[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER SERVICE ======================================================================= (110-73) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-169 WASHINGTON : 2008 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (ii) ? Subcommittee on Aviation JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii TESTIMONY Brown, Steve, Senior Vice President for Operations, National Business Aviation Association.................................. 42 Cohen, Roger, President, Regional Airline Association............ 42 Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association.................................................... 42 Gribbin, D.J., General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, accompanied by Mr. Samuel Podberesky, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings......... 6 Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights..................................... 42 May, Jim, President and CEO, Air Transport Association........... 42 Mitchell, Kevin, Chairman, Business Travel Coalition............. 42 Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International North America.................................................. 42 Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation.............................................. 6 Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre................ 6 Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................................................. 6 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Braley, Hon. Bruce L., of Iowa................................... 68 Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee.................................. 72 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 73 Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 83 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 86 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 89 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 93 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Brown, Steve..................................................... 99 Cohen, Roger..................................................... 105 Forrey, Patrick.................................................. 123 Hanni, Kate...................................................... 140 May, James C..................................................... 145 Mitchell, Kevin P................................................ 164 Principato, Greg................................................. 169 Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L....................................... 179 Sinha, Agam N.................................................... 244 Sturgell, Robert A............................................... 264 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Rahall, II, Hon. Nick J., a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia, a statement from Pamela Foley of Scottsdale, Arizona............................................ 96 Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,'' report for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from the Inspector General...................... 200 Sinha, Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, Mitre, responses to questions from the Subcommittee................................ 257 Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration: Response to question from Rep. Coble........................... 29 Responses to questions from the Subcommittee, and subsequent information for clarification................................ 275 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Air Carrier Association of America, Edward P. Faberman, Executive Director, written statement.................................... 278 House of Tutors, Anjum Malik, written statement.................. 282 Travelers Aid International, Raymond M. Flynt, President and CEO, written statement.............................................. 283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.011 AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER SERVICE ---------- Wednesday, September 26, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in Room 2367, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding. Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn all electronic devices to off or vibrate. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on airline delays and consumer issues. Before we begin, I would ask unanimous consent to allow our new Member of our Committee, Ms. Laura Richardson from California, to participant in the Subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, so ordered. I will give an opening statement, and we will recognize the Ranking Member, who I just passed on the floor a minute ago, and he is on his way over here. But I will begin with my opening statement. I will recognize Mr. Petri for an opening statement, and then we'll begin with our first panel. I welcome our witnesses here today and everyone here today to this Subcommittee hearing on airline delays and consumer issues. The first half of 2007 has been the worst for airline delays since the Bureau of Transportation Statistics started keeping comprehensive statistics 13 years ago. Through July, almost one in every four flights were delayed. Long, on-board tarmac delays have increased by almost 49 percent from 2006 and delays of five hours or more have increased 200 percent. The delays and the increasing number of consumer complaints that passengers experienced this summer are unacceptable. Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings that this Subcommittee will hold. We will hold at least one hearing every quarter, every 3 months to determine what the airlines and the FAA are doing to address this problem. The public needs to know what this administration has done and what it plans to do in the near term to address delays and consumer complaints. No doubt, the reasons for delays are many, and clearly weather, particularly summer storms, are a major factor. But there is also evidence to suggest that operational, technological and economic trends and choices within the airline industry are factors. Oddly enough, while delays have increased, systemwide total airport operations have actually decreased by about 11 percent since the year 2000. The decline in total operations has been driven largely by a 17 percent decline in general aviation operations, contrary to what the airlines would have us believe. However, while commercial operations remain flat, they have also become more highly concentrated in certain areas, increasing in some of the Nation's largest and busiest airports. For example, according to the FAA, operations at New York's JFK airport have increased 27 percent from 2000 and 44 percent from 2004. Today we will hear additional analysis from MITRE, that operations at seven large hub airports that account for 72 percent of the delays have increased 10 percent since the summer of 2000, while operations at 38 other airports have decreased. Two weeks ago, the former FAA administrator, Marion Blakey, acknowledged that airline scheduling was a problem when she stated, and I quote, "the airlines need to take a step back on the scheduling practices that are at times out of line with reality...And if the airlines won't address this voluntarily, don't be surprised when the government steps in." Last week I was pleased that the FAA notified the airlines that it wanted advance schedule information on JFK and Newark for the summer of 2008 because of increasing operations and deteriorating on-time performances at those airports. But the question is, why didn't the FAA take action on this long ago, as to requesting scheduling information, when they acknowledge that overscheduling was a serious problem and many acknowledge that, including the FAA? The FAA in fact predicted that the summer of 2007 was going to be the worst on record. Administrator Blakely stated in May of 2007 that 2006 was, "a record year for delays with more than 490,000 flights that didn't make it on time. The truth is 2007 isn't looking any better." The fact is that, in February, this administration put forward a very controversial financing proposal for which there was absolutely no agreement or consensus. The FAA's plan generated intense opposition from both sides of the aisle in Congress and within the industry. Its only real support came from the airlines. Throughout the summer months, the FAA failed in its responsibility to hold airlines responsible for what we are now being told are, "scheduling practices that are at times out of line with reality." Looking forward, Congress, the FAA and the industry must take a hard look at airline scheduling practices. Where overscheduling is resulting in serious delays, the government must step in and take action. We should also have a frank discussion about what near-term relief realistically can be provided by new technology. For the last year, this administration has aggressively promoted the Next Generation Air Transportation system plan to justify its financing proposal. While everyone agrees that we must modernize our air traffic control system and supports NextGen, I caution the administration not to continue to build false expectations by holding the Next Generation system out as a solution for delays in the near future. NextGen is a long- term solution. We will not see full benefits from core NextGen technologies like automatic dependent surveillance broadcast for several years. The traveling public should not be given the false impression that NextGen will be here soon or will address problems in the short term. And the public should not be expected to wait several years for results. The airlines and the FAA must take action to address the problem now. I think it is important to point out, over the last 4 years, this administration has underfunded the FAA's capital account, the primary vehicle for modernizing the National Airspace System, roughly $2 billion below the congressional authorized level. As a result, a number of ATC modernization initiatives were cancelled and deferred, including some NextGen capabilities. There has been definitely a serious disconnect between the administration's rhetoric and reality. HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, provides about $1 billion more for FAA's capital account than the FAA said it would need for the next 4 years. This additional funding will help accelerate Next Generation related activities. Finally, the DOT IG, who will be testifying on our first panel here this afternoon, released a report yesterday. The IG's report has many important recommendations stemming from its investigation into an American Airlines incident in December of 2006 and a JetBlue incident in February of 2007. I am interested in hearing more from the Inspector General on his report. While I believe DOT is making a good faith effort in dealing with consumer issues, it is not moving fast enough. For this reason, I am pleased that HR 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which passed the House last Thursday, addressed many of the IG's recommendations. We have a serious problem with congestion and delays in our aviation system which in turn affects passengers and the quality of air carrier service. We must look at all options for reducing delays and improving the aviation experience. With that, I want to again welcome our witnesses today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of both this panel and the second panel. Before I recognize Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his opening statement, I ask unanimous consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri for his opening statement. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, as expected, it was a long, hot summer. We had a record number of passengers and a record number of flight delays in the United States. This year has been a particularly difficult one for air travelers. It was not all doom and gloom. If you flew out of Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, Atlanta, Las Vegas or Houston, you enjoyed an improved on-time performance rate from 2006. Unfortunately, every other major airport suffered worse on-time performance rates this year. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, through July 2007, 27.8 percent of flights were delayed. Most of these delays were out of control. In fact--out of our control. In fact, so far this year, weather has accounted for 41 percent of the delays and cancellations. While we can't control the weather, we can develop and put in place improved technology, approaches and processes to better deal with severe weather events. As we discussed during the Subcommittee hearing in April, high profile incidents in New York and Dallas and others since then have also brought attention to long flight delays on the tarmac and how airline passengers are treated during these delays. These incidents, while extremely rare, raise important concerns about how the industry and the FAA can safely and efficiently operate our National Airspace System. The first responsibility of government and industry clearly is the safety of the passenger. Because most of these causes of long delays, such as weather, are out of human control, it is important to consider the steps that the industry has and can take to mitigate the effect of delays on their customers. Over the last 8 years or so, the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General has been active in investigating and evaluating major delay events. As a result of these efforts, the airline industry has voluntarily adopted recommendations made by the Inspector General, however in varying degrees of effectiveness. Additionally, shortly after the February ice storm incident in New York, Secretary Peters asked the office of the Inspector General to review and evaluate the most recent major delays and report its findings. That report was issued yesterday, and I look forward to hearing from the Inspector General about both the findings and recommendations included in the report. The FAA reauthorization bill passed by the House does include various airline consumer rights provisions, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the house and in the Senate to address the issues as we move toward conferencing the bill. At the end of the day, major delay events painfully demonstrate the ever more critical need to modernize the Nation's Air Traffic Control System. The unfortunate reality is that long tarmac delays are really just a tip of the iceberg. With the anticipated growth in operations over the next 10 to 15 years, these type of delays will not be limited to days where there is severe weather. They might become the norm rather than the anomaly. Therefore, I believe Congress must focus its attention on ensuring the transformation of the Air Traffic Control System. I thank all the witnesses for the effort that went into their testimony and for appearing here before the Subcommittee today to share your concerns and your points of view. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And at this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee and then we'll come to our first panel. Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Costello. And I appreciate your holding this hearing. I Chaired the Subcommittee for some 6 years, and we faced some of the same issues that we continue to face with delays. And it is our responsibility to make certain that people that are trapped on some of these flights and in fact, I am not sure, can I request this study? The Secretary did. But I know we requested reports back, and I have also asked FAA to come up with some sort of a standard for taking care of passengers who do get stranded for an inordinate period of time. That is part of our responsibility. Let me just make a couple of quick points. We have heard the Ranking Member mention--we have heard that weather accounts for 41 percent of the delays. And then I have seen in some of the air traffic control holds that are placed, about 78 percent of those are due to weather. So weather plays an important part in causing these delays. And we don't want a situation like, I guess, a crash in Thailand during a storm. We want to make certain that every caution is taken to deal with weather, which can have a devastating and tragic effect. And we have an incredible record of safety with the measures that we put in place. Sometimes folks are delayed in our system, but we pay close attention to one of the primary causes of aviation catastrophes. We do have--we have identified some of the problems. Some of the problem is Congress and also the administration in acting. Even with NGATS, the Next Generation airspace, the highest, best technical equipment, aircraft still can only be spaced so closely. You can only land so many planes per hour. And most of the schedules that are developed today in our high congestion airports and hubs are absolutely maxed out during maxed times, and stretching some of that out might be part of the answer. We have given some relief for DOT to act as an arbiter. In some areas, it has worked well. In Chicago and-- so again, Congress and DOT have the responsibility to deal with overscheduling. Let me just say a couple of commonsense things that we can do. Another one is, I sat on a plane not too long ago for 2 hours in Orlando due to thunderstorms and a storm coming over. And you learn something new, Mr. Costello, in this business every day, even with all the information we have. I saw workers looking out the plane. And the ramp workers were all working, but the plane that I was on--it happened to be US Air--was not being serviced. And we sat there and sat there. Then I saw other planes being loaded, and we sat there. And I said, well, is this some sort of a work rule for folks to check in on? I thought maybe this was some labor negotiated thing that they don't work during this. I found out that is not the case, that every airline has their own policy. And that is something else, a commonsense approach that we could take. Now, what was instituted I am told is because some ramp workers were killed that work for a particular airline, each has put in their own rules. But because of liability, in fact, we have concerns, and they should be addressed. We don't want anyone in danger. But the lack of some standardization in this or some backup protection for those who move forward, keeps planes on the ground and further exacerbates the situation. And finally, I was surprised to learn that the Chairman of the Committee has asked for a holdup on the airspace redesign in the greater New York area that we have been working on for 10 years. A redesign can result in 20 percent better on time, particularly with weather. We have waited 10 years, and now we find that that is being, in fact, delayed again for an additional look-see at this GAO report. So there are just some sensible commonsense approaches I think that we can take to speed up this process and stop the delays. Thank you. Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments. And at this time, I will introduce our witnesses today on the first panel. We welcome all of you: Mr. Robert Sturgell, Bobby Sturgell, who is here, who has been here many times before, he is the acting administrator, one of many hats that he has worn over the past few years for the FAA; Mr. D.J. Gribbin, who is the general counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation; the Honorable Calvin Scovel, who is the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Dr. Agam Sinha, who is the senior vice president and general manager for the Center of Advanced Aviation System Development, MITRE. And I understand that you are here to answer any questions, Mr. Samuel Podberesky, who is the assistant general counsel for aviation enforcement. How did I do there on your name? Mr. Mr. Podberesky. Close. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MR. D.J. GRIBBIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. SAMUEL PODBERESKY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR AVIATION ENFORCEMENT & PROCEEDINGS; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, MITRE Mr. Costello. Close? Okay. Well, the Chair would now recognize the Honorable Robert Sturgell, the acting administrator under the 5-minute rule. We would ask--inform all witnesses that your entire testimony will be submitted for the record. We would ask you to summarize it so we can have plenty of time for Members to ask questions. Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Sturgell. Good afternoon. And thank you, Chairman Costello, for the privilege of addressing you, Mr. Petri, and other Members of the Subcommittee, regarding delays and how they affect the consumer. I can understand the frustration of the flying public, having experienced delays this summer myself. But first and foremost, the National Airspace System is as safe as it has ever been. Over the past 20 years, general aviation accidents have dropped by one-third and commercial aviation itself is in the golden age of safety. Inefficiencies, delays in particular, is another matter. More people are flying more than ever and more smaller planes are carrying them. Compounding this, the FAA's current system of taxes and fees provides little incentive to use the airspace efficiently. Aviation today is a deregulated system where the government does not create or control airline schedules. The passenger wants choices, and choices fill up schedules. Competition created by deregulation has also resulted in lower ticket prices for the traveling public. But when passengers arrive at the airport and see that a dozen flights are supposed to leave all at the same time, they know it is not going to happen. Commercial traffic has returned in different ways after 9/ 11. Delays are up 20 percent since last year and almost 30 percent since the summer of 2000. We have seen dramatic increases in traffic in several major markets. High performance business jet traffic has grown rapidly as well, up 43 percent between 2000 and 2006. The system is busy. And regrettably, the bad news here is that delays will likely only get worse. Take-offs and landings will grow by 1.4 million per year through 2020. And JFK alone, as the Chairman pointed out, had a 44 percent increase in activity since 2004. In the summer of 2000, the big delays came from seven big airports: Kennedy, La Guardia, Newark, Philadelphia and then Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. These seven airports at the time accounted for 55 percent of the delays. Since 2000, operations of these airports have grown an additional 10 percent, and they now account for 72 percent of delays systemwide. With respect to delays, our policy is always to try to grow capacity and improve efficiency, to reduce delays through pavement procedures and technology first. And we do that before interfering in the market. And I want to emphasize that we do not endorse deregulation. We will do, however, what is appropriate to make the system operate safely and efficiently. So, we are taking this issue head on. For example, airspace delays have become a bigger and bigger problem in the New York area. And, as you know and pointed out, we just issued a direct record of decision, a culmination of more than a decade's worth of work for airspace redesign in that area. It will reduce delays by 20 percent, and it is also environmentally friendly, cutting CO-2 emissions by 430,000 pounds per year. We have got a dozen short-term operational initiatives underway in New York since the beginning of the year. I am pleased to say we are installing the ASDE-X system at JFK by July of 2008. That is a full year ahead of the planned deployment. And that is going to help us improve safety and surface traffic management at that airport. Complementing the airspace redesign is the runway work at Philadelphia. A new runway in 1999 and a current extension project underway now is going to cut delays again by another 3 million minutes per year. I think everyone knows last May we opened a new runway in Atlanta, the world's busiest airport. The runway commissioning coincided with airspace redesign that resulted in a 30 percent increase in capacity. We have a redesign of the airspace effort underway in Houston. And of course, you know we have imposed temporary short-term caps at Chicago's O'Hare, which we plan to lift as they bring on additional capacity. As we move to the Next Generation, satellite based system, we are also changing navigation procedures in Atlanta and around the country to increase efficiency and reduce delays. Nationally, we have implemented 180 area navigation (RNAV) procedures for arrivals and departures with 42 more by the end of the year. It has enabled us to add another 10 arrivals per day at Hartsfield, Atlanta. That is a big increase, a savings of $34 million in time and fuel. The third way to address delays and increase efficiency is with technology. The problems we see in New York and other parts of the system are a reflection of the limitation of today's system of air traffic control. They will only get worse with time. So, in the longer term, alleviating delays does require the technological transformation that will come with NextGen, and it is happening now with things like these RNAV and RNP procedures. The larger issue, how it gets paid for, is still in the balance. With our authorization set to expire shortly, the forward momentum is in jeopardy, and that is a short-term issue. In the longer term, I think the failure to link our revenue with the operating cost may likely put our major capital programs at risk and perhaps slow down the implementation. And I am hopeful that we can continue to work together in the reauthorization process to address these concerns. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gribbin. Mr. Gribbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually the department had a joint statement which actually Mr. Sturgell delivered. Mr. Costello. Very good. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scovel for his testimony. Mr. Scovel. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this afternoon. This hearing is both timely and important given the record-breaking flight delays, cancellations and on-board tarmac delays that air travelers have experienced this year. Based on the first 7 months of the year, nearly 28 percent of flights were delayed, cancelled or diverted with airlines' on-time performance at the lowest percentage, 72 percent, recorded in the last 10 years. Not only are there more delays, but also longer delay periods. Of those flights arriving late, passengers experienced a record-breaking average flight arrival delay of nearly 1 hour. More than 54,000 flights affecting nearly 3.7 million passengers experienced taxi-in and taxi-out times of 1 to 5 hours or more compared to 45,000 flights for all of peak year 2000. Reduced capacity and increased demand have led to higher load factors; 71.1 percent in 2000 to 79.7 percent in 2007. With more seats filled, airlines have fewer options to accommodate passengers from cancelled flights. As you know, Secretary Peters has serious concerns about the airlines' treatment of passengers during extended ground delays and requested that we examine incidents in which passengers were stranded on aircraft for extended periods of time. We issued our report yesterday, which includes a series of recommendations that the Department, airlines and airports can take to improve airline customer service. Today I would like to discuss four key points that would help to improve airline customer service and minimize long, on- board delays. First, the airlines should detail their policies and plans to minimize long, on-board delays and off-load passengers within certain periods of times and adhere to such policies. The American Airlines and JetBlue events of December 29, 2006, and February 14, 2007, respectively, underscored the importance of improving customer service for passengers who are stranded on board aircraft for extended periods of time. On those dates, thousands of passengers experienced long, on-board delays and, in some cases, for over 9 hours. Although severe weather was the primary cause of the delays, it was not the only reason those passengers suffered the experience that they did. Neither airline had systemwide procedures in place to mitigate long, on-board delays and off-load passengers within a certain period of time. In fact, prior to the American Airlines and JetBlue incidents, only a few airlines had established time limits on the duration of tarmac delays. Since these incidents, eight airlines have now set a time limit for delays before deplaning passengers, but five still have not. Second, airport operators should become more involved in contingency planning for extraordinary flight disruptions. Our examination of 13 airports' contingency plans found that only two airports have a process for monitoring and mitigating long, on-board delays. This involves contacting the airline after an aircraft has remained for 2 hours on the tarmac to request a plan of action. All airports intervene only upon an airline's request primarily because they do not have authority to interfere with a carrier's operations during long, on-board delays. In our opinion, airport operators need to be become more involved in contingency planning for extraordinary flight disruptions. Third, there are best practices and ongoing initiatives that, if properly executed, should help to mitigate long, on- board delays in the short term. During our audit, we found several practices that airlines and airports are taking to mitigate the effects of these occurrences. Among others, these include setting the maximum amount of time that passengers will remain on board aircraft before deplaning. Also, keeping gate space available for off-loading passengers in times of irregular operations. FAA has also taken action to minimize delays through initiatives such as the Airspace Flow Program. This initiative gives FAA and the airlines the capability to maximize the overall use of the NAS while minimizing delays and congestion. These efforts do not create additional capacity but rather limit the negative effects of bad weather. Fourth, DOT, FAA, airlines and airports should complete actions immediately to improve airline customer service and minimize long, on-board delays. DOT should take a more active role in overseeing customer service issues involving long, on- board delays, and there are actions that the Department, the airlines, airports and FAA can undertake immediately. Specifically, first, all airlines should specify the efforts that will be made to get passengers off aircraft that are delayed for long periods and incorporate these policies in their contracts of carriage and post them on their Internet sites. Second, airlines should establish specific targets for reducing chronically delayed or cancelled flights and disclose on-time flight performance. Third, large- and medium-hub airport operators should establish a process for monitoring and mitigating long, on- board delays that involves contacting the airline to request a plan of action after an aircraft has remained on the tarmac for 2 hours. Four, DOT should investigate incidents involving long, on- board delays and oversee the airlines' policies for dealing with them. And five, the airlines, airports and FAA should establish a task force to develop and coordinate contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Dr. Sinha. Mr. Sinha. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Congressman Mica and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearings on the airline delays and consumer issues. Today airlines are transporting more passengers than at any time in history but operating fewer flights than in 2000. Yet delays in the system are at an all-time high, up 11 percent as compared to 2000. This raises the natural question, if operations are down across the NAS, why are delays up? The answer to this question is location specific. Operations are not down everywhere, nor are delays up everywhere. I think it was mentioned earlier that, in the summer of 2000, of the 45 airports, seven airports, Atlanta, Chicago O'Hare, Philadelphia, Newark, La Guardia, Houston and Kennedy, accounted for 55 percent of the delays. Today they account for 72 percent of the delays. If you look at the operations at the 45 airports, operations have decreased by 8 percent while at these seven airports they have increased by 10 percent. The biggest bottle necks this summer have been at the three major New York/New Jersey airports as well as the surrounding airspace. I think again it was mentioned earlier, Kennedy's scheduled operations have increased by 44 percent. At JFK, more efficient procedures have been put in place to make better use of multiple runway operations thereby increasing the overall traffic at the airport. If not for these procedural improvements, delays would have been much worse. Many improvements have been made in the system since 2000, which provide significant capacity increases and user benefits but have not kept pace with the demand at key locations. Looking to the future, the FAA's report on capacity needs in the National Airspace Systems takes a systematic look at current and projected demand and capacity across all airports and metropolitan areas. The results show that if all planned improvements are implemented by 2015, six airports and four metro areas will still have insufficient capacity to meet projected demand. By 2025, the situation is worse--even with planned improvements, there are projected to be 14 airports and eight metro areas that will have capacity constraints. Looking at potential solutions, NextGen will provide better navigation, surveillance and information sharing and decision making than today. Together these capabilities will allow the separations between aircraft to be reduced safely. This will allow more aircraft to land and depart per hour, reducing delays at the majority of the busiest 35 airports in the U.S, including Atlanta, Kennedy and Newark. Better surveillance and more automation in the cockpit can reduce the dependencies between operations on different runways. More precise navigation will help to reduce the dependencies between operations at different airports in busy metropolitan areas such as JFK and La Guardia. NextGen does allow more uses of existing runways at more than half of the top 35 airports and might create new opportunities for construction of additional runways at existing airports because of reduced separation requirements between runways. More efficient use of the airspace would also facilitate greater use of secondary airports in the major metropolitan areas that might address a lot of the metropolitan area constraints that are identified in the FAA report. Better weather data together with cockpit display of traffic information will reduce traffic disruption due to poor weather conditions, leading to what are termed equivalent visual operations in the NextGen concept. We know for example that today in visual conditions we do not have as much of a problem as we do in the instrument conditions. So this will allow us to operate more like visual conditions most of the time. Movement on the airport surface will be improved through ASDE-X, ADS-B and cockpit display of traffic information. Around two-thirds of the top 35 airports are likely to benefit from improved surface traffic management in terms of improved safety and reduced fuel consumptions. Further analysis of the potential benefit of these and other NextGen capabilities at the Nation's airports is underway. As a step towards NextGen, a number of technologies and procedures have been demonstrated to be technically and operationally feasible in both enroute airspace and in busy terminal areas. These, called performance- based ATM or PATM capabilities, are currently being incorporated into FAA's operational evolution partnership for implementation. Human in the loop validation conducted over the past 2 years have shown that these concepts are feasible and provide significant benefits in the controller's capability to safely handle the expected increase in traffic probably up to 2016 and beyond. In summary, the answer to the question of why operations are down and delays are up, is that traffic levels have increased at the already congested hubs which have little spare capacity and have decreased at other locations which have more spare capacity. Local and regional solutions will continue to be needed to address capacity problems as they emerge; however, a systemwide approach to solving the Nation's capacity needs is imperative. Finally, successful implementation of all the planned improvements at the airports and in the airspace through enhanced automation and procedures for both ground systems and avionics are critical in meeting the demand in the near term and for 2025 and beyond. This will require full participation from all stakeholders, the FAA, the customers and the manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Doctor. Let me ask--I will begin with asking a few questions. First, before I do, I think we all agree that NextGen is needed. Is there any disagreement on the panel? I think we all agree that NextGen is several years away and provides no relief or no help in the shortterm. Would we agree with that? Everyone on the panel? Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Chairman, I would say that there are pieces of what will be, you know, the endgame of NextGen that are already being implemented. I mean, the move to a satellite- based navigation system, RNAV procedures, area navigation and RNP procedures are all about satellite-based navigation and taking advantage of what is in the airplane. So I think there are some things that are being implemented now that are not necessarily several years down the road. Mr. Costello. And I understand that. But for clarification for those who are here and those who may be listening, give us an example of what is happening now. ADS-B, whatever it may be, that will provide relief in the short term. We have gone through the worst summer of delays we have experienced since BTS has been keeping statistics. We are about to get the summer behind us, but we are going to move into the holiday season now. So my question--what I am trying to establish, number one, is we all agree that the technology needs to be updated and changed. We all agree that NextGen needs to happen. That is the reason why, in the House bill that we passed, we provide over 1 billion more than the administration requested over a 4-year period to accelerate NextGen. But we are talking about short- term solutions here, addressing the problem at hand, and you know, I don't want to build false expectations out there with the traveling public that, hey, the FAA is going to go out and buy something that is on a shelf someplace, implement it and it is going to help us by September--the end of September or when we get into the holiday season, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Isn't it a fact that what we are doing with NextGen will not provide relief between now and the end of the year? Mr. Sturgell. Probably not to the level we would like, given the delays and particularly for the New York area. I mean, we do have RNP procedures in New York in those 3 airports. We are implementing more of those during the coming year, and I do think that they are very important. At Atlanta, we are getting 10 to 11 more arrivals per hour, more departures per hour, and in Dallas, depending on the configuration. That is a huge capacity increase at some of these airports. Mr. Costello. There is no question that there is relief coming in the long term, but that does not help the people who will be traveling over the holiday season. What I am trying to communicate to them and get everyone to understand is, what are we doing short term, and then what are we doing long term? We understand what the long-term benefits are of NextGen, and we understand that there are steps in between from where we are today and when we complete NextGen. And those--all of those steps are progress in the right direction. But I would ask Mr. Scovel the same question. Do you see anything that the FAA is doing in moving toward NextGen that will provide short-term relief to the delays in the congestion that we have short-term, meaning between now and between the end of the holiday, December 31st of this year? Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Sturgell was correct when he cites RNAV and RNP as very short-term initiatives that are in place in specific locations that can help the delay problem in those locations. I think when you mention the need to set realistic expectations, you are absolutely correct. And I think it is also important to note that those expectations need to be framed in terms of systemwide improvements. While local geographic improvements can certainly be obtained. Systemwide improvements are what is--makes long-term NextGen most important, certainly to the Congress, to the Department and to the traveling public. A moment ago, sir, you mentioned ADS-B; it is probably a good case in point. It is common knowledge that FAA recently let a contract for $1.8 billion for ADS-B. The infrastructure will be put in place between now and 2013. At that point, users will equip their aircraft with the technology that is required to take advantage of that, and they have until 2020 to make that change, and it will be at the cost of billions of dollars for the airlines. So it is a huge investment. Even when we get to 2020, only a part of the full capacity enhancements of ADS-B will be available because, at that point, it is ADS-B Out rather than ADS-B In. I am not a technician, but I can explain in layman's terms what those mean. But the bottom-line is, that even in 2020, not all of the full capabilities of ADS-B will be realized. Mr. Costello. Dr. Sinha, let me ask you. You say in your written testimony--and I quote--scheduled demand at Kennedy has increased rapidly since June of 2006 as Delta and JetBlue have developed their hub operations. Would you please elaborate on that and talk precisely about what Delta and JetBlue have done at JFK in the last few years? Mr. Sinha. I think what we have been seeing when we look at the data is, it is not so much over the long run, but it is, like, starting from maybe early part of 2006 through 2007. JetBlue had operations, something in the order of 265, 247, 262, in that range daily. But now, today, if you look at this July, August, September, it is 358, 364, 336. That is a significant increase in the daily operations. If you look at Delta, they were going through some restructuring of the routes in the January through May or June of 2006, and their operations were in the range of 180 to 190 operations per day. Today they are at 368, 372, 373, 349. That is what we mean by what has happened in terms of them increasing their operations. Now, how much of it is free-market competition? You can judge for yourself. Mr. Costello. And it is called competition, right? Okay. Mr. Sturgell, and again, this will be my last question. I have other Members, and then I will come back. Mr. Sturgell, I applauded the administrator for her comments concerning scheduling. It is a concern that I have had for sometime. We have looked at scheduling. We have sat down with some of your people in the FAA, some of the air traffic controllers. And there is no question in my mind that there is evidence that scheduling during peak periods at certain airports, JFK being one, that there are more flights scheduled at certain time periods than the system can possibly handle. So I was pleased when the administrator acknowledged that. I only wish that we would have focused on that back in January or February so we could have done something about the travel season this summer as opposed to concentrating on next summer. However, I am pleased that that action is being taken, and I am pleased with your decision or whoever made the decision to tell the airlines that you want to see the schedules in advance beginning in March of 2008. So in reading the notice that went out to the airlines, it is pretty specific. And it seems to me that you believe the FAA believes that there are scheduling problems at JFK specifically that has caused delays. Is that a correct assumption? Mr. Sturgell. Yeah. We are looking very closely at the scheduling in the New York major airports as you mentioned. There are some hours that are above the peak hours in those airports. Mr. Costello. But the answer is yes. You have looked, there is evidence in your opinion that there are some scheduling problems, and that is obviously why you have taken this action? Mr. Sturgell. We have asked for the schedules, we have. You know, it has obviously been a problem. Again, there are some parts of the schedule that are above what we believe that airport can handle. But in addition to the schedules, there is a whole range of things we have been looking at, you know, since the beginning of the year. And I know we have talked about some of the operational things. We've met with the airlines and the Port Authority, since about February of this year, and we have been working to implement to help bring relief to that area. And scheduling, of course, is one of, you know, the many things we are looking at very, very closely. Mr. Costello. The last question now before I turn it over to the Ranking Member, is that--and I will come back to ask a few more questions when we are finished with Members asking questions. At this point, can you give any assurance to the traveling public that nonweather-related delays, nonweather- related--you have no control over weather delays, that the FAA, that you are taking measures to reduce delays during the holiday season and the short-term. Mr. Sturgell. We are taking measures to address those delays and specifically for the New York area. Some of the early things we can do in the airspace redesign is what are called fanned departures off of the runways at the airports up there, specifically Philadelphia, Newark and then there is a new procedure for right turn out of JFK when departing to the northwest. The benefit is probably one to three an hour, in terms of operations that you can add to the system, and it doesn't sound like much, but it will be an impact if we can move forward with that. Mr. Costello. I thank you, and I will come back shortly. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Petri. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see that the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, is here and may want to participate, and I know that the senior Republican of the Committee, Mr. Mica, has several questions, and I would yield my time to him. Mr. Mica. Okay. I think everyone agrees NGATS is not going to be instituted or any parts of it really to deal with the delays. So we have got two issues here: We have got the problem of the delays, and then we have got the problem of dealing with people who are held captive on planes for extended periods of time. I have got a copy of my letter, April 19th, Mr. Sturgell, to the Secretary. The second paragraph: I respectfully request FAA develop a policy to determine acceptable procedures for extraordinary flight delays, particularly when health, life, safety of passengers are at risk. Now, the Secretary sent me back a reply in May and said that she was waiting on the IG's report, which was expected later this summer. Now we get it in the fall today here. IG, you have recommended that the Secretary should define what constitutes an extended period of time. Do we have that, Mr. Sturgell? Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Mica---- Mr. Mica. You just got the report. Mr. Sturgell. Right. Just got the report and on behalf of the Secretary, I do want to publicly thank the Inspector General for the report. She did ask for that report to be developed. She has also had a senior task group working on these issues. Mr. Mica. This is April 19th. This is the 23rd. To get this thing rolling to make certain the people are protected on a plane, when can I find out when she is going to have that, a week, a month, a year? I mean, just something for the record. You don't know? Okay. Because we can't deal with the issue of taking care of passengers who are stranded. And the other thing it says, the Secretary should direct the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to ensure airlines comply with their public policies governing long--so we are asking the airlines to develop that, and then you enforce it. But I am not sure that is what I asked for. I asked for FAA to come up with some standard. I mean, it is nice to have the airlines and then use them as the fall guy all the time. I asked for FAA to come up with something, and that is what I think we need. Our responsibility is life, health, safety. Okay. We have identified there are seven airports that account for 70 some percent of the delays, right? JFK, Newark, La Guardia, all in the same area. O'Hare, we are doing a massive redesign of the runways. That will help some. I know Philadelphia we have done an extension. Is Atlanta down? We just finished that runway. Is Atlanta one of the ones down? Did anyone find that? It isn't down? We just added that runway capacity. Mr. Sinha. It is Houston--Houston is the other one. Mr. Mica. But I am getting to---- Mr. Sinha. Atlanta is on the list. Mr. Mica. It is on the list. Okay. My point is, some places we can add capacity; some we are adding it, and some we've added it. So that should help a little bit. With weather, it is still tough because you can only land so many planes. My point here is JFK, Newark, La Guardia probably result in the bulk of the delays. Wouldn't that be the case? I mean, those three in that airspace. Now, the last point I made when I came to make my little opening statement was that the airspace redesign can result, I was told, in a 20 percent expansion of our capacity and capability to handle aircraft and would lessen delays by about that percent. Is that agreed, Mr.--I see a yes. Is that yes? No? Mr. Scovel. Ballpark, yes, sir. Mr. Mica. Okay. So again, some of this isn't rocket science. But the airspace redesign which we have been waiting on 10 years--we had an overwhelming vote in Congress. We had Republicans and Democrats. We all said, go forward with that northeast quarter, and that would help us. Now, I am told the GAO report might have to be interspersed here according to what the Chairman has asked for, and I don't know that to even be the case, which would further delay that. Is that the case? Is there any impediment that you know, Mr. Sturgell, that will stop us from doing the New York airspace redesign? Mr. Sturgell. We have not received anything formally asking us to stop the---- Mr. Mica. So that can go forward and that--if that goes forward on an expedited basis, then we could expect, Mr. Scovel, some improvement in delays? Mr. Scovel. There certainly would be improvement, Mr. Mica. Mr. Costello. I would ask the gentleman to yield. I think everyone expects that the airspace redesign as proposed by the FAA for the New York airspace, that it will end up in court, that there will be litigation. So, I mean, I don't think there is any question. I have been out to Philadelphia, and I have attended a town meeting, and there is no question that everyone expects that a lawsuit will be filed. So, from the standpoint of expediting it, there are those of us who would like to see that happen. But I think, realistically, we are in for some litigation, which is going to take some time to reach a court decision. Mr. Mica. Again, I have been to hearings and meetings in Connecticut and the northeast and Philadelphia and New Jersey, and it goes on and on. My point here is, I don't want anything to stand--I mean, this isn't rocket science. We can tell where the planes are being delayed. They just testified to it. If we can move them in the northeast quarter. If we have to put something that puts--that jams that threw. We just had an overwhelming vote in Congress. But we need to get that airspace redesign--it is not like redesigning a highway since 1980. And those are our airways, and we can't move planes through. That is in the optimum condition. So stop blaming the airlines and let us take the responsibility for government not putting in place--stop blaming air traffic controllers who do their job. We have the ability to move this forward and we should. Thank you. Yield back. Mr. Costello. The Chair would note that Mr. Petri has exceeded his time by 1 minute. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sturgell, in your testimony on Page 9, you say we encourage our friends in the airline industry to re-assess their scheduling with an eye towards relieving some strain on the system. You have asked for them to start providing schedules in March. What are you going to do with those schedules? Mr. Sturgell. Mr. DeFazio, along those lines, the airlines, we have worked with them at location-specific airports as well as broadly. And, I would point out a couple of successes of voluntary efforts in that regard. Mr. DeFazio. How many failures do we have? We have lengthy testimony from the air traffic controllers documenting a large number of airports where we have scheduled more aircraft to take off during a given number of hours than could possibly take off on the best day in history, let alone any insignificant limitation due to weather. Mr. Sturgell. In the examples of places like Dallas, Fort Worth and Atlanta, the airlines voluntarily de---- Mr. DeFazio. Right. When you have passengers all across America, who are being given phony schedules as Mr. May says in his testimony, people like frequent departures so the airlines schedule them. In the case of Eugene, Oregon, where I live, United schedules a lot of departures. And as soon as San Francisco gets limited, which it is 30 percent of the time, they just cancel or delay all those flights. Yeah, theoretically, we are going to leave. If you are a business traveler, you know it is a joke to have a ticket on United to San Francisco because they are just going to bump your flight and bring in the long-range flights. They are overscheduling the airport, you know, given the normal conditions at San Francisco. That is repeated at other airports throughout the system. So there may be a few voluntary success stories on the part of the industry, but you are a regulatory and a safety agency. So, my question is, what are you going to do with the schedule--when they give you schedules in March that show they have scheduled more departures at a number of airports than can take off during a given number of consecutive hours on the best day in history, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do at that point? That is the question. Mr. Sturgell. Well, addressing scheduling is one of many things---- Mr. DeFazio. I know. I am just trying to deal with one real simple factor. We are scheduling more planes to take off and land than can physically take off and land. We are allowing this to go forward. We are saying the market will control it. The market doesn't control it because the airlines aren't going to give up their slots because their passengers might go on someone else that gives them a fake schedule. The passengers aren't informed that you are booking a flight for an hour that is overbooked. There will be some planes delayed during that hour. What are you going to do when you get the schedules that they will propose for next summer if they don't voluntarily adhere to the minimum or the maximum number of flights on an hourly basis? What actions do you intend to take as a safety and regulatory agency with those reports? Mr. Sturgell. Mr. DeFazio, we will always ensure the safety of the system. But, you know, it is airport, it is airline specific. If there are things we can do to address that schedule through procedures or new runways that are coming in-- -- Mr. DeFazio. I am just saying in March when they give you the schedules for next summer, and we can't build the new runways by next summer, we are not going to change the system dramatically by next summer, when we have done everything we can do to tweak it, when you know that they have booked more flights during given hours to take off than can take off during the best day in history at certain airports, what are we going to do about that? How are we going to get back to a number that is just realistic in terms of the best day in history, let alone the inevitable problems that might result? What are we going to do at that point? I am just asking about a little part of the problem but one that is very frustrating to travelers and is repeated time and time again. What are you going to do when they give you numbers that show they have scheduled more flights than can take off, are you going to somehow say, no, we have got to cut this back to the theoretical capacity of the airport and somehow get there? Mr. Sturgell. I will use Chicago O'Hare as an example. We worked with those airlines there, the two major carriers voluntarily, voluntarily, and achieved a reduction. Mr. DeFazio. So your plan is, in March, when you find overscheduling at seven or ten or twelve airports around the country, you will bring in all the airlines for voluntary meetings to talk about voluntarily changing the schedules. I mean, I just had a very disturbing meeting with the head of the San Francisco airport yesterday. He said they are heading towards dramatic problems 30 percent of the time. As the airport director, there is nothing he can do about it, and he is hoping someone, somewhere in the system will do something. So I am asking you, is there--at that point, if they won't voluntarily do something, what can we do? Could we impose a congestion tax? Could we at least inform consumers that those hours are overbooked, and their flights are likely to be delayed if we are going to have market forces prevail? Mr. Sturgell. Market forces in terms of congestion, management and pricing, we would like to have that option. And, it is one of the options we proposed in our reauthorization proposal. Mr. DeFazio. I am talking about hours that are overbooked. If we said this hour is overbooked, if a commercial airline wants to book that hour, are they going to pay a special fee because it is overbooked. Mr. Sturgell. Well, we are certainly interested in congestion pricing. And we would willingly work with the Congress as our bills go forward. Mr. DeFazio. I am still not clear. I am over my time, but it is still not clear. So, in March, just to wrap it up, when you see that a number of airports are overbooked for departures and arrivals, you are going to call in the airlines that operate at those airports and ask them to voluntarily get it down to at least the theoretical capacity of the airport. Mr. Sturgell. Again, going back to O'Hare, we got voluntarily reductions. In the end, they were not enough. We did a short-term scheduling reduction while we had capacity improvements coming on line. If we can get new runways built, if we can get procedures changed and operational improvements, that should be the goal. Mr. DeFazio. Right. We have long-term goals, but I am just saying--I am just talking about a very small part of the problem. I recognize all those other concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. Let me just make note, Mr. Sturgell, that the airlines in 1999 said that they would voluntarily implement what we know today is a passenger bill of rights. It didn't happen. It is one of the reasons why we have--we were here today, one of the reasons we put a section in the FAA re-authorization dealing with those issues. I think this is a simple question that Mr. DeFazio is asking, and the question is simply this: If the airlines do with scheduling like they did with the passenger bill of rights on a voluntary basis and they do not scale back their operations when there is evidence at JFK or any other hub in the Nation, will the FAA take action? I know that you are going to meet with them. I know that you are going to talk about scheduling. I know that you are going to encourage them to take a look at scheduling and pull back when they schedule too many flights. But the question is, if they do not voluntarily act, will the FAA step in and act and force them to, as you did in Chicago, as you did in La Guardia, as you did at Reagan National Airport? Mr. Sturgell. It is one of the options that is available to us. Mr. Costello. I know it is one of the options, but that is not the question. Mr. Costello. That is when people are cynical about government. Of course, it is one of the options. There are a lot of other options, but it is a simple question. I understand you are Acting Administrator, and we are not here to beat you up. I mean it is pretty simple. If they do not act, are you going to? Mr. Sturgell. Well, we have used that authority, as you pointed out, in Chicago. So it is an option, you know, and we have used that authority, the authority we got in the last bill. Mr. Costello. So that is a "maybe"? Mr. Sturgell. At this time, like I said, there are ongoing things we are working to implement both from the FAA perspective and with the airlines at these, you know, congested airports, specifically in New York. Mr. Costello. You probably just answered the question that some people have when they say, "Why does the government step in and mandate an agency to do something?" it is because the answer in this case, for instance, is, well, maybe we will; maybe we will not. I mean it is in the interest of the traveling public that we, in fact, take action, and if you are not willing to take it at the FAA, then we have to legislate it. With that---- Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? Mr. Costello. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. I was following up on your question, Mr. Sturgell, and it at least goes to the heart of one of the issues of this very complex nexus, and the greatest risk we face is oversimplifying the delay issue and saying, "Oh, it is here. Oh, it is there. Oh, it is something else." If it were rocket science, as Mr. Mica was suggesting, it would be easier, frankly. Rocket science obeys specific laws of physics, which, when put in place, get our spacecraft up in the air and bring them down within fractions of a second. This is not rocket science. It is far more complicated, but the question that, I think, Mr. Costello was posing is do you have authority under existing law to order reductions in schedules if those schedules exceed the capacity and if the excess is having regional or national effect. If the answer to the question is you do and you use that authority at Chicago's O'Hare, can it also be extended to the New York region as well? Mr. Sturgell. So we do have that authority, as you pointed out, and it is available wherever we see that kind of problem. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, it is complicated. It is not easy. The system, itself--you know, you have many times eloquently talked about how complex our national airspace system is. When we talk about scheduling 1 hour of peak overscheduling, when there is a recovery period after that, it does not really make a case for moving in and capping an airport. So we see those situations at various airports around the country. There are only very few airports where it is a problem the entire day where there is no recovery. You know, some of the things--I keep hedging a little bit. It is an option. We are looking at it. It is definitely all of that. You know, there is also an impact when you do that, and it is that there could, perhaps, be a tendency to lose service to small communities, which I know is very important. It takes away any incentive to improve capacity in either that particular airport or in the region. Folks get happy with the status quo, and with the economic engine that the aviation industry is and with the benefits to the traveling public, I just think, you know, it is a tough situation, and we have to consider thoroughly all of what is available to us before making those kinds of---- Mr. Oberstar. If the Chairman and the other Members will indulge me further, to say, "oh, well, it is not an airline problem" or "oh, it is not an air traffic controller problem, but it is an FAA problem," that does a disservice to everybody. We are all in this together. It is a three-legged stool; it is airport capacity; it is air traffic control technology, and it is airline scheduling. Now, in the southern California TRACON, you have 2.4 million operations a year. That is 50 percent more than the entire Paris regional in all of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands combined. The New York TRACON and the southern California TRACON handle more air operations than all of Europe combined. The New York TRACON handles operations for 45 airports, four of which are within 10 miles of each other, one of which has two runways, 10,000 feet roughly at EWR Newark, and has a 900-foot separation. So the least bit of inclement weather means you are down to one runway, a little more weather and that one runway is down to 5-mile spacing. It is not simple. You understand that. That is why you have this East Coast plan. Whatever you shift in one area has an effect and a consequence on another. I get impatient with those who want to oversimplify and thereby denigrate the participants in this issue. At JFK, you have capacity in the morning because it is an afternoon arrival-dependent airport with internationals coming in. If there are delays at La Guardia, the effect spreads across the entire United States and the entire rest of the East Coast. Continental at Newark will not give up a single slot until--it may have 55 percent of the operations there, but they will not give up a single slot until another airline says, "We will do the same." We met this issue at DFW when 5 or 6 years ago there was a hearing in this Committee, and I think it was Mr. Duncan who was Chairing the hearing at the time, and they had 57 departures all scheduled at 7:00 a.m. Now, they have three air traffic control towers at DFW, and they cannot release 57 aircraft at 7:00 a.m. We know that. Now, it is the one authority the FAA has to bring those carriers together and to work on filling in the valleys, the slow times of the day, spreading it out so that all of the carriers accept some of that burden and lowering the peaks so that you have more dependable arrival and departure patterns instead of airlines scheduling flights at 7:00 a.m. that do not take off until a quarter to 8:00 and asking the passengers to buy into the lie. Now, the nexus of this issue is evening out the flow, and you have a study underway. GAO has a review. The IG has a review underway. All we need is for all of you to accelerate work on those studies and to get them done as quickly as possible, review, have public understanding of and input into, and then move ahead with implementation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I appreciate the indulgence. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the Full Committee and recognizes Mr. Petri at this time. Mr. Petri. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. One, I do not know, Mr. Sturgell or Mr. Scovel, if I can put this into context, but in preparing for this, we indicated that some 41 percent of the delays in the system, roughly, are due to weather conditions. Do you have an idea of what percentage of the delays overall are probably due to scheduling inspired congestion because of overscheduling? How big a problem is this particular phenomenon of all of the airlines wanting to have a flight when the public wants to travel, obviously? Mr. Sturgell. Yes. I do not have that information today, Mr. Petri. It is obviously something we will try and put together for the Committee. Again, you know, it depends whether there are slower periods after peak volumes, how long the delay is and how lengthy the delay is, you know, and I certainly appreciate the frustration that has gone on with these chronic delays, and it is something that the Department's enforcement folks have been pursuing for a couple of months now. I just want to put up one thing on the weather side that you mentioned, though. These are weather trends that specifically go to New York, and I think, as you look at the graph, the trend in weather from last year to this year has gotten a little worse broadly across the NAS. We have had problems in particular areas. Dallas-Fort Worth, for example, has had some severe thunderstorms in the summer months as have a few other pockets around the country, but the trend line for New York, as you can see, has been very, very severe from 2006 to 2007. You know, while the BTS statistics from the Department show 40 some percent, our OPSNET delays, which are really focused on the air traffic system performance, show weather delays running at about 70 percent. So, when Chairman Oberstar talks about things like how close the runways are together and what happens when the weather comes down, yes, it has an impact on the capacity and on the efficiency at the airport. Again, going back to RNP and some other things we are trying to do with systems like Precision Runway Monitor, we are trying to move to have VMC arrival rates during, you know, IMC conditions. That is the direction the agency is moving in terms of throughput through the system, and certainly, the NextGen weather programs will help us along that line. Specifically for this summer and for New York in particular, it has been very tough. Mr. Petri. The general aviation community has said that-- they indicate that there has been a decrease in the number of general aviation flights between 2000 and today, and yet, the agency says that the general aviation community continues to be a contributing factor to delays and congestion now. Could you explain that? Mr. Sturgell. You know, this is where you need to thoroughly look at the data and what types of data you are looking at. The business jet community is definitely growing very substantially. Overall, though, general aviation operations--piston and everybody else--is down some 17 percent from where it was several years ago. You know, it is really from the aircraft on the general aviation side, the high- performance flyers, that get up into the system, that take up space where we have the commercial aircraft flying as well, and then you look at particular airports and particular regions. The New York TRACON handles well over 100 airports. It has got a fair amount of general aviation traffic as a TRACON. Now, at the individual airport at La Guardia, for example, we hold six unscheduled slots, you know. So it is not a lot, but it is six, you know, and in a place like La Guardia, it matters. So it depends on how you dissect the data to reach the various conclusions and statements. Mr. Petri. Just finally, earlier, Mr. Forrey, from NATCA indicated that one contributor to--he thought there were clear links between controller understaffing and delays in the system. Could you comment on that? Mr. Sturgell. Well, I think we have our workforce plan that we have been working off of for several years now. I am very confident we are going to hit the number again at the end of the month here with 14,807 controllers, and we are going to see that, by a fair amount, is the way things are shaping up this week. That is a net gain of 200 controllers over last year. So, I think the system is staffing well. Again, Jerry, if you have got--we have got a chart that shows operations per controller. You know, if you look at all of the broad measures, overtime is running about 1.6 percent; the time-on position is running about 5 hours and 1 minute, a little bit less on the en route side, a little bit higher on the terminal side for operations per controller. If you go back to 1999 and 2000, we are still, today, handling less operations per controller than we were in 1999 and 2000. So, I think the broad measures all show that we are staffed and that we are staffed adequately. There are only so many positions for a specific facility that you need to staff, and again, we are working off of our workforce plan. You know, do we have some facilities where it is a bigger issue and a focus for it? Sure, but overall, I think we are where we need to be in terms of staffing with the controller workforce. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes now the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, in Memphis, there was an unfortunate incident where the air traffic control facility went down for about 2-1/ 2 hours. The reportage that I have read about the problem was that it was a Bell South, or now AT&T, problem and that our air traffic control folk in that part of the country did an admirable job, a commendable job, in fact, in maintaining safety, which could have been jeopardized. Does this incident, Mr. Administrator, indicate to you that there is a need for more backup systems or more security? This was not a security problem, but do we have security at the telephone facilities that, if they were struck, could destroy our capacity to have an air transportation system? Mr. Sturgell. It was a very significant outage for us, as you pointed out. You know, we are still investigating, but at this point it is a Bell South-AT&T problem, and of course we will be, you know, discussing this with them, as we have been since it occurred, to figure out what the problem was and whether our system should be routed differently at this location and at other places to ensure more redundancy or better reliability. I would point out that, overall, system outages only account for about 1.1 percent of delays, and you know, we are running well over 99 percent in terms of our availability for NAS equipment, but as you pointed out, you know, there were several hundred delays, and we had about 200 aircraft, I think, in that airspace at the time. The controllers did a tremendous job. We do not see any, at this point, safety issues in terms of separation losses. We are continuing the analysis. We are also looking at things about what kind of additional things we should be providing the workforce at facilities, you know, like cell phones, just like we did when we looked at the weather radio issue. Mr. Cohen. Do you have anything to do--are you the person or is it your office that negotiates with the air traffic controllers for their contract? Mr. Sturgell. Are you talking about the contract towers or are you talking about the FAA employee towers? Mr. Cohen. Either. Mr. Sturgell. Either one? Yes, we have departments within the organization that handle negotiating those salaries and those programs. Mr. Cohen. Doesn't this situation yesterday where human, really, heroism to some extent but ingenuity probably saved us from having an accident in the skies indicate how important it is to have experienced air traffic controllers and to have a labor mechanism that provides for the retention of the experienced and skilled people who we depended on yesterday to save us from a tragedy? Mr. Sturgell. Again, our controllers did a great job in handling that event yesterday, no question about it. Mr. Cohen. And I hope our administrators do a great job in appreciating them and in negotiating with them and in seeing that they stay on the job. Mr. Sturgell. Fair enough. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Let me ask you this about regional jets. There has been some issue and a lot of studies recently about regional jets being a cause of some of our delays. We have got more smaller planes and all of them flying with less passengers and taking up the same amount of space and the same amount of time for the air traffic controllers. What is your opinion about regional jets and the problems they are causing the American flying public? Mr. Sturgell. Well, again, the regional jet industry has really taken off, and I think---- Mr. Cohen. No pun intended, right? Mr. Sturgell. Yes, exactly. I think, overall, it is the result of, you know, the operators responding to passenger needs and wants, and it has proved to be a great business tool and a great thing for the traveling public. With respect to how it impacts the system, I mean, I think, largely these planes have been replacing smaller turboprops, and that does a couple of things. Specifically, the turboprops generally flew below what would be the typical high-altitude environment for your commercial operators. The RJs have the capability to do that. So, to some extent, they are up there adding to the higher altitude level traffic. Mr. Cohen. We are running out of time. As they are adding to the traffic, they are causing part of the delays, right? So they are not necessarily conveniencing the public. Are they not a part of the delay problem? Let us say, if we had fewer planes, fewer scheduled flights and more people per plane, wouldn't we have the likelihood of less delays? Mr. Sturgell. I think, obviously, with fewer planes, there would probably be fewer delays overall. Again, it depends on where those planes are going and whether they are all going at the same time or at different times, that kind of thing. The other problems it presents to us is that, at some runways in the system, we had shorter runways where turboprops could land. RJs tend to take up larger landing distances, so there is, you know, the impact that they need longer runways and might not be able to use these off-load runways that the turboprops used to use. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure where to begin after listening. My first suggestion would be all of the different people who are blaming each other for all of the problems come to the table again very shortly with a list of suggestions of how "they" the airline, "they" the FAA, "they" the controllers could improve the system from their point of view. It is frustrating for us and for the people at home to listen to what is being said here. The FAA can shut down. They can control. They can do all kinds of things. If there is a golf tournament or a national Republican-Democrat convention you take over, but I am not sure that is what we want to do, and I understand your frustration in trying to answer that. Let us put that aside for a minute. If the Chairman would agree, I would sure like to have, as soon as possible, those of you involved come back and say, "Well, here is what we can do." The airlines are overscheduled like crazy. They do not have enough equipment to absorb a system delay when weather hits in one spot, and people who are inconvenienced and put at risk are sick and tired of that, and for the airlines to blame general aviation and other bogus straw men is just terrible. It just does not help the discussion. I want to switch a minute, Mr. Chairman, to the Next Generation Air Traffic Control, ADS-B. As I have spent a lot of time looking into that from my perspective as a pilot, there is a tremendous, a tremendous benefit waiting to be utilized by all sectors of aviation. It is not expensive, but we have not done a decent job of selling it to the public. Now, Mr. Scovel, you pointed out some very pertinent facts. I will disagree with the one you said that it will not cost the airlines billions of dollars to equip; it will cost thousands of dollars to equip, but everybody using the system needs to be encouraged to take advantage, and the FAA has done a fabulous job in Alaska, putting a system in place, developing it and using it. We need to really get on the ball and move down the track with that, but the public will not be confused. That is not going to eliminate the congestion problem. RVSM--we like to throw acronyms around--that has doubled the airspace above 29,000 feet. Again, there is only so much we can do. I would love to see the Northeast corridor and other congested area develop new plans, but we have reached the point of diminishing returns. Dan is a pilot. He is looking at me, shaking his head, and he is right. There are so many things we can do and not do with SIDS and stars. You know, our NAB has come and gone. I just wish that we would move forward and let people know what is available to us and what is realistic. We can stop the delay problem by slowing down the overinsertion of airplanes into the system. Mr. Cohen mentioned regional jets. That has been a boon to hub and spoke operations, but those are the, quote, "business jets" that are punching the extra holes in the sky. Mr. Chairman, I am having trouble developing a question in all of this, but again, I would hope the people who are here who have the answers, from their perspective, if they would clean up their own little place of business and come back and say, "well, we can do this" and somebody else says, "well, we can do that," then we could begin to see some significant progress. Dr. Sinha, you have studied the thing from one end to the other. What does MITRE think about how we can develop a more cooperative attitude, a cooperative, collaborative whatever, to get the problem moving and the public seeing that we are not only talking about it but doing something about it? Mr. Sinha. Well, the kind of collaboration that we are talking about really boils down to people problems. So, I mean, the way you framed it, sir, you know, by what does each party bring to the table; most of the times we end up in a situation that I will bring something to the table if my competitor does it, too. The question is how do you get past that knot that says that it has got to be a joint action by a number of people. In fact, theoretically, there has been lots of work done in game theory which relates to things like this when one set of people are playing games versus the other, and I do not think all of the great minds who have worked on that have really found an answer. So that is the best answer I can give you. Mr. Hayes. Back to the airlines, the FAA does not have any compensation right now that I know of, but again, I would sure encourage everybody here on this Committee that the Chairman and others are anxious to give a better product and to maintain the highest level of safety. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to, I guess, expend, but hopefully it will be helpful. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Boston, Mr. Capuano. Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hayes, you may think you vented. Watch this. Mr. Sturgell, you say you have the power. Tell me why you will not just do it. Mr. Sturgell. Because there are other things we are working on that will help alleviate the problem. Mr. Capuano. Well, that really, really helps me while I am sitting there waiting for plane that is stuck at La Guardia. You talk about recovery time. What about my recovery time and that of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who waste hour upon hour sitting in an airport waiting for a plane that never comes? Now, I should not complain, because the airline I fly just fixed the whole problem. They now list the flight to Boston as an hour and 20 minutes instead of 65 minutes. I do not think Boston has moved further away from Washington than it was last week, but at least they are telling the truth a little bit more, a little bit more. I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I understand you are Acting Director, and to some degree, I am sorry to take it out on you but you are the guy today. It is more directed to the FAA than to you, personally, and whoever comes into your place, whoever it is, I hope they are listening. You are embarrassing all of us here. Your agency's failure to act is an embarrassment. It is hurting the American business--the American economy, the American business flyers--and your failure to act and to study the issue has no reasoning to me. Why can't you take something and try it in one airport? Go to La Guardia and say, "You do one thing." Go to Atlanta and say, "You do one thing." If the airlines do not help you--look, competition is competition. You might have missed it, but the free market is not working on this issue. You are a regulatory agency as well, and if the free market does not work, it is your responsibility, your obligation as far as I see it, to take some action. To tell me to wait for 15 years or to tell me that we have an overbooking of 20 flights an hour and you want to deal with one to three, that is not an answer, and if you think that America is not angry, travel with me. I would love to have you sitting next to me on the plane, so when people come up to me and say, "Congressman, why aren't you doing anything?" I can say, "Hey, he is the guy. Talk to him." Explain it to them that you are studying the issue. It is not an answer. It is an excuse to kick the can down the street. Now, I am not asking you to have an exact answer on every issue. I know it is complicated. There is nothing simple in this world that I am aware of, but to fail to try to do anything is an abrogation of your responsibilities and your duties. I do not mean to pick out you individually, but you are the FAA today. I am speaking to the entire FAA. If you try something and it does not work, stop it and try something new or if you try something and the airlines come back and say, "Hey, we have a better idea," fine. Stop what you are doing and try that. Every flying member of this public knows that what you are doing now is not working, and I am a little embarrassed that Congress has not forced you to do it, but apparently the term "regulation" is like a swear word here in Washington. We cannot say that. I am perfectly happy to let the free market work, but when it does not work, we have an obligation to step in, and I have got to tell you that when I am sitting here talking about recovery time, recovery time means nothing to the individual who is sitting in an airport terminal or, worse, on an airplane. I have got to tell you, Mr. Sturgell, that I do not really have a question except to beg you and your cohorts at the FAA and your successor, whoever the permanent Director is going to be, the Administrator, to please do something, anything. Try it. If it does not work, stop it and try something else, and if you do not have any ideas on what to do to try, ask any number of airport directors. Ask any number of people at any airport, and you will come up with a few. If we can help you, we are happy to. You said you have the authority. We know you have the authority. The FAA reauthorization bill also has provisions in there to allow you to implement different study programs and procedures--not just study papers--around this country, and I cannot encourage you any more strongly than I just did to do something. Quit fiddling while America sits, please. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time that I no longer have, I guess. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the former Chair. Do you want to go to Mr. Coble? The gentleman, Mr. Coble, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have you gentlemen with us. I saw a constituent of mine, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, about 4 or 5 weeks ago at an airport, and he said to me "My least favorite activity used to be going to my dentist." He said, "I would rather go to my dentist than go to an airport." Then he went on--and I am not piling on you guys, but he went on to say that--he said, "I would exclusively travel by bus or train if it were not for the time consumed." This distresses me because I think my constituent voices a common complaint shared by thousands. It distresses me because the airline industry has served America admirably and, I think, still serves us admirably. Plagued with problems, yes, problems perhaps for which the airlines are at fault in some cases. We are at war against terrorism. That, obviously, is another problem, but let me ask you all this: If you believe that we in the Congress should consider legislation beyond the scope of passenger rights included in the recently passed House aviation reauthorization, think about that. Give us safeguards that we may implement to ensure that we can continue to have a vibrant aviation sector, because if we do not continue to have a vibrant aviation sector we are vulnerable. We are fragile. We will look forward to going to see dentists. That is a sad state. I do not mean to diminish the dentist profession--I do not mean to do that at all--but we are at the borderline, I think, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you this, Mr. Sturgell, and I will repeat that it is good to have you all with us. I know you feel like you have targets on your chest, but I think there is no ill will intended. I have heard that there is a proposal to develop accelerated lines for frequent flyers; that is to say, people who fly nine or 10 times a month as opposed to nine or 10 times a year. Send them to this lane where they can move along, and delays, of course, would be at least diminished. What is the story on that or the status on that, Mr. Sturgell? Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Coble, I think you are referring to the security lines while going through an airport. Mr. Coble. Yes. Mr. Sturgell. That falls within the jurisdiction of the Transportation Security Administration. I do believe there are those types of lines, but I cannot say for certain. Mr. Coble. I would like to know. Can you tell us in more detail about that subsequently? Mr. Sturgell. We will follow up with the Committee on that answer, sir. [Information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.012 Mr. Coble. All right. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I am not blaming anybody. Well, somebody has to be to blame for some of it. Part of it is because of the era in which we live, and we are stuck with that for the moment, but I appreciate you all being here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say this. Each of us has about 700,000 bosses, or 700,000 constituents, always putting pressure on us to do more and to do better, and then one of our jobs is to put more pressure on the FAA and on the airlines to do more and to do better in response to our constituents. So that is sort of where we are, but having said that, I think we also should owe an obligation to be fair and to tell people that we do have the best aviation system in the world, the best airlines in the world. Our system and our airlines are the envy of the world. Now, does that mean they should not do more and do better? They should, but I mentioned here before that it is human nature that, if somebody has 100 flights and they have one or two bad ones or they have one or two cancellations or one or two delays, those are the ones they talk about. They forget very quickly about their good, safe flights, and safety has gone way up in recent years. So we need to say some of those things. Then I am told also that 40 or 41 percent of the delays are directly attributable to weather, and when you add in the ones that are indirectly attributable to weather in the national aviation system, it goes to over 70 percent. So you have got that situation, but there are things that we can and should be doing. For instance, if I heard Inspector General Scovel right, he said, I think, eight airlines had come up with ground delay plans, and five had not or had implemented those plans. Is that correct? Mr. Scovel. That is correct, sir. Eight have implemented plans for establishing a time period for meeting passengers' essential needs. Eight have also set a time period for deplaning passengers after a long, on-board delay. Mr. Duncan. All right. Then Administrator Sturgell, maybe it would be good for you to do something as simple as call up those other five airlines and ask them why they have not done the same thing as those eight airlines, and I wish you would do that. Now, let me say this about the air traffic control system. I believe I heard you say that we have a little over 14,000 air traffic controllers, but did you say that they are handling, on average, fewer operations than they were in 1999 and 2000? Mr. Sturgell. 14,807 is what we expect to end this fiscal year with or more than that. Across the system, operations per controller are less than they were in 1999 and in 2000. Now, at specific airports, is it different where there has been a tremendous amount of growth? It is probably the case. I do not have those specific airports or numbers with me, but just nationally, that is where we are with the system. Mr. Duncan. All right. Let me say this. You know, a one-size-fits-all situation usually is not the best solution to any problem, and I was very interested when I heard the figures, which I have heard similar figures many times before--that you said 72 percent of the delays are concentrated in seven airports; is that correct? Somebody said that. Mr. Sturgell. That is correct. Those same seven airports in 2000--in the summer of 2000, they were 55 percent of the delays. Now they are 72 percent of the delays. That includes places like Houston and Atlanta, though we have added runways, and we have seen big improvements there. Mr. Duncan. Right. Mr. Sturgell. The focus has been on the New York area this summer. Mr. Duncan. I think somebody said or I read in one of the testimonies that it is almost impossible to build a new airport, and it is extremely difficult to add on even new runways, but we need to concentrate on those airports where the problems are the worst, and then, with all due respect to my friend from the other end of Tennessee, we sure do not want to restrict these regional jets or you are going to cut down the service, the direct service, that cities like Knoxville and Greensboro and many other cities would have to New York and to Washington and to all of these other places. So the regional jets, I will just say, have been a real blessing to areas like mine. So there are a lot of things that we can do and are doing. In fact, we have spent, I think, an average of $2.5 billion over the last 3 years on improving the system, the ADS-B technology and the NextGen system. Now, in Chairman Costello's bill, I am told we have got $13 billion over the next 3 years that we have authorized for the NextGen system, so there are going to be great improvements. Finally, I will just say this because my time has run out. While we still need to do a lot more, is the air traffic control system, Administrator Sturgell, better than it was last year? If you know, approximately how many people at the FAA are working to improve the air traffic control system right now in addition to the 14,000 air traffic controllers? Mr. Sturgell. Well, the mission of the entire agency is to, you know, maintain the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. Everybody at the agency is focused on delivering on that mission, and I am sorry that folks have the impression that the FAA has not been doing anything, I mean, you know, if we have not made that clear. Since 2000, we put 13 new runways on line, 1.6 million operations, including at Boston, which has been a huge delay reduction airport. Next year, we are going to have three more locations with new runways. In the last 2 years, I think we have had five. We have been working--you know, since the high- density rule came off in January of 2007, we have been working with the airlines and the stakeholders in the New York area on a dozen or so operational activities to help that area specifically--RNAV, RNP, DRVSM, time-based metering. There is a whole list of things that we have been doing that, I think, have made this system better than it was last year and, certainly, several years ago, and it is going to continue to get better, especially if we can, you know, accelerate the implementation of some of the technologies we know that are out there. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Sturgell, let me ask a couple of questions. I will get them in here. The folks on our side of the aisle have asked their questions. You make a good point. There have been improvements. There have been a number of runways built, a number of extensions and improvements, and you know, that is one of the reasons why when we did our extension on Monday of this week that we made certain to extend contract authority for the AIP program for the next 90 days as well. The question, really, now is what are we going to say to the American people for the next several months, from now through the holiday season to the end of the year, and that is what I would like you to focus on right now. What, if anything, will the FAA be doing--I will give you the opportunity on the record to say so now--to try and reduce delays and congestion between now and the peak of the holiday season until the end of the year? Mr. Sturgell. Well, with respect to just a couple of things here: interacting with the stakeholders who are involved and specifically folks in the New York area where there has been a tremendous amount this summer. We have had and the Secretary has established a working group with ongoing initiatives and discussions with the carriers about things we can do in a whole number of areas, including consumer rights. Again, you know, I understand, you know, how these long delays impact people.You know, I use the system both as a passenger and as a pilot. It is not a good situation to be in, but we are working with them. I saw today that Delta announced that they were going to shift some of their afternoon activities into a later third bank at JFK, so we will be doing analysis to see how that helps that airport. Again, that is done voluntarily. Some of the other things we are going to be working on are the airspace redesign, putting in the fanned departures that we will, hopefully, be implementing in a matter of months. We are looking at our own performance in terms of throughput at the respective airports and what we can do there. Simultaneous approaches at 31 at Kennedy are in use now as well as we have started using three runways there, you know, as that operation has built up. There are additional approaches at Newark and additional RNP and RNAV procedures. All of these things, you know, are ongoing, and we expect many of them to be implemented before the winter schedule, but our focus is really on the summer and, you know, bringing in ASDE-X there a year early so that we can have that full system there by July. In addition to that, what we are going to have 2 months before then, by May, as part of that ASDE-X system is a surface traffic management capability. You know, this goes back to ``this whole thing is complicated.'' One of the complications is the surface, not just the movement areas, which we are responsible for, but the nonmovement areas, which largely the carriers and the airport operators are responsible for, and we intend to give them data that will allow them to manage those operations better, and it should help us as well. Mr. Costello. I thank you. Mr. Scovel, would you like to comment as to what can be done in the short-term? You have heard Mr. Sturgell talk about what the FAA intends to do and can do in the short-term to address delays and congestion for the holiday season. I would like to ask you specifically: Are there any other suggested items that you would recommend that the FAA do during this period to reduce congestion and delays for the holiday season? Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a number of ideas that we would refer to the FAA and also to the Committee. The first would be to revisit capacity benchmarks. Right now, capacity benchmarks are calculated at hour intervals. We think it would be more helpful if those were recalculated at 15-minute intervals to provide greater visibility to peaks in scheduling. That way, the FAA and airlines, perhaps, if they deem it necessary, can address depeaking through voluntary means or otherwise. Next, shift to a near-term focus at the New York airports. We have heard the FAA talk about their concerns about next summer. Our analysis is that everyone's concerns over what happened this past summer will continue on through the winter and, as you pointed out, the busy holiday season. We recommend that the airlines and the FAA shift their focus specifically to the high-density area around New York, the three airports with the most delays, shift their focus to that. Third, expand FAA's Airspace Flow Program. It has been expanded from 7 to 18 locations. We recommend that the FAA examine other locations on an urgent basis where this critical program may prove beneficial. Next, we urge the airlines--as they promised to do in 2001 but lost focus in the aftermath of 9/11, we urge the airlines to establish specific targets for reducing chronically delayed or canceled flights. In the month of June, my staff provided for me a list of flights, chronically delayed flights, in the month of June. There were seven flights that were late 100 percent of the time in the month of June. To update that for July, there were no 100 percent delayed flights, but all 15 flights on our list had been delayed at least 93 percent of the time. That is unsatisfactory, and the airlines can address that. We also have recommended to the airlines--and they have resisted this recommendation--that they disclose on-time flight performance. We think sunshine is a great thing for consumers to make intelligent decisions regarding their ticketing needs. If flight performance, on-time performance, is available at airlines' Web sites, that would serve consumers well. We have also recommended to the airlines that they, without request by the consumer, disclose to a caller the on-time performance of specific flights that the consumer is inquiring about when he or she is making reservations. The Department should reconvene the task force, that was first instituted in 2001, to examine chronically delayed flights and other consumer problems but which again lost focus in the aftermath of 9/11. Finally, sir, we would recommend that large- and medium-hub airport operators implement processes for monitoring lengthy delays. In my opening statement, I mentioned that 2 of the 13 airports that we examined had instituted a process to track or monitor planes out on the tarmac. At the 2-hour mark, those airport operators are prepared to call the carriers and say, "What is happening with your plane? How may we assist?" We recommend that other airports adopt that process as well. Mr. Costello. I thank you, Mr. Scovel, and let me point out that, as to many of the recommendations that you just made and other recommendations in your report yesterday, I am pleased to tell you, as you well know, that we have put in H.R. 2881, that passed the House last Thursday, the consumer protection provision of the bill. Included in that is transparency as far as the airlines are concerned. We would require them to post on their Web sites on a monthly basis those flights that have been canceled/delayed so that the American people and the people who fly have the ability to go online and determine which airlines/ which flights were delayed, canceled and so on. With that, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, we appreciate you all being here and helping us out with this. I think one of the things is that we who sit here are frequent travelers, you know, and are on the airlines every week, and I think, you know, part of the reason that we have such concern is that we have seen a fairly dramatic change in the last few years, and the airlines have been so good; the whole system has been so good. We really do need to nip this in the bud before it gets like--we do not want it to get like driving in to Washington, you know, in the morning or in so many of our cities. Like I say, this has been the standard that has worked so well. What you can do for us, you know, and what I try and do and what so many Congresspeople try and do is use the power of the office for good, to bring people together, and so I think it is really important that you do show the leadership and use the power of the agency to get people to the table. You have got the clout, some ability now, you know, to hammer folks and to use that clout, and if you need more clout, then I think we will be glad to give you that within reason. I would like for you to talk a little bit about these. You know, I have had constituents who have sat on the Tarmac for 8 hours and things like that. To me, there is just no reason in the world, you know, that that kind of stuff can be tolerated. Can you talk a little bit about that and how you can prevent that or should it be prevented or--again, just kind of tell me a little bit about your thoughts regarding those horror stories that we hear about the 8-hour delays and the Port-a-Pottys being full and the whole bit. Mr. Sturgell. Well, just kind of operationally first and then on the consumer side, Mr. Boozman, I will just say a couple of things. One is the whole understanding of what is going on on the surface in terms of how airports are configured to flow traffic onto a runway and off of a runway but also out of a terminal where there are throats, where there are bottlenecks, where there are folks pushed back and who cannot move because other planes are in the way, that kind of thing. So one of the things that, you know, we and the industry need to do better on is on the surface management side in terms of traffic flows, and I think folks--like I said, we are going to get something into JFK before the summer of next year. Folks like Continental and, I believe, Northwest have installed these kinds of systems for themselves as well. I also think severe weather does play a factor in terms of lengthy delays and taxi-outs at times. Certainly, the ice storm, which had been forecasted differently last year with the JetBlue incident, was a contributing factor. Mr. Boozman. I guess what I am saying, though, is: Is there ever an excuse for keeping somebody on a plane for 6 or 8 hours? I mean that, to me, makes no sense at all. Mr. Sturgell. Well, I know the airlines have recognized that it is a problem, and some have voluntarily adopted programs now, and I think the air transportation---- Mr. Boozman. But do you all recognize it as a problem? Mr. Sturgell. I will let D.J. address some of that. Mr. Gribbin. Thank you. I am not here because the Administrator needs counsel. I am here because the General Counsel's Office at DOT actually houses the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, which is responsible for consumer protection. So we have done a number of things. Most recently in May, we sent a letter to 20 carriers, in essence saying that we are going to consider chronic delays--the instances were mentioned before--where you have a flight that is late 100 percent of the time as an unfair practice. We will penalize them if, for more than two quarters, they continue to have flights like that, because what we are looking for is twofold. One is we want transparency for consumers when they are purchasing a ticket, so they understand that this flight is likely to be delayed. Secondly, we want them to have redress if something does go wrong at the end of the day. That said, our real focus, from a customer standpoint, is congestion relief. At the end of the day, most of the frustration--as somebody who commuted for a year and a half from here to La Guardia, I can attest to the fact that my flights were hardly ever on time, and there was no way for me to predict when they would be on time. So what we are trying to do is to put together a system that will allow us and will allow the industry to more reliably operate airlines. A big piece of that is potentially congestion pricing, and again, as you know, the administration's bill had that as a component, and that has been stripped out on the House side. I think that is one short-term remedy that we could definitely use that, unfortunately, looks like is not going to be available to us. Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Costello, for the splendid work you have done all throughout this hearing. I regret having to be in and out with other Committee business that we have been attending to and also with my own congressional district business. This is a vexing issue, and it is going to take everyone's best efforts. I come back to the image I created earlier, the three-legged stool. The FAA, the airports and the airlines all have to be working together. No one entity can resolve this issue alone. The East Coast redesign that the FAA has set forth that is now under review by GAO is an important step in the right direction, but this is such a complex airspace. Again, there is nothing like it anywhere else in the world, especially on the East Coast. Now, if you add up the nine TRACONs on the East Coast, they total 9.5 million operations for last year. That is 10 percent of all air operations in the United States, of all TRACON operations in the United States. Those are more operations than all of Europe combined, more than three times as much as all of Europe combined. The nexus of it, the core of it, is the New York TRACON's handling 45 airports, four of which are within 10 miles of each other and are among the busiest in the world. I could say they are the busiest in the United States. It is the same as saying they are the busiest in the world. This is the busiest airspace. In untangling that complexity with the layers of problems, the arrival rate has to be predominant. You have got to get aircraft on the ground. Also, managing the noise impact on communities near airports. Whatever you do in the redesign is going to have an adverse effect on somebody else because there is no free space in which to move things around. The only area where you have capacity, blatant capacity in that New York region, is Atlantic City near the FAA Research Involvement Testing Center. The FAA just recently approved a grant to extend the runway to build out an existing runway to, I think, 12,000 feet and to add a taxiway. Now, if you manage the ground service into Atlantic City, which is very doable--New Jersey has a superb surface transportation system, and a high reliance of 10 percent of all transportation is by transit in the State of New Jersey--you can redirect flow into Atlantic City and reduce pressure on Newark, even on Philadelphia. There will probably not be much of an effect, though. There might be some, conceivably, on La Guardia. It is going to take the FAA's paying heed to Mr. Scovel's recommendations, which I thought were very pertinent, and bringing the airlines into a regular discussion, using the existing authority, and scheduling reduction meetings. Mr. Oberstar. The Secretary of Transportation may request that air carriers meet with the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss flight reductions at severely congested airports to reduce overscheduling and flight delays. And the airlines have got to be part of that. They can't sit on the sidelines and say, oh, there isn't sufficient capacity in the air traffic control system, we need Next Generation. That is 15 years off. They have got to be a part of the solution. And they are sitting back saying we are not going to move until everybody moves. The way to make everybody move is for the FAA to exercise that authority. Now, tell me, Mr. Sturgell, what steps are the FAA taking to implement that authority? Mr. Sturgell. Well, we have been--you know, in addition to that, we have been working with the industry as you are talking about on all these operational improvements, on all of the issues in general, discussions about consumer issues, discussions about their schedules as Chairman Costello pointed out. We did ask recently for international schedules. So it is one of the things, you know, among the many things we need to be doing that we are looking at the very closely. Mr. Oberstar. But you are willing to use that authority to bring the carriers together to rationalize their schedules, to fill in the peaks and the valleys. Mr. Sturgell. We have worked with airlines in the past, both voluntarily and at the example of Chicago, you know, voluntary scheduling meeting followed by an order to make the kind of changes to keep the system safe and efficient. Mr. Oberstar. If I recall rightly, there was a time when the Congress gave brief exemption from the antitrust authority to the FAA--the DOT and the FAA to convene airlines together to redo schedules. But I don't think that extensive authority is needed because of this provision that I just read from the existing law that we enacted a few years ago. Mr. Gribbin. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that. Currently, we are not able to grant antitrust immunity. We don't have---- Mr. Oberstar. You don't have that authority. Mr. Gribbin. The way we proceeded in Chicago, was we had a group meeting and then we had one-on-one negotiations with each airline so the airlines would hear what each other was saying. That said, I think we need to be careful in throwing out a scheduling committee as a solution. It is somewhat akin to saying that, you know, cars with license plates that end in zero can't drive on Monday and one can't drive on Tuesday and three can't drive on Wednesday. That will reduce congestion, but it is really not going to improve kind of the quality of life for Americans. So part of our main mission is to grow capacity so that as additional people want to travel, they are able to travel and to do that in a way that they are able to travel that is--if not congestion free, at least somewhat reliable. So I think that is why we are hesitant to jump on a scheduling committee as the ultimate solution to the problem. Because it will reduce congestion, but it will significantly hamper economic growth. Mr. Oberstar.And when you say that image you created, several years ago I was in Phoenix, Arizona for a meeting, a national meeting on infrastructure capacity and water and sewer and sewage treatment plants. And just taking the temperature of the local community of the Phoenix area, I turned on the TV for the morning news. And there was an announcement, if your license plate ends in 7, this is your voluntary no-drive day. Mr. Gribbin. Right. Imagine if it was a mandatory no-drive day. And that is essentially what the scheduling committee would give us. Mr. Oberstar. As an interim solution, you do have to use that authority, to bring the carriers together to modulate their operations. Well, where are you going to add runway capacity at Newark, in the Passaic River? That is the only place you can build another runway out there. Where are you going to add more runways at La Guardia? There is no capacity. There is capacity at JFK in the morning hours because you have an arrival--an afternoon arrival rate for international flights. Mr. Gribbin. You---- Mr. Oberstar. You can't quite conveniently shift La Guardia service to JFK. Mr. Gribbin. You are dead on. You are severely limited especially in New York at capacity now. One of the things that we have found historically, however, when we impose caps, is that incumbent airlines are hesitant to allow improvements to the system that will expand capacity to allow new entrants in. And so you do have kind of a perverse set of incentives once you impose caps for those that are already at that facility to resist expansion. That is why I think as Acting Administrator Sturgell said earlier, the FAA's primary goal is to expand capacity, expand capacity, expand capacity, try to meet consumer demand. If you can't do that, use technology to also expand capacity. Then only if we can't do that should we look at more regulatory means like scheduling. Mr. Oberstar. That is all true, and I understand and I posited that at the outset. But if you had NextGen in hand today, operating at Newark and you had a storm come in, you have got two runways, 900-feet separation, you cannot have simultaneous operations under those circumstances. You are down to one runway. And what is the arrival and departure rate at Newark? Mr. Gribbin. I will let Mr. Sturgell answer that. We are not talking about necessarily inclement weather issues. What we are really looking---- Mr. Oberstar. That is when the system really breaks down, though. Mr. Gribbin. Exactly. But currently it is not functioning even particularly well when you have clear sky delays, especially in the New York area. So what we are trying to do is figure out if you have a limited capacity, you have limited sort of supply, what is the most efficient way to allocate that out so that you don't create perverse incentives for gamesmanship to block out competition due to a variety of other things. Mr. Oberstar. That is where the Department comes in to moderate those forces. Mr. Gribbin. Right. And what we had asked for in our bill actually was the ability to congestion price, which we think would allow for---- Mr. Oberstar. I don't know that pricing is necessary, but if you get people around a table--if you have morning peaks, mid day peaks and afternoon or evening peaks and then you have valleys in between, you have unused--you have available capacity and airlines could price, they could provide premiums to travelers who have flexible travel schedules to use the 9:00 to 11:00 period for example or the 1:00 to 3:00 period and provide incentives. Unless you bring them into the room together, Jim May's operation isn't going to do that. Mr. Gribbin. They have absolutely. The way we have currently configured our system, the airlines are incentivized to put as many flights as possible into New York, and they have done exactly that. Which again, if you can price it, you change those incentives and you get the people who value it most or the people who are able to move the most people take advantage of that time slot. I mean, you really have two options--three options. One is let delays continue. The second is sort of having an administrative solution and the third is pricing, where you are allocating scarce resources. History has shown us short of the administrative solution, because of data delays and other things, is always less efficient than a pricing model. Mr. Oberstar. Have you tried a congestion pricing model anywhere? Mr. Gribbin. In fact, La Guardia had a congestion pricing model in the 1960s and it worked very well. Mr. Oberstar. They had one in the 1960s and then they just got rolled over by the influx of air travel. So the departure and arrival rate at La Guardia is still at 80 an hour? Mr. Sturgell. It depends on whether it is VMC or IMC, Mr. Chairman. The benchmarks have gone from 61 to 92 or so, I think it is. And that is total operations per hour. But, you know, you were talking earlier about Atlantic City. The Port Authority is doing a regional study and, of course, we are hoping that Stewart will be a viable fourth airport in that region. A similar study is going on in San Francisco and we think down the road southern California with LAX will need a similar look as well. But, we are looking at all reliever airports in that area to see what improvements we can do to help encourage people to off-load to other airports. Mr. Oberstar. Hasn't the introduction of regional jets subplanting the Saabs and older generation turbo prop aircrafts further complicated the airspace? That is you have RJs carrying half the capacity of a 737 or a 320 or sometimes even less, but using the same altitudes, same airspace, same arrival and same arrival speeds or departure speeds, whereas the Saabs carry roughly, say, a capacity of--maybe a little bit less, flying at lower altitudes, slower speeds and can fit in. That is further--I note that in 2000, we had 570 RJs and last year that doubled to 1,746 RJs in the system. Isn't that creating additional strains on the air traffic control system? Mr. Sturgell. Well, certainly a different type--again--as you said, it is complicated. There are different types of airplanes. And the more there are different types of airplanes in the system makes the system more complicated and difficult in general. And you are correct to point out that, you know, turbo props generally flew below the higher altitude structures that commercial airlines typically fly and that the RJs are largely capable of flying at those higher altitudes and will do so when it is fuel efficient to them. On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits with these new planes. It is a new generation of aircraft. There are additional capabilities in them. It is a different level of comfort and service for the passenger. So there are goods in others for all of these things. And, again, it goes back to: it is very complicated and it will require everybody working together to get this resolved. Mr. Oberstar. So we have the GAO reviewing the airspace redesign. I hope they can accelerate their review. We need to move that along faster so that it can be subject to the public commentary and then get on. What do you anticipate on two levels? In reduction of delays and increase in capacity at La Guardia, JFK, Newark, Teterborough from the redesign? Mr. Sturgell. Well, our focus at this point is the summer of 2008. And we hope to have some things addressed and in place, you know, by early next summer, to help avoid the situation that we had today. Obviously, if we move forward with airspace redesign and a few of these other operational improvements we are looking at, we may be able to help out in the winter season this year. Mr. Oberstar. Can you put a percentage of reduction of delay and percentage of increase in operations? I won't hold it to you. I won't say Mr. Sturgell, you told us this. Let's say your best guess today is this much. Mr. Sturgell. Well, I would be doing an injustice to everyone by guessing. Mr. Oberstar. The number 20 percent has been floated around and attributed to the FAA. Is that a ballpark here? Mr. Sturgell. If we are talking about the airspace redesign, full implementation we will reduce delays by 20 percent over the levels we expect in 2011. So we do expect to see substantial benefit out of that. And I think there are short-term benefits to the airspace redesign for Newark departures, La Guardia, and less so at Kennedy. But---- Mr. Oberstar. And that is an improved flow? Is that departure flow or is that arrival flow or is it both? Mr. Sturgell. Departure flow, fanned departures, yes, sir. Mr. Oberstar. What about the redistribution of noise as a result of the redesign? Will there be new populations that--or existing populations that receive noise that receive a higher impact of noise? Mr. Sturgell. So, you know, I understand this is a tough issue for everybody and certainly noise going forward for aviation is a tough issue in general. There will be a redistribution of some noise. But, the net overall benefit is a decrease in noise for nearly 600,000 persons. So it is a substantial benefit and we did put in a lot of mitigations to achieve those benefits from an alternative--you know, if we were focused solely on, you know, all about the operation and not worried about people and the impact on your constituents and the American public, you know, we would not have achieved those types of reductions. Mr. Oberstar. It is essentially a zero sum game, is it not? Mr. Sturgell. It is a benefit in this case. Mr. Oberstar. There is no place where there is no noise impact now that--where there are no people living who will not be impacted by noise. Mr. Sturgell. Yeah. There will be new people with noise impacts. A lot of the people with noise impacts today will be relieved and the net benefit overall is nearly a 600,000 reduction in noise. Mr. Oberstar. In some cases it is--I will stop on a measure of relief for you. And that is in some cases, it is perception. In 1990, we had just concluded action in Committee and on the House floor on the Noise Reduction Act, moving to stage three, the new stage three requirement and the bill passed the House. And our Committee received an irate call from a homeowner in the New York area saying, well, it hasn't benefited us a single bit, it hasn't done a thing. I am getting all this noise from a DC-10 and I can see it, I can see that aircraft coming right overhead. And our Committee staff person that took the irate call said, ma'am, you may be able to see that aircraft; but if you can see it from where you are, you can't hear the noise. That noise is coming from someplace else. It is a tough problem. I just come back to the point, the airlines have to be engaged. They have to be willing to move flights around. They have to be willing to make--offer incentives to air travelers to travel at maybe less attractive hours of the day and to work hand in hand with the Congress and the FAA_and the DOT needs to use the authority that exists in law and to accept those_and implement the recommendations of MITRE and of the inspector general and work with us. We will work with you to help make this move better than it does today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Oberstar. I have a few other questions I will submit to you in writing and ask you to reply. Before we dismiss the first panel, though. I would like to make some comments to follow up on Chairman Oberstar's comments to you. One is that--there is no question that the FAA has the authority to sit down with the airlines now and to address the scheduling issue and as you indicated, Mr. Sturgell, you intend to do that. The bill that we have passed through the House requires the FAA to do that. We require the FAA to sit down with the airlines, where there is evidence that, in fact, overscheduling as resulted in delays. So that is a major change and we think that it is a necessary change. Also in congestion pricing, we accepted an amendment on the floor that will require a study on that issue. So that issue is addressed in the bill. And last, I can't help but making note of the fact that when you look at the percentage of delays at Newark this year versus the percentage of delays at O'Hare International Airport when the FAA came in and capped flights at O'Hare, the delays are higher at Newark today than they were at O'Hare when the FAA stepped in and capped O'Hare. So I just make that point for the record. And, Mr. Scovel, I would ask you and your agency, if you would, to prepare a report for this Subcommittee. As I mentioned earlier, this is a second--the second in a series of hearings. I think one of the responsibilities that we have is to make certain that both the FAA, the airlines and all of the stakeholders here that we are all doing our job and that there is aggressive oversight and I said it in our last hearing to the airlines in particular and to others that if you think we are going away, we are not. This will not be just one hearing and we are going to walk away from this, that there will be additional hearings. This is the second. There will be another hearing on this matter in approximately--at least one in the next 90 days. And by that time I would hope, Mr. Scovel, that your agency could prepare a report for the Subcommittee prior to the hearing, so that in the next 90 days, that would take a look at this summer what we are discussing right now, the congestion, the delays and the problems that we have experienced. And we will get you this request in writing. But we would like you to take a look at the delays this summer in comparison to delays since the year 2000 not only delay, but cancellations, including chronically delayed flight, as well as airline scheduling and provide to the Subcommittee hopefully in the next 90 days prior to our next hearing. So we will get that information to you, the specific request in writing. We thank all of you for about being here today to testify before the Subcommittee. And we will not only beholding another hearing in about 90 day, but we will be in constant contact with your office and in particular, Mr. Sturgell and with Mr. Scovel as well. Again, we thank you for your testimony and we would dismiss the first panel at this time. Thank you. As our first panel is leaving, let me begin the introductions of our second panel and ask our witnesses to come forward and take their seats at the table. Mr. Patrick Forrey, the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Jim May, the President and the CEO of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Steve Brown, who is the senior vice president for operations, National Business Aviation Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, the President of the Regional Airline Association, Mr. Gregory Principato, who is President of the Airport's Council International North America; Ms. Kate Hanni, the executive director and spokesperson for the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights; and Mr. Kevin Mitchell, who is the Chairman of the Business Travel Coalition. TESTIMONIES OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; STEVE BROWN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER COHEN, PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA; KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AN AIRLINE PASSENGERS' BILL OF RIGHTS; AND KEVIN MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS TRAVEL COALITION Mr. Costello. So we ask that you all take your seats and we will recognize you as soon as you are seated and prepared to testify. I would note for the second panel for our witnesses that we have--your entire statement will be entered into the record and we will ask you to summarize your statement so that we can get to the questions. You heard the testimony in the first panel. If any of you want to provide an answer or question or make a point on the record concerning the testimony that you have heard from the first panel, please feel free to do so. And at this time, I would recognize Mr. Forrey under the five-minute rule. Let me ask, if I can, if all of you would pull the microphone a little bit closer to you. We should have asked that of the last panel. It would be helpful to us. Mr. Forrey. Is that better? Does that work? Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify. I do so on behalf of the 19,000 aviation safety professionals that I represent at NATCA. Also I would like to express my thanks to allow us the ability to address the critical issue of the aviation delays in the system. I cannot start this testimony without mentioning a fact that the Memphis air route traffic control center went into the ATC zero yesterday, which means controllers lost all communication with aircraft for three hours. Controllers had to clear all commercial flights over an eight-state area until the problem was fixed. We have never had an outage involving this much airspace for this long a period of time. One communication line brought the system down affecting over a thousand flights and thousands of passengers. The experienced veteran controllers rose to the challenge using their personal cell phones to separate traffic and ensure safety. Inexplicably, the FAA banned cell phones, but controllers do what they have to do to make sure they get the job done in a crisis and in unsafe events to prevent disaster. As we start today's discussion about delays, I must point out that if we continue to strip away at the safety redundancy of the ATC system, occurrences such as this will continue to occur and next time we might not be so lucky. Aside from the millions of airline travelers who experienced the pain and frustration of this summer's record level of flight delays firsthand, no one had a better view of the congested runways, taxiways, gate ramps and airways than the Nation's air traffic controllers. These controllers work record amounts of hours of overtime in high-stressed, understaffed work environments with the guiding principle of moving the system along as efficiently as possible while keeping safety above all as our highest priority. The fact is most delays are caused by weather and airline scheduling practices. Air traffic control staffing has also become a major factor as facility staffing levels across the country plummet. It is not uncommon to see flight restrictions due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. Capacity in the national airspace system is intricately related to runway availability and adequate air traffic control staffing. While modernizing enhancements and airspace procedures such as required navigation performance and domestic reduced vertical separation minimum will result in more available airspace, the gains made will be limited by the inadequate air traffic control staffing and infrastructure on the ground. The simple truth is that the efficiency gains made in airspace can only have a major positive impact on delays once ground capacity is addressed. Runways and taxiways are an absolute necessity to increase system capacity. Currently runways are under construction at only three major airports, Charlotte, North Carolina, Seattle, Washington and Washington, Dulles. The best evidence that supports our position that the current delay problem must have a ground based component are the results of the new runway at Atlanta Hartsville Jackson International Airport. Atlanta's new runway opened May 27, 2006. A comparison of operations and delays was run from May 27th to September 30th of 2006 against the same time period in 2005. In that period, Atlanta had an increase of almost 3,100 operations, yet they had nearly 14,000 fewer delays in 2006. Meanwhile, understaffing of air traffic control facilities will continue to exacerbate the inefficiencies of the current system. As the NTSB warned earlier, this year we cannot continue to push our air controller workforce beyond its limits. Controller fatigue rates are increasing at a frightening level as air traffic continues grows. To me, the impact controller staffing has on delays is clear. There are 1,100 fewer certified controllers currently watching the skies than on 9/11, when 5,200 aircraft were landed safely in 90 minutes. At the same time, delays have increased over 150 percent with nearly identical traffic operations. Moreover, three experienced controllers are leaving every day, and an additional 70 percent of the current work force will retire in the next 5 years. Efforts are going to have to be made to stabilize and control the workforce. And a large segment of the U.S. Economy is increasingly dependent upon air travel to keep moving. The simple fact is that when demand exceeds capacity, delays will occur. Airline scheduling practices are unrealistic and favor marketing demand but they fail to consider capacity. Airline schedules are set to optimal conditions. And even at that, demand often exceeds capacity. If the weather conditions, runway availability, runway configuration, flight paths or other restrictions exist, delays are inevitable for flight schedules based on optimal conditions. Also when airline operations are disrupted at major airports, there is a ripple effect of delays across the country since aircraft and flight crews will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is our position that responsible scheduling of flights within airport capacity limits will go a long way towards alleviating delays. Former Administrator Blakely agreed with our position when she recently admitted, "the airlines need to take a step back on scheduling practices that are at times out of line with reality." To that point, NACTA looked at a one-day schedule earlier this month for New York's La Guardiaairport. Under optimal configurations of runways and under perfect weather, they will be able to depart 10 aircraft per quarter hour for a total of 40 operations departures per hour. The following is a breakdown by 15 minute blocks of the effects of the airlines scheduling practices for that day. Between 2:15 p.m. And 2:29 p.m., 17 aircraft are proposed for departure. Remembering under optimal conditions, only 10 aircraft will the able to depart in the 15-minute block. So therefore, seven aircraft will be delayed to the next quarter hour creating an immediate backlog. Between 2:30 and 2:44, another 10 aircraft are proposed for departure. Seven aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 2:45 and 2:59, 11 aircraft are proposed for departure. One aircraft will be delayed and added to the quarter, totaling eight back logged. Between 3:00 and 3:14, 13 aircraft are proposed for departure. Three additional aircrafts are added to the back log, totaling 11 in the backlog. 3:15 to 3:29, seven aircraft are proposed for departure. Three aircraft can be departed from the backlog. Eight aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m., 14 aircraft are proposed for departure. Four aircraft are added to the backlog. Eight are again in the backlog. Between 4:15 and 4:29, 10 aircraft are proposed for departure. Eight remain in the backlog. Between 4:30 and 4:44, eight aircraft are proposed for departure, two aircraft can depart from the backlog, six aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 4:45 and 4:59, seven aircraft are proposed for departure. Three aircraft can depart from the backlog, three aircraft remain in the backlog. Between 5:00 and 5:14, another 12 aircraft are proposed for departure, two additional aircraft are added to the backlog, totaling five aircraft in the backlog. Between 5:15 and 5:29, four aircraft are proposed for departure. All five aircraft can now depart from the backlog and for the first time since 2:00 that afternoon, the backlog is empty. The controllers will not recover the time for nearly 3 hours and neither do the passengers on the delayed aircraft. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am available for any questions you or any Member of the Committee might have. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Mr. Forrey for your testimony and recognizes Mr. May. Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll truncate my remarks in the interest of time. You invited us to comment on increasing flight delays and customer service improvements. As you have already indicated, the two are inextricably linked. Today more people are traveling to more places on more flights than ever before. 760 million passengers will fly in 2007, 100 million more than the year 2000. And why? Because air travel is convenient, relatively inexpensive, remarkably safe and demand is expected to keep growing, particularly in the New York area where metropolitan airports are major international gateways serving 32 more international airports and almost 19,000 more daily passengers this year than in 2000. So I would note for you when you attack scheduling, there is a scheduling issue, but we are serving far more destinations and flying far more people and that has to be taken into account. We are a service industry and our goal is to assure that every journey is pleasant and safe and although every day 20,000 domestic flights and a million-plus passengers arrive at their destinations on time, we understand that increasing flight delays are a big problem and we are committed to finding solutions. Delays cost our passengers and us billions of dollars annually. And unfortunately, when flights are delayed, our service to passengers doesn't meet expectations, their expectations or ours. That is unacceptable. We know we must do better. There is another reality and that is that this outdated, inefficient air traffic control system, increasing flight delays and demand on responsive customer service do in fact go hand in hand. So we have got to address the air traffic control system and make it modern to enable planes to fly more efficiently. And I think everybody at this panel would agree with that. I won't spend a great deal of time. The point here is that nobody likes 72 percent delay rates or efficiency rates and it doesn't work to our advantage or to your advantage. While NextGen may be the ultimate solution and here I distinguish between short-term and long-term as you have in your prior discussions, we think--and I think the FAA occurs, that there are a number of steps that can be taken near-term to improve operational efficiencies and increase use of available capacity. And this is on top of any scheduling discussions that we are more than happy to have the DOT under the right circumstances. I would also point out that there is not sufficient antitrust protection there at the current time, and that having discussions about New York are vastly different than discussions in ORD if we can get into that if you choose. As we requested in early August, the Department of Transportation should accelerate implementation of New York airspace it has been discussed today. We think there are elements that can be put into place, very near-term, you can see those departure routes on the screen on the left side of the screen there, I think Pat would verify there is something on the order of 12 departure routes right now. We would like to take it to 17. I think that would make a big difference, increase the number of low altitude arrival and departure routes out of the major metropolitan airports. We think that will help with capacity. Increase the number of planes handled at airports by using existing runways and procedures more efficiently. Our experts tell us that there is opportunity for more intersecting operations, better coordinate access to restricted airspace. There is some fairly significant military space that is just off of New York that we can't fly through. But if the FAA can work it out with the military to provide lanes and operations, especially in bad weather, it would have a big impact on the operations. Let me turn to customer service. And we know that we have got to improve. We have read the IG report. I told the Inspector General Scovel this morning that I thought it was a good report. We have sent a letter today to the Department of Transportation asking to sit down at the secretary's earliest convenience to discuss the IG report. I would point out to this Committee, we are the ones who originally, alongside this Committee, asked that that report be completed. Our carriers have aggressively pursued some of the suggestions that are in there already. Got more than nine carriers that have time limits that they have set. They are looking at their long delay procedures. They are restocking water and food in strategic locations and I think there is just a lot we can do, much better than we have in the past. As I said, we have worked with the Inspector General's office and we look forward to doing that in the future. I would note that we have a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation tomorrow afternoon on the subject of New York congestion and on customer service, and I think that will be the first step. So we are not letting any grass grow under our feet in terms of responding to this issue. Mr. Chairman, this industry has been down this road before. I understand that without fundamental change in our air traffic management system, the incidents are going to get worse. That is what drove us to the demand for NextGen raising. We are moving 760 million passengers a year today we are going to move a billion passengers a year probably within the next 5 years and we have to have change to be able to accommodate that. New York is a microcosm of what is going to occur around the country. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May, and recognizes Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Member Petri. Thank you for inviting us to appear before the Committee. It is a privilege to be with you today. I am Steve Brown. I serve as senior vice president of operations for the National Business Aviation Association. We represent companies across the country that use general aviation aircraft to make their business models work. The vast majority of these companies are small to medium-sized businesses that use a single aircraft for their transportation needs. Prior to joining NBAA, I served as the associate administrator for air traffic services at the FAA where I managed the operation of the Nation's air traffic control system. Earlier in my career, I was employed as a commercial pilot and taught courses on the faculty at Texas A&M University. This varied background has provided me with many of the insights outlined today about our aviation system. Mr. Chairman, as you know and as Members of the Subcommittee know, for the past several months, the general aviation community has endured erroneous allegations from some of the Nation's airlines. They have attempted to blame record delays and increasing congestion on our community. I can tell you from my years of experience and current flying activity that those assertions are untrue, especially when you look at the facts. For instance, at the nation's 10 busiest airports, general aviation accounts for less than 4 percent of all aircraft operations. When it comes to the busy New York area, because we receive so much attention today, our operations have actually gone down in recent years, and I expect they will in the future. These numbers are so low because our Members typically avoid the major airline hubs and instead fly primarily into areas where there are no capacity constraints and into general aviation reliever airports in the suburbs of metropolitan areas. On the rare occasions when our operations do go into the major hubs, we frequently do so using different approaches and different runways as is the case with Boston's Logan Airport. What that means is even in the small number of cases when we are in areas with major airline congestion, we are not contributing to it significantly. Clearly a fair question is, if general aviation isn't causing delay, what is? Let me again reference New York's airspace. Based on my years of managing that airspace, I can tell you that when there are capacity issues in the air, it is usually because of the problems being caused by hub operations on the ground at those few congested airports where traffic is more and more concentrated every year. For example, JFK, which has been spoken about many times today, has enough capacity normally for 44 departures in the early morning hours, but the airlines regularly schedule about 57. When they do that, the gates become full, the scheduled carriers ultimately fill the taxiways and the runways with what we in the industry refer to as conga lines. There is nowhere to put additional aircraft on the ground, and therefore, arriving aircraft back up in the air waiting for landing clearance. It is natural then that when we look at the data on delays, the Department of Transportation information shows that the commercial airline scheduling practices are the second leading cause of delay, exceeded only by adverse weather. It is also worth noting that a few successful airlines are using schedules that create smooth demand on the air traffic control system and they avoid the destructive practice of overscheduling and causing peaks that stimulate delays. During my years with Administrator Blakely at FAA, we initiated the airline scheduling discussions that ultimately resulted in significant delay reductions at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Clearly, general aviation is not the problem when it comes to these airline delay issues at congested hubs, and no authoritative source has ever concluded otherwise. However, we are committed to expanding system capacity because when capacity becomes constrained, general aviation is usually the first segment to be pushed out of those areas. For example, our industry has embraced technologies to help increase the capacity of the aviation system. Just over 2 years ago, our operators equipped their aircraft at their own significant expense with RVSM, reduced vertical separation technology. That term basically describes the technology as we have heard today that doubles the in route airspace available to high altitude aircraft. The majority of these routes created by the capacity increase are used by the airlines every day, saving them hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel and flight time. Our industry also leads the way in supporting stakeholder efforts to lay the groundwork for a modernized system. We have stakeholders on every one of these Committees working with the FAA. And I personally co-chair with my ATA counterpart, the current aviation regulatory committee. It is focused on a promising technology referred to today as ADS-B or automatic dependence surveillance. This technology that we are mutually committed to is widely viewed as the cornerstone of modernization and will offer significant improvement in the future. Mr. Chairman, we have demonstrated a commitment to strengthening the system as has this Subcommittee by passing the legislation that you referred to in your opening remarks. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 uses a proven funding mechanism, fuel taxes to raise the needed funds for system and transformation without resorting to foreign style user fees or providing tax breaks for other segments as the critical need for modernization and more capacity arises. This legislation substantially increases the fuel taxes that general aviation will pay, support system modernization. In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate one central point and that is the airline delays at congested hubs are basically a self-inflicted wound that is a byproduct of their business practices in those congested areas. My many years of managing the system and flying in it have made this reality clear. Data from DOT indicates this is also the case. And people with a real understanding of how the system works and airline economics know that it is true. Anyone who tries to convince the public or Members of this Subcommittee otherwise, is just simply not representing the complete picture or the essential facts. Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have. Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Brown. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Roger Cohen. On behalf of RAA's 43 member airlines, there are more than 300 associate member suppliers. Thank you for inviting us here today since it provides us an opportunity to dispel the notion, this growing urban legend that regional jets have somehow caused the travel delays this past summer. Instead of demonizing RJs, historians will likely look back at the regional jet as the transformational jet of this generation. Just as the 707 brought comfortable, fast and affordable transcontinental and transAtlantic service to millions of Americans 50 years ago, the RJ has delivered those same benefits to small and medium-sized communities across this country, communities whose alternatives used to be a handful of flights on slower, less comfortable planes or no flights at all. Given America's reliance on regional airlines, it is understandable how this urban legend has taken on a life of its own. Today, regional airlines carry close to one out of every four passengers in this country. We are about one half of the schedules flights and we serve more than 600 communities across the country. Most notably, I point to the map. In 442 of those communities, 70 percent of the United States regional airlines provide the only scheduled airline service. Mr. Chairman, all this is in our brand new annual report. And after the Committee meeting, if--we would love to give you the first copy off the press. This came out today. So we will do that after the hearing. We have mapped in here airline service for each State. For example, in your home State of Illinois, 23 percent of the passengers flew last year on a regional airline and regional jets and turbo props represented about 46 percent of the lots. Six Illinois airports are served exclusively by regionals and Peoria is just shy of that at 93 percent. Even at Chicago's O'Hare airport, one of the world's busiest and it was one of the world's busiest before the regional jet was even on the drawing board, regional airplanes represent half of the flights. But where are those flights going? Of the 1,041 daily flights at O'Hare, less than 5 percent of those aircraft are flying to what FAA designates are the countries other big 35 hub airports, which includes close-in places like Detroit and Cleveland and Minneapolis and St. Louis. The remaining 95 percent fly to small and medium-sized communities whose only service into O'Hare may be on regional aircraft and that is Appleton to Birmingham, Cedar Rapids, both Springfields, Wausau, you name it. Well, what about the Big Apple? Because if urban legends-- well, if they can make it there, they can make it anywhere. Let me go back here to JFK. At JFK, regional aircraft today comprise about half of the daily schedule. But during the evening rush hour, that 6 to 8 p.m. Time frame when getting to the airport from midtown Manhattan is probably going to take longer than the actual flight, aircraft of less than 70 seats represent only 25 percent of the departures. So there are fewer RJs during JFK's busiest period than there are at other times of the day. Let us take a look at La Guardia. This chart may be hard to see. But some suggest that solving La Guardia's historical delay problems would be solved by squeezing out or even banishing RJs. They have proposed a scheme forcing airlines to upgauge the planes serving La Guardia. But at a capacity constrained, slot-controlled airport like La Guardia, discriminating against regional aircraft could jeopardize service to countless communities, communities as large as Jacksonville, Knoxville, Columbus, Dayton, Louisville, Savannah and dozens more. Mr. Chairman, regional airlines and regional aircraft didn't cause this summer's travel delays. In fact, while the number of passengers flying on regionals grew last year by about 2 1/2 percent, the number of regional flights actually declined by 3 percent. The total hours flown by regional airlines also fell last year. So regionals reduced their usage of the ATC and airport system year over year. Most notably--and I think this is very important--this upgauging of the regional fleet has been occurring without any forced schemes or any other kind of machinations. In the post 9/11 period, the average seating capacity of the regional fleet has grown by about a third, from 35 seats per aircraft to about 50 seats today. In closing and on behalf of our member airlines, who have been at the foundation of the industry's post 9/11 recovery, we pledge to work with you, this Committee, the FAA and all parties to fix the system for the Nation's travellers, even if it means one delay at a time. Thank you again for this opportunity. Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Costello. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Principato. Mr. Principato. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, thank you for allowing Airports Council International the opportunity to testify at this hearing. My name is Greg Principato and I am president of ACI North America. Our member airports inplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and virtually all of the international passenger and cargo traffic in North America. About 400 aviation-related businesses are also members of ACI North America. We want to begin by applauding the Committee for its tireless work on HR 2881. We especially commend you for providing airports the financial tools necessary to build critical safety, security and capacity projects, including new runways, taxiways and terminals to meet growing passenger needs by increasing the ceiling on the passenger facility charge user fee to $7. By doing so, airports can meet the growing passenger demand by planning now to invest in modern, secure, comfortable and environmentally compliant facilities for air travelers. We are also grateful to the Committee for including the departure queue management pilot program. When implemented, this pilot program will have the added benefit of greatly reducing the amount of fuel burned and emissions produced by taxiing or idling aircraft on the airfield. Airports are greatly affected by extended delays and extraordinary flight disruptions. The vast majority of airports have contingency plans to assist airlines when such assistance is requested. This is an important point. Airports do not have and are not seeking the regulatory authority to interfere with an airline's operations during an extended ground delay. However, we do agree that airport operators should work more closely with air carriers in enhancing contingency plans, including offering assistance after an aircraft has been on the tarmac for an agreed upon period of time. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a good example. Anticipating that there may be unusual situations where an airline may face an imbalance between the number of terminal gates and number of flights, a policy was implemented several years ago at the Port Authority's airports to mitigate the passenger impact. This policy urges all carriers to notify airport operation staff to determine if an alternate plan can be developed to allow passengers to safely disembark at another location. In addition to the Port Authority, Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson Airport and others across the country are working with the airlines in implementing similar contingency plans to successfully combat irregular operations. Just last week, and I think this is an important event, more than 40 industry representatives from 13 airports and six major airlines gathered at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport, at DFW's instigation by the way, to facilitate better planning to collectively respond to significant service disruptions affecting passengers. The single most important conclusion from that meeting was the need for airports and airlines to use the same techniques that have long been successfully employed to respond to emergencies, snowstorms and runway construction disruptions. ACI North America also believes it is important to provide passengers comprehensive information upon which to make their air travel decisions and to reasonably compensate them for travel disruptions. DOT regulations should be expanded to require all airlines that code share with a major international airline to report delay and mishandled baggage information. Given the fact that regional code sharing airlines now provide nearly 50 percent of daily departures, this change is long overdue. Additionally, DOT must more effectively measure how delays affect passengers. ACI North America agrees with the aviation consumer organizations that the current reports do not provide complete data. Lacking statistics on the impact of air--on air travelers of flight cancellations and diversions. Given the fact that airlines are operating at historically high load factors, it can take many hours or even days for passengers to be reaccommodated. DOT data does not adequately capture the impact of these rebooking problems which result in significant passenger delay and inconvenience. Involuntary denied boarding compensation should also been increased as we advocated in comments filed with DOT. We applaud the House for enacting legislation requiring the final regulations be promulgated within one year. We know that expanded capacity in modernizing the air traffic control system will address many of the delays experienced by passengers. Since 2004, six new runways at some of the busiest U.S. airports have opened, funded in part with PFCs including Atlanta and Los Angeles. Additionally, five important runway projects are projected to be completed by 2010, including the Chicago O'Hare modernization project. However, it is important to keep in mind that airport congestion management programs should be--should also be considered as part of the solution, in those limited circumstances, where additional airport capacity is not an available alternative, or the capacity will not be available for several years. It is in the best interest of passengers that airport proprietors be permitted to work with airline partners to manage capacity in ways that encourage more efficient use of airport infrastructure, maintain a safe environment and operational balance and respond to community complaints about delays. We thank you for this opportunity to testify and look forward to working with you to solve these problems. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Principato. Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni. Ms. Hanni. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kate Hanni and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the now 20,500 members of the coalition for an airline passenger's bill of rights on these timely and important topics. In addition, I would like to take a special moment to thank those Members who sent staffers to attend our strand-in last week on the Capitol Mall. Most importantly, the coalition is most grateful for the many passenger rights provisions that were included in the manager's amendment, HR 2881, FAA reauthorization. We look forward to working with you to support the retention of these provisions in the House/Senate conference. Need to cover passengers in 30- to 60-seat aircraft. We hope you can fill one gap when you conference with the Senate. Under H.R. 2881 as passed in the House, there is no protection for passengers flying in aircraft with fewer than 60 seats. That leaves approximately 25 percent of all flights without protection or 167 million airline passengers last year. And 5,000 of the 16,000-plus diverted flights last year are ignored by the House passed language. Some of your communities aren't served at all by larger aircraft, so without a language change in conference, your communities and passengers won't get the protection of the airline contingency programs that you voted for last week. Ms. Hanni. Delays for reasons under control of the airlines. We appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to this issue of delayed airline flights given the recent painful experiences of passengers during the summer months. We have included in an attachment of just a few of the hundreds of incidences experienced by our members. There are two elements of the airline delay equation that are often mentioned by the passengers who contact our Web site, and each is under the complete control of the airlines. First, the airlines who schedule more departures or arrivals than an airport can handle in a given period of time under the best of weather conditions are simply deceiving their passengers. They are collectively promising for marketing reasons a service that they cannot provide. The coalition wholeheartedly endorses the provision for mandatory reductions of airline schedules that was added to H.R. 2881 by the Committee leadership, and we will urge the Senate to adopt this approach in its legislation. However, individual airlines should bear responsibility for their own acts of deceptive behavior toward their passengers. An airline that continues to schedule a flight that is chronically canceled or delayed is deceiving its passengers and should be penalized and forced to correct the situation. We will urge the Senate at the House- Senate conference to amend existing law to make individual airlines eliminate these deceptive acts. Secondly, the airline sets flight schedules and airport staffing levels under the assumption that nothing will go wrong, which I heard talked about a lot earlier. When flights are delayed or canceled, the airlines simply do not have enough staff on duty to make alternative flight arrangements for the hundreds of passengers standing in lines or who are getting busy signals when they call the airlines' reservation numbers. The missing report from the DOT Inspector General. This is where I am going to divert--I am going to make a flight diversion from my notes. I received the IG report last night as I arrived in D.C. I spent most of the night reading it and writing some notes to comment. We had only a few hours to review the IG's report. Our initial thoughts are these. The report relies on the myth that American, JetBlue and others have developed policies for delays and have successfully adhered to those policies. Not true. In June and July, there were three JetBlue and a handful of AA violations. At the time of the preparation of this report, there was clear knowledge on the part of the Inspector General about a mass stranding on April 24th where there were 13 jets that were all over Texas that were American Airlines jets, and I am glad to hear that you are going to have more hearings on what happened over the summer that clarifies that there will be more detail put into the IG's report, but it was of grave concern to me last night that it was not mentioned in the report and that, apparently, the report sounded like American Airlines had taken care of this problem in their new policy. One of the things that we are very concerned about is the wiggle words in their contracts of carriage or in their rule, of which they first came out with a 4-hour rule, which, on April 24th, became an internal operational guideline that would not benefit consumers, and it was not until they realized they had to talk about what had happened and that there were jets stranded on the Tarmac that they admitted that it was not anything that would benefit consumers, that it was an internal operational guideline only meant to notify the pilots that there was a plane out on the Tarmac for 4 hours. Now they are calling it a "policy." So I am not really sure whether it is a rule, an internal operational guideline or a policy or what any of those three terms actually mean when it comes to their language. The IG report relies on a small slice of time, December 29th through March, in regard to the airlines' performance, which I am grateful again that you will be reviewing in 90 days. If you are studying airline delays, study them over the holidays and during the summer. The IG appears to be recommending that the airlines police themselves again. That does not work. Fool me once, dot, dot, dot. We think the reasonable conclusion to make as a result of this IG's report is that there is clearly a need for legislation. It is amazing to me to listen to a group of very bright, educated individuals avoid that question. I am stunned, just as a normal human being coming into this as recently as December 29th, to listen to a group of people not being able to answer the questions that were presented earlier. Depending upon a self-serving contract of carriage with wiggle words like "reasonable" and "as appropriate" are not specific, enforceable contracts, and this is acknowledged by the DOT. I know and the DOT knows that the rule adopted after December 29th by American Airlines quickly became an internal operational guideline only to notify pilots of the 4 hours on the ground. Now it is a policy. Their words hold no water. Their words are meaningless. Deregulation was not intended to give carte blanche to the airlines to do whatever they pleased. It was intended to provide increased competition and more choices for air travelers, not to let airlines violate the basic human rights of their passengers. So it is time for Congress to set minimum industry standards and for the DOT to monitor and to enforce the performance of those standards. However, the DOT has not done an adequate job of implementing consumer protection regarding these issues. In addition, the DOT must correct the collection of invalid statistics for Tarmac delays soon. Even where Tarmac delay data are reported, reports from our members show a glaring difference between the data reported and the actual passenger experience. Finally, it is imperative that the Committee take note that the DOT acknowledges that the customer service plans submitted by the airlines are not enforceable. We urge this Committee to provide oversight to ensure that the final plans are in compliance with your legislative intent and that they are enforceable. Again--and these are my thank you's--I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and especially Chairman Costello. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Ms. Hanni. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting the Business Travel Coalition to testify. My testimony today is also on behalf of the 400,000 members of the International Airline Passengers Association, IAPA. It is promising that the intention of this hearing is to move beyond service meltdowns such as the JetBlue debacle this winter and expand the analysis to customer service much more broadly defined to include long and unpredictable airport security lines, cramped planes and the unreliability of the system vis-a-vis delays and cancellations. The statistics about delays, cancellations and service failures are well-known, so I will not repeat them. We also hear about the projection of passenger growth from today's more than 700 million to 1 billion passengers by 2015 and how there is a crisis looming. The reality in the U.S. commercial aviation system is, today, that there is already a crisis, and we are heading for a political and an economic nightmare in the years ahead. Conventional wisdom is that we will need to prepare now for these 1 billion passengers, but in just a short 24 months, we will be near 800 million passengers, rendering 2007 and its many problems a mere historical footnote. The aviation system for business travelers will simply be unreliable; traveler productivity will plummet, and commercial activity will be reduced. The public policy concern is that, on the one hand, if we choose ill-conceived remedies in the short-term, we will do harm to consumers ultimately and waste precious time laboring under "feel good" measures that do not address systemic problems. On the other hand, doing nothing is not an option given what is fast approaching. Bad weather and the FAA are no doubt part of the problem as are ordinary citizens who, for example, will likely file lawsuits to block a more efficient airspace redesign in the New York area. However, it is BTC's view that airlines, as an industry, and as the prime movers with respect to fundamental change are not energized and motivated to provide the level of leadership required to seriously move the dial in sufficient time. The airline industry is more than capable of united leadership and singleness of purpose as when, for example, it secured $5 billion from Congress in 2001 as partial compensation for the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. BTC supported that legislation. Stories in the press at the time told of a galvanized and united airline industry lobby, indeed, unprecedented but in the face of an unparalleled crisis, and that is what is required now in this growing crisis, but we are not seeing it. Our recommendation is that Congress should consider Reverse-Sunset legislation that would provide a very strong inducement for airlines to develop and implement solutions to immediately address its portion of the current crisis. BTC recommends that the National Academies of Sciences, Transportation Research Board be directed by Congress to produce two deliverables. First, Congress should request a set of well-vetted recommendations regarding solutions to systemic aviation system problems. For example, immunized DOT-moderated airline schedule-reduction conferences for major airport hubs, airport congestion pricing alternatives, operational meltdowns, and customer service recovery metrics and plans are all areas requiring exploration and decisions. Second, the TRB would be tasked with defining and stress testing criteria to determine if there is a true market failure with respect to the reliability and customer service levels of the commercial air transportation system. The failure could be caused by a lack of national aviation capacity in all of its forms and causes or by a lack of aviation industry action to address customer service problems broadly defined. Criteria might include auditable airline customer service recovery plans or metrics such as the DOT-tracked on-time arrivals, mishandled baggage, involuntarily bumpings, and customer complaints. Such metrics have been legitimized by the airlines like Continental, who has used them to reward employee performance. Representative DeFazio's consumer hotline idea needs to be implemented. After considering the ideas and strategies developed by TRB, Congress would pass under this concept a Reverse-Sunset legislation, embracing some or all of TRB's recommendations. If at a point in the future it were determined that the airline industry had failed to deliver on its commitments, there would not be more hearings to determine if there is a problem. Rather, the already passed Reversed-Sunset legislation would become the new requirements for the airline industry. The DOT Inspector General would be charged with monitoring the industry vis-a-vis this legislation, and would report to Congress on a routine basis. The benefits of the strategic approach would be three-- avoiding punitive, ill-conceived fixes in the near term that would ultimately harm the consumer, encouraging the airline industry to put energy and leadership behind a campaign to introduce sustainable, fundamental reforms to the industry, and developing a TRB-led strategy with useful ideas that the airline industry could consider implementing voluntarily. When I testified in 1999 before this Committee on this very subject, BTC believed then that the airlines could and should solve their own problems. BTC still believes that this is the case today. The difference today is that we are now out of time, and the airlines need some old-fashioned motivation to take this situation seriously and solve their own problems. BTC believes airlines have an historic choice to make--provide real leadership today or face regulation tomorrow. Thank you very much. Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Forrey, in your testimony, you indicate that O'Hare and the three airports in the New York area as well as Philadelphia International are the most overscheduled airports in the country, and I wonder if you might explain the consequences of airlines overscheduling. Mr. Forrey. Well, the consequence initially is going to be delays. You just cannot utilize more runways than what you have available. If you put too many airplanes on there, they are going to be pushed back. It creates congestion on the airport taxiways and the ramp-up areas. It could create confusion. It even could come to a point where some of the flight plan data that you have in the system times out. Then you have additional work that the controllers now have to do to put that information back into the system to make sure that it is consistent. It also adds to mistakes. If you have all of your runways jammed up with airplanes and delays are going on, particularly if you have places where there is low staffing, people get tired, and they make mistakes, and sometimes you get someone who knows, and sometimes you get someone in front of the other, the point being that people make mistakes, and with the more opportunity you create to do that, that is what is going to happen. Unfortunately, as these scheduling practices continue, the opportunity for a mistake or for an accident to occur increases. So those are the initial consequences. Mr. Costello. You were here for the earlier panel, and I think you heard the testimony indicating, I think from Mr. Sturgell, that the FAA says that the system was adequately staffed and the productivity of controllers was down since 1999. I believe those to be his words. The system is adequately staffed, but productivity is down from 1999. I wonder if you would like to comment. Mr. Forrey. That reminds me of the old adage "liars figure and figures lie." Currently, there are 14,807 controllers, according to the FAA, 200 of whom are still at the academy in Oklahoma City, and 3,000-plus are trainees who are not certified to work airplanes. So, looking back to 1999, there were about 12,700 controllers certified to work airplanes. Today, there are only 11,400. So, if you look at the statistics and you want to use the facts, the average operation, I think, in 1999 was 11.3. Today, it is 12.7. So, actually, we are working with more productivity today than we were back in 1999, but you know, that is what figures do. The same thing with the statistics on the New York airspace. I mean we have been working with the agency, or were up to 2 years ago, to develop that whole plan with New York, and like Chairman Oberstar said earlier, it is very complicated because you just cannot increase a bunch of fanned departures out of New York without affecting all of the other inbound traffic and all of the other overflight traffic coming from the west, the east, the north, and the south. So I am not quite sure where they are getting the statistics on the 20 percent increase on operational performance or productivity or the increase in reduction and delays. It may be possible, but I do not think you implement just a piece of the plan without the other parts involved. That is a very intricate thing. That goes from Chicago to Boston, all the way down to Miami--that whole airspace redesign--for which, basically, the agency told us 2 years ago they are not interested in our opinions anymore, and we are no longer participating. So I think there is a lot more to the story there than one would throw statistics out about. Mr. Costello. I thank you. Mr. May, you indicated that the airlines are a service industry and that the airlines are committed to finding solutions to the problems. We have heard testimony, and you have heard comments by myself and by others up here that, you know, these are complicated issues. There are weather delays, nonweather delays, and there are some things that the FAA can do that, in my judgment, they are not doing and some things that the airlines can do regarding scheduling that they are failing to do and will not do unless they are forced to do it, but that is how I see it. You did make the statement, if I got this correctly, that there is a lot the airlines can do to prevent delays in the holiday season, the coming season, and I wonder. As I asked the first panel, I would ask you because that is what people want to know immediately, the flying public today. They want to know what can be done and what can be expected between now and Thanksgiving and Christmas and the holiday season. Specifically, what are the airlines doing to try and prevent delays during the holiday season? Mr. May. I do not know that we have timed it, Mr. Chairman, specifically to the holiday season, but we have said, short- term, Delta Airlines announced today that they have revamped their schedule significantly at JFK. They have eliminated a certain number of departures an hour; they are moving a lot of their flights to a new morning bank for international travel, and they are right-sizing changing their fleet mix to do more to cabin service than single cabin service as they have in the past. If I remember the numbers off the top of my head, some 63 percent of their operations going forward after these changes are complete will be that. I think we have indicated to you that we think it would be appropriate for the Secretary to pull all of the parties together and to sit down. We are having an initial meeting tomorrow--as I indicated, no grass under the feet--with the Secretary and with the FAA to specifically discuss some of the issues of New York airspace. I think the dynamic here--those are just two examples. We have said we will be happy to sit down and address scheduling, but I think you have acknowledged already--and certainly, Chairman Oberstar has acknowledged already--some of the real problems with scheduling. You get one carrier to take down the schedule, and somebody else, as a new entrant, comes in and picks up on it. So what is the advantage to volunteering to do that? You get capacity constraints put on LGA, La Guardia, and there are two immediate exceptions--one for new entrants and the other for small markets. You know, if you are going to have constraints apply--and it sounds to us like a lot of people are heading in that direction--then you have to do it fairly across the whole NAS and for all of those people who are moving through there. You have talked about the fact there are 40-plus airports feeding the New York TRACON. I think that is absolutely correct. It is one of the most complex and difficult jobs in the world, let alone the United States, to manage traffic coming through there with the en route and that which is originating and landing in that area. There are some 15 airports that have that sort of OMB status, all different sizes of aircraft, all sorts of different destinations. I think there are probably opportunities for the airlines, for Mr. Forrey on my right and for others to sit down and discuss ways we can try and optimize all that mix of traffic and see whether or not we cannot get something done. We talked about finding ways to open up that military restricted space that is sitting off of New York. I think that provides some options. The military does not like to give it up, but I have never known anybody more powerful than Chairman Oberstar. If there is somebody who is ready to take on the military, it is bound to be him. So I think we all recognize a need to get this done, but what we have not acknowledged is this is not just a scheduling issue. You know, we are moving 19,000-plus people a day more out of New York, itself. We are running at 85 percent loads-- load factor--in our operations. We are right-sizing the size of the fleet. We have to take into account that there is far greater demand than there has been in the past. It is not going to stop, and there will be consequences of caps, limitations, congestion pricing, all of these ideas that are being floated around there, and there are going to be a whole lot of people in New York who do not have the choices they would like to have to fly to those 32 brand new international destinations that they have been able to fly to since the year 2000. Mr. Costello. You know, I have other Members who want to ask questions, so I am limited here. Mr. May. We are happy to come in and have these conversations with you off line as well. Mr. Costello. Let me say that it is interesting, and I think it is worth noting that, one, the Administrator on her way out on the very last day and in her last speech addressed the issue of overscheduling and that if the airlines do not do something about it that the government needs to--or that the government will, and that is very true. We have had conversations with her about scheduling in the past. Secondly, Delta, I think, did the right thing today. They looked at their scheduling. They are trying to move in the right direction to try and reduce the congestion and delays, and you indicated here today that, on behalf of the airlines, you are willing to work, and you have a meeting tomorrow with the Secretary, and you are willing to do what is necessary, but I have to tell you that there was not a whole lot of action in that regard before we started our hearings earlier this year. Mr. May. I do not think there was a whole lot of action before we had the really unfortunate incidents in Austin and in New York. Mr. Costello. I would disagree with you, and I would tell you that, if you go back and look at the record, it was the Administrator--Administrator Blakey and many others--saying, "Boy, we had a terrible year last summer, and this summer is not going to be any better," and that was in February of this year, but the airlines did not come in and say, "Hey, let us sit down, and let us try and address this problem." The Administrator at the FAA did not reach out to the airlines and say, "Hey, we have to do something about this," and now we find ourselves where we are, and the FAA is saying and the airlines are saying, "Gosh, we have got to get together and work this out." My point is that when we provide aggressive oversight, people act and they come together and try and solve problems. When the Congress does not act and we leave it up to others to act, a lot of times self-interests prevail and nothing gets done, and that is the point that I am making. At this time, I would recognize my friend and Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask a few questions. First of all, to Mr. Forrey, the FAA has just completed, I guess, a major redesign of the New York and nearby airspace which they are hoping will, among other things, reduce delays by about 20 percent. Have you or your organization had a chance to look at that? Do you have any opinion on their redesign or whether the prospects are as rosy as they forecast? Mr. Forrey. Mr. Petri, thanks for the question. Like I said earlier when I answered the earlier question, we had been working collaboratively with the agency from 1999 up till about 2005. It not only developed the New York airspace but addressed how that interrelates to the traffic from Chicago, the traffic from Atlanta, the traffic down to Miami, the traffic up to Boston, to Washington, everywhere because you just cannot change one thing in New York and expect everything else to work fine. I am not quite sure what--we have not been briefed by the agency on their new airspace redesign or what they are going to do in New York. We have seen some of the pictures and plans from the GAO because they came to us and asked us about the same thing that you are asking right now. Some of what they are doing is pretty much identical. The environmental impact study that we had worked towards up to 2005 is, essentially, what the agency is going to run with as far as what kind of airspace changes they are going to make. However, we do not know that they are implementing any other piece to it, and you just cannot implement one piece and expect it to give you the results that you think it is going to give you. I do not know whether to say it is a complete failure. I do not know whether to say it is going to work. I think some of the elements of what they are doing have very little impact like the fanning of departures to the south. I think that is kind of a no-brainer in the New York area, but as far as how you increase departures out of that airspace and you do not impact other arrivals coming in and other overflights, I do not see that being addressed in this plan. It may be, but they have not briefed my organization on it. So that is probably the best answer I can give you on that. Mr. Petri. Mr. May, I do not know if you can really answer this or not, and Mr. Oberstar said that, you know, it is a very complicated system, and there are a lot of factors going into it. Is it, would you say, fundamentally that delays are caused by--well, obviously, we have weather and things like that which are going to always be a factor, but are they problems specific to particular airports or to particular carriers? That is to say, once in a while, I suppose a carrier can lose control of its operations, and they have from time to time, and teams have to come in and straighten it out. So I suppose sometimes it is one way, and sometimes it is another. Looked at longer term from the point of view of the Nation, what do you think we can do to try to minimize, as far as humanly possible, these sorts of delays? Mr. May. Mr. Petri, I have said it before, and I will say it again. I think there is no single solution to the problem any more than there is a single cause to the problem. At the end of the day, we have extraordinary growth and demand. In New York City alone--I said it earlier--we are doing, you know, significantly more international destinations as well as domestic destinations. We are putting more flights on. There is real growth there, and it is not just a matter of overscheduling, and I would acknowledge there have been examples of overscheduling in New York, but it is overall demand in the system that is increasing. I think you have to take that into account. I think you have to take the need for the next generation system long-term. I think short-term we need to have a collaborative effort with Pat's organization, the FAA, DOT and our guys and others to address some short-term solutions to the particular demands of that airspace. As I said, it is probably the single most complicated airspace in the world when you look at all of the different airports that are feeding it, both from an en route system on an OMB basis. So I do not know any better way to do it than what was suggested earlier in this hearing, which is to have all of the effective parties come in and sit down and try and work out a suite of solutions that are important, because at the end of the day, if we use artificial caps or some other kind of economic mechanism, your colleagues from New York are going to come to you, and they are going to say, "Wait a minute. Why is it that you guys are restraining those of us in New York, this great economic engine, from flying where we want to go and how we want to get there?" that is what we are enabling right now. We just have to do it in a more efficient and productive way. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forrey, I think you were here when the Acting Administrator and I were engaging in a dialogue about overscheduling, and I was particularly impressed on how well you quantified it in your testimony. I just want to go back to one point where he seemed to disagree with you and with me, which is--you know, I said he seemed to imply that this is a very transitory problem. It is only a couple of hours, so what is the difference? You know, he said this gets cleaned out, but I mean, I think, as you pointed out, this can under optimal conditions cascade 3 or even 4 hours out in terms of delays, and obviously, with less than optimal conditions, it is going to be a mess. Is that a fair---- Mr. Forrey. I think your characterization of it is spot on. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I just happened to have been in a meeting with the manager of the San Francisco Airport yesterday where there is a growing problem. He has one major airline, United, bringing in about the same number of people it used to bring in on twice as many planes. Do you find that some of the congestion we are dealing with--I think we are talking about the number of RJs doubling, and regional transport folks are proud of that, but the problem is that a lot of that is supplanting what used to be mainline routes with larger planes. You just have a little--maybe you have more frequency to try and bring in the same number of people, but isn't that causing also---- Mr. Forrey. I think it is--you know, I do not want to throw the regional jets under the bus, but you are getting fewer people coming in on an airplane. So, obviously, if you are going to bring the same number of people in on---- Mr. DeFazio. Except for weight turbulence, it is absorbing the same amount of space as a larger plane, correct? Mr. Forrey. Absolutely. When we used to have the props come in, you could off-load those on other runways, on shorter runways and everything. Now the RJs are just another jet. I mean it is. Now, if you have a heavy aircraft or even a large aircraft in front of an RJ, you need more space. You cannot use the 3 miles or even the 2-1/2 where you can do that at some airports, but that is the same thing with any large aircraft, heavy or anything else that you have. The RJs, sure, it is going to create those kinds of issues at those airports. If you schedule it properly--I will go back to that--and spread it out throughout the day when you are not trying to jam everyone in there at the same time, it is probably less of an impact. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Now, Mr. Mitchell, when you were talking about business travelers, I kind of liked what you said. Bill Lipinski and I for years were talking about the "R" word. You said real leadership today or reregulation tomorrow. Bill and I were predicting that a number of years ago and used to applaud the industry, and then a few years ago when they were in big economic trouble, they said, "Well, maybe that is not a bad idea." I think they are now back to where the free market is going to solve their problems here now that they have all gone bankrupt and have basically divested themselves of pensions and of other obligations, and you know, they are operating so efficiently. So I would like to put to you: What is the most important thing to a business traveler? Mr. May says business passengers demand frequent service. Now, is it frequent service on a schedule? Is that more important than, say, "Gee, I really wanted to fly at 8:47, but you know, there is a plane at 9:30, and there is one at 8:00 that are actually going to go, but the one at 8:47 is going to be scheduled at a time when it will not go because we are overscheduled"? Would realistic scheduling that is predictable be more important to business travelers? Like I say, in my job, it is the most important thing. I have got a very tight schedule. I have got to get where I am going or I miss a meeting or I miss boats or I miss doing things in the district. I assume that most business travelers feel that same pressure. Do you think they are demanding that planes be overbooked during a time period so they can just choose an exact moment they want, but in all likelihood it is going to be delayed? Do they like that? Mr. Mitchell. Well, underlying what, I think, Mr. May was referring to in terms of business travelers demanding frequency is the fact that it is the old "S" curve thing in the airline industry where the competitor with the great number of frequencies reaps the disproportionate amount of the revenue and the profits. It is just an economic reality. Frequency is very important to business travelers, particularly in many of the large hub markets. However, what is paramount, only second to safety, is the reliability of the system, and that is what is at risk here. That is what is breaking down further every day. When we were leading into the year 2000 when we had a comparable situation where you could not rely on the system to get out to a meeting and back in the same day or simply to make a 9:00 o'clock meeting sometime somewhere, you would go in the night before, and that is the kind of behavior that is back now. People are going out and are spending more time away from their families, incurring hotel bills and other expenses. So that is the critical thing at this point in time. It is the reliability of the system. Mr. DeFazio. You know, there are some services that provide some discreet information on delays, but they are nowhere near complete on a flight-by-flight basis. Would that be something useful for the government to require of the airlines that they make available an up-to-date percentage of on-time performance for every flight they offer? Mr. Mitchell. Yes. I mean it goes without saying that a consumer who has got complete and accurate information is going to make better choices and will actually drive the market, and I would say that there is yet another opportunity that may even be larger than that, and that is to show statistically, in some kind of graphic way, the relative efficiency of these various hubs so that, if you show that O'Hare is far less efficient from a business traveler's standpoint than a competing hub, perhaps the traveler will then go through the other hub, and that is going to get the attention of the two hub carriers at O'Hare very, very quickly. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Mitchell. There is no reason that DOT could not produce that information. Mr. DeFazio. So we are back to Adam Smith here, basically, that if we are going to run this with market forces in a competitive, free market system of capitalism, the consumers need perfect information or all information, better information? Mr. Mitchell. They need better information, and there has to be a recognition that some markets work well and some markets do not work well, and I leave that up to the economists to say where this one is, but in a market that does not work particularly well, the premium is even greater on information to the consumer. Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging my overtime. Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Petri, for your patience in working through a long afternoon of an extensive list of witnesses and hearings and very important information. Mr. Principato, the airports are one of that three-legged stool that I talked about in addressing successfully the issue of capacity in our system. In the aftermath of September 11, airports put on hold a large number of AIP projects, capacity enhancement initiatives, in order to put the money into security. Some $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion in runway capacity projects was put on hold and the money shifted to security needs. None of that has been reimbursed to--I use that word loosely--has been repatriated to airports as I, at the time, suggested out of the DOD appropriation or out of the Homeland Security Department appropriation. None of that. You have had to issue PFCs. You have had to scale back on projects and still try to recapture some of that capacity. So, even if we gave you all the money in the world right now, you could not build all of that additional capacity this year or next year. It takes years to build, doesn't it? Mr. Principato. It does. It takes a long time. One of the best quotes on that is probably from Gina Marie Lindsey when she ran the Seattle airport. Maybe it was before this Committee she was testifying, and she said it took the Egyptians less time to build the pyramids at Giza than it is taking her to build her runway in Seattle. It takes an awful long time. You are right. It is not going to happen in just a year or two, but we want to begin now to try to catch up. You are right. We put a lot of projects on hold. We want to catch up. The new runway in Atlanta was referenced earlier by the earlier panel. Thirty more arrivals per hour, I think is the figure, and it is not only service to more communities but is certainly a more efficient use of that airfield, and then the round taxiway there, again, is a more efficient use of the airfield. Mr. Oberstar. A footnote to your comment about Seattle is that I am not quite sure about the time it took to build the pyramids in Egypt, but I do know this, that from the time the planning began for the crosswind runway at Seattle, the 8,700- foot runway, until the time actual work began on the runway, Hong Kong built two 12,500-foot runways in the ocean at a depth of 600 meters and a terminal to accommodate 90 million passengers a year and had aircraft operating and a 23-mile connector rail, truck and passenger vehicle to downtown Hong Kong before Seattle got its runway out there. That is why we included permit streamlining in the 2003 aviation bill. Mr. Principato. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Oberstar. But there are limitations. You cannot add runway capacity at Newark--we had this discussion with the previous panel--unless you build it in the Passaic River. It is not a very good option. There is no ability to add capacity, runway capacity, at La Guardia, is there, or at JFK for that matter---- Mr. Principato. That is right. Mr. Oberstar. --or a Teterboro? Mr. Principato. Right. Mr. Oberstar. You do have capacity at Stewart, and you have some potential capacity at Atlantic City. That is going to take airlines routing traffic into Atlantic City. It is going to take ground capacity to serve Atlantic City. It can be done and it should be done and it needs to be done, and we will create the additional capacity. Now, Mr. Mitchell, from the years when your organization went from the National Passenger Traffic Coalition to the National Business Travelers Association, you supported the passenger facility charge in the anticipation that it would add to capacity, but roughly 23 percent of PFCs have gone into air side capacity over the 16 years that it has been in operation. We have put increased pressure on airports. The existing bill passed the House to invest more funds. What opportunities do you see for airport air side capacity to provide relief to the congestion problem? Mr. Mitchell. I think you may be confusing two different organizations. We have never commented on PFCs or---- Mr. Oberstar. I am sorry. I thought you had. I thought you had. Mr. Mitchell. No. I think that might be another group, so I would defer to the other experts on the panel. Mr. Oberstar. I will answer the question myself. We expect the airports to do that, Mr. Principato. Mr. Principato. If I could just say, we have heard you loud and clear on that point, and have talked to you, of course, many times this year. I think the other thing that is important to know is that the terminal projects, of course, are more expensive than runway projects for a variety of reasons, and there are actually more air side projects being funded with PFCs that are ongoing right now than terminal projects because the terminal projects cost so much more that the dollar figures are out of balance, and as to the air side projects that are planned into the future for PFCs that are on the books now and that are approved, there are far more air side projects than terminal projects. The industry is hearing you loud and clear on that, but I do want to make sure that it is said that, because terminal projects are so much more expensive than air side projects, the dollar figures are out of balance with the number of projects that are going on. Mr. Oberstar. Well, following up, Mr. Mitchell, on Mr. DeFazio's question to you about when business travelers want to travel and, Mr. May, your members and their scheduling flights, if you got together and if the airlines provided some incentives to business travelers to use less attractive periods of the day with a financial incentive attached to it, that would provide some incentive, wouldn't it, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell. It certainly would, and it might help on the margins. It is already sort of in the airline pricing today. If a flight is at 3:00 o'clock--and traditionally, it has 50 percent load factors--there are natural incentives to be very, very price competitive on that flight. I think that the reality is that we are going to have to do something to level off demand. The options are, you know, slot controls, auctions and congestion pricing, perhaps changing from weight-based landing fees to passenger fees. These are all extraordinarily complex economic concepts that you can debate on either side. Both sides of an issue, you know, can win on any given day. I just think we need some real expertise, neutral expertise, to wade through this. Mr. Oberstar. We have that expertise right here at this table. Mr. May, who bears the cost burden of congestion pricing? Mr. May. I think, ultimately, the passenger will bear the burden of---- Mr. Oberstar. But up front it is the airline? Mr. May. Up front it will be, but you know, congestion pricing, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is little more than an economic transference of wealth from one party to another, and it is not necessarily going to affect consumer behavior. If a businessman needs to fly at 5:00 o'clock in the evening to London out of JFK to make an important meeting, then all that congestion pricing is going to do is to put a premium on that ticket. As to the other suggestion that we look for ways, we say with great affection to you, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to raise our prices, not lower our prices for our tickets. Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are doing a very good job of that. That is for sure. Mr. May. I wish we were doing a much better job. Mr. Oberstar. And it is not moving the travel along. Now, you know, because you have been through this situation--and I have cited several times--that you cannot have 57 flights all depart DFW at 7:00 a.m. Air traffic controllers cannot move that many aircraft departing at 7:00 a.m. Mr. May. Mr. Forrey has been reminding me of that ever since we have been sitting here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Yes. Mr. May. We have committed to sit down and to discuss scheduling but I would point out, in JFK's instance in particular, there are about 80 airlines that are flying in and out of JFK. Mr. Oberstar. That is right. Mr. May. There is a huge demand coming on international because of the U.S.-EU agreements, and that is going to complicate our life significantly, and if we put artificial restrictions on flying in and out of there, the places that are going to suffer the most are the smaller communities and the underserved communities right now. So we just need to make sure we understand what the consequence is of all of these discussions. Mr. Oberstar. Well, as I discussed earlier--and you heard the discussion with Mr. Sturgell--the FAA has the authority to convene airlines and to work out scheduling. Mr. May. They do not, Mr. Chairman, have the antitrust---- Mr. Oberstar. But you do not need an antitrust exemption to do these things. Mr. May. Yes, sir. I would very respectfully---- Mr. Oberstar. Now, I think in the short-term you can reach accommodations, and we do not need to add--we did for a very brief period of time provide antitrust exemption, but it can be done in a way that is less cumbersome and that raises less concern about the outcome than to have antitrust exemption, and you can come together to discuss scheduling and to avoid that problem of the airlines that say, "Well, you are asking me, but you are not asking the others to make a sacrifice." I cannot blame an airline like--I do not know where I have that specific language--but that says we do not want to--here we are. The delay reduction actions: "the Secretary of Transportation may request air carriers meet with the Administrator of the FAA to discuss flight reductions at severely congested airports to reduce overscheduling and flight delays during hours of peak operations." Mr. May. Correct. My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that when they did O'Hare, for example--Chairman Costello is particularly familiar with this, as are you--there was a reason they had to use shuttle discussion, and that was because they did not have the antitrust authority to put both American and United in the room at the same time, and there is an airport where two very dominant carriers were in the operation. At JFK, you do not have that same dynamic, and there are lots and lots of different parties, some of them foreign flag. All I am pointing out is not an interest or a willingness to sit down and come up with an answer to the challenge, but it is a far more difficult legal environment than it was at O'Hare. Mr. Oberstar. Well, tomorrow, apparently, the President is going to convene a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and with the FAA and will discuss the congestion problem and the air traffic delays, and he may have some observations. Is there anything more that we could have done in the bill that we passed in the House to address delays? Mr. May. Specific to delays, I do not know, because I think what we are talking about is shorter term issues between now and this Christmas. I think those are administrative and operational kinds of challenges that we need to take on, and I think it is going to take a fully cooperative effort between the FAA, the controllers, airlines, reports, and others to address that. Mr. Oberstar. Right. Maybe the President has a rabbit in his hat that he is going to pull out, and the rabbit is going to be implementing NextGen in the next 6 months. Mr. May. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to hear an announcement on caps for both JFK and Newark, and as I said earlier, when you have artificial constraints of that sort---- Mr. Oberstar. That is going to have an economic consequence in raising costs and in reducing opportunities for travel. Mr. May. That is exactly right, sir. Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank each member of the panel. Ms. Hanni, thank you for the work that you have done on behalf of your coalition. You have really inspired Members of Congress to respond, and you have made it possible for us to include improvements in this legislation for air travelers during periods of delays. Ms. Hanni. Thank you. Mr. Costello. I thank Chairman Oberstar, and I thank our witnesses today. I just wonder, Mr. Forrey. Are you invited to the meeting tomorrow with the President and the Secretary? Mr. Forrey. What meeting? No. Mr. Costello. As I said earlier, we were pleased with the announcement by Delta that they are looking at their scheduling at JFK and will reduce the number of flights. I think that is a step in the right direction. I think the Administrator's observation was the right observation, and I think the Acting Administrator's decision and announcement the other day that they are going to sit down with the airlines and try and take a look at scheduling to address the problem--I think all of those things are a step in the right direction, and we look forward to hearing from the President tomorrow, and we hope that it involves a cooperative agreement between some of our airlines reducing flights in congested areas and taking action that is necessary to address this problem. We thank you. Let me say to Ms. Hanni, as Chairman Oberstar said, we not only thank you but your members for your active involvement, and I would tell you that we are only halfway through the process, and I would encourage you to spend time over on the other side of the Capitol, in the other body, to inspire them and to make certain that they take a look at H.R. 2881. If they do, we think that if those provisions are contained in a final legislation signed by the President that it will go a long way to helping passengers in the future. With that, we again thank all of our witnesses for being here today. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8169.234