlines are perhaps a little bit more aggressive and because of their own operations are able to push that a little further, and they'd like to hold on. And I think one of the challenges for us to is find the right balance.
So I think we have to continue to work with the airlines to find exactly what the right balance is. And in talking with some of the executives at American, for example, whom I have great respect for, one of the comments was, well, you know, we've gotten predictability here, and that's good in some ways. But maybe we've taken away too much of the flexibility.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think that's a fair comment. We've got to still work that issue with the airlines, find the right balance and recognize that we're going to have differences with sometimes even among the airlines, and ultimately, we're going to have to call the shots. Figuring out the best way to involve the local community or the local facility is the right area of focus, though, as well.
Just one last note. I do think that we have a common weather information, and that's great. But I also think that there's expertise at the airlines that, because they've existed and lived from an experienced point of view in those areas for so long, that we need to get more of that expertise to the table. So we want to work with the airlines on that as well.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. And we've kept you far too long, and we do need to get to the second panel. But let me just go into one other area, and that's on the new equipment.
The New York Times said in an article on September 5th that the FAA's modernization was the technological equivalent of a new coat of paint. They were very critical. And yet, I know that the technology is moving so fast today that if we put a new computer on the desk today, it's probably obsolete tomorrow. And so I would like to know how you would respond to that. And they say that while there's been a lot of purchases of new hardware, that the software doesn't match up and so forth.
How do you respond to that?
Ms. GARVEY. We have a lot of respect, Mr. Chairman, for that particular reporter. He's been around a long time. But on that particular point, I would disagree. He's referring in particular to the HOST hardware. He's right in saying that we replaced the hardware and left the software in place. I think I talked about that a little earlier, that was a very strategic decision that was made by the FAA in looking at knowing we had to reach that deadline, or wanting to reach that deadline by Y2K, by the year 2000. Knowing that the hardware was failing us, but that the software was stable, serving us well.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So our decision was, put the hardware in and then do the software. And that is exactly what we're doing.
I think the key is, and you're right, technology moves very fast. But the question that we've been asking is, for our platforms like DSR and STARS, can that give us the platform so as technology improves, we can add more to those platforms. And the answer to that is, yes, we can add those additional enhancements as we learn more and as we gain more experience. And those will be added to the platforms that are there at the centers and will be there at the terminals.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much.
Secretary SLATER. Mr. Chairman, may I add?
Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary SLATER. You should know that Administrator Garvey and I also took the occasion of the article to actually call the reporters involved, and had a very substantive discussion about the tremendous work that she and her staff have been engaged in.
And I would like to just make that point for the record. I'd also like to say thank you to so many of you who have, in raising issues and questions, made positive comments about the wonderful team with which we work. We are flanked by them. And that team goes beyond just our DOT family, but also includes the leaders of this industry.
And we would also say the team also includes the members of this Committee. And we are so very pleased, with all of the work that we've done together. But we also acknowledge, as do you, that there is still much, much work to be done.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. And that's one thing that in my opening statement I tried to point out, that while some of these statistics are bad and we need to do more, and the public, as several members have said, is at times angry, frustrated, whatever words you want to use, and the public is demanding action, they're demanding that we do something, and they're demanding that you do something.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think that one thing you need to do is work more with the press and the media. Because there have been so many bad stories that have come out over the last couple of months about these delays, and that's increased these negative, bad or angry feelings in the public.
So you need to get out the message that things are being done. And too, like I said, some of these things that are being done, it's going to take a year or two or three years before they really come to fruition. On the other hand, we need to let the public know, and we need to assure, we need to ensure ourselves, and we need to assure the public that everything immediate that can be done is being done.
So with that, thank you very much for being with us again. You've been very, very informative and helpful. Thank you very much.
We'll call the second panel up at this time. And we have a very distinguished second panel. I do apologize that we have not gotten to them sooner. But as you can see, there's been great interest in the subject of this hearing.
The second panel consists of Mr. Donald Carty, who is the Chairman and CEO of American Airlines; Mr. Frederick W. Smith, who is the Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx Corporation; Mr. Kerry Skeen, who is Chairman and CEO of Atlantic Coast Airlines; and Mr. Benjamin R. DeCosta, who is the Aviation General Manger of the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.
Gentlemen, we appreciate very much your being with us today. And we do proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed on the call of the hearing, and that means, Mr. Carty, we will proceed with you. You may begin your statement.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. CARTY, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, AMERICAN AIRLINES; FREDERICK W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FEDEX CORPORATION; KERRY SKEEN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES; AND BENJAMIN R. DECOSTA, AVIATION GENERAL MANAGER, HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CARTY. Thank you very much, and good morning, Chairman Duncan and members of the Subcommittee.
I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk about the single most critical issue that faces our industry today, the one you've been focused on this morning, that's the need to expand our Nation's capability to safely meet the extraordinary growth and demand for air transportation.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to asking that my written statement be entered into the record, I respectfully request that you also include a document that's been prepared by the Air Transport Association, which is an outline for a comprehensive plan to modernize the ATC. In fact, it describes the collaborative efforts, many of which Administrator Garvey referred to this morning, of both the industry and the FAA, to solve our mutual problems. My colleague will deliver that document to staff if he has not already done so.
Mr. DUNCAN. All formal written statements will be placed in full in the record, along with any supporting documentation or exhibits that any of the witnesses wish to put in. And that includes for this panel and the next.
Mr. CARTY. Let me just say that rather than rehashing the problems of the current system, many of which were touched on in my written statement, I would like to spend a little bit of my time laying out some specific thoughts for actions that would address the problems of delays and cancellations which result from inadequate air space and ground infrastructure capacity.
In order to meet the demand for safe, reliable commercial air transportation, obviously we have to address three areas: air space capacity and traffic management; terminal arrival and departure, air traffic control capacity; and lastly, of course, ground infrastructure, including runways and taxiways. And all these things have been referred to. But without comparable and simultaneous improvement in all three areas, we're not going to solve ATC's problems.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Before just touching briefly on some specific solutions, I do want to elaborate for a minute on one part of my written statement. That's the issue that was raised by Congressman DeFazio. And that is, charges by some that the only problem that we have is overscheduling by airlines.
Obviously with record high load factors, we're turning away more passengers on peak hour flights than we can handle. So our passengers obviously don't think we have too many flights.
Nonetheless, with that being said, in any given airport, the total schedules of all the airlines combined can and increasingly do exceed the capacity of that airport to handle the volume. Now, at hub airports where a single carrier has got the predominant number of operations, we obviously have more tools to deal with capacity problems, since we have a large percentage of the operation. In our case at American, we recently announced a number of major schedule adjustments at both Chicago and at Dallas-Fort Worth. And we're confident those will enhance our reliability.
At airports like that, quite frankly, Chicago's a little bit different because both we and United are trying to run big hubs. But at DFW, we don't have the kind of dependability problem that we do at many of the airports where we don't have a disproportionate share of the operation.
If you turn to those kind of airports, airports like LaGuardia and Boston and LAX, a reduction in capacity by one airline is just as likely to result in an increase in capacity by another one. And the consequence is no one is likely to unilaterally disarm an incredibly competitive business. And obviously, in the absence of an antitrust immunity, we can't discuss scheduling with each other to reach some kind of industry-wide solution to the problem.
As was alluded to today, the problem is mostly at LaGuardia. Since May, airlines have added 180 daily operations at what was already known to be a congested airport. Another 132 daily operations are scheduled to start in the next three months.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, that increase is clearly wreaking havoc with schedules. Last year, about 70 percent of all flights at LaGuardia arrived within 15 minutes of schedule during September. This year, that percentage is 30 percent and it's falling.
Our American Eagle operation, our regional carrier, now has an average taxi time on the ground of 55 minutes, which is actually equal to the average flight time in the air. And during nine half hour periods, and I hope this is responsive, Chairman Duncan, to your questioning earlier, during nine different half hour time periods in the day, scheduled operations clearly exceed the maximum possible number of operations on a good weather day.
In short, there is a real crisis at LaGuardia. And in light of this, I reluctantly become convinced that the Government really, in one form or another, should consider authorizing an immunized discussion among airlines. And that discussion obviously would have to involve the Port, and it obviously would have to involve the FAA.
But something has got to give, or things are simply, the bad situation that exists at LaGuardia is simply going to deteriorate.
I'm going to shorten my remarks, because I know we're short of time. Let me just say, when we turn to the specific solutions about the air traffic control system, I like to think of them in three categories: those things that can be accomplished in the short term, those that are more likely to be accomplished over some medium three to five year period of time, and those that require even, we need to think about even further out long term solutions.
Here, I think the industry, much more than has it been in some time, is fully aligned with the FAA. There are always, as Administrator Garvey referred to, there are always some differences of opinion as to precisely what we should do. But in the short term, we need to focus on things that we can accomplish that don't involve highly complex information systems change and don't involve concrete and don't involve things that we know are going to take two and three and five years. They are procedural, they are things like the Administrator referred to, of using the air space differently. They are things like talking to the Canadian air space authorities, using some of their air space. They are largely procedural in nature.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As we get out a little bit further into the medium term, there are also a raft of solutions that we're collectively working on today. They involve largely information systems changes and many of the technology projects that Administrator Garvey referred to.
In the long run, however, we also need infrastructure changes at airports. We need more runways, we need more airports, we need more capacity on the ground and in the immediate terminal area. And if we don't have that, an awful lot of the other efforts that are made over the next three to five years will be somewhat in vain. We will hit another choke point.
Let me just summarize by saying, by reiterating what I said a moment ago, I think the dialogue and the work that is going on between the FAA and the airlines today and the confluence of views as to what needs to be done is better than it's been in some time. Sometimes it takes a bit of a crisis to get the proper focus on it. And I think that's beginning to happen.
And with the funding that this Committee and Congress has provided us through AIR-21, I think it gives us some hope that we'll begin to improve the situation.
One cautionary note, however, I will say. I think, because many of the solutions are medium term and long term, we are going to be challenged over the next couple of years to run the kind of system, aviation system that all of us and all of our customers would like to see. But I do think we're on the right track. And as a representative of the Airlines Association, let me just say you have the commitment of all the CEOs that are part of that association to try to make this work.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Carty.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to be present here to represent our company and the air express industry, and of course the air carrier industry in general.
I've submitted a written statement. I don't need to dwell on the fact that our industry is a hugely growing part of the Nation's economic fabric. A statistic that I'm very fond of quoting is that today in the international arena, movement of goods by air is only 2 percent of the tons, but it's over 40 percent of the value. And it's all of the high tech and high value added trade.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So as these air traffic control problems continue to proliferate, it's a big and costly problem for our industry. And also, I think I occupy personally a somewhat unique position, having served on the ATA board for over 20 years now, and having observed the difficulties encountered by our Government and our passenger accommodation carrier friends. This is the third air traffic control crisis in modern times. If you go back and you read the literature that governed the air traffic control crisis of the 1960s and the 1980s, you'll find that they are remarkably the same as they are today, exacerbated only by the tremendous success and the growth of the flights and by the emergence of hub and spoke operations, which means that weather systems and other anomalies tend to have a ripple effect to a much greater extent than they did in previous times.
There are three major issues that cause air traffic control delays. One is the air side capacity needs and the top 35 or 40 hubs with a particular problem in the northeastern part of the United States, from Chicago and Washington up through Boston and Maine. The second is the management of the ATC system. And the third is the introduction of technology.
I'd like to focus my comments on the number one issue, and that is the lack of air side capacity in our major airports. We have reached the point, as Don said in his statement, and many of the representatives have said today, that we are simply at capacity and peak hours at our hub airports. There are three ways to address that: slot controls, voluntary schedule coordination with antitrust immunity; or third, differential pricing somewhat along the lines of what Congressman DeFazio talked about.
As you know, AIR-21 actually began the process of taking down slot controls in certain airports. My own personal opinion is, Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to put slot controls in the peak hours back in in the hub airports. It's amazing to me to watch sort of people talk about this issue and nobody wants to face up to that fundamental issue.
I certainly applaud the effort to bring about industry discussions. But I don't see how it's going to be successful in allocating a limited resource in a highly competitive industry over the long period of time.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would suggest to you that when you come to the inevitable decision that slot controls and peak hours at key hub airports have to be reimposed that it be tied back in with legislation which gives the Federal Government considerably greater powers to deal with the airport infrastructure which is being hacked to death by the well-intentioned but nonetheless significantly destructive local efforts to halt airport and runway construction.
Certainly there are many technological things on the horizon which offer some relief. I think the new ATC technology that's been put in place is going to help and get better and better over time. But none of these, nor the management of the ATC system, which is a subject of and by itself, will solve the fundamental ATC problem, until the Federal Government, that means this Committee, and the DOT and the FAA, face up to the fact that there are a limited number of slots in these key hub airports and the peak hours. And absent slot controls, voluntary capacity constraints or differential pricing, the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
If you think this summer was bad, next summer is going to make this one look like a picnic.
There was a comment here by one of the Congressmen, I can't remember which, that made the point that, well, the demand side only went up a small percentage, but delays went up a tremendous amount. Well, I think people are deluding themselves when they think that there is going to be a tremendous bleedoff of pressure of point to point operations by regional jets. The facts of the matter are that hub and spoke operations exist for very good reasons. They give people and shippers, obviously, an unprecedented level of service.
So what you're seeing here is a great demand in these hub airports. And what happens when you get regional jets, I noticed that the Congressman wasn't talking about flying a regional jet to Memphis, he was flying a regional jet to LaGuardia. And you're going to see this type of pressure continue to go up and somehow, either the Congress or the DOT is going to have to take a lot stronger leadership position than they're doing today to face up to the reality that you have to reimpose these slot controls and the peak hours at the hub airports, or try some sort of voluntary scheduling, or you're going to have to use some sort of differential pricing.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I think we definitely do need to consider the limited immunity that Mr. Carty suggested. And the slot issue has always been very, very controversial. You may be right, we may have to get back into that on these peak time periods. But I know that will be a very, very difficult thing. It's a lot easier said than done, I suppose.
Mr. SMITH. Well, it was done, though, Mr. Chairman. I mean, that's why I mentioned the two historical examples. It's not as if this Committee and the U.S. Government and the carriers haven't faced this exact problem before and worked through the same difficult political issues and arrived at what I think will be the same destination.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right, I'm going to have to take a brief recess for this vote, and we'll be back just as soon as we can. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. SWEENEY [ASSUMING CHAIR]. In the interest of time, because we are going to be on a tight schedule for the remainder of today, Chairman Duncan asked me to reconvene and restart the hearing. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith was not able to stay for the remainder of the hearing. So we will move to Mr. Skeen for his testimony.
Mr. SKEEN. Thank you very much.
Thank you for having me here today. It's been quite enlightening and refreshing for me. I represent Atlantic Coast Airlines. We have two operating subsidiaries, one operating as Delta Connection, one as United Express. And we also represent the regional airline industry, and it was encouraging today to hear a lot of the members' comments that they know what regional jets are all about. We've always felt that as regionals, we were kind of at the low end of the transportation system here in the U.S., and we always have had kind of a Rodney Dangerfield attitude that we didn't get much respect.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So it's actually encouraging, and I'll leave here with a little bit more bounce in my step today, even though we're here to address what is a real problem and a serious issue in the country today. Delays associated with air traffic are a major problem, and I'm not going to be redundant, since it has been a long morning here.
But for our company, because we operate just very few routes west of the Mississippi, our whole airline, because we're not a global network like American Airlines to my right, so we're operating in all these choke points that Ms. Garvey was mentioning earlier in her testimony. So for us it is quite significant in terms of the impact to our company. This past year, our delays have increased more than 200 percent. And in fact, our delays represents a cost that equal 10 percent of our operating income that we did last year.
So it is very significant to us, and we are certainly open, receptive and we'd like to participate in improving the capacity in this country to allow for more flying, to satisfy the mandates that we feel we received from this Committee with the passage of AIR-21. Because our mission in life, to a great extent, is to offer greater service, greater access to the smaller communities that do not have service to all the major points that you enjoy if you live within driving distance of a major hub. That is our role.
When Chairman Duncan mentioned cities that he rattled off, I'm pleased to report that we serve nearly every one of those cities.
Mr. DUNCAN. I'll be flying your airline later this afternoon and again on Monday, Mr. Skeen, so we appreciate your service from Knoxville.
Mr. SWEENEY. I'd get that one on time if I were you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SKEEN. Thanks for the warning, there.
Also, Knoxville is a market we currently fly turboprops in today, to Dulles. However, that market is slated for regional jet upgrades next year, you'll be happy to hear.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But let me talk about regional jets. Because this is really, of course, I'm very biased in my opinion, but it is really changing the way passengers move around in this country. It's one of the biggest events in the last decade, really, in terms of what's transforming the transportation system here in the U.S. And the passengers have embraced this aircraft with open arms. And one reason is, turboprops are not the most favored way to travel, even though we operate today a fleet of 60.
But I'm here to tell you that those turboprops in our fleet are not very long for our fleet. We're aggressively phasing them out, and I can certainly envision the day that we will be operating 100 percent regional jet type equipment, as I'm sure all the other major systems out there will be, too.
So regional jets are not part of the problem. I've heard some discussions today, because we fly regional jets at the same altitude as the other jets that for some reason, the good that's coming out of the regionals, all of a sudden it's being turned around in some circles that regional jets are the problem. And I disagree with that wholeheartedly. In most cases, the regional jets are replacing slower turboprops. And I think if I had a show of hands, not many people would say we want to keep those turboprops flying.
The regional jets, it is really a myth, because I read in published reports that they're slower, so they should be held at lower altitudes. Yes, they're slower than some of the very larger wide body equipment. But in terms of most of the popular, narrow body equipment flying up and down the east coast, the regional jet is on par in terms of speed and performance.
So as we move forward, trying to design more capacity and realizing that we have a problem today and there will be compromises that we will all participate in those solutions, I just want to make sure those compromises are based on fact and not myth in terms of the impact that the regional jets are having on the problem of air traffic delays.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The issue obviously that has been spoken about today is we need more capacity. The system is still based on older technology and methodology. The technology does exist today to vastly improve today the capacity issue in terms of air traffic management. And what I'm talking about is what's in the cockpit, the technology in the cockpit. It was the system, a new way of air transportation management in terms of utilizing the capabilities of the airline's cockpits, in particular GPS. It should have a significant impact on opening up more lanes to make it more capacity in the U.S. travel network.
The air traffic control, the regionals bear the brunt of that in many cases, because we fly the shorter segments. And a lot of times, when you have a SWAT program, which is an implemented program that will actually stop traffic when forecasted bad weather is predicted, in many cases because of the shorter stage lengths, they can stop our flights before they depart, the other long haul carriers have already departed. And they do get worked into the system.
So in conclusion, we ask members of the Committee to consider promoting ideas to help the air traffic control system move toward a day in which technology needs are already available, navigational capabilities of the aircraft themselves, the growth of regional jet traffic should continue to be encouraged, and I applaud again your efforts and thank you very much for the time to be here.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Skeen.
Let me just, as one member, say that I agree wholeheartedly and agree that regional jets aren't the problem. In fact, as you pointed out, they will bring speed and expediency to the system. And in certain jurisdictions, they will bring access to service that just doesn't exist and can't be provided anywhere else.
So I thank you for being here and thank you for your testimony.
We'll now move to Benjamin DeCosta, the Aviation General Manager of Hartsfield Atlanta International.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DECOSTA. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to share my views today, Chairman Duncan and Congressman Sweeney.
I'm the Aviation General Manager at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport. It's the busiest airport in the world, and I'm sorry to say, it's also the most heavily delayed. Last year we had 6.9 million minutes of aggregate delay.
As Hartsfield's general manager and as the former general manager of Newark International Airport, another airport suffering from great delays, customer service has always been my top priority. So we really appreciate your focus on this critical customer service issue.
Nearly 15 million people flew in and out of Hartsfield Atlanta this past June and July. Unfortunately, these passengers experienced approximately 1 million minutes of aircraft delay. In 1999, according to FAA data, delays at Hartsfield alone cost airlines approximately $230 million. This delay imposes tremendous disruptions and costs to millions of passengers and businesses that are affected.
The FAA's latest forecast indicates that airline passenger traffic will increase 59 percent to a billion passengers in the next 10 years. Those forecasts suggest further that some 70 percent of that traffic growth will occur at the Nation's 28 or 30 largest airports, which of course includes Hartsfield Atlanta. Ironically, these are the very airports for which the primary causes of delays is a lack of adequate capacity, runway capacity in particular. To bring about any meaningful improvement in airline delays, therefore, it is crucial that airport operators expand capacity and expand it now.
To this end, Atlanta has underway a $5.4 billion capital improvement program expanding airfield and terminal facilities to keep up with the tremendous demand. Adequate Federal funding for this program and those at other airports critical to the national air space system will continue to be vital.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have reached agreement with the airlines on our 10 year, $5.4 billion program.
Partnering and dialogue is essential on all facets of providing safe and reliable air service. We are grateful for the Department of Transportation Secretary Slater for convening the recent meetings of the aviation industry leaders and his visit with us in Atlanta to work on short term solutions to this summer's problems. Working together, there is no problem Americans can't solve.
Congressional action is also key. This Congress, by enacting AIR-21 in April, made a major contribution towards assuring that financial resources are available for constructing airport and airway capacity. We urge Congress to provide full appropriations for FAA capital and operating costs for fiscal year 2001 under AIR-21 before it adjourns next month, specifically, the increase in the Airport Improvement Program's funding to $3.2 billion for calendar year 2001 and the authorization for local increases in the passenger facility charge levels from $3 to $4.50 per passenger for high priority projects.
We also encourage you in the Congress to help FAA by continuing to provide funding for runway and runway extension projects at large hub airports that will produce the greatest national delay reduction benefit. An example of this is a letter of intent from the FAA that we have received to provide $75 million in AIP discretionary funds through the year 2009 for our now approved 6,000 foot commuter runway.
But of course, we know that 6,000 foot runway won't suffice in today's busy traffic environment. We are in the environmental process to lengthen that to a 9,000 foot full air carrier service runway. So we will request more funds as we seek to extend that runway.
Voluntary industry actions are another vital part of the solution to the problem we have. There is much criticism that airlines schedule more departures for certain peak hours at major hub airports than can be accommodated by the airport or by the air traffic control system, even assuming good weather. We hope that the airline industry can exercise some voluntary self-discipline and turn to other means of satisfying this customer demand, such as perhaps employing off-peak pricing strategies.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For example, Mr. Chairman, at Hartsfield, we are working with Delta and the other airlines to reduce delays and their impacts on customer service. Delta has extended the morning and evening hours between which they schedule flights. Delta has also increased the number of connecting banks to allow faster flight connections, which helps reduce pockets of concentrated activity in our terminals.
We know that strong partnerships at the local level will be key to our efforts. An example, approximately one year ago, we at Hartsfield completely reconstructed one of our four runways in 33 and one half days, at a cost of approximately $52 million. This incredible project would not have happened without a strong partnership among all the players, including the Department of Aviation and my own staff, all the airlines, and particularly Delta and ASA, and all levels of FAA, including our local tower chief and his staff, the FAA airports district office, the southern region and headquarter staff. Partnering that puts the customer first will yield the best results.
We know that adequate staffing is also critical. Increasing airfield capacity at the 28 airports that will receive 74 percent of the forecast traffic growth over the next decade should receive special help from the DOT and the FAA beyond the capital financing that we've already been discussing here this morning. The FAA has, for example, too few experienced professionals on staff to guide the environmental impact statement process for new runways and runway extensions, such as the EIS that we have underway now in Atlanta to extend our 6,000 foot commuter runway to a 9,000-foot full air service runway.
We should also ensure that the FAA staff has all the resources they need to carry out the mission expeditiously. Every week of delay in commissioning our proposed extended fifth runway will cost the airlines operating at Hartsfield $5 million. I have a sign behind my desk that says that every week of delay costs $5 million. And we've asked the FAA staff members to also carry such signs, to keep people focused on the need for speed, if we're going to be successful.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This delay cost, of course, doesn't count the considerable cost to passengers of their time wasted or the missed connections due to canceled flights.
And finally, structural changes in the air traffic control modernization and operation are essential. Mayor Campbell, the Mayor of Atlanta, was on the National Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997. And we continue to support the Commission's recommendation for the establishment of a performance based organization in the FAA. In our view, AIR-21 did not go quite far enough in changing the structure of the air traffic control organization, its funding and function.
Many of today's Federal aviation user taxes should be converted, in our view, to user fees for airline operations and the ATC system. These funds, we think, should be dedicated for the improvement of the system that our Nation deserves.
We hope that the 107th Congress, when it convenes next January, will look at this issue of ATC procurement and operation again in light of the increasing air traffic delays that have occurred last summer and this summer.
In conclusion, we look forward to the report from DOT on best practices. And at Atlanta, we commit ourselves to implementing as many as we can in service to the customer. Thank you for the time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. DeCosta, thank you for your testimony.
We'll go to my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. DeCosta for being a good example of a quote that I quoted at the beginning. He's done a great job of bringing the players together and reaching consensus in Atlanta. We really appreciate that.
I want to first make an observation, then ask both Mr. Carty and Mr. DeCosta a question. There's been some references to off-peak pricing and things of that nature to try to deal with ''over-scheduling'' problems. But it's my experience that you schedule when the people are there and demanding the flights. You don't just schedule it just hoping they'll come. That's pretty much the nature of that type of business.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DeCosta, my question to you is, what percentage in Hartsfield is business travel? Do you have a number for that?
Mr. DECOSTA. I think it's about 45 percent.
Mr. ISAKSON. And of that, I imagine, these peak hours are maybe 80 or 90 percent, is that correct?
Mr. DECOSTA. I don't know precisely the number. But during the peaks, you'll find a very large percentage of business travelers.
Mr. ISAKSON. If today the fifth runway was in place, which I know you wish was the case—
Mr. DECOSTA. We need it now.
Mr. ISAKSON.—how far would that go toward solving the over-scheduling problem as it exists at Hartsfield?
Mr. DECOSTA. If we had the fifth runway today, our nine minutes of average delay, or our 910,000 flights annually, would be cut in half.
Mr. ISAKSON. So while we talk about off-peak pricing and we talk about voluntary and/or anti-trust exemptions for voluntary scheduling, the truth of the matter is, the solution to the current dilemma is to expand the capacity of the major airports in this country, is that correct?
Mr. DECOSTA. I think that that's probably one of the major facets of delay reduction, expand capacity through new runways. But a lot of the delay that we experience also occurs during peak periods. You don't have nearly as much delay during the quiet periods at airports.
I might also add that the question of weather delays, a lot has been talked about, well, you can't control the weather and a lot of the delays are due to weather. But if you don't have a lot of flights leaving at one time, and if you're not surpassing your poor weather capacity at the airport, you don't have that many delays.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You will if you have serious thunderstorms or snowstorms. But rain or other delays that cause you to be in an IFR condition, you wouldn't have the delays but for the volume and the scheduling during peaks. Not nearly as much as we have today.
Mr. ISAKSON. One of the things you and some of the others referred to in AIR-21, I think when I looked at the numbers on the $870 million to $1 billion cost of our fifth runway, passenger facility charges is contributing about 20 percent of that, is that not correct?
Mr. DECOSTA. That's right.
Mr. ISAKSON. And I think that was increased by this Committee during AIR-21 and its passage. So these are user fees, these very users who are doing the demand are certainly contributing to building the runway.
Mr. Carty, just a question. Having been in business for a long, long time, having been unfortunately once in an anti-trust situation, I have to ask this question. If the airline industry received an anti-trust exemption so as to collaborate on scheduling, is there a lot of reality that those competitors could collaborate in fact to somewhat lessen the load in this peak hour scheduling?
Mr. CARTY. It's a very fair question, Congressman. And I think Fred Smith suggested that he didn't believe it could happen, and he may be—
Mr. ISAKSON. I don't believe it can happen.
Mr. CARTY. He may be right. I will only cite the example of the Crystal City meetings that were had after the PATCO strike, when it was necessary to limit capacity. And they were difficult, but under the anti-trust immunity we had to discuss schedules at that time, it did work. I suspect that at a place like LaGuardia, which is today's crisis, I wouldn't for a minute suggest that we even consider this broadly, but where there is a clear crisis, I'm not sure that it isn't worth trying before we drop back to slots. Because I think Fred is right. A place like LaGuardia is a crisis.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I don't think people realize just how bad it's got, because it's only been getting bad in the last couple of months, since we've been able to avail ourselves of the new slot flexibility at LaGuardia.
I think the saddest thing, and this gets back to your earlier point, Congressman, is the slot numbers at LaGuardia haven't changed since they were imposed in 1968, with the exception of a few exemptions for new entering carriers. So what that says is we haven't increased capacity at LaGuardia since 1968.
I think if we look to a solution that involves anti-trust, temporary anti-trust immunity or slots, I would suggest strongly that Congress hold FAA accountable for coming to them on a high frequency basis, explaining how those slot limits were being raised, so we can achieve what you describe as just more capacity to do things that our customers want us to do. And that is, to fly airplanes.
One last note I'll make about peak pricing. LaGuardia is at such a crisis level today that there are already nine different half hour periods. I don't know where people are going to move the flights. There isn't any valleys left at LaGuardia. And I just think the right solution is more capacity there. And there are several ways of getting at it, but none of them for next month. Next month, we've got a crisis.
Mr. SKEEN. But if I might add, if you don't mind, yes, the peak hour pricing is a tremendous threat to the regional airline industry, carriers such as ourselves. Because what it means is we'll be priced out of those markets and small communities would be the big loser in that. Because we cannot afford to carry the cost, when you only have 50 seats of revenue to spread those costs over.
So basically it means the regionals and small communities don't get served at that time.
Mr. CARTY. I would just observe, and I agree with Mr. Skeen completely, the biggest markets that allow for the biggest airplanes will operate at the peak if you go to peak hour pricing. And the little airplanes, therefore by definition the smaller communities, will end up at noon and the off hours.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ISAKSON. Well, what you said really validates my opinion in terms of the airlines collaborating. I think it would work in response to an isolated crisis in a specific location. But for us to operate under an illusion that across the system that type of thing would work would be ludicrous. And I understand, Mr. Skeen, exactly what you're saying about the pricing.
And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the extra time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Isakson.
Mr. McGovern?
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Carty, I just have a couple of quick questions. I wonder if you could describe for us the results to date of American Airlines' altered incentive compensation program, which as I understand it now ties schedule dependability to employees' bonuses. And the second question I want to ask involves how American Airlines is isolating its Chicago system from the rest of the network. I wonder if you could describe that in a little detail for us as well.
Mr. CARTY. You bet. The first has to do with the fact that this year, in order to get absolute management focus on this, we took what has historically been an incentive plan based on financial performance of the company and broadened it to include operational measures, things like our performance in comparative surveys versus our competitors, and an on-time arrival, and that is in my view, although it's early to tell, it's causing a renewed management focus, just as you'd expect it to do, on those issues.
Mr. MCGOVERN. When did it get implemented?
Mr. CARTY. We implemented it about the end of the first quarter of this year. We then of course ran into what everybody knows was an air traffic control and weather crisis in the spring and summer. But even during that period, we began to see the pieces of the operation that management can control, getting the airplane out on time, getting the door closed, getting things to happen. We began to see the dial moving.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And as we moved it into the fall, when that weather problem was diminished, and the air traffic control problem, with the exception of LaGuardia's peak, we're really starting to see the numbers move. So I'm completely satisfied that that's a sensible management practice.
What we've done with respect to the Chicago hub is a little bit different. Airlines schedule their fleets to obviously maximize the use of their capital and therefore their airplanes. And so you try to schedule an airplane to leave as quickly as possible from the city it arrives in. And what that might mean in an airline like American is an airplane leaving our Chicago hub flies to Hartford, and the logical place for it to fly next, because of the timing of the banks in Chicago and DFW, is to fly back to DFW, not to Chicago.
So we bring it back through DFW out to the west coast, and then maybe back to Chicago, maybe back to DFW.
What we've found is Chicago is substantially less in our control than DFW, for a variety of reasons. One, we have a big competitive hub there. Chicago is really the only city left that has two really big hub operations in American and United. Not of course a competitive boon to the residents of Chicago, but on the other hand, it makes it even more difficult to predict when you schedule an airplane whether United will schedule an airplane right on top of you. And they have the same problem, of course.
That in an environment where there weren't dramatic constraints would be fine. Chicago is, as I think all of you know, is like LaGuardia, it's been a slot controlled airport. We really have done a lot to change Chicago, but there are a lot of the elements of the Chicago infrastructure in which there's been no capacity increase. For example, Chicago's needed a runway for a long time.
So what we've found out is we're more prone to take delays in Chicago as a consequence of that than we are in DFW. We also know for a fact that Chicago is more prone to winter weather as we enter the winter season than a hub like DFW. So what we've said is, look, we're going to make some sacrifices in the utilization of our assets to keep a Chicago problem from corrupting the DFW hub or corrupting our Miami operation or corrupting our TransCon. So every airplane that comes out of Chicago is going to go back into Chicago.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So the rest of the airplanes will be isolated from something, unique weather, capacity problems in Chicago that affect it. So we think that's going to add a couple of points to our overall system dependability. And that's a good thing.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Have you begun the program?
Mr. CARTY. It kicks in November 1st. It's obviously a highly complex rescheduling. We made a bunch of changes at DFW for October 1st. This next round of changes goes into effect November 1st.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Skeen, could you give us some examples of the technical capabilities of President aircraft cockpits that could add flexibility to air space management?
Mr. SKEEN. GPS. We were the, and we may still be the only carrier, I'm not real sure if that's an accurate statement today, but we put GPS, we made a decision back in 1997 to put GPS in all of our turboprop equipment, even 19 seat aircraft, at a sizeable investment. Again, when you only have 19 seats to recoup that investment.
And the payback on that was that we had worked with the FAA and with great cooperation with the FAA, I may add, to have special GPS routes outside the normal freeways that we all clog every day. The major airlines benefit because we get out of their way, especially with the turboprop flying, so it actually expedites their flights, as well as move us onto a different byway.
But it was painfully slow. And that is something, I listened to the comments today and they were very well taken by us, in terms of Mr. Slater and Ms. Garvey, but the thing is the time it takes to implement. Those routes, we made a decision in 1997, and then there was a problem in how they were accepted by the HOST computer, which we took substantial delays on that. And then once that was resolved, we were slowed to a process of entering 20 routings would take 56 days the way the cycle worked in the automation process.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To make a long story short, we got up to around 80 GPS routings and in some cases, they could save as much as 20 minutes because of some of the circuitous routings we were having to do around the Washington, D.C. area in particular, because of the various control centers here.
But that technology, today we go over fixed points in the sky. The technology with GPS, there really is an infinite number of points that can be done dynamically. So you've got to have the capabilities in the cockpit, you've got to have the system and the methodology really with the control centers of the FAA to be able to capitalize on that.
Mr. CARTY. And that's obviously part of what Free Flight is all about. That's where we're going. And it will do a lot to take away the bottlenecks in the air traffic system itself. It won't solve airport problems where there's not enough runway and not enough taxiway. That's why I said at the outset, we need to put all these pieces together at the same time. One piece is a big help, but in the end, you just end up bottlenecking, unless you're attacking the system as a system.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Just a final question of Mr. DeCosta. You note in your testimony that the FAA estimates that in 1999, delays at Hartsfield alone cost airlines approximately $230 million. You mentioned some of the things you've done to try to address that. But I guess what I want to know is, if you could maybe describe a little bit more some of the actions you took in 2000 to reduce the number of delays, and some of the things you tried that didn't work.
Mr. DECOSTA. Well, what we've done last year is that we were able to replace our 9,000 foot runway with no appreciable increase in delays. We have a 9,000 foot runway that had reached the end of its useful life. As many of the airports across the Nation will experience infrastructure failures, or at least you come to the end of the useful life, there needs to be methods for changing the way we do maintenance and the way we reconstruct or rehabilitate the airport without closing it.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And so we took our four runways, reached a conclusion that we couldn't drop to three, basically destroy our schedules at the airport, and we built a taxiway, extended it and then converted it to a runway. And we used that taxiway as a runway. So we're going from four runways to a three and a half runways.
It turned out we went from four to four, because with the kind of expertise that our tower and the cooperation of the airlines, despite the fact that we had 11 days of rain, where we planned for four, and we did this during the driest season, after looking at weather data for years, we were able to pull it off. So that's one example of how thinking through the issue, planning ahead and entering into a dialogue with the FAA and the airlines, we were able to keep our record of growth at the airport, despite the fact that we had to change out a whole runway.
Mr. MCGOVERN. In closing, if I can't, I'm not familiar with your airport. I fly into Boston all the time, or into Providence. But just by way of closing, I guess one concern I have is when people talk about always building more runways at some of these bigger airports, there are other problems that arise. For example, in Boston there's a big controversy right now on whether there should be an additional runway. And I think the business community and the airlines all want an additional runway because it makes access easier to get in and out of Boston Logan Airport.
On the other side, there's environmental concerns. There are neighborhood concerns. There are concerns involving automobile traffic and access to the airport. I mean, right now, it's a nightmare to get in and out of Logan. I guess I would say right now again, as I said in the beginning, I really do think, even though I know there are some significant efforts being made and I know American has been out there and Mr. Skeen, I know you have been very involved in this, trying to take advantage of some of these regional airports around the country.
Because I think at some point, there's only so much space where you can build additional runways, we're either going to have to take some drastic measures or we're going to have to be much more creative and much more aggressive and try to develop some of these smaller airports, these regional airports.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DECOSTA. At Hartsfield, we have had the same level of issues that most airports face in terms of environmental concerns. And also constrained by land. Hartsfield is surrounded by interstate highways. What we've done is we've bought up 550 acres. We've got probably the most expensive runway in America underway. It will be perhaps as much as a billion dollars before we are finished. It requires us to move 27 million cubic yards of earth and to build a taxiway system and a runway over an interstate highway.
But to get to that point, we also had to face the community issues and the environmental issues. I personally negotiated with local public officials on behalf of local communities for almost a year in order to get their concurrence for this runway.
And you know the reason that I think they finally came around? It's because there's a recognition that Hartsfield contributes $16.8 billion of economic activity to Metro Atlanta and the State of Georgia.
The other thing is that we were able to negotiate some things that these communities want. The surrounding communities, if they do the right thing, can benefit economically from the activity at the airport.
Mr. MCGOVERN. And I appreciate that, and they're trying to do the same thing in Boston. But the other realization is, even if they succeed in getting the additional runway, three or four years from now, we'll have the same problem. And that is, we're going to need more runways, more space. So it doesn't end. It may solve the problem in the short term, but we have a long term problem, too.
Mr. CARTY. Congressman, if I can just make an observation about regional airports. This is often frustrating, I'm sure, for many of you, as to how quickly you get these reliever airports. But whether the airlines are paying attention, I can assure at least that our airline, and I'd be very surprised if it wasn't true at other airlines, we're looking for an opportunity we think can turn into a profitable application.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I've been in the industry long enough to remember when Newark was an under-utilized reliever airport for the New York area. San Jose Airport and Orange County Airport in California were very small airports, with very small airplanes going in and out of them. Yesterday I announced service between San Jose and Paris and San Jose and Taipei.
So as these markets change, carriers jump on them. And in a very short period of time, some of what we used to think of as a reliever or regional airport is suddenly—it happens. The airlines start in, more people start using the airport. The more people use it, the more airlines fly there. Pretty soon, more corporations put distribution outlets or assembly facilities near those airports.
And suddenly something that you never thought was going to be a serious airport is a significant one. And it really is true, the three I cited are just examples. You're going to see that, I think, all over the country.
I don't think it will relieve the pressure on the big airports. I think we've got to stay focused on adding the kind of capacity that Ben talks about. Because there is tremendous demand.
But as these airports get busier and busier, people do seek out other places to fly from. And I think we're going to see that, I have no doubt that we're going to see it in the airport that you and I are both addressing.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions, so we can move along, for the panelists. I would have enjoyed being able to ask these questions with Secretary Slater sitting with you, because some of them relate to probably some of the essential disagreements.
And out of Secretary Slater's testimony, one of the important things I think that was said a little while ago was in response to the question I asked him regarding the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and whether they had the authority to cancel slots. And I know your airport is not a slot restricted airport, Mr. DeCosta. But I just am interested in wondering what your response would be. Do you believe your authority would have that authority?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DECOSTA. To be honest with you, I'm not sure. When I was an airport manager with the Port Authority, I managed Newark Airport for four and a half years before going to Atlanta, I recall we had discussions about our ability to affect how flights could be scheduled. And there are some theories that we discussed that may withstand some scrutiny.
I'm not familiar with the specific details of AIR-21, and so I'd hesitate to say more on it. I also know that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the executives there, who I've worked closely with for many years, are not in the habit of going off half cocked without some basis for what they're doing.
And so I would also add that I think the real answer to this is the dialogue that's taken place between the carriers. And I think the limited immunity, although it's no magic bullet, I think deserves an opportunity to work. And I would try that before reimposing slots at a national level.
I think the one thing that has occurred is that they are taking some proactive measures at LaGuardia has brought everybody to the table.
Mr. SWEENEY. I wouldn't disagree. You mention in your testimony and you speak rather extensively about your frustrations in obtaining environmental plan approvals. If I could boil it down, are the delays related to FAA oversight? Or are the delays related to, or is there a proportion of the delay that is related to the preparation and the needs of airport authorities to understand completely all the regulations and rules that they need to comply? How long does it take the FAA, I should ask this question, how long does it take the FAA to approve?
Mr. DECOSTA. Well, it's a complicated story. And the story changes when you move from airport to airport and runway to runway. If you look at how long it's taken some of the runways that are on the table now, St. Louis, Seattle, you'll see that they are between three and four years, just in the environmental process.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We started ours, after getting the approval of the local community and having the ability to acquire the land, we started our environmental review process for the runway. And working closely with the FAA, we nailed down a schedule at day one. And that schedule calls for 28 months for us to go from beginning to a record of decision.
But I can tell you that it requires us to manage it week in and week out. And anything that looks like it's going to delay it even one week, we're on there having a discussion. And it's not just FAA or the EPA. But there are a range of other agencies that are also looking at it from their point of view.
And one kind of overriding factor is that everybody is looking over their shoulder to keep from losing a lawsuit. And so you're trying to do an environmental review process, at the same time you want to do it so precisely and so correctly that no one will challenge you and win a lawsuit, disrupt the process and throw you into even more delays.
I have a kind of an experienced laymen's view of the process. I think it's important to have a process so that you know the environmental impacts. But I think we've gone a little bit to the point of not paying attention on a need for building runways in a more timely fashion.
Mr. SWEENEY. Which I find interesting, because in a portion of your testimony, you directly call on and encourage the notion that we need to find some voluntary agreements and compliances between the interested parties. But you also don't rule out the notion that we need to either, the Federal Government or the airport proprietors, need to look at possibly using some regulatory means. I guess the old statement, be careful what you wish for, might apply here.
I'll finish up quickly, because we have a vote. Mr. Carty, I didn't have the opportunity to thank you for your testimony. It was important testimony. These two questions, as succinctly as you can, if you can answer, I would specifically like to have Secretary Slater sit with you.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In your testimony, you mention that some of the solutions to our current problems have been already addressed, and they were addressed in the 1997 Mineta Commission. Maybe very quickly, if you could outline some of those for us, and then maybe conclude by telling me why you don't think DOT has implemented.
Mr. CARTY. Congressman, I can't tell you exactly why things take longer than they seem to need to take to get done. But my perception has been that this has not got enough urgent attention by any of us, by the airlines, by the DOT, by FAA, perhaps even by Congress. We took a long time to get where we wanted to get on funding in AIR-21. We got there, and I think Congress took the lead on that.
But the crisis that we experienced this summer and started to experience in the spring, I really do think energized a lot of forces. And things that probably should have happened a year earlier, maybe even two years earlier, maybe even three years earlier, are finally getting the focus that they need.
I am distressed that in the complex economy that the U.S. is, it seems to take crisis to solve problems. I wish that were not the case, but I think that is the case today.
Mr. SWEENEY. What specifically, though,on the Mineta Commission?
Mr. CARTY. You know, I wish I had a list in front of me. But one thing that I will refer to, and that AIR-21 spoke to to some degree, was structural reform of the FAA Act. Chairman Shuster this morning in a press conference said that he's a long way from convinced that we've gone far enough in achieving that structural reform. And that may be the case.
But I will say this, that every bit helps. And AIR-21 has got some structural reform in it. Under Jane Garvey's leadership, I think she will move quickly to take advantage of that structural reform. But I think if there's a single thing in the Mineta Commission I wished we'd moved faster on, it was the structural reform that was embedded in AIR-21.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SWEENEY. I agree with you, I think that crisis does tend to motivate, I think Bob Boyle up in New York is proving that point this week, as we speak.
Mr. CARTY. Yes.
Mr. SWEENEY. One final question. I understand that you were, and I've reviewed the outline for developing the ATC modernization transition plan, I understand you were essentially the principal author or the person who organized the ATA's plans and outline. How receptive do you think DOT is going to be, and how receptive have they been?
Mr. CARTY. Again, up until recently, I think things have moved more slowly than we would have liked. But I think most of what now is in the ATA paper, outlining our view of what needs to happen, are things that we and the FAA now concur on. And I'll give a lot of credit to, I get the credit, because I'm the CEO, there's a guy that works for me who's the vice chairman of the company, Bob Baker, who's shown a tremendous amount of leadership on this, not just from American's perspective, but from the industry's. And I've got to give a lot of credit to Jane Garvey and Monty Belger for being receptive to working with us on it.
So I think, as I said, we're on the right track, it's too bad it took us so long to get here, but we're on the right track
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, and thank all of the panelists, Mr. Skeen as well. I had questions, but we're going to have to re-contact you.
We're going to recess for a brief period of time so the members can go vote, and then we'll directly come back to the hearing room and conclude with the final panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. SWEENEY. I'd like to reconvene the hearing and call our final panel.
Joining us to conclude today's hearing will be Mr. Stephen Baker, Vice President, Federal Aviation Administration Conference, Federal Managers Association; Mr. John Carr, President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Gentlemen, welcome. We're looking forward to your testimony.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Baker, you may begin.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN A. BAKER, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE, FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN CARR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; AND MARK D. HOWES, VICE PRESIDENT, NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, AEROSPACE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Federal Managers Association, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to offer insight into the growing problem of flight delays and cancellations and their role in decreased customer satisfaction.
I have extensive experience spanning more than 24 years as an Air Traffic Controller, Training Manager, Staff Specialist, Air Traffic Manager, Operational Supervisor, and I am currently a Quality Assurance and Training Specialist at the Kansas City International Tower.
FMA is deeply concerned about the negative effects of delays and cancellations as they relate to safety and economic impact. It is imperative that we address and cure all problems that undermine the safety of the flying public and serve to compromise the economic feasibility of air transportation. To this end, FMA would like to take a moment to thank you and your colleagues in both the House and Senate for your support of AIR-21, as well as the fiscal 2000 supplemental funding for the FAA. These funds are critical to the agency's continuing efforts to improve the efficiency of our aviation system.
Notwithstanding your commitment to provide the necessary funding, resources for the FAA will, however, remain constrained. As we move into the 21st century, enlightened and challenged with leaps in technology only dreamed of yesterday, we must ensure the proper oversight of this progression and transition. There are many elements to this intricate dilemma of delays: aircraft scheduling, weather, air space, systems and equipment and the human factor are all pieces of this puzzle. They must all fit together and work together or the industry, the taxpayer and the flying public will suffer.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ensuring the safety of the flying public must be our highest priority. Since 1995, aircraft delays have increased more than 50 percent. Yet with all the studies and evaluations that have been conducted, clear solutions to the problem seem to elude this agency. FMA believes that through an examination of past and present experiences, a vital component has not been sufficiently scrutinized.
The piece of the puzzle that we at FMA know to be underestimated and under-addressed is management oversight and support in our operational facilities. The first-level supervisor in the air traffic control operational environment is the liaison between safety and efficiency. Second level supervision in the larger air traffic facilities is an integral part of this safety efficiency formula, as are the support specialists who provide training, procedural development, and quality assurance in our field facilities, our regional office, and our headquarters.
Since 1995, the FAA has embarked on an initiative to improve the agency's efficiency, following the recommendations of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, to move to a 15 to 1 employee to supervisor ratio throughout the Federal Government. The FAA, in an attempt to comply with guidelines set forth in this initiative, began reducing management oversight and staff support in its air traffic facilities.
The rapid increase in aircraft delays and negative safety indicators can be at least partly attributed to the FAA's goal of meeting an arbitrarily determined ratio of 10 to 1. This continuing decrease in operational oversight and staff support specialists has a comprehensive and detrimental effect on operations, including increases in delays, as well as the safety factors such as runway incursions, surface incidents, operational deviations, and worst of all, operational errors.
The Federal Managers Association has encouraged the FAA for the last 18 months to conduct a needs-based assessment of each air traffic control facility to determine appropriate supervisory and support staffing levels. The current staffing plan calls for a 10 to 1 employee to supervisor ratio. While that maybe an appropriate ratio for the Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00 non safety related work force, we believe it is not what the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and NPR originally had in mind.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The studies OPM and NPR conducted in trying to reach the proper ratio were based on work force samples of Johnson Sausage and the Ford Motor Company, not on highly stressed and emotionally charged organizations that are at any given moment responsible for the safe and expeditious movement of travelers.
The FAA's most recent study indicated a need for a seven to one ratio in air traffic control towers. Yet the agency continues to push ahead toward the goal of 10 to 1.
What has changed is the structure of personnel management within the FAA. Management oversight and staff support have been reduced. We are now seeing the results of a growth in air traffic, combined with a reduction in oversight and staff support at the very point in time we are attempting to bring on new hardware, software, and training management initiatives. In fact, last year's congressionally mandated NAPA report specifically highlights the many deficiencies stemming from this lack of oversight.
All of these factors are now working against one another to create an atmosphere ripe for mistakes. This is apparent in the FAA's abysmal record of delays, operational errors, operational deviations, and runway incursions. An overall 8 percent increase in operations from 1995 to 1999, (that's the actual number of airplanes added to the system) should in no way increase the number of operational errors by 53 percent, operational deviations by 47 percent, runway incursions by 73 percent, and delays by 58 percent during the same period.
The relationship is quite obviously far from linear. These increases in the safety measures by which the FAA gauges its performance are tied directly to the decrease in management oversight and staff reductions, coupled with low morale due to inequity of pay reform. FMA believes that in order to minimize delays as well as operational errors, deviations and runway incursions, the agency must reinstate management and support staff in the air traffic facilities to 1994 levels, just prior to the onset of this exponential growth in negative safety indicators.
This will ensure proper management oversight and support for the technological advancements that are upon us now and for those in the future. In addition, Mr. Chairman, we have provided in our written testimony several other valuable recommendations for the agency. However, in the interest of time, I will not go through them all. But I will be happy to answer any questions relating to them.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In closing, Mr. Chairman, it is with great concern that we approach the subject of delays because of the increased possibilities of the negative impact on the safety of the flying public. When planes begin to back up, the system becomes tense. Controllers, while experts in what they do, are nevertheless human. The potential for mistakes greatly increases as the system burgeons and planes are forced into areas that are outside standard procedure.
On the ground or in the air, delays increase the potential for a mistake, however accidental. That is why increased, not decreased, oversight, as well as ongoing awareness and education, are key elements in maintaining operational integrity and system efficiency. We at the Federal Managers Association look forward to working with the FAA, Congress and all interested parties to ensure the safety of the flying public, to optimize the efficiency of the FAA and to maximize the return to the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again for allowing FMA to present our insight. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker, for your straightforward and succinct testimony.
Joining us on the panel as well is Mark Howes, who is Vice President of New Business Development, Honeywell International. Welcome. And we will go now to Mr. John Carr.
Mr. CARR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is John Carr. I am President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and I represent over 15,000 air traffic controllers serving the FAA, the Department of Defense and the private sector.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss the problems contributing to airline delays. I may be new to my position as president of NATCA, but not to the problem of aviation delays. I have over 20 years of experience as an air traffic controller, including 10 years at Chicago O'Hare. And I would like for you to know that the men and women I represent want to be part of the solution to this complex and safety critical problem.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You know, the news is just as fresh as last month's headlines. Right here on the cover of U.S. News it says, runway rage, long lines, long waits, continued dissatisfaction with the progress of national air space system modernization and the mounting problem of aviation gridlock, has led some industry and government officials to call for privatization or restructuring of the FAA. I am here today to tell you that privatization of air traffic control is not the answer. Privatization will not increase airport capacity. It will not speed up construction of more runways or airports. Safe and reliable equipment will not be developed or installed any faster.
Privatization would instead chart a course towards undoing the benefits of AIR-21 and fracture the very delicate balance of a work force that holds this system together. In fact, we believe the safety of the flying public and the commercial efficiency of the air traffic control system is so intimately related to the exercise of the public interest as to mandate its performance by Federal employees, which as you know is the very definition of inherently governmental under OMB Circular A-76.
In today's environment, air traffic controllers are under extreme pressure to squeeze more aircraft into already congested air space. We go to enormous lengths to ensure the safety of millions of flyers each year, and we have no incentive to delay or hinder air traffic. Our motivation is to move aircraft as safely and efficiently as possible.
However, the primary function of an air traffic controller is to ensure the safety of the flying public, and we should not be put in a position of compromising that safety to accommodate more passengers, more flights or more profits.
Aviation delays are a multi-faceted problem, and no single element is responsible. The truth is, the air traffic equation is unbalanced. Too many planes and passengers, not enough airports and electronics, and too few people trained to control it.
Now, I wish I could take credit for offering that very succinct analysis, but actually it was written some 32 years ago, in the pages of this Life Magazine. I guess Harry Truman was right after all when he said, the history we do not know is that which we are doomed to repeat.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A number of contributing factors, including the growth in the number of travelers, scheduling decisions by airlines, bad weather, the snails pace of airport construction and the under-utilization of other airports, have led to the record number of aviation delays. One simple, yet controversial, solution is just to pour more concrete.
The need for a fourth New York airport has been evident for more than a decade and its whereabouts debated fruitlessly for just as long. And that's not me talking again either, that's out of a 32 year old magazine. That dates New York's need for a fourth airport to 1958, some 42 years ago, and some 20 years before this Congress deregulated the airlines.
Construction of new terminals, taxiways, runways and gates has not kept pace with passengers or growth. Capacity can be increased through airport construction, and NATCA commends the Subcommittee on the passage of AIR-21, which we believe provides necessary financial resources for airport improvements.
Another solution we believe requires closer examination is the use of our Nation's existing airports. We believe certain city airports are more uniquely suited for increased flights than associated hubs. Most hub airports throughout this country have under-used secondary airports nearby. We believe that increased usage of these airports by passengers and airlines alike will help alleviate system congestion and delays.
All you really have to do is look at the success enjoyed by Southwest Airlines to see there is unused capacity waiting at secondary airports.
Unprecedented economic growth has fueled demand for more frequent service, and the airlines have rushed in to accommodate this demand. The problem is that our systems capacity plays no part in those airline decisions. As long as the airlines continue to over-book runways, especially during peak hours, delays will continue and passengers will wait. Even if you provide controllers with the most up to date equipment, delays would not be eliminated. We would simply be better able to keep track of your delayed aircraft.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Another solution to easing airline delays is the decriminalization of operational errors and deviations committed by both pilots and air traffic controllers, those which do not jeopardize safety. While air traffic controllers are using 1970s radar with 1980s radios and 1990s scopes, we are separating airplanes using 1950s standards. Because we face serious disciplinary action for operational errors or minor deviations, only the reckless will put their careers at risk to run that minimum spacing. The slightest increase in separation to ensure against an operational error means increased miles in trail. And this increase, no matter how slight, has a direct impact on system capacity. We are currently working with the FAA on this very matter.
NATCA is a also involved in national air space redesign initiatives which will help alleviate delays. Together with the FAA, we have created numerous teams and design groups, each manned by specialists tasked with alleviating choke points and built-in systemic congestion. Critical sectors and routes have been identified and we are working closely with the FAA and the users to rapidly change the dynamics of these traffic patterns while carefully examining each and every change from a safety perspective.
As Life Magazine put it three decades ago, these patterns sometimes get so clogged with aircraft that New York bound airplanes pile up on the ground at airports as far away as San Francisco and Miami. We are committed to finding a safety based solution to this decades old dilemma.
Under the leadership of Jane Garvey, the FAA has turned the corner in its modernization efforts with the help of controllers, engineers and other employees. We believe a single organization with one mission, one head and no ambiguities about the priority of human life, is in this Nation's best interests. As air traffic controllers, safety is our business and business is good. As air traffic controllers, we are your partners in fulfilling that single, very fundamental mission.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you very much for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Carr, for that in-depth testimony.
We will now turn to Mr. Howes' testimony.
Mr. HOWES. We're going to try a little multimedia here, and see if that works for us.
What we're going to attempt to do is give some illustrations of several of the technologies that have been mentioned by several of the speakers as the day has progressed. And we're going to use this as a means to demonstrate just a few of them as we go forward.
Our written testimony reflects a review of root causes of the current condition and describes a set of possible solutions. Honeywell proposes that concepts, tools and technologies required to increase capacity exists now, or are close at hand. What is needed is more effective use of those airborne technologies that are already present on most aircraft, along with the commitment to introduce additional technology and procedural changes throughout both the airborne and ground-based operating environments.
Although our perspective here is one of technology, the system solution is not necessarily a matter of just installing equipment. Certainly new technologies are in development this very moment which can facilitate further operational improvements. However, capacity must never be increased at the expense of safety, solutions must always be judged in light of their effect on total system safety.
Honeywell is attempting to address a series of systems improvements that facilitate safe, reliable, cost-effective high capacity throughput. In order to develop solutions, we've talked a bit about root causes, and for our perspective, we've broken them into three root causes: enroute system capacity, airport and terminal area capacity and airline operations.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The current national infrastructure is built upon a foundation of jetways and divided air space designed to ensure aircraft separation. The current ATC regulations and procedures, which define how the air space is used, are based upon a technology era of over 50 years ago. This complete system relies on voice communications and radar surveillance which limit the use of the air space, and is heavily influenced by deteriorated weather conditions.
There are solutions, which when applied effectively will significantly enhance system capacity. Taken in total this list of available or nearly available solutions will, one, create an ability to more effectively deal with current constraints introduced by weather, two, provide a means of forecasting and avoiding effects of congestion, and three, increase flexibility in the use of the air space through sharing information and subsequent decision making.
Let's take a look at one of these solutions from the previous list, optimized flight planning. Aircraft today follow a circuitous route that is based upon the established flight structure. The NAS has already provided a means for, in limited applications, allowing direct fights between origin and destination. It is the area navigation equipment currently available on most aircraft that provides this capability.
Currently equipped aircraft are able to consider traffic constraints, winds and weather, in determining an optimum flight path. Furthermore, flights can be adjusted along the way through data link based communication technologies. What can be provided through applicable technologies is software that will run an airline's dispatch center, which defines routes for any given day and get implemented through onboard area navigation equipment, such as FMS, GPS, data link, weather radar, other currently available systems, providing the flexibility required for more effective use of the airspace, at the same or enhanced levels of safety.
A second root cause for delay is airport and terminal area capacity. Several factors influence an airport's capacity, including vectored arrivals, departures and approach procedures, the means of managing aircraft movements in the terminal areas, such as the current uses of radar and voice communications, the effects that weather has on current tools used to conduct operations. Again, there's a wide array of solutions that will result in an updated set of communications, surveillance and decision making methods that can more precisely maintain aircraft separation while increasing capacity of airports, even during periods of deteriorating weather.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
For the purposes of this presentation, we'll focus on a landing aid that is affected during periods of reduced visibility. In partnership with the FAA and Continental Express Airlines, the world's first special category one GPS approach procedure was certified in 1996. A consortium of companies, led by Honeywell, is working with the FAA in the form of a Government-industry partnership through which industry has funded much of the development and the FAA is providing resources to launch this new technology.
With new tools like local area augmentation systems, operations and airport terminal areas can achieve new levels of efficiency. Controlled approaches allow aircraft to follow exact flight paths and can avoid approach obstacles or better comply with noise abatements requirements, such as what's being reflected in a flight over the Potomac.
While satellite landing system provides similar levels of accuracy and integrity to ILS, it is substantially less expensive, but more importantly, will activate all runway ends within a 30 mile radius of the installation. In addition, when weather deteriorates, traffic flow disruptions will be minimized and runways will remain in use.
Much has been said about the airline contribution to the delay cancellation problem, and there are certainly addressable root causes, such as the ones that are reflected in this overhead. Airlines are reacting to current issues in many ways. United Airlines and American Airlines have recently announced plans to adjust schedules to accommodate constraints, especially around their hubs, as was discussed earlier today.
Where the FAA's collaborative decision making program has been applied, the system has worked well and delay minutes have been saved. Technologies exist that can create more robust schedules, that can support gate operations to facilitate faster turns, reduce the impact of unscheduled maintenance, as well as create decision management tools that will generate comprehensive, rules driven diversion plans.
One specific example from this solution set is a series of currently available applications that address unscheduled maintenance. Unscheduled maintenance is a significant contributor to delays. It happens without warning, causes longer delays and therefore tends to ripple through the entire system.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've been working for several years on initiatives that we believe will provide significant benefit to airlines in reducing the impact of unscheduled maintenance problems. A Honeywell defined offering called AMOS utilizes aircraft modeling to enable pre-landing diagnosis and air-ground communication of equipment problems, thus creating an opportunity for pre-positioning maintenance teams, tools and documentation that greatly increase the probability of affecting the right maintenance action, reducing likelihood of delays and cancellation.
It is clear, there are many solutions available to employ in a drive for more reliable, efficient, flexible air space. It's also clear that progress will require more than just technology to successfully negotiate the transition. Several non-technical factors must be addressed, including working with the front line stakeholders, pilots and controllers, in identifying a business model that appropriately motivates all, all stockholders to drive toward a common vision.
It's our opinion that achieving the safe, reliable, cost-effective, high capacity throughput needed to address consumer demand will require more than just new tools to better automate today's procedures. Instead, we'll have to implement a series of changes which optimize the use of our limited air space and airport resources.
The first step in achieving this is to create and promote a vision which emphasizes both safety and service. This can be done, especially if we leverage the work that's already been accomplished or is currently in process. The implementation of this vision can and should take place in an evolutionary manner, consistent with the FAA's build a little, test a little, deploy a little policy. However, the process has got to be accelerated. Technology exists today, some installed, some on the shelf, which can ease the delay problem in the next 24 months. Other technologies are currently in work which will be needed to meet the demand in three to five years. We must put the infrastructures in place, both business and project related, to ensure successful deployment.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With a transition of this magnitude, involving a wide range of stakeholders and global implications, it's imperative that the process for affecting this change be carefully managed. This requires close involvement of all stakeholders to develop and maintain their support for the vision.
Finally, reaching our objectives for air space performance requires rethinking at a system level. Carefully applying technologies to replace the complexity and control orientation of the current day with a sense of simplicity and flow in the future.
Honeywell is a global leader in system solutions for aerospace and industrial processes, and will continue to play an active role in turning such a vision into reality.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Howes, and thank you for your participation in the hearing, as well as your participation with FAA in funding—I heard you, in your testimony, and the project for the satellite landing system, and giving us a very organized and thorough oversight of the system.
I'm going to just ask a couple of very brief questions, because the reality is, I have to catch a 2:55 flight. So I'm going to have to hustle, unless it's delayed, of course.
A couple of brief questions. Mr. Baker, you mention in your testimony the concern that you have, the ratio of employees to supervisors. And this question, what's the rationale the FAA uses to think that a 10 to 1 ratio, or as I understood your testimony, it was 17 to 1, in a tower is safe?
Mr. BAKER. The FAA has no basis for the development of the 10 to 1 ratio. It was picked out of the air through negotiations. There was no needs-based study done to determine if that was the safe ratio to have.
The only study that's ever been done was, I believe, in 1993, and that's the FAA's own study, which called for a seven-to-one ratio. If you moved away from this ratio in either direction, the number of operational errors increased.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SWEENEY. Who were the parties to that negotiation?
Mr. BAKER. That would be the labor organization, NATCA, and the FAA. FMA and SUPCOM were not involved in those negotiations whatsoever. As a matter of fact, these specific negotiations occurred away from the bargaining table.
Mr. SWEENEY. Then I also understand, in conjunction, there are situations where controllers make more than their managers, and earn more.
Mr. BAKER. That's true. With the new wage scales and pay raises that came into effect with the latest bargaining unit agreement, it's very easy for air traffic controllers to make more than a manager of the facility.
Mr. SWEENEY. What's the rationale? Has anyone stated that rationale, other than, that's part of the negotiation?
Mr. Carr, you spoke, and your testimony speaks in depth to the five mile separation minimum spacing requirement. With the advances in technology that are coming from, the advances that have already been realized, and the fact that new systems are being installed, now, do you envision that there can be changes in that separation standard, or not?
Mr. CARR. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, that is probably the only thing you can do overnight that would increase capacity like throwing a light switch. If you require me and the people I represent to keep airplanes three miles apart, it's like letting cars into the District three miles apart on the Memorial Bridge.
If you allow me to close that distance, you increase capacity without pouring a single yard of concrete. So with the increases in technology, high refresh rate radars, I do believe that a re-examination of the separation, not only the separation standards under which we operate, that being five miles in the enroute environment and three miles in the terminal environment, but also a re-examination of what constitutes an error, and whether it's a high risk event or a low risk event, I think you'd probably agree that 4.99 miles is no less safe than 5. But that's one of three strikes I get in my career before I'm shown the door.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SWEENEY. Is this part of the eight member working group discussion?
Mr. CARR. Yes, absolutely, the operational error reduction work group is looking at those very things.
Mr. SWEENEY. I will turn the questioning over to my colleague, Mr. McGovern. Yes, Mr. Baker?
Mr. BAKER. I would like to respond to that, if I could. We've used the three mile rule and the five mile rule for many years. And while I agree with Mr. Carr that we can take a look at it and see what we can do to reduce that separation, given the new technologies available today in our environment, I'd like to correct something that he said with respect to 'three strikes and you're shown the door.' The reality is, we use three operational errors in a two and a half year time period as a basic gauge of satisfactory performance. We take a look at that individual on a performance basis first. Then we would most likely move that individual to a lower level facility, a less complex, less dense facility.
There's probably only a handful of people that have ever been removed from air traffic for three operational errors.
Mr. CARR. That's quite incorrect, and I'll be happy to provide you with additional documentation to show you that the FAA's last attempt to remove somebody is about 60 days old, and it didn't happen in Chicago or New York or L.A. It happened in Omaha.
Mr. SWEENEY. Well, I'd be interested to see that.
Mr. CARR. I'll be happy to provide that to you.
Mr. SWEENEY. I yield at this time to Mr. McGovern.
Mr. MCGOVERN. I'll be very brief, because I don't want to cause your delay.
[Laughter.]
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MCGOVERN. I want to thank the panel for being here so long. And I appreciate your testimony. I'm sure people have questions they want to submit in writing.
But Mr. Baker, I just want to clarify one thing. In your written testimony, you say you believe that the FAA 1994 staffing levels are appropriate today. Can you explain that?
Mr. BAKER. Yes. If you look at our charts here, in 1994 and 1995 is when we began our reorganization by removing tiers of management in an effort to become more efficient.
When that didn't work, then we did something called restructuring. When that wasn't working well, and the FAA was still having to come to you and tell you why delays, operational errors, and every safety indicator that we used to judge our performance was on a steady incline, we moved to re-engineering. So now in the last five years, we have reorganized, restructured, and re-engineered to the point where the people in the FAA can't wait until they can retire. They are tired of it. Our resources have been stretched to the point where we can get nothing done. Even working in partnership with our labor unions is stressful, because there's not enough money to bring the right people together to work through the many issues that face our agency.
I hope that's answered your question, sir.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Carr, you stated in your written testimony that controllers little to no training for using weather radar systems. What additional training would you recommend and what impact would it have on management of the NAS?
Mr. CARR. Well, I believe that the training requirements for weather radar should be applied uniformly across the whole spectrum of air traffic control, from the lowest level facility to the highest level. As far as what impact it will have on the NAS, the agency has already partnered with the users and the stakeholders in daily teleconferences as far as weather events and how they affect the general administration of the air traffic control system.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe that if you more evenly administer the training to the actual people working the scopes, the actual controllers working the traffic, you'll get every bit as much bang for your buck as you'll get if you train CEOs and managers in delay mitigation, because of weather events. I mean, to be perfectly honest with you, the weather that I deal with happens in real time. I don't do a 5:00 o'clock in the morning teleconference to see what's going to happen at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon. At 2:55, the Chairman either goes or he doesn't.
So I personally endorse training the people who use the equipment in real time. I appreciate the fact that we've partnered as an agency with the stakeholders in mitigating impacts through pre-planning.
Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Howes, do you believe that aviation research is adequately funded in this country today, and you gave a very impressive presentation, which identified numerous activities to increase capacity and air traffic control. Do we have to look at all these activities as a comprehensive package, or can you identify a few items on which we could focus that would make a real difference?
Mr. HOWES. Well, I was thinking about how I might answer that question, assuming it would be asked. And frankly, I don't think the answer is probably in research or technology. There's quite a bit of capability deployed through aircraft that are flying today, as I indicated earlier. And there are other things that in work really throughout industry and working with the FAA.
My sense is that it, as we're pointing out near the end, that there's an issue where, the issue is that control and management of the air space has passed to the centralized perspective for good reason, there are good reasons for that. What has started to occur, however, in terms of what's been deployed, is an ability for pilots and local authorities to make more decisions. Again, going back to the notion of flow. Then I'm thinking that dialogue with the controllers and pilots and people who are providing the technology and re-thinking how we do this could offer some substantial improvements in the near term.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As Mr. Carr pointed out, there's already great awareness of that. And there are rules and external pressures at work here that are causing people to behave the way they do. That could be changed quite dramatically with some rethinking and some reassessment of how we should go about using the tools that we have to manage the air space more effectively.
Thank you.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. McGovern.
Let me conclude by thanking the panel again for your in-depth testimony. Let me apologize for the delays that we had today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SWEENEY. We didn't anticipate all those votes on the Floor. Maybe we can resolve our problems here quicker than has been experienced in aviation.
Also let me ask that you allow us to submit questions from any members who might not have been here and respond. This will conclude the hearing. This is also, unfortunately he's not here, but it's also Chairman Duncan's last hearing as Chairman of the Aviation Committee. For the record, I'd like to note—oh, we're going to have one more. Then I'll save these accolades and go catch my plane.
[Laughter.]
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you again for your testimony, and this concludes this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[insert here]