[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AVIATION DELAYS AND CONSUMER ISSUES
=======================================================================
(110-111)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 9, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-946 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 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 ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(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........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Gribbin, D.J., General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 13
Hanni, Kate, Executive Director, Coalition for Airline
Passengers' Rights, Health and Safety.......................... 13
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association,
accompanied by Gary Edwards, Director, Flight Control and Chief
Dispatcher, Delta Airlines..................................... 13
Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International
North America.................................................. 13
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 13
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 49
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 50
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 56
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 64
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 67
Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado............................... 69
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Gribbin, D.J..................................................... 71
Hanni, Kate...................................................... 83
May, James C..................................................... 99
Principato, Gregory.............................................. 136
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L....................................... 148
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, letter to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.. 61
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association:
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 104
``Use of the National Airspace System,'' Federal Aviation
Administration, Report Number: CR-2008-028, date issued:
March 3, 2008................................................ 108
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee 186
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Ed Bolen, President
and CEO, letter to Hon. Calvin L. Scovel, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Transportation.............................. 192
National Business Travel Association, Bill Connors, Executive
Director and Chief Operating Officer, written statement........ 193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.007
HEARING ON AVIATION DELAYS AND CONSUMER ISSUES
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair would ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn
electronic devices off or on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Aviation Delays and Consumer Issues. I will give a brief
opening statement, call on the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, to
give his statement or remarks, introduce our witnesses and then
proceed with testimony.
I thank everyone for being here today to our Subcommittee
hearing on Aviation Delays and Consumer Issues. This hearing is
in response to the record high delays the traveling public
endured during the summer of 2007 and is the fourth in a series
of hearings on airline consumer protection.
In 2007, the traveling public saw firsthand the serious
problems that our current system has with congestion and delays
which, at times, has led to a breakdown in customer service.
Delayed flights affected 20 percent more passengers during the
summer of 2007 compared to the previous summer of 2006. In
addition, the number of airports with arrival delay rates
greater than 30 percent increased by 189 percent. Further, the
average delay lasted about one hour.
On our September 26th, 2007 hearing on delays, I requested
that the Department of Transportation Inspector General prepare
an after-action report on what happened last summer as well as
review progress by the Department of Transportation, the FAA,
airlines and airports to implement policies to improve customer
service and to minimize delays.
The IG is here this afternoon to report their findings to
us. These findings will provide the important information into
what the traveling public can expect during the 2008 summer
travel season.
H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, passed the
House on September 20th, 2007. It addresses consumer protection
and congestion and delay reductions including a mandate that
air carriers and airports create emergency contingency plans
that are approved and enforced by the Department of
Transportation; schedule reduction meetings if aircraft
operations exceed hourly rates and are, at best, adversely
affecting national or regional airspace; create an advisory
committee for aviation consumer issues; install an 800 consumer
protection hot line; and provide a number of other provisions
to protect consumers.
In addition, it provides for increased penalties for
airlines, airports and those who violate the consumer
protections in H.R. 2881.
I am very disappointed, I think as everyone in this room is
today, that the Senate has not acted on the FAA reauthorization
that is pending before the other body. We continue to urge our
friends in the Senate to pass a bill so that we can get into
conference and get a final reauthorization bill for the FAA to
have consumer protection issues in that final legislation.
In November of 2007, after the House passed H.R. 2881 in
the Aviation Subcommittee, this Subcommittee held three
hearings on delays and consumer issues.
Finally, President Bush and Secretary Peters decided that
it was time to address consumer protection, aviation congestion
and delays. Their solution was to basically take a number of
provisions out of our House bill and to implement those
provisions, including an emergency contingency plan for
airlines and airports. I am interested in hearing from the
Department of Transportation today on how implementation of
these initiatives is going.
Next, I am also interested in hearing the progress made by
the Department of Transportation's New York Aviation Rulemaking
Committee including which of the 77 recommendations the
Secretary will implement in the immediate future and near term
for the Summer, 2008 travel season.
In 2007, the New York area airports contributed 36 percent
of the tarmac delays of an hour or more. These disruptions, of
course, rippled throughout the Country, causing system-wide
delays all over the Country.
While the airlines and airports have made some progress in
terms of coordinating efforts, much more needs to be done and
as customers are still experiencing long onboard delays. In
2007, there was a 41 percent increase on onboard tarmac delays
of 5 hours or more.
Let me repeat that again. In 2007, there was a 41 percent
increase in onboard tarmac delays of 5 hours or more compared
to the previous year of 2006.
With that, I again want to thank our witnesses for being
here today. I look forward to hearing their testimony.
Before I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri, for his opening statement, I would ask unanimous consent
to allow two 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.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to welcome our panel of witnesses here today
and particularly Calvin Scovel who has become a regular, having
been before the Full Committee last week and here on a number
of other occasions.
Passengers, as our Chairman has noted, are angry and
frustrated. Airlines are laboring under increasing costs and
congestion, both on the ground and in the air, and the costs
have reached unprecedented heights so far as fuel is concerned.
Out of the last few weeks, we have seen hundreds of flights
canceled, including more today as airlines conduct safety
audits on our aging fleet, causing even more delays and
inconvenience to the traveling public. Two thousand seven was
another rough year for air passengers and airlines, and it
continues as we speak.
Last year, air travel was up again. In fact, according to
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the total number of
passengers enplaned in 2007 was 3 percent higher than it was in
2006. With an increase of 20 million passengers in the system,
the on-time arrival rate for 2007 was 73 percent. Though this
is roughly on a par with the preceding year, it clearly does
not make for a pleasant travel experience for anyone involved
in the delays.
In November of last year, the Department of Transportation
announced it would put in place initiatives to deal with the
coming holiday travel season. Despite the best efforts of the
Administration, the December, 2007 on-time arrival rate for
airlines slipped nearly 7 percentage points from 2006 down to
64 percent on-time arrival.
We all understand that weather is the wildcard factor in
aviation, and I believe that reform needs to take place within
the aviation system. We are witnessing a system in desperate
need of new advanced technologies in the air and increased
capacity on the ground. Government and industry have tried to
make changes to improve airline performance within the system
for years, and it undoubtedly needs refining.
Clearly, the FAA realizes this, and that is why they are
undertaking the immense task of transitioning to a new air
traffic control system, NextGen. However, that will not become
fully operational, if it in fact stays on schedule, for another
15 years or so, and we simply can't wait that long.
New initiatives undertaken by the stakeholders to address
this dilemma sooner rather than later are critical to getting
out of this problem so that we may prevent aviation travel
woes.
I am interested in hearing from both the Government and
industry witnesses on the initiatives that they have
implemented since our last hearing on this topic, and I am also
interested in hearing exactly what impact they predict these
efforts will have on the traveling public this summer.
Lack of a long-term FAA bill is only further exacerbating
the situation. It becomes increasingly difficult for airports
to undertake projects when they are forced to operate on
extensions that provide only 75 percent of funding. These are
long-term expensive projects that require thorough planning
and, when it is unclear whether funding will be available,
airports find themselves in an almost untenable situation.
Passenger rights initiatives are also in need of being
strengthened. We worked in a bipartisan manner on a number of
passenger rights provisions in the House FAA bill. These
include provisions that will require airports and airlines to
be prepared to care for passengers who are experiencing long
ground delays. The Senate needs to act now and move a
comprehensive bill.
I suppose the good news in all of this, if there is any, is
that the FAA, airports and airlines are working to address the
problem, and we in Congress must do our part in turn.
This hearing keeps attention focused on the issue, and for
that I am appreciative.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, and
the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Petri, for your opening remarks and for your service to
this Nation and to our Committee.
I look forward to hearing some definitive answers to how
those of you in the industry who are still in business are
going to meet the needs and expectations of the traveling
public, not just the traveling Congresspeople but the traveling
public.
Earlier today, I had a phone call from one of my
constituents who, for the past 36 hours, has been stranded in
Columbus, Ohio, bumped and waiting and waiting for a flight as
a standby traveler.
I am interested to hear how you are going to offer the
lowest rates possible in a competitive marketplace, how you are
going to meet your business needs of being profitable where
energy costs are soaring, how you are going to deliver one's
bags on time and in the right city, how you are going to
provide prompt ticket refunds and meet all the customers'
essential needs during long air travel as things begin to
unwind, also how you are going to ensure customer service from
code sharing partners. These are some of the highlights I am
looking forward to hearing some definitive answers either today
or in writing afterwards.
I am certainly interested, as everyone in the Country is,
in seeing a profitable airline industry and in finding ways in
which Government can work with your industry to make things
possible to be profitable and also to have a customer that is
enjoying the experience of traveling in the air once again.
I dare say that all of us are at the age where we remember
those half or one-third flights when we could stretch out in
the back of the plane and have a three-across seat. It doesn't
exist any longer as the capacity has gone down and the demand
has soared.
So I yield back my time and look forward to hearing some of
these solutions and how we can move forward together.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I thank you for yielding.
The title of this hearing--I commend the Chairman and
Ranking Member--is Airline Delays and Consumer Issues. The bad
news, folks, is it isn't going to get any better. It is
probably going to get a lot worse. Industry is now wracked by
soaring fuel prices.
I have identified part of the problem and part of the
problem, well, the biggest problem is Congress.
If we look at, first, the issue of delays, most of the
delays--we have had reports before the Committee--deal from the
New York airspace area and they, in turn, those delays pyramid
across the system. In the very best of situations, we can only
land at JFK, Newark or LaGuardia so many planes per hour in the
very optimal weather conditions. When weather goes south and
you see that as one of the major reasons for delay, then the
system starts to deteriorate.
The irony of all of this is you need somebody in charge to
make decisions to move forward. The airspace in New York is
basically equivalent to what our highway system was going into
New York in the 1960s. For the last 10 years, we have been
trying to do an airspace redesign there.
I have been there countless times when I chaired the
Aviation Subcommittee, meeting in Members' districts from
Connecticut to Philadelphia and all in between, and we just
about reached a decision. Now I have two Senators, the New
Jersey Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez, have put a hold on an
FAA Administrator.
Well, folks, I hate to tell you, but it is hard enough to
get anything done when we have an Administrator, let alone when
we have no Administrator. We have had no FAA administrator
since September.
The reason that they cite, we will put this in the record.
I have their letter. Their top reason is airspace redesign.
They are holding up Mr. Sturgill, the President's appointee. So
what they do, in fact, is revert FAA to a system that we had
when we had five administrators in a period of a limited number
of years, and we changed the system to a five-year term that
transcended a presidential term.
We had a Democrat FAA Administrator. We had a Republican.
Now they are holding up appointment because of airspace
redesign which we have been debating and working on for 10
years and it hasn't been adjusted for almost, well, for over 3
decades.
So, if anyone thinks that we are going to get any
resolution of delays, they are smoking the funny weed. It is
just absolutely unbelievable if you think you are going to get
other resolution.
Now everybody puts their stock in NextGen. We have had the
Next Generation airspace, air traffic control. We have had them
in here.
The best estimate I have heard is that is going to improve
things 5 to 6 percent as far as dealing with congestion because
you can only space the planes so close together in an area.
You can only land so many planes on a runway in New York,
LaGuardia, JFK and even if we add in the latest addition
upstream, Stewart, yes. Still, just do the math with the
numbers of flights, the projected number of flights. It isn't
going to work.
Then a lot of Next Generation and the things that we need
to get done with FAA are in the FAA bill, and where is the FAA
bill? It is wandering around in the Senate. It has passed the
House.
So, folks, if you think this is going to get better, hang
on. It is going to get a lot worse: Nobody in charge, people
obstructing the progress we need to move the system and stop
the delays.
Eighteen seconds to conclude.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. The Chair would be happy to give you two
additional seconds to round it off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, you can tell I am
not happy, but I want you to know too. All these things that
are happening with the airlines as far as inspection, safety,
all of that, none of that happened when I was Chairman of this
Subcommittee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. I will keep that in mind the next time I am
so generous with your time, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, do you want to take his words
down?
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Petri, the Ranking Member, for holding this fourth in a series
of hearings on the issue of airline customer protection.
As I have stated before, I am certain that all of us can
empathize with today's subject matter. We have a lot of
problems that the airlines are not really responsible for, and
you just heard a little bit of it from Mr. Mica.
I have been stranded on tarmacs. I have had luggage lost
while traveling both domestically and abroad. When I have felt
the customer service rendered to me fell below expectations, I
made sure I registered those complaints, and that was my
satisfaction.
It is no surprise that most of our Nation's air carriers
are struggling to remain afloat financially. Now, while that is
not a reason for them to have services that people feel are
inferior, it does have some to do with some of the delays right
now with the planes our for American Airlines. It will cause
some inconvenience.
The industry understands consumers have a choice, and the
industry also understands the numbers. By 2015, it is projected
that 1 billion passengers will board planes domestically each
year. So, obviously, a carrier's loyalty base within this
enormous market will be largely dependent upon how well
customers are treated today.
I would like to emphasize today's subject matter can
clearly relate to frustration and consumers who have
experienced customer service nightmares on our Nation's
airlines.
I can tell you, as a frequent flyer, that I would much
rather be sitting somewhere on a plane on a tarmac than to be
in the air during the storms that they have in Texas. North
Texas has fast-moving thunderstorms that occur throughout the
year that bring aviation operations to a halt, and it can be
done very quickly. That includes Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport and Littlefield.
In spite of these incidents, our Nation's airlines should
continue to strive toward the implementation of sustainability
of exemplary service, but I know that often they cannot.
Sometimes their surprise is as great as ours when it is
according to weather. We are not quite sure when the weather
will clear enough to move. We don't know where we are line.
All of that makes a difference, and we have very antiquated
air traffic control technology and fewer than what we need, air
traffic controllers.
So, as a former business owner, I, of all people,
understand that mistakes are made from time when rendering a
service are costly. I am also aware that when mistakes do
arise, competent and capable customer service really has no
rival. Furthermore, when mistakes are made, there is no
substitute for a sincere apology and a demonstrable willingness
to show the customer that you intend to correct the wrong as
soon as possible, and hopefully it won't happen again.
As I close, I want to align myself with the recommendations
that the Department of Transportation Inspector General will
elaborate on within his upcoming testimony: The airlines must
refocus their efforts to improve customer service. The
Department should take a more active role in airline customer
service. The airlines must overcome challenges in mitigating
extraordinary flight disruptions.
I believe that I can fully support these recommendations,
Mr. Chairman. I am not sure that I could give my support to any
codification of a passengers' bill of rights.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take the five
minutes.
It is good to have you all with us, especially Mr. May. I
mention him because I have known him longer than the rest of
you.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri, we have broached
this subject before. Not unlike many members of the flying
public, I wish our air transportation system did not have to
confront these challenges. Delays frustrate me as much as the
next guy, and I do acknowledge the obstacles that have led us
to this current situation.
You may remember, Mr. Chairman, at one of our hearings last
year, I shared with you a conversation I had with a constituent
who told me that he would rather submit to a dentist performing
a root canal rather than set foot in an airport. Well, that
doesn't speak well for anybody, and I know it doesn't make you
airport folks happy. By the way, he didn't like root canals to
begin with.
But let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. At the November
hearing, at the time, a variety of measures had been
implemented to accommodate the increased demand in air travel
over the holidays. They included efforts to board flights
earlier that were fully booked to ensure on-time departures,
reserving seats to accommodate passengers who encounter
problems and providing additional automated machines to secure
areas to re-book passengers.
I would be interested to know if those are still being
implemented and to what effectiveness they are being realized.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back my 18 seconds.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you and Ranking Member Petri for this series of hearings on
customer service.
However, with all of the upheavals in the industry, while
customer service is very important, I also think that in the
airline industry that we really should pay some attention to
economic viability issues. Coming from Hawaii, particularly
with the ceasing of the passenger service operations very
precipitously by Aloha Airlines, leaving literally thousands
and thousands of people stranded practically and then with ATA
following close of ceasing all their Hawaii operations, it is
very clear that the airlines are being buffeted by all kinds of
external factors that are impinging on their ability to
complete effectively.
So I hope that as we look at the customer service issues,
which I think are related to the ability of the airlines trying
to compete in this environment, perhaps we could spend some
time looking at the economic viability issues of this industry,
something that is really, really important to Hawaii and I
would say all across the Country and indeed throughout the
world.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Just very short, as you know, Mr. Chairman,
yourself, all of us on this up here, we travel a lot and our
constituents that travel a lot see us because we are usually
leaving and departing from the same place. There is a lot of
unhappiness out there. So you are fully aware of that, I am
sure.
They are starting to put big pressures upon us. So be aware
of that.
Secondly, before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I had a lot of
follow-up on those same reasons on the air safety. The last
hearing that you had in the Full Committee and so on, which I
applaud you for that too, but I am still hearing problems that
we didn't get discussed there to include such statements as
shortcuts by FAA on training and different things that are
going on that are concerns.
So we will talk about that, not today because of this
schedule, but it is a concern. We have to address it.
With that, I yield back so we can get to the job at hand.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman for his brief remarks,
and the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
also thank you and Ranking Member Petri for holding this
important hearing, as has been said by my colleagues.
I represent California's 37th Congressional District which
includes both the Long Beach International Airport and the
Compton-Woodley Airport that are both there. Aviation is a
vital economic engine in my district. It employs thousands of
people and delivers a tremendous amount of goods to our region.
While I commend the airline industry for their record-
setting pace of 769 million domestic and international
passengers, we would be really shortsighted in not
acknowledging the alarm feeling that we equally have that
another record was set and established in the number of flight
cancellations and delays.
Concrete steps must be taken in order to increase on-time
flight performance, enhance airline passenger protections and
decrease the number of cancellations fueling consumer
discontent. In the attempts to respond to the passengers'
demands, competitive and innovative approaches should be create
and implemented in order to decrease these growing margins of
errors.
Assuring the American people that commercial aviation is
reliable should not just be a requirement of the individuals
that fly but to our Nation's economic livelihood as well.
I am going to share with you a personal story, knowing that
we were having this hearing today. This is not rhetoric. This
is not Members of Congress showing emotion and being
frustrated. This is real life experiences that the American
people are facing.
Last Friday, when I left here, I was supposed to be on a
flight. That flight was an hour late. I think we are already up
to about 85 percent of the time, all of the flights that I have
taken have been late this year, since me coming to Congress on
September 4th of 2007.
The other thing that was further frustrating is when I was
coming back. On Monday morning, I was scheduled to be on a
flight at 7:59. The passengers were not advised at what time
the flight was going to be rescheduled. It just showed that the
flight was delayed.
To me, that is completely unacceptable because passengers
should have an opportunity. If that particular carrier is not
going to be able to go out, a passenger should be able to make
a reservation with someone else.
It wasn't until 30 minutes prior to when that flight was
supposed to leave, that finally a notice came out, saying:
service delay; see the customer service agent.
At that point, we were told a decision would be made at
1:00 p.m. Now, mind you, this is 7:30 in the morning, and most
people got up at 5:00 in the morning to get to the airport, and
we were told that the flight would possibly be rescheduled at
4:00 p.m. that afternoon. That cannot be tolerated.
What was particularly frustrating is that many of us missed
an opportunity to take another flight at 8:45. Had we properly
known, customers could have adjusted. It was only because I was
coming here on the East Coast, that I had staff that was
already here, that they could reschedule me on the 9:20 flight.
So I am lucky. I feel I got the lucky green ticket, and I
am on the 9:20 flight. Lo and behold, that flight leaves over
an hour late. So I spent from 6:00 in the morning until finally
arriving here at almost 5:00 p.m., making a travel from the
East Coast. That cannot be continued to be tolerated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Chairman Costello for holding this
hearing today and for Chairman Costello's and Full Committee
Chairman Oberstar's leadership on including passenger
protections in the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
I am a strong supporter of a passenger bill of rights and
glad that we are having this hearing today again. It is
unfortunate we have to do it but the continued problems that we
face right now in the flying public.
As someone who flies weekly, I certainly know the
frustration. Ms. Richardson's story, I could repeat probably
many stories along those lines. I am not going to start down
that road right now, but we all know that there are problems
out there.
The Aviation Institute's annual survey that just came out,
showing complaints are up 60 percent and 1 in 4 flights are
delayed, this is just unacceptable.
Unfortunately, we really do not have a choice. I mean you
look at it and you say, well, it is a free market in air
travel. Unfortunately, there are limited choices. I think more
needs to be done to help to make air travel better for
Americans today.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. So I will
stop right here, and I will wait until the question period, but
I think that this is a very important issue today.
I, again, thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding
this hearing.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognized the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Petri.
I am pleased to be here today to receive testimony from
this panel.
Memphis is the home of the hub of Northwest Airlines and,
unfortunately, not the home of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association's Men's Basketball Champion, but we were close. We
are happy to be a hub city, and Northwest has been a good
employer and helped put us on the map even though we could have
had a better map if we had been the NCAA's Men's Basketball
Champions.
We also have Pinnacle Airlines in our city. So we are very
airline dependent, not to mention another airline that you
might have heard of that doesn't take passengers but takes a
few packages which absolutely, positively delivers on time,
Federal Express.
I probably get as many calls complaining about delays on
airline flights and the way the airlines handle the passengers
as any other issue, and it is a serious issue. I know it is
difficult with so many people and the flying public increasing.
We did some things in the FAA Reauthorization Act that if
the Senate would have responded and passed the bill and worked
with the House and passed a bill, maybe we would have some of
those recommendations in place.
But there are areas that recently Ms. Richardson mentioned,
and I had a similar situation. Congressman Berry and
Congressman Taylor and I were all on a plane to come up here,
and we missed three votes each, which is more than half the
votes I have missed since I have been here, because the plane
was delayed.
There were mechanical problems. Nobody wants to get on a
plane with mechanical problems, but the problem was they
couldn't get attendants for the flight because it had been
canceled. I guess with the contract the other people couldn't
spend an extra two hours.
It seems like the airlines ought to have some way in that
situation to have some labor policy where they pay the
attendants more money or have some backup crew to where 90 or
100 passengers don't wait 2 hours, some of whom miss important
assignments, because they can't get 4 people to be flight
attendants.
Somehow they could get those flight attendants,
particularly in a hub city, and accommodate the passengers
rather than the passengers having to wait and the attendants be
found from a Florida flight. They found some people in from
Florida. They were off a Florida flight.
Sometimes the airlines don't seem to be handling the
personnel as well as they could. Maybe if they had some
additional monies for them or incentives for them to work
extra, then passengers wouldn't be inconvenienced, but that is
part of why there needs to be a passenger bill of rights. Maybe
there needs to be something better for the employees.
We have had some problems with the pilots in their
negotiations in Memphis, and there have been issues. But the
flight attendants, I guess, is something that needs to be
worked out, so they can have a backup staff or something so
that folks wouldn't be inconvenienced.
But, I appreciate your coming.
We are proud to have both airlines in our city as
headquartered in our city, and they employ a lot of people, and
we are very pleased.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and at
this time the Chair would recognize the witnesses. Again, we
thank you for being here. Let me introduce the entire panel.
We would ask each of you to summarize your testimony. We
have your written testimony, of course, in the record.
Summarize your testimony in five minutes or under, and we will
have an opportunity then to have the Members ask questions.
The first witness is the Honorable Calvin Scovel who is the
Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Transportation,
who has testified before this Subcommittee many, many times;
Mr. D.J. Gribbin, who is the General Counsel for the Office
of the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation;
Mr. Gregory Principato, who is the President of the
Airports Council International North America;
Mr. James May, the President and CEO of the Air Transport
Association, accompanied by Mr. Gary Edwards, the Director of
Flight Control and Chief Dispatcher of Delta Airlines;
And, Ms. Kate Hanni, the Executive Director, Coalition for
Airline Passengers' Rights, Health and Safety.
Before I call on our first witness to testify, I would ask
the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee if he has
remarks that he would like to make.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry to be delayed getting here. I am always on other
Committee business, but this is an important hearing, airline
delays and consumer issues. We have visited it many times over
the last 20 years.
We have refrained from making major legislative adjustments
but frequently counseled airlines that their contract of
carriage is the most important relationship between the air
carrier and the air traveler, that the role of the Department
of Transportation and of the FAA is to oversee that that
contract of carriage is being enforced, carried out, respected
by the airlines.
After the experience in Detroit several years ago in the
snowstorm, we thought airlines had learned a lesson, and I
counseled against widespread sweeping changes in law. We ought
to rely on the airlines to come up with a passenger bill of
rights and to carry it out, to enforce it and to show the
traveling public they are, in fact, doing that.
Then after that JetBlue didn't learn from the Northwest
Airlines experience, we said, well, we will give you another
lease on life.
But public patience is running short, and Members of
Congress who travel frequently not only experience those delays
but also hear from their constituents time and time again.
In fact, I received a letter just last week, in the wake of
our FAA hearing on safety, from a retired major airline
executive who said, yes, just re-regulate the whole industry.
I hear a voice over here. Were Mr. Lipinski still here, the
other, the senior Mr. Lipinski, I think he would be saying the
same thing.
It is a cautionary note that I offer, that the leash is a
very short one.
We have a bill we have passed through the House. If the
Senate acted on it, we would be in conference. I think, in
conference, we probably would come up with something
substantially more far-reaching than we put in our bill. I
think we struck the right balance.
In the aftermath of September 11, one-fifth of the fleet
was taken out of service. Older version aircraft were traded
in, parked in the desert. Airlines have tried to bring in
newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet, and we see
some consolidation in the industry.
But what we have seen is load factors the highest they have
been in decades, yields higher than at any time since September
11 and even before that time and an industry that is now being
compared to the pre-1970 rail passenger industry. It has lost
its way and lost its touch with its passengers.
It is not my saying. It is what I hear from travelers. It
is what my colleagues hear. I can't pass through the House
floor without each week one, two or three from both sides of
the aisle saying: When are we going to re-regulate the airlines
and fix these problems?
I am a firm believer. I sat way down over there during the
deregulation legislation in this Committee and voted for it
with mixed feelings. It has continued to generate $6.5 billion
a year in savings for air travelers compared to pre-
deregulation fares, but the margin of satisfaction is
diminishing, and I think the airlines have to take that into
account.
We will hear testimony today on specifics of it.
Just one final observation, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, in
the aftermath of our hearing last week on aviation safety
issues and even before we held the hearing when FAA got wind
that this hearing was to be held, it was amazing how the agency
swung into action, imposed a $10.2 million fine on Southwest
Airlines, relocated a principal maintenance inspector, stepped
up its inspections and how, and at that witness table last
week, we had not only contradictory testimony but testimony
that might be perjury.
We have seen the whole 777 fleet of one carrier pulled down
for further inspections, 200 MD-80s taken out of service,
another section of the airline fleet taken out for further
inspections--actions that should be done in the ordinary course
of safety inspection.
Deadlines that were missed. Airworthiness directives that
weren't followed. As one of the witnesses said so well, those
air worthiness directives were written in blood. When 132
people died because of an uncommanded rudder control in
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, an air worthiness directive was issued
in the aftermath that said: You fix these and you inspect these
aircraft and you take this action.
When a carrier allowed its aircraft to fly beyond the
deadlines, they put 200,000 people at risk. That is not
acceptable.
Now we are seeing the fallout is coming as the industry
realizes they have to correct their course.
I have news: We are going to stay on this course. Safety is
the hallmark of the FAA, and we are going to make sure it
remains or becomes again the gold standard for the world.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. I thank the Chairman, and the Chair now
recognizes Mr. Scovel.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; D.J. GRIBBIN,
GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY EDWARDS,
DIRECTOR, FLIGHT CONTROL AND CHIEF DISPATCHER, DELTA AIRLINES;
AND KATE HANNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR AIRLINE
PASSENGERS' RIGHTS, HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to discuss efforts underway by the Department, FAA,
and various stakeholders to improve customer service and reduce
delays. Secretary Peters has made these issues a top priority
within the Department.
Our statement will address the three areas the Chairman
asked us to report on today.
First, an after-action analysis of the summer of 2007: Our
work shows that multiple factors contributed to gridlock and
record-breaking delays last summer. DOT ranked late-arriving
aircraft as the number one cause of delays with carrier-caused
delays and weather ranked number two and three respectively.
However, these categories lack considerable precision. To
get a better understanding of the root causes, we focused on 15
airports with the worst delays last summer. In addition to the
usual causes such as weather, other factors included:
Airspace bottlenecks in New York; this accounted for more
than one-third of delays system-wide.
Airline scheduling; for example, 6 of the 15 airports had
flights scheduled either at or over capacity during good
weather, including JFK. As a result, even a small increase in
operations or weather problems had cascading effects system-
wide.
Excessive aircraft spacing on final approach added to the
gridlock in the New York area and beyond and made aircraft
arrival rates at JFK and Newark unreliable.
Whether this summer will reach the discomfort level of last
year depends on a number of factors or wildcards. They include:
First, weather conditions as well as the impacts of a
weakening economy and higher fuel prices on the industry. Three
carriers stopped flying just last week.
Second, DOT, the airlines, and airports have taken steps to
address the action items we outlined at the hearing last fall.
However, many of the initiatives will not be in place by this
summer. The key will be follow-through, execution, and
implementation.
In response to our recommendations, the Department has
issued two proposed rulemakings to establish specific targets
for airlines to reduce chronically delayed or canceled flights,
disclose on-time performance on internet sites and resume self-
audits of customer service plans. These rules will not be
finalized in time for the summer.
The Department also established a national task force to
develop model contingency plans to minimize the impact of long
on-board delays. The task force will report its results later
this summer.
The airlines have taken some steps, but more needs to be
done. Eleven of twelve ATA member airlines have defined an
extended period of time for meeting passengers' essential needs
during long on-board delays. The trigger thresholds for meeting
passengers' essential needs vary from an hour and a half to
three hours on departure.
Eleven of twelve ATA airlines have now set a time limit on
delay durations before deplaning passengers or elevating the
situation to senior managers for resolution. Again, the
thresholds for deplaning passengers vary significantly.
Only four of the twelve ATA airlines have completely
satisfied our recommendation to establish specific targets to
reduce chronically delayed or canceled flights.
Most importantly, in our view, the airlines need to publish
to consumers their commitments to improve customer service in
their customer service plans and contracts of carriage.
Airports have taken steps to improve air travelers'
experience, including a task force to address problems in the
New York area and conducting workshops. Further actions are
needed.
We reviewed 20 airports and only 3 have established
procedures to proactively monitor long on-board delays that
involve contacting the airline to request a plan of action. In
our view, all airports need to do so.
Finally, actions are needed this year and next to mitigate
congestion. Given that NextGen is a long-term effort, several
actions are needed.
FAA needs to negotiate plans with the Department of Defense
for using special use airspace to open up additional lanes of
traffic. FAA needs to continue to address concerns about
controller productivity and excess spacing on final approach
while simultaneously training large numbers of new controllers.
FAA needs to further expand the number of its airspace flow
program locations to help reduce delays.
Airlines should attempt to level out the arrival and
departure banks at hubs. Airlines have successfully done so in
the past, which reduced congestion.
BTS, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the
Department need to analyze delay and cancellation data
submitted by the airlines. This would provide Congress with a
better understanding of the causes of delays and cancellations
and solution sets needed.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer your questions or questions posed by other
Members of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Scovel, and now
recognizes Mr. Gribbin.
Mr. Gribbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to update you on
initiatives taken by the Department to address airline delays
and consumer protection or, as Jim Oberstar phrased it, to
increase the margin of satisfaction.
We are all too familiar with the litany of statistics that
demonstrate that action is needed on behalf of air travelers.
One of the most compelling statistics is that last year almost
two million flights did not land on time because they were
delayed, canceled or diverted.
Over a year ago, the Administration identified the need to
respond to the growing consumer impacts of aviation system
delays. We launched a two-pronged attack on the problem: We are
working to improve consumer relations and consumer protections
and we are working to resolve the systemic failures that result
in delayed flights, missed connections and lost baggage.
The Department has undertaken a number of consumer-specific
measures. We have three current rulemakings that would help
passengers know what to expect when they book a flight, allow
us to step up oversight of chronically delayed flights and
enhance protections for consumers who are bumped, experience
delays or have complaints against the airlines.
Secretary Peters, as the Inspector General mentioned, has
also formed a Tarmac Delay Task Force to develop model
contingency plans for airlines and airports.
In addition to improving consumer protections, we are also
working to address the underlying cause of much of the misery
attributed to air travel, and that is congestion and delays.
Flight delay problems including cancellations and missed
connections are the number one air traveler complaint, as
Representative Richardson illustrated.
Along these lines, the Department has done a number of
activities, including the following: We have overseen the
construction of 13 new runways allowing for 1.6 million
additional operations.
We have reduced delays to implementation of New York
airspace redesign.
We have capped operations at JFK and proposed capping
operations at Newark.
We have appointed a new aviation czar.
We have worked on accelerating the deployment of NextGen
technology.
We have established the New York Aviation Rulemaking
Committee.
We have proposed amendments to our rates and charges policy
to give airports more tools to manage congestion at the local
level.
And, by summer's end, we will have completed all 17 of the
operational improvements called for by the ATA and the Port
Authority to address congestion in New York.
These operations improvements will be helpful, but they
will not come close to providing the additional capacity needed
to meet demand in New York. It is a bit like using a pillowcase
as a parachute. It is helpful, but you still have a bit of a
disaster at the end. Really, more needs to be done.
The cause of congestion at our busiest airports is not a
mystery. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Free
access and significant demand for a finite resource ultimately
dooms the resource to over-exploitation.
Our current structure dooms airports. In fact, last summer,
some of the airlines recognized the dynamic and asked us to
intervene and cap the New York City airports because the
airlines understood and understand that their incentives are to
over-schedule congested airports.
But to really address congestion, we have a choice between
two fundamentally different approaches: administrative remedies
or market-based solutions. We believe that moving towards a
market-based system will reduce delays and contribute to an
improved flying experience for air travelers.
Instituting administrative remedies, like caps, is an
effective but not an efficient way to reduce delays. Caps limit
capacity, stifle innovation and block competition. As a result,
passengers get poorer service and pay higher fares. In
addition, imposition of caps in the manner proposed by the
airlines would result in a massive wealth transfer from the
American public to the airlines.
For the better part of the last century, the world has
engaged in an exhaustive debate on whether it is more efficient
for governments to manage systems to meet consumer demand or
whether management should be left to the markets. I can say
that the results are in and that markets have won.
Pricing balances demand with available capacity. It results
in less congestion and more reliable schedules. Pricing sends
better signals as to where the system needs extra capacity, and
it can supply the revenues to add such capacity. Pricing also
can increase the number of passengers served in an airport even
if the number of airplanes does not increase.
Market forces, however_and I want to make a point to
highlight this_market forces do not address every policy
problem with aviation congestion. Market forces do an excellent
job of allocating resources to those who can realize the most
economic value from that resource, but they do not allow for
the societal value placed on certain activities such as access
to airports by general aviation or the need for small community
service. The Department recognizes this and will respond
accordingly.
Let me conclude by saying I think we all agree that the
American public deserves the safest and most reliable air
system possible.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity to testify,
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Gribbin, and
recognizes Mr. Principato.
Mr. Principato. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
thank you for allowing Airports Council International North
America the opportunity to testify at this important hearing on
aviation delays and consumer issues.
Our 366 member airports enplane more than 95 percent of the
domestic and nearly all of the international passenger and
cargo traffic in North America, and nearly 400 aviation-related
businesses are also members of ACI North America.
We applaud the Subcommittee for its work on H.R. 2881 to
provide airports the financial tools necessary to build new
runways and terminals to meet growing airline passenger needs,
the long-term solution to congestion and delays.
Air travel delays and complaints are rising. DOT's most
recent air travel consumer report, released on April 3rd,
indicates that complaints from consumers increased 13.3 percent
in February, 2008, over the same month one year earlier and on-
time arrival rates are down.
While these statistics are alarming, airports are working
aggressively to enhance air travel by improving the airport
customer experience during lengthy airline delays.
In January of this year, ACI North America convened an
industry-wide workshop. The goal was to promote an exchange of
information on providing excellent passenger care during
extended delays and identifying new opportunities to better
serve travelers.
To better enhance and strengthen airport contingency plans,
the workshop identified immediate and near-term actions to be
undertaken on a local and national level.
Immediate actions on a local level include coordinating
individual airline and airport irregular operations plans to
identify overlaps and gaps, communicate and coordinate to
present consistent and accurate messages to both employees and
passengers, and establish a network of stakeholder
professionals that will develop, in advance, comprehensive
guidelines that encompass all stakeholders' needs and ensure
they are met.
Near-term actions include creating an irregular ops
committee comprised of all airport stakeholders, development of
a unified communications plan that considers the needs of all
service providers, employees and the traveling public,
partnering with local media for effective broadcasting of
messages, and enhancing airport and airline web pages as a
means of communicating real-time events to employees and the
traveling public.
ACI North America is also reaching out to the FAA, TSA, CBP
and others to explore opportunities by which Federal entities
might enhance their operations during irregular operations, and
we are working with ATA in doing that.
These actions, as well as some current best practices, have
been provided to DOT's National Contingency Plan Task Force on
which ACI North America, as well as representatives from
several large and small airports, are actively participating.
Airports are taking a leadership role in identifying trends
and patterns and recommending workable solutions for mitigating
the impact of flight disruptions for passengers, both on the
airplane and in the terminal.
Additionally, ACI North America staff is assembling a list
of solutions that have already been effectively implemented by
airports around the Country to provide to the Task Force at its
next meeting on April 29th.
While airports are being proactive in finding solutions,
the best solution to decreasing congestion and delays is to add
additional capacity. However, in those limited situations where
existing capacity is inadequate to meet demand and significant
airfield capacity expansion isn't feasible, congestion
management tools should be available to airport operators. That
is why ACI North America supports the DOT-proposed rule
regarding airport rates and charges.
There is one size fits all solution and, because of the
unique circumstance at each airport's facilities, proprietors
of congested airports need the ability to develop programs that
are custom fit to specific local circumstances. Additionally,
it is very important that DOT permit congested airports to
build reasonable exceptions in their rates and charges to
preserve small community access.
ACI North America also supports DOT's proposals to increase
compensation for involuntary denied boardings as well as
enhanced consumer protection from chronically delayed flights.
However, given the growth of regional or feeder airlines, DOT
should ensure that their operations are also covered by any new
rules to ensure that passengers in both large and small
communities have pertinent information on which to base their
travel decisions.
ACI North America also remains concerned that flight delays
and cancellation rates at many small airports continue to have
a negative effect on abilities to make connections at large
hubs and are disruptive to passengers flying to and from
smaller communities.
In closing, ACI North America and its member airports thank
you for the opportunity to share our views on this important
matter. Increasing consumer confidence that the aviation system
can work efficiently without extended delays and passenger
inconvenience is important for both passengers and airlines. We
are in this together.
We look forward to working with you as we continue to
address these vital passenger issues.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes Mr.
May.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be accompanied today by Gary Edwards who is
the Director of Flight Control at Delta Airlines. Gary is the
person who is on the ground, handling all the day to day
operations of a major airline and can answer a number of
questions very directly from an airline's perspective. Ms.
Richardson, for example, raised an issue that I am sure Gary
can address.
I would remind the Committee as we get kicked off that we
are really talking about two separate and independent but
related issues. One is the issue of increasing flight delays,
and the second is customer service.
I would make two fundamental points to start. Number one,
airlines hate delays. It cost us $9 billion last year. Within
the last three or four months since Christmas, five carriers
have filed for bankruptcy and gone out of business. Frankly,
others may well be on the edge.
There are brutal economics in the business today. Oil is
trading for airline purposes at about a hundred and thirty five
to forty dollars a barrel. That is refining premium plus the
basic cost of crude.
No one is more interested in making sure our planes get to
their destinations efficiently and quickly than the airlines
are, and an airline's delay is our worst enemy.
Secondly, we care deeply about our customers. Our customers
are our livelihood. We are not satisfied with the status quo.
We need to improve our customer service. We have been working
hard to do that, and we need to continue. We cannot allow
things to remain static, and we understand that.
So, first part of the equation, increasing flight delays,
numbers are up. We have all seen them. They are not where we
want them to be. This Committee is frustrated. Passengers are
frustrated. Airlines are frustrated.
The real question is why are those delays up, and I think
the answer is two-fold: number one, weather and, number two,
air traffic control.
It is interesting. Twenty years ago, we had been focusing
on the Northeast, both from the older airports like LaGuardia
to the newer airports like Stewart in Mr. Hall's district.
Twenty years ago, we could handle, FAA could handle an
average of 10 to 12 flights more per hour than they can today.
You would think that with new technology the trend would be
heading in the other direction, and it is not. It is going
south, not north.
At the roundtable that you held, Mr. Chairman, we spent a
number of hours sitting around and discussing some of the
problems with NextGen, and the biggest problem with NextGen is
it is not NowGen, and we need to move aggressively to get that
changed.
I spent some time about three weeks ago with the air
traffic controllers up in New York, and I spent time in the
towers at Kennedy and LaGuardia and Newark. We went up to the
TRACON in New York, and there are very serious issues and we
need to address them directly. We need to involve the input of
the air traffic controllers and others who are hands-on, and we
need to, quite frankly, just get off the dime and get this
done.
I disagree with my good friend in the Department of
Transportation in suggesting that we are going to have pure
marketplace solutions or ``administrative'' solutions. I think
there have to be air traffic solutions because at the end of
the day it is not just concrete and, in New York, we are not
going to lay a whole lot more concrete.
It is the airspace and the congestion in that airspace
provided by a minimum of 15 towered airports in that air
traffic control system, and it is airspace that is being
occupied not just by commercial aviation but by private
aviation and business jets. I would like to submit for the
record one of Mr. Scovel's best reports, Use of the National
Airspace System, which is an IG report that just came out that
I think helps illustrate some of the problems in New York.
So we realize we need to do more to solve the problem. We
are working with the FAA, the DOT and others.
Secondly, and a bigger part of the equation, is we need to
do a better job with customer service. When we have delays, we
have irregular operations, when we have customers sitting on
the ground for extraordinary periods of time, we have to treat
them properly.
I think we have made great strides in being able to do
that. I know the numbers are up on some of the longer delayed
flights, but by the same token I think our carriers have done a
much better job of handling that.
We continue to work on our customer service commitments. We
have them posted on our web site or in our conditions of
carriage. We are continuing to revise them.
We are spending time with Mr. Scovel and the IG and working
on the many different approaches that our friends at the DOT
have engaged in this.
We are doing this internally. We are under constant review
by you and ourselves, and we know we need to do a better job of
doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I have run over time a little bit. I
appreciate your indulgence. I am happy to answer questions that
you or the other Members of the Committee might have.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, Mr. May.
Mr. Edwards, I assume you do not have testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni.
Ms. Hanni. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Chairman Oberstar,
Members of the Committee.
The active members of our coalition number 22,074 as of
yesterday and growing. We are supported by U.S. PIRG, ACAP,
Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Public
Citizen. That totals about 52 million ticked off air travelers.
Among many coalition activities, we now operate a state of
the art, round the clock hot line to talk with people in real
time who are stranded on airline flights that have baggage
problems, airplanes decompressing in flight which just happened
last week, pilots complaining about a lack of sleep, every
conceivable airline issue.
The number of planes stranded on airport tarmacs are far
higher than reported by the airlines or DOT. Airline passengers
are still being stranded without food, water, working
lavatories and the passengers' option to deplane after three to
four hours if it can be done safely. As recently as last month,
American Airlines kept 17 aircraft on the tarmac at DFW for
several hours beyond that airline's own non-binding 4-hour
commitment.
I know this because we get the phone calls from the
passengers inside those aircraft.
There have been many promises by the airlines about making
progress and President Bush even got involved, directing
Secretary Peters to address congestion and other consumer
issues, but there has been very little permanent action. Even
worse, the Federal courts have invalidated State passenger bill
of rights laws on commerce and preemption grounds.
I have testified in most of the States bringing bills, and
the ATA's argument and the airlines' argument is that they
would prefer Federal legislation to State legislation.
The new DOT guidelines are, to put it mildly, adding insult
to injury. It would let each airline decide what, if anything,
they want to offer stranded passengers with no Federal review,
no effective enforcement mechanism, plans for stranded
passengers are relegated to one-sided contracts of adhesion.
For their part, the airlines oppose even this ineffective DOT
proposal.
Congress has the chance to address both the passenger bill
of rights and safety scandal by enacting H.R. 2881, the FAA
Reauthorization Act, which passed the House last year. There is
agreement in the House and bipartisan agreement amongst most of
the key players in the Senate.
The passenger bill of rights provisions can be added in
conference as can any supplemental safety and inspection
oversight measures. The bill already contains more funding for
oversight and provisions relating to the dangerous off-shoring
of inspections.
Unless the Congress acts on some version of passenger
rights legislation this year, the cries of frustration from the
tens of thousands of stranded passengers will not be heard.
The cries of thousands of people like me and my family who
were held against our will without food, water and working
restrooms in Austin or JFK or Philadelphia or Newark or Dallas
or Los Angeles or Atlanta or January or a dozen other airports
last year, all of those cries of despair will have been in
vain.
Mr. Chairman, the FAA has failed us, as have the airlines.
It is now incumbent on Congress to act.
Last week, we learned of the latest passenger issue, that
planes were not being inspected and that safety inspections had
succumbed to the worst kind of revolving door cronyism. News
reports showed that the airlines literally thought they could
use their cozy relationships with the FAA to silence
whistleblowers. It is the kind of Katrina bureaucracy all over
again.
Given the frustration of airline passengers and the new
safety scandal, I don't think voters--Democratic, Republic or
Independent--are in any mood for kicking the can down the road.
This has to be the can-do Congress when it comes to passengers'
bill of rights and safety.
Mr. Chairman, we are doing our best to urge the Senate to
act. I have been to every Member of the Finance Committee's
office so far this week.
For your part, we ask that you oppose DOT's advancing its
non-regulating regulation, just turning the issue back to the
airlines for their voluntary actions. Congress tried that
unsuccessfully in 1999. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us
twice, shame on us.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might
have.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and
we appreciate your organization and everyone else, the efforts
they have made attempting to get our colleagues in the Senate
to pass an FAA Reauthorization Bill.
I have said many times, publicly and privately, to our
colleagues over in the Senate that we don't necessarily believe
that they have to just rubberstamp the House bill but pass a
bill, just their version of a reauthorization bill, so we can
get it into conference and work out our differences. I think
the differences are slight, and they can be worked out.
So we, again, appreciate your efforts and encourage you and
everyone to continue to impress upon the Senate the importance
of passing this legislation.
Let me just inform our colleagues that we have been told
about 3:45 to 4:00 we will have series of votes probably
lasting anywhere from, oh, an hour and 15 to an hour and 30
minutes. So I will proceed with questions as quickly as I can
and get to you for your questions. I will also submit some
questions for the record.
Let me also say that the National Business Aviation
Association has submitted a letter that they would like to be
inserted in the record. At this time I would, with unanimous
consent, insert this letter into the record, without objection.
Mr. Scovel, one, thank you for your testimony. As I said
earlier, you have been before us many times. We appreciate your
hard work, and I know that we have thrown a lot of work your
way and there is a lot more coming.
First, let me ask you, you state in your testimony, that I
read last evening and went through it again this morning, that
DOT has taken a more active role in airline customer service
issues. What additional steps has the DOT taken to improve
oversight in this regard.
Mr. Scovel. You are referring to customer service in
particular, sir?
Mr. Costello. Customer service, yes.
Mr. Scovel. I would like to note at the outset that my
staff, as you have correctly noted as well, has been active in
this area now for almost 10 years. Apart from the immediate
aftermath of 9/11, when the airline industry was in a great
deal of turmoil, the veterans on my staff have rarely seen the
Department, the airports, and the airlines convene together as
they have and move as quickly as they have on a number of
different fronts. We would like to give them all due credit for
that.
The Department, in our view, has moved extraordinarily fast
and has accomplished, we think, a great deal within the legal
restrictions that rulemaking essentially requires.
We would commend the Department especially for including in
its proposed rulemaking a requirement that airlines post on
their internet sites their on-time flight performance
information. We think that will be a great help to the
consumer.
We would also commend the Department for requiring airlines
to continue or to resume the audits of their customer services
plans. There have been a number of different areas where the
Department has moved forward on the customer service front.
We have good news and bad news, I think, when it comes to
the airlines and the airports, but for the Department at this
point, we are pleased with what they have done.
We have our scorecards out. We want to see some of the
results when the proposed rulemaking and the comments have all
been returned and evaluated, and we would urge the Department
to approach those comments and their final rulemaking progress
in a very hard-nosed manner because the circumstances call for
it at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The question for the entire panel, and I
think I can probably insert Mr. May's answer already before I
ask the question, but the question is: Does anyone on the panel
believe that if we do not pass, the Congress does not pass a
passenger bill of rights or some type of consumer protection,
that it should be left up to the airlines to manage on their
own, that it will in fact be managed by the airlines?
Anyone on the panel other than Mr. May want to comment?
Mr. Gribbin. I would like to go ahead and comment on that.
I think Ms. Hanni's comments were good, but they were
slightly inaccurate in saying that there is no enforcement
mechanism over what the Department has proposed in our ANPRM.
While it is true that we have said that the airlines ought
to decide what plans are available in the case of significant
tarmac delays, we have also said that they have to audit those
plans and we have the legal authority then to oversee the
audits of those plans. So if the airlines put forth a plan and
are not abiding by that, we do have the ability to enforce the
airlines by that.
That said, we do think it is the best policy that the
airlines decide.
Mr. Costello. Several of the issues that you have included
in your consumer protections passenger bill of rights, whatever
you want to title it, came directly from H.R. 2881. I would
like you to tell us what provisions that you have included that
are not in the House bill that was passed on September 20th.
Mr. Gribbin. I don't have in front of me a side by side.
Mr. Costello. Is there anything that you can name off?
Mr. Gribbin. I can quickly run through. We have seven
different items. It is true that there is a fair amount of
overlap.
Mr. Costello. Without going through all seven because we
have limited time, we understand what provisions are in the
House bill and we understand that many of the provisions that
you have came from the House bill. But is there anything off
the top of your head that you can name that is not contained in
the legislation that we passed?
Mr. Gribbin. Most of the provisions we have are similar to
what was in the House bill and similar to what was in the New
York passenger bill of rights and reflects a number of the
passenger bill of rights that are being considered.
I think the significant difference is the amount of
flexibility given to airlines and the airports to develop plans
on their own and the number of Federal employees we would have
to hire to oversee that.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony, and this has
been an issue that we have discussed in this Subcommittee
before. You note that, and I will quote, and this is just one
example. There are many others with other airlines that I can
give.
You have in your testimony: ``For example, Northwest
Airlines has scheduled 56 departures in 1 15-minute window at
Minneapolis-St. Paul, nearly 3 times the airport's departure
capacity for that window.''
Now when an airline scheduled 56 departures, 3 times the
capacity that can be handled in that 15-minute period, what
that means is that people will be sitting on the tarmac and
that there will be delays, correct?
Mr. Scovel. Absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. And, we have seen that at other airports as
well.
I guess the reason that I bring this up is that we know
that before we start out. We had examples that we pointed out
to another Committee that has jurisdiction over a part of the
FAA Reauthorization Bill, that in the New York area, where
airlines are scheduling more flights than humanly possible to
take off during that period of time.
We had the air traffic controllers come in when we were
trying to determine in the passenger bill of rights what should
the window be. Should it be two hours? Should it be three
hours? Which should it be?
The air traffic controllers, when we showed them figures
like you are demonstrating here, 56 departures in a 15-minute
window, it is impossible to do.
So my question, Mr. Gribbin and to you, Mr. Scovel as well
but Mr. Gribbin in particular: When the Department of
Transportation sees that airlines are scheduling three times as
many flights as humanly possible to get out in that time frame,
a 15-minute time frame, are you taking action? Are you
negotiating with the airlines to reduce the number of scheduled
flights that we know that will result in delays?
Mr. Gribbin. What we do is we have our new rule on
chronically delayed flights.
Mr. Costello. Can you move a little closer to the mic?
Mr. Gribbin. We have a new rule on chronically delayed
flights that, in essence, if a flight is delayed chronically
over a period of time of two quarters, then we penalize them.
So that is the incentive we have for airlines not to schedule
at a time that they know they can't meet.
Mr. Costello. How long has that been in effect? How long
have you been using it?
Mr. Gribbin. It has been in effect this year. We put it
into effect last year. So it has been in effect almost a year
now.
Mr. Costello. How often have you sat down and negotiated
with airlines and said, look--to Northwest or United or whoever
it may be--you have more flights scheduled in this 15-minute
period than possible to take off and actually negotiated a
reduction in flights in peak times?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, what we do is more backward looking. We
look at the flight data as it comes in and as flights are
delayed, we will sit down with the airlines on a periodic basis
and explain what data we have and make sure that it is accurate
for what actually happened.
The tool that we have put in place to remedy the problem,
you addressed, is our new rates and charges policy.
Right now, airports don't have the ability. When airlines
come in and schedule flights all at the same time, they have no
ability to move those flights to make it more rational to the
public. And so, with the rates and charges policy, they could
actually use pricing to move flights out of peak times to avoid
that very scenario.
In addition, we have also, as part of the ANPRM, suggested
that, as the Inspector General mentioned, that consumers be
told when flights are delayed.
The problem we have right now is exactly what you pointed
out. Airlines are scheduling. Consumers want to leave at a
certain hour. So airlines know that, and they schedule more
flights in that hour than could possibly leave because there is
no mechanism to prevent them from doing that and because
competitive pressures drive them in that direction.
I think that the problem we have right now is not so much
that airlines are scheduling a lot of flights in a certain
hour. It is that we have developed a system that incentivizes
that type of behavior and we haven't provided the tools to
discourage it.
Mr. Costello. But you know the problem exists and has
existed for a long time now.
Mr. Scovel, I wonder if you might comment.
Let me mention as well that in our bill that we passed out
of this Committee and out of the House, we give the Department
of Transportation, the Secretary, the authority to sit down and
not just negotiate with airlines as to if they have scheduled
too many flights in a period of time that is impossible to
achieve. They have the authority to tell the airline that you
are going to reduce the number of flights in this peak period
or particular time.
Mr. Scovel, I wonder if you might comment on DOT's role in
stepping up and taking action when it is very obvious that
scheduling like this results in people sitting in airplanes on
the tarmac and flights not getting off on time.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, as we have testified before, we
think an informed consumer is more likely to be a satisfied
consumer. So, if information is posted on an airline's internet
site, that is tremendous.
However, we think that the way the Department has
approached chronically delayed flights leaves much to be
desired. For years now, we have urged the Department's Office
of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to proceed legally
against airlines that have engaged, in our layman's view, in
deceptive practices by advertising flights to take off at a
certain time.
We think the way the Department has set the measure of what
constitutes a chronically delayed flight is far too narrow.
Under the Department's rule, 200 flights per quarter, on
average, might be labeled chronically delayed because the
measures, according to the Department, should be any flight
that is more than 15 minutes late 70 percent of the time. It is
a very high bar. Only 200 flights perhaps might qualify.
Our office has urged a lower bar that we think would more
correctly reflect the concerns of consumers. We have urged a
30-minute delay, certainly as a concession some to the airlines
and airports. However, we have also urged that 40 percent of
the time be set as the time limit to mark when a flight is
running late. If that were to happen quarter over quarter, then
we would hope that the Department would proceed against the
airlines.
Mr. Costello. Final question and then there are other
Members who have questions, and I have a number of others that
hopefully we will get to. If we don't, I will submit them to
you in writing.
Mr. Scovel, you just said that you have recommended and
this Subcommittee knows that you have recommended to the
Department of Transportation that they take action, legal
action against airlines that engage in ``deceptive'' practices
which, of course, would mean advertising flights when they know
that they are not going to get off on time.
Have you see the Department of Transportation take any
action based upon your recommendation?
Mr. Scovel. Not yet, Mr. Chairman. We are reassured by the
Department's new emphasis on rulemaking and protection for the
consumer, and we are hoping to see the statistics reflect this.
Mr. Costello. How many years have you or your office, the
Inspector General's Office, made this recommendation to the
Department of Transportation?
Mr. Scovel. I believe I can state four. It might be longer
than that.
Mr. Costello. So, for at least four years, you have been
recommending to the Department of Transportation that they take
legal action against airlines that engage in deceptive
practices and, as of right now, you cannot cite an example
where they have taken action?
Mr. Scovel. I have been handed a note by a member of my
staff, and I will stand corrected. Since February 2001, Mr.
Chairman, we have been making that recommendation.
Mr. Costello. Since February, 2001, you cannot cite one
example where action has been taken by the Department of
Transportation against an airline?
Mr. Scovel. Not to my knowledge. However, we will certainly
take that question for the record if we may and provide you
with a detailed answer.
Mr. Costello. In fairness, I think I should call on Mr. May
who is here on behalf of ATA and pose both questions to you.
Number one, Mr. May, you have heard the Inspector General
and I have cited the example that he gives, 56 departures in a
15-minute window. Why would an airline schedule 56 departures
in 1 15-minute window when they know that it is impossible for
all 56 of those flights to depart on time?
Mr. May. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your turning to me in
fairness and, in equal fairness, I cannot give you an answer to
that. I saw that in the IG's report, and I don't have a good
answer for it.
Mr. Costello. I can tell you in trying to put together the
consumer protection provision in the reauthorization bill, we
spoke to probably everyone at this table, asking for their
opinion on various provisions, and we spoke to a lot of people
including the air traffic controllers. We found example after
example where that has taken place, where an airline has
scheduled, in this case, three times the amount of flights than
humanly possible to take off.
It is a major issue that the Department of Transportation
and the airlines need to address.
With that, I have taken far too much time.
Mr. May. May I?
Mr. Costello. Sure.
Mr. May. On a second point that was raised here, Mr.
Chairman, staff have helped me out here. In 2008, there have
been 5 consent orders by the DOT. In 2007, there were 28
consent orders. There were a series of fines. There is other
recent enforcement activity.
So there are active enforcement provisions that are being
pursued by DOT, and I would be happy to submit this for the
record.
Mr. Costello. I would like that for the record and would
like to pursue it a little more, but unfortunately I have
others who have questions.
With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again
thank you for holding this hearing.
I wonder if I could just ask Mr. Gribbin to expand a little
bit on the remedy of, I guess you call it, market-based or
congestion-based pricing. You indicate in your written
testimony, this was attempted or implemented at LaGuardia
Airport for a while, but seemed to be against the rules.
The idea that an airport would know what the capacity would
normally be at certain times of the day, and they therefore
could vary the price that they would charge airlines for
scheduling flights at different times, so that if they attempt
to over-schedule or jam in they could price them out and that
would tend to even things out. Obviously, they would have to
pass some of that on, and people would have to pay more, but
that again would influence the demand for those times.
Is that the idea, and this would make money available to
the airports to expand if they reaped additional revenue by
congestion pricing in that way?
Could you explain why that it is and then I would like to
ask other members to comment?
Mr. Gribbin. I would be glad to.
As the Chairman mentioned, you have a situation right now
where competitive pressures and a number of factors lead
airlines to, in essence, over-schedule an airport or schedule
more flights than an airport can handle in a given period of
time.
The Department released a rates and charges amendment to
our rates and charges policy to give the airports the ability
to adjust the cost of landing fees during the course of the
day, and those need to be revenue neutral. So while those
traveling at peak periods may pay slightly more, those
traveling in off-peak periods would benefit from a
corresponding savings.
So we think that right now the best way to manage
congestion in airports, where you can't have expanded
capacity--like in the New York area you really are hemmed in
the additional amount of capacity you could add--that airports
be given the flexibility to adjust prices during the day,
similar to what utilities use.
With cell phones, we have free weekends. Why? Because there
is extra capacity. So they want to drive usage in that
direction. Most utilities charge higher prices during peak
times.
So we think that exact same principle applied to airports
does two things: One, it helps reduce congestion. But,
secondly, it helps allow for new entrants, it encourages
continued competition and allows for the market to work.
Mr. Petri. That would require a change in the law to
accomplish?
Mr. Gribbin. That would not require a change in statute. It
would require a change in our rates and charges policy.
As the Inspector General mentioned, right now with
reauthorization still pending, the Department is somewhat
hamstrung in what we can do. And so, what we have done is we
have pursued a number of remedies to this problem that we are
able to do under existing law.
This is a hearing on delays and consumer issues. All of our
data shows that the number one consumer issue is delays. If we
can avoid delays, if we can manage congestion, we don't end up
in situations where people are trapped on tarmacs for hours.
Mr. Petri. You could do it, but you have not yet thought,
for a variety of reasons, that it made sense to do it to solve
this problem?
Mr. Gribbin. We have actually proposed an amendment in the
policy. The comment period ended on the 3rd of this month. We
are reviewing comments and then will come out with a formal
change in our policy later this year that will then give that
freedom to airports.
Mr. Petri. So any comments on this proposal, Mr. May? I see
you.
Mr. May. I would hate to disappoint my colleague from the
DOT by not commenting at this time because he well knows my
views on this and those of a number of other leading legal
scholars, including Ted Olson, who have very serious
reservations as to whether or not the DOT enjoys the statutory
authority to pursue this kind of congestion pricing.
We don't think it has ever been tried in a network
environment other than probably electricity. It certainly has
never been tried in a network environment in aviation.
It was used at Logan Airport at one juncture a number of
years ago against GA to drive GA out of Logan Airport. It
hasn't been applied to commercial scheduled operations.
We think it is nothing short of a tax on passengers. If you
are trying to Europe through JFK, and in your situation you
would probably do it somewhat differently, using different hubs
and carriers.
But if you wanted to go to Europe through JFK, you are
going to connect at JFK with a feeder flight that is coming in,
a Delta flight or an American or somebody else, and you can't
afford to go up to Stewart Air Force Base and take a 60-mile
ride down the Hudson from Poughkeepsie to get there. So,
effectively, the pricing that is being applied to your flight
is going to be a tax, and you are going to still want to have
to fly through JFK in New York to get to Europe, but you are
going to be taxed to do that.
No guarantees that the money ever goes to improving air
traffic control. We don't think it has anywhere near the
benefits of real meaningful improvements to Next Generation air
traffic control systems, and so we have a very fundamental
difference starting with the legality of it, going through the
practicality of it and the history of it, just for the record.
Mr. Principato. Congressman Petri, if I could from the
airport perspective.
As Mr. Gribbin indicated, it does have to be revenue
neutral. You had talked before about making more money
available for airports. It does not.
I think it is important to know that airports already do
have the ability to do a two-tier pricing. The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, I think San Francisco, have minimum
landing fees which essentially is a two-tier system. It is not
just a weight base. So there already is a certain amount of
authority to do this.
In terms of the two-tier pricing, the DOT's policy is to
clarify the current rule, not to really set something new.
You know 56 flights in 15 minutes probably is a rational,
short-term economic decision I guess somebody makes. A lot of
people want to fly between 8:00 and 8:15 in the morning. So
they will sell a lot of seats during that time. But no amount
of NextGen or NextGen plus 10 is going to get those 56 flights
off in those 15 minutes. It is just not going to happen.
And so, we do need to look at some other issues: more
capacity on the ground; obviously NextGen, NowGen, whatever you
want to call it; and, as Mr. Gribbin has indicated, giving
airports the flexibility through this new rates and charges
policy to look at them, using pricing as away to move some of
this around.
As I said, airports already have some of this authority to
do this. Not a lot of airports do it. Not all airports will do
it. Most rates and charges are set in negotiations with the
airlines. Airports and airlines work very closely together on
this.
So I don't foresee a flood of airports coming in and
beating the airlines over the head with this, but it is a tool
that can be used while we wait for that new capacity on the
ground that you all included in the reauthorization bill. While
we wait for NowGen, NextGen, whatever we want to call it, it is
another tool for airports to use that address the very issue
you are talking about.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, there were some others here
before me. I do want to ask questions, but I will let you go
ahead.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Texas.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. May, in your testimony, you emphasize the importance of
helping passengers caught on the tarmac during periods of
excessive delay. How long do you believe an aircraft should
have to wait or a passenger in an airline should have to wait
before that aircraft is required to return to the tarmac?
Mr. May. Required to return to the terminal or passengers
given some right to get off?
Mr. Cohen. Yes.
Mr. May. Congressman, I think it is a flexible answer.
There is no single answer. It is why we have always opposed a
hard and fast rule.
I think it depends on the airport. I think it depends on
the conditions that are causing the delays. I think it depends
on the type of aircraft, the destination. There are a number of
different factors.
All of our carriers, every single one of them, have set a
time frame for decision based on their best information. I
don't think any of those time frames for a decision exceed two
hours, two and a half hours and almost all of them, if not all
of them, have set hard and fast deadlines that range in the
three hours to I think JetBlue is at five hours time frame.
Again, it depends on the circumstances. It could well be
that in more extreme circumstances we are actually pre-
canceling those flights before they leave the terminal because,
quite frankly, we know we are not going to be able to get them
out in time.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. May, I would just submit to you that your
perspective is that from the airline industry, which I
understand, but there is a constant in terms of how much a
human being can withstand. I don't care if you are in Tupelo,
Mississippi or if you are in New York City, if you are on a
little Cessna or if you are on a big Boeing plane. A certain
amount of time sitting in a fuselage, not knowing what is going
to happen, without food, fresh air, bathroom facilities, there
is a constant.
There must be a minimum time that a human being is not put
under the indignities that they have been on these terrible
delays. Now what is that minimum time from a human perspective?
Mr. May. Congressman, I also bring a human perspective as a
multimillion mile flyer for Delta before I took this job. So I
understand exactly what you are saying.
I think there is a human factor involved that is not only
conditioned upon where you are going, what kind of an airplane
you are in, what the weather conditions are, but also I think
there is a condition that says I would rather get to my
destination and suffer some delay in getting there than to have
the plane go back to the terminal, get canceled, not be able to
get on a connecting flight that day or the next day and lose
that opportunity.
Mr. Cohen. Is seven hours too long to be without a bathroom
and water?
Mr. May. Sure.
Mr. Cohen. What is? There has to be a time. Five hours, is
that too long?
Mr. May. I think most of our carriers have said four or
five hours is a time they need to bring back. If you lay out
examples of seven hours, and I know they exist. I have been on
one for nine hours in Dallas-Fort Worth, as a matter of fact,
on American early in my career.
So it is too long. It is not acceptable, and I think we
have to do everything we know how to do to make sure that we
reduce and eliminate the number of times that those occur.
Mr. Cohen. You oppose Federal legislation to have a
minimum?
Mr. May. We have. We have consistently opposed a hard and
fast time line, and the very reasons are that we are going to
be creating more problems, untended consequences for our
customers than not.
I think having a rule that says you have a decision time
frame, having a rule that says you have to have folks, based on
your own operations, out of there after a certain decision time
frame is an appropriate way to go.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this, and it might have been Mr.
Gribbin who referred to it but market conditions. You are an
advocate of market conditions, are you not?
Mr. May. I am not an advocate of the same market conditions
that Mr. Gribbin is.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. That is some inside baseball, I guess.
If we have a merger of airlines and there is talk of Delta
and Northwest merging, and I see Northwest is much better on
some of these charts that Ms. Hanni has given us.
If there is a merger, does that not make it more likely
that we will need governmental regulation to assure that the
public has improvements because the market will be reduced?
Mr. May. I don't know that I would agree that one follows
the other, Congressman.
I mean you get Northwest in your market. They are your
principal carrier in Memphis, and they do a terrific job there.
If there were to be a merger, I am sure they would continue to
do a terrific job there.
Mr. Cohen. As long as they continue to do a terrific job
there and not some other city, yes.
Mr. May. I can't ever imagine Northwest not continuing to
serve Memphis in a very robust fashion.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Those are good words. We still
should have won the tournament.
[Laughter.]
Mr. May. But can you take solace in the fact that Tennessee
won the ladies' tournament?
Mr. Cohen. To be honest, no. I am from Memphis.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to have all of you here.
Mr. Scovel, you mentioned aircraft spacing may have had an
effect on delays and congestion in New York airspace. I want to
put a three-part question to you. In what way was it affected,
and were aircraft spaced separately in situations where it was
not warranted, i.e., clear weather, and, thirdly, what is the
effect on delays in these situations?
Mr. Scovel. Good afternoon, Mr. Coble.
I think you are referring to excessive spacing on approach,
which is in mentioned in our testimony today.
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Mr. Scovel. What we have learned in talking with
authorities at New York most recently is that they have
identified a practice among air traffic controllers there in
the recent past. This practice spaces out in further distance
the aircraft that are on final approach to their airports, a
longer distance than is required by FAA regulations.
Typically, on approach it is three miles. There is a little
bit of fudge factor there. Sometimes we have been told through
FAA and New York authorities that the distances have been
stretched an additional two to three miles, and we have been
told by the airlines that it may even be farther than that.
The result is, of course, a ripple effect throughout the
airspace, with fewer aircraft being able to land and delays
ensuing.
FAA has not been able to directly quantify the problem in
any great depth to our satisfaction. However, it has provided
us with at least one factoid, if you will, which was: this past
February, had excessive spacing on approach not been in effect,
FAA estimates that in one 2-hour period perhaps 22 more
aircraft could have been brought down safely. So that is the
result.
To some extent, a question that needs to be examined is
whether air traffic controllers are properly, in their eyes
even, reacting to an emphasis by FAA on getting control over
operational errors. On this final approach question, an
operational error might be when an air traffic controller
brings two airplanes too closely together in final approach,
below the three-mile limit. Air traffic controllers then, of
course, try to err on the side of caution and stretch out the
aircraft under their control.
FAA has attempted to deal with that, but clearly it is an
area that needs more study, and in this context it is a
practice that may feed delay and, of course, give rise to
consumer dissatisfaction.
Mr. Coble. As you pointed out, the ripple effect is the
problem. One plane extending the space would be no problem, but
when you have a dozen it is a different ball game.
Mr. May, you heard me mention in my opening statement about
the measures that you all implemented to address the increased
demand during the holidays. Are those measures still being
practiced?
Mr. May. One of the measures that was most helpful during
the holidays in particular is not, and that is the use of
military airspace. I know that FAA and DOT have engaged in
discussions with DOD to try and take advantage of the use of
military airspace, punch a lane through off the East Coast, and
have not yet been successful in achieving accord on that
particular issue.
I would hope this Committee could add some particular
emphasis added to the need to have that in particular. When we
get to the summer months and convective weather, it would be
particularly helpful.
Otherwise, I think we had a fairly smooth both Thanksgiving
and Christmas holiday season. Easter went reasonably well, and
so we are now approaching the summer, and we need to keep our
eye on the ball for all of those issues.
I would like to emphasize what Inspector General Scovel
said on the controllers. To put a not too fine point on it,
there has been a real dispute between FAA management and the
controllers, and I don't think it is any great secret. To the
extent that FAA management was enforcing operational errors to
the letter, the controllers made a determination that they were
going to enforce the letter of the law to the letter, and they
spaced planes out.
I think there is a far better working relationship with
Hank Krakowski today and the controllers than there has been
historically. He is a real star in our book. He is the new head
of the ATO.
I think the relationship he has with NATCA is particularly
positive, and I think that there will be some real serious
operational improvement available to us in New York. By
bringing the controllers into the debate and the dialogue, it
is very important.
There is a classic example there with one of the
operational changes for New York airspace is to add some
additional departure points on exiting the airspace. Well, if
you don't have enough trained controllers sitting in the TRACON
to, if you will, catch those flights--it is a term of art that
the controllers use--then you can add as many departure points
as you want. It is not going to do you any good because there
is nobody there to man that center to be able to handle those
flights.
I think it is the little things like that that make a big,
big difference in productivity, in moving more and more flights
through there. I think a lot of it is not going to yield more
noise as a lot of constituents have, but it will just be more
positive. Changing some of the boundaries, that sort of thing
could make a big, big difference.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. May.
Mr. Chairman, I see that infamous red light. Could I ask
one more quick question?
Mr. Costello. Yes.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now be brief.
Mr. May, as you know, in the past few weeks three airlines
have ceased operations, and one of those carriers had a
prominent presence in my district, which of course is of
interest to my constituents. Are your members doing anything or
are you able to do anything to help accommodate individuals who
had purchased flights on those airlines?
Mr. May. We are doing what we can, Congressman Coble, to
accommodate those, but it is a problem that runs throughout the
industry right now. I had some relatives that were on an Aloha
flight that we needed to get reaccommodated, and it was a
difficult task to do that. We had to buy additional tickets and
eventually wait for a refund to come back from the creditor
system at Aloha.
So it is an issue. It is one we are worried about.
We are worried more that somebody do something or try to do
something about the one hundred and thirty-five or forty dollar
oil that we are paying for because there are five carriers
since Christmas that have gone out of business. There will be
more if something isn't done about high oil prices.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. May.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Richardson, is recognized.
Ms. Richardson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question, and I believe it is to Mr.
Principato.
My question has to do with in your testimony it states that
airports are being proactive in assisting airlines and their
passengers when lengthy delays occur. Can you give us more
information on what specifically is being done?
Mr. Principato. Last summer, when this really came to the
fore, DFW convened a meeting of airlines and airports, got
together to begin the process of coming up with some plans. We
convened a similar meeting soon afterwards.
Things like proactively working together to make sure that
the airports and the airlines both have the same information
about what the needs are, making sure that concessions are open
in cases where you have lengthy delays, so what happened to Ms.
Hanni and her family won't happen again, we hope.
I know at one airport, they sort of opened up--maybe it is
DFW--an automat kind of situation. Those of us who grew up in
the Northeast remember Horn and Hardart. You walked in. You put
in the money. You don't need somebody to sell it to you. It is
a machine, so you get sandwiches and real food.
Having concessionaires that would carry things like diapers
and baby formula because those maybe aren't the normal things
you can find in an airport at night.
Working with the Red Cross and local pharmacies to make
sure that people have access to prescriptions.
Two quick examples: There was a situation at DFW a couple
of weeks ago where there was some weather. I think it was 1,000
people who were there overnight. Because of the great work that
DFW has done with its airlines and everybody else and its
concessionaires, Kate maybe can correct me on this, but I don't
think her hot line received on real complaint about how they
were treated that night. Things went very, very well.
In Northern California, in early January, there was some
really bad weather. There were hurricane force winds, if you
remember, back in that period of time. In Fresno--Fresno,
California--they had a plan that they worked out before
Thanksgiving, that they put into effect when that happened.
I brought the e-mail from Russ Widmar who is the director
up there. They had more than 20 flights diverted to their
airport. They are not used to having that many land all at one
time.
Ms. Richardson. Excuse me.
Mr. Principato. Yes.
Ms. Richardson. I appreciate everything that you just said.
Part of my question was related to that. It was also related to
what can do to assist passengers prior to even getting to the
airport and knowing that there is a delay.
Mr. Principato. Right.
Ms. Richardson. Let me give you an example of what I mean,
the scenario I just said in my opening comments. I received
nothing on a cell phone, nothing on an e-mail, nothing on a
text message. These are the types of the things.
I mean you are talking about after the problem has
occurred. I am talking about what we can do to assist
passengers on the front end which I think is just as important,
so why we don't do recorded phone calls.
I remember there was a while ago when you would make a
reservation and they would say, well, is there a number to
contact you in case there is any issue with your reservation? I
don't know if that is still being done, but I can tell you here
in my office no one received a phone call, and no one has
received a call for the six months that I have been here of any
time when my flight has been delayed.
Mr. Principato. Well, of course, from their point of view,
we don't know, for example, that you are booked on a certain
flight. So we wouldn't be able to let you know that your
particular flight was delayed. That is really the airlines, and
Jim may have something to add to that.
Certainly, we are trying to work with the airlines to get
general information out about delays and so forth, but I know
that Jim would like to jump in.
Mr. May. Ms. Richardson, Gary Edwards handles those
responsibilities in part, among many other things, for Delta
Airlines and may have a comment on that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Jim.
Congresswoman, what we do at Delta is, well, you do sign
up. You either get a text message to your PDA or a phone call.
We try to get in front of situations like that. I don't know
the instances in this situation.
I would like to share something with the room just for a
moment, though. It sounds like you fly once or twice a week
and, by the Government's own statistics, you have a favorable
experience three out of four times.
I live it every day. Nobody is more frustrated about delays
and cancellations than I am. I fly 1,500 times a day, 4,000
times a day if you include my connection partners.
I am sitting in our command center in Atlanta, watching
this very instance we talked about, the arrival rates into New
York. It is a clear, sunny day. Everyone is at the airport, and
everyone is on time. Today, we are at 90 percent on time, and
out of the blue I start getting delays. I get a ground delay
program. Delays start cascading through the system, and there
is no reason for it.
The next day, with a different set of controllers on duty,
we fly in and out of New York and there are absolutely no
delays. Nothing is going on. It is a 90-92 percent on-time day.
So that is the part where we in the industry are extremely
frustrated. I am sorry, I am off the point.
We at Delta, we have processes in place, a lot of
automation, whether it be a viewer you can touch, if you sign
up, if you are a frequent flyer, you get e-mails. You get it on
your PDA. You get a text message when we know about the delays.
If we go to the airport and the crew is doing their walk
around and find a leak there or something that we didn't know
about or we have, like we had Friday in Atlanta, we had two
eyescopes go out of service unannounced when we had fog at the
airport, one of the best airports, the best airport in the NAS,
and we had two-hour delays that we had no idea about until it
happened just like that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. My time has expired. Maybe more
appropriately with the Inspector General, I am looking for a
more across the board policy.
I do not occasionally fly on your airlines. I can tell you
with the airlines I do fly on there is not this policy because,
as I said, for the last seven months I don't recall us getting
any calls or any notifications of any delays. The only time we
find out a delay is if we initiate the call.
In terms of the airport, I am simply throwing out the idea:
Have we thought about maybe having some screens kind of when
you drive up and you got to the movies and you see what movies
are playing and what time it is?
Maybe we can get a little forward thinking as people. Many
airports, when you are coming up, it says tune to such and such
radio station to get an update. Maybe the radio station can be
advising people.
Maybe you can have some screens at the airports so people
aren't going through parking, going through security, all of
that when you actually know that there is a problem.
But I would like to yield because I have extended my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try keep this relatively brief. I know Mr. DeFazio
there is itching to go here.
Mr. DeFazio. Why don't you go right ahead? Make me look
like a nice guy.
Mr. Lipinski. I don't know if I can make you look like a
nice guy.
Chairman Oberstar had mentioned in his opening statement
and talked about the Mr. Lipinski, who used to be on this
Committee, used to talk about re-regulating the airlines. I
just wanted to make clear I am not there yet.
I think, though, first of all, we have a problem if we are
just talking about two ends of the spectrum saying, well, we
either have a free market or we have complete regulation of the
airlines. Our system is supposed to work where we are somewhere
in the middle.
First of all, I don't think there has been enough of an
effort, and I think the passenger bill of rights or whatever
you want to call it that we put here in the House FAA
Reauthorization Bill is a good place to start, but any kind of
rules or regulations that are put in place need to be actually
enforced.
Unfortunately, we have seen what has happened with the FAA
in terms of the maintenance and the problems going on there. I
certainly think that enforcement is really key.
We cannot say that the system is working well now. Ms.
Hanni would not have the strong support that she has from so
many people if the system were working well now. So we have to
figure out where do we go from here.
I know the airlines are hurting, financially hurting. We
have seen three airlines go under very recently, and we do not
see a situation where it is not viable to run an airline in
this Country. However, that should not be an excuse to squeeze
everything possible out of the flying public.
The dissatisfaction with flying, it seems to be at a point
where we are just supposed to be happy if we get there safely
no matter what happens to us in between that time. It did not
used to be that way.
I think some of the problems that have been talked about
here, but one thing that I certainly see is a lack of
information given to people when they are flying. One thing
that I have mentioned before in hearings, flights being
canceled for I don't see any reason why the flight was
canceled.
Ms. Richardson was talking about information. I have a
major problem with getting any information even at the airport,
even standing there at the counter. I have a hard time, and I
am telling them. Standing there at the counter, I am telling
them this is what is showing up on the board, and they don't
even know what is going on with that flight.
These are just some of the problems that we are having
here, and I think a lot of it comes, yes, from problems that
the airlines are having financially, but that should not be an
excuse.
Running down on time here, let me get to my question.
Something that is being talked about right now to help--it was
put out there as a way to solve some of the financial problems
right now--is for airlines to merge.
However, I have some concerns over airline mergers, not
that they shouldn't be done but we have had experience in the
last couple of years with an airline merger that there have
been some problems with it. You have employees at the same
airport working in the same merged airlines under different
work rules, receiving different wages and benefits, a lot of
stories about this causing problems and more hassles for
passengers that have resulted.
I sent a letter with Mr. LaTourette and 46 of our
colleagues to Attorney General Mukasey and Secretary Peters,
saying we need to take a look. They need to take a look very
closely at these mergers and the impact it will have on the
flying public.
I wanted to ask, first of all, Inspector General Scovel and
Ms. Hanni if they have any knowledge or opinions or what they
believe the impact of airline mergers will have on the flying
public. So, first, Mr. Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Lipinski, I don't have any data on that
point, and I won't engage in speculation. My staff would
probably kill me. But if you were to refer a question to us, we
would certainly give that a stab.
Mr. Lipinski. Okay, I will do that.
Ms. Hanni?
Ms. Hanni. I will certainly weigh in. We are not favorable
towards the merger being discussed. We are very concerned both
for the employees of the airlines which--I don't know if it was
Ms. Richardson--someone said something about an employee bill
of rights.
Not only our members are just the flying public but also
many of the employees of the airlines have become our members
because they feel under-represented. They are afraid. They have
no one to turn to.
We know that the flying public's service will go downhill
if there are mergers. Fares will go up. There won't be as much
competition. You probably won't see as many flights to
different places. These are just our thoughts.
We have been joined by the International Aviation
Machinists Union. They have joined us unequivocally regarding
passenger rights. They are on the ground, dealing with us when
we come off the planes.
We have deeply discussed the merger issue, and I think that
I speak for the whole coalition when I say that 99 percent of
us would say that we are not favorable towards it. We really
believe it is going to create a problem for passengers.
Mr. Gribbin. Congressman Lipinski, from the airport point
of view, in terms of the general subject of mergers, we are
agnostic basically.
Whenever mergers are discussed, specific ones, the folks
who get the most nervous are smaller airports, and I know that
happened the last time around when Delta and U.S. Airways were
talking about it. Some of the smaller airports were getting
nervous, and both airlines are reaching out to them.
Delays and congestion affect smaller airports more than the
larger ones. To begin with, you probably pay more to fly out of
those cities. Your flight is more likely to be canceled if you
fly out of one of those cities. It is harder to re-book because
there are fewer seats.
What they really worry about is if you have competitive air
service from a smaller community and carriers merge or even
with the delays and congestion, flights get canceled, will you
have an alternative?
What we are finding is that from a lot of the smaller
cities, even now, even without mergers there are delays and
congestion. Congressman Petri is not here any longer, but in
Madison, Wisconsin you can take a bus from O'Hare to Madison
most days quicker than you can fly and there is a bus company
that is doing a nice business.
But certainly delays and congestion really hurt small
communities more than most. Whenever there is talk of mergers,
our smaller airports get concerned about that.
It doesn't mean that we would be opposed or in favor of a
merger. We probably wouldn't weigh in on a particular merger,
but there is that concern there that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scovel, on your testimony here when you talked about
the parameters that are used for targeting chronically delayed
or canceled flights, it seems that you make an interesting
point: It all depends upon the definition and apparently our
current definition is very narrow, 15 minutes late 70 percent
of the time. So there is only 200 chronically delayed flights.
If we go to 30 minutes late, 50 percent of the time--which
I think most consumers would say that is pretty crappy
service--there is 2,789.
Then 30 minutes late, 40 percent of the time, 5,369
regularly scheduled flights were chronically delayed?
Mr. Scovel. Those were our findings, yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. That is out of how many flights that were
regularly scheduled?
Mr. Scovel. I don't have that number before me.
Mr. DeFazio. But it is a pretty significant subsegment here
of that number.
So are you aware of any action that is being taken? Is DOT
taking action to expand that definition?
Mr. Scovel. We have recommended that, sir, but I will defer
to Mr. Gribbin. I am not currently aware of a move to expand
that definition.
Mr. DeFazio. Are you considering expanding that definition,
Mr. Gribbin?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes. As part of our rulemaking, we have had
conversations of how that definition ought to be changed. We
ought to clarify that.
Mr. DeFazio. Which rulemaking? Is that the proposed
rulemaking where you are proposing a rule that you might
propose rules that couldn't get done before this Administration
leaves office or is it part of a hard rulemaking that is
actually in form and being proposed?
Mr. Gribbin. It would be the ANPRM, the former.
Mr. DeFazio. It is the former. So you are proposing that
you might propose a rule, and you are asking people to comment.
You don't think this a problem.
I see you have a background in philosophy. That is great. I
studied in economics. Did you ever read the Wealth of Nations?
Mr. Gribbin. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Do you remember the discussion about the
information that if we are going to have market-based systems,
that consumers need, and do you think that this information is
adequate for consumers? It clearly isn't, is it not?
It is an opaque system. Where could I go to get the
information that my flight is chronically delayed today?
Mr. Gribbin. Well, we have proposed under the ANPRM that
that information would be posted at point of purchase for the
consumer for the very reason that you point out.
Mr. DeFazio. But you propose that you might propose it.
Mr. Gribbin. It is an ANPRM which means it is a traditional
way of rulemaking where we go out and solicit comments.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but you don't see it as a problem now
that we could just skip that step and go to the proposed
rulemaking?
I mean because you are saying we are going to solve these
problems with market-based forces, but if the consumers don't
have the information they need for what you have identified as
their greatest frustration with aviation, then they can't.
Market forces aren't going to work for the consumers.
Now you want to use market forces to deal with the
airports. How about consumers?
Mr. Gribbin. I think that that is right. You don't want to
conflict those two issues.
Mr. DeFazio. I don't want to conflict them. I would like
consumers to have information they need.
Mr. Gribbin. Right. If we have congestion pricing in place,
you are likely to get far fewer chronically delayed flights.
I would also like to point out and make sure that everyone
understands that the 15 minutes 70 percent of the time, that is
a per se chronically delayed flight. What we need to be careful
of is that some of these flights are delayed due to no fault of
the airlines, such as weather delays.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, would you say no fault of the airline?
Let me give you an example. I live in Eugene, Oregon.
United uses something called SkyWorst as a vendor who flies
down to San Francisco. United is bringing in more regional jets
now with the same number of people as before 9/11, but they
have sopped up a lot of airport capacity.
So, on a predictable day which happens about half the time
in San Francisco, where they have limited operations, the first
thing they do is cancel all the regional jets from Eugene,
Oregon, and everybody sits there, and they wait, and they wait,
and they wait.
The last time I had to make a flight, I had to fly to
Portland to fly down there because that was the real United
versus the fake United, and they fly those planes. United
doesn't cancel the real ones. They cancel the fake ones because
they control that.
Now this is not very obvious to consumers, is it?
Mr. Gribbin. It is not. That is why if San Francisco had
the ability to congestion price, what you would do is you would
move, as you deem, the fake United flights out of those key
slots.
Mr. DeFazio. But why do we fear regulation so much?
You say it is inefficient. I don't think you get a total
grasp. Let me quote something from here that I think is
inaccurate: ``cheapest flights to be are those departing or
arriving at the last desirable times.''
I spend a lot of time, when I am not flying on official
business, shopping, using those various search engines. I would
say that is not a true statement.
The true statement is they will segment my day into five
arrivals and departures through four different airports, and
those are the cheapest flights I could get. It doesn't have
anything to do with what time I originate. It is how many
places they make me go in order to get the one place I could
have gone to in the old days directly.
So I am questioning first off, given your background with
roads and not aviation, your understanding of this. I hate to
do it, but I have to agree with Mr. May here on this issue.
Mr. Gribbin. I am glad I brought you together.
Mr. DeFazio. Let's think about I will give you two things
to think about.
Hub and spoke and how that is going to work when they are
flying RJs in from somewhere to catch the only flight that is
departing, which they can get the extra money for because it is
going from San Francisco to Dulles or New York, but other
people have to get there on the little planes. There are only
60 people on there. We are going to charge, I assume, not by
passenger but per slot.
So, therefore, you are going to have a much higher fee per
passenger on the 60-person flights. It sounds to me like small
communities could be disadvantaged.
You do have sort of a footnote at the end, although you
mention general aviation. I think you mean commercial aviation
access to these airports.
Then the second one, how about this? The dollar is headed
toward a rupee pretty quickly, and so if we are going to
allocate the slots at our international airports on a market
basis, it sounds to me like the international airlines, they
will say: Oh, it doesn't cost us anything to land there. We can
pay in rupees.
Suddenly, they are sopping up all our capacity. Then what
happens to the domestic carriers that need to use those
airports?
I don't think you have thought this all the way through. I
never like the hub and spoke system, but we got it. Some
airlines are trying to get us away from it.
What you are talking about would be so disruptive of the
existing system. I don't think you have through the unintended
effects both consumers at mid-size and small airports and hub
and spoke or the potential for inordinate penetration by
foreign carriers and dominance of the market by foreign
carriers, but that would be market-based. So I guess it would
be okay.
Mr. Gribbin. Actually, we have, and Mr. May participated in
this. We spent nine weeks, about five hours a day over the
course of nine weeks, talking through all these issues. So we
have examined these in great detail. We understand that there
are concerns out there.
Mr. DeFazio. The people who are in the industry came to a
different conclusion than the people who aren't in the
industry.
Mr. Gribbin. No, because I think you would say the airports
are in the industry. The airlines came to a different
conclusion than the Department and some of the airports. Now,
to be fair, the Port Authority is an airport and also opposes
any type of pricing.
But, in essence, what we are saying is that right now the
airlines are charging additional for meals. They are charging
additional for baggage. They are charging additional for leg
room, all of which is because that is what consumers demand.
Mr. DeFazio. No. They are doing that because they are
desperate to not reflect in their published fare how much they
are going to charge you to go some place. They figure: I got
you on the phone. I won't tell you about these extra addeds,
and you will find out when you check in. Actually, your $200
ticket is now $400.
Oh, you want to check a bag? Well, that will be $500.
Oh, you actually want a seat? Oh, well, that is going to be
another $150.
I mean we did have that proposal that the new Airbus could
have standing room although they quickly back away from that.
Mr. Gribbin. That was probably wise. But all we are saying
is I think consumers will pay additional for flights that
arrive on time.
Mr. DeFazio. Think of the problem of the 60 people on the
RJ from Eugene, trying to go San Francisco, and they are
competing with a 747 coming in from Asia. Now you are going to
say those 60 people are going to have to carry as much of an
additional fee as 500 Asians who are rolling in RMBs or yen,
which are worth so much more than the dollar. How is that going
to work out for those 60 people?
They are going to have to pay about 50 bucks each where
those other people are going to pay a buck each.
Mr. Gribbin. Actually, what would happen is you would
probably have the 60 people be combined with another 60 people,
and they would fly in as 120 people, but at least this time----
Mr. DeFazio. No. It is one little plane coming from a town
that can only support 60 people.
Mr. Gribbin. Well, no. But going with your point, they are
going to get canceled now anyway, right?
Mr. DeFazio. That is only because of the very lame way
United Airlines runs things. In fact, real United has come back
because we had the Olympic trials, and I am trying to convince
them since they have reduced the load on San Francisco Airport
to continue to provide regular service through the next winter.
So it will be more dependable
And I did point out, and I did get the on-time, and it was
totally unacceptable for SkyWorst. But that is also
discriminating for their own profits versus their vendor's
profits. So that is a very complicated market.
Mr. Gribbin. But what you pointed out as a market failure
is exactly what we are trying to address.
Mr. DeFazio. More market? I have to say your faith in
markets, given what has gone on Wall Street in the last couple
of months, is just sort of endearing to me, but I have to tell
you I am ready for some really smart regulation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Gribbin, the DOT's Passenger Rights Task Force, when
did DOT convene the Passenger Rights Task Force?
Mr. Gribbin. That kicked off this year. Well, the next
meeting is the 29th of this month, and then they will wrap up
their work by the end of this year.
Mr. Costello. Okay. When was their first meeting? What was
the date of their first meeting?
Mr. Gribbin. February 26th.
Mr. Costello. February 26th.
Ms. Hanni, you are a member of the DOT's Passenger Rights
Task Force, correct?
Ms. Hanni. I am.
Mr. Costello. You attended that first meeting?
Ms. Hanni. Yes, I did. I spoke at that first meeting.
Mr. Costello. How do you see your role on that task force
and the role of the task force in general?
Ms. Hanni. Mostly information gathering so far, we have
had. I am co-chairing a committee with Jim Crites from Dallas-
Fort Worth, and we have had one conference call. There are a
lot of people on the call that simply don't say anything. They
don't speak, and so I am assuming that they are consenting to
everything that Jim and I are proposing, but that is a big
presumption.
The way I am looking at it is that it is very good to keep
the conversation alive. It is good that we are all talking
about. I have spoken directly with D.J., had this same
conversation, where there is no guarantee that out of this task
force that there is going to be any enforceable deplanement
that goes into the Advanced Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking,
as Mr. DeFazio so effectively pointed out, or essential needs.
I think those are the two things that are critically missing.
Then if you also look at the parameters for chronically
delayed flights, I believe it had to be a commercial flight
that had 45 flights in a 3-month period. That narrows the scope
so much that so many flights are excluded.
We turned in our comments, and most of the comments came
from our coalition as well as Senators Boxer and Snowe and
other people that chimed in. Very few people disagreed
regarding comments. The overwhelming response was the same.
Mr. Costello. I understand there are regional forums being
held. Are you participating in those?
Ms. Hanni. I am.
Mr. Costello. Can you tell us, have you participated in a
regional forum up to this point?
Ms. Hanni. The first one is next week. So I will go home to
Napa, and then I will fly to Miami.
As far as I know, we have had one conference call. So my
awareness of it is that there will be three panels. I am on the
third panel.
It is more of an operational issue. It is not really a
forum for consumers to come complain. It is more of the
airlines, mostly,--I am the only consumer advocate--and
airports and other experts in the field, answering as to why
operationally these delays happen and why it is that it is so
difficult for them to return you to a gate.
That is my perception so far.
Mr. Costello. Your organization has a hot line, an 800
phone number for passengers, people who have complaints to
call.
Ms. Hanni. Yes.
Mr. Costello. How many calls do you get in a given period?
You must have statistics.
Ms. Hanni. Our average is 70 calls a day.
Mr. Costello. Seventy calls a day?
Ms. Hanni. Yes. Now that goes up at holiday times and down
during slower travel periods, but the average is 70 a day. The
first day that we started our hot line, I got 900 calls in 3
hours.
Mr. Costello. Do you forward those calls to the Department
of Transportation, every one of them?
Ms. Hanni. No, but I could. They don't have a hot line
where people answer it.
Mr. Costello. Well, I would suggest that you forward any
complaints you receive both to the airline and the Department
of Transportation. But as of right now, you do not report each
complaint to DOT?
Ms. Hanni. We encourage each person that calls in. We have
the DOT complaint line and their address on our web site.
First, we take care of whatever their immediate need is.
So, if they are stuck on a plane or if they are in trouble or
if their eight year old daughter has been told to get off a
plane without accompaniment or a four year old is stuck out on
the tarmac and his parents are not with him, we try to deal
with those types of situations immediately.
Then we say, what you must do is contact the Department of
Transportation, CC that you contacted the coalition and ACAP
also, the Aviation Consumer Action Project, and then also your
Congressmen and your Senators to let them know, especially
right now the Senate because we are working our tail feathers
off to get them to forward the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
D.J. is aware of the number of calls that we have received.
I actually took sort of a bold step in a room full of people
that probably don't like me all that much on this task force,
and I played seven or eight of our hot line calls for them to
hear, so that they could get what I get when I pick up the
phone and I hear somebody say, an 11 year old just passed out.
We have medical emergencies going on. We have only been out
here four hours with no air conditioning.
Whatever it is that we are hearing, so they could kind of
get the impact. It is not the same for me to share it as it is
for them to hear someone's frantic call.
Mr. Costello. The Chair would ask Members if they have
additional questions.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to something Mr. Scovel said that I
found a bit shocking when he talked about the advertising abuse
and he said that apparently you were handed a note by staff
that.
Over seven years, you are not aware of any prosecutions in
that category?
Mr. Scovel. That is true.
Mr. Gribbin has updated numbers on that. I wasn't aware of
specific numbers. However, apparently, within his office, he
does.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Gribbin, could you repeat what you
said?
It wasn't clear to me when Mr. Gribbin spoke that he was
talking specifically about prosecutions or whatever we call
these, violations, that specifically related to that category.
I thought you were talking more generally about actions that
have been taken.
Mr. Gribbin. The category of advertising?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Gribbin. We have had a number of enforcement actions
against unfair trade practices and deceptive advertising.
Mr. DeFazio. But relating to scheduling chronically delayed
flights or more relating to deceptive practices that relate to
pricing because I know there has always been concerns about
pricing?
Mr. Gribbin. Usually it is advertisement of fares that
don't include taxes.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Gribbin. There was an incident where an airline was
charging for smaller children that could have been on a lap and
there was a separate fee for that, but that was not advertised.
So usually the enforcement actions are against an airline
that is advertising a price and--going back to the example that
you used--you get to the airport, and the price really is
something different. That is clearly an unfair practice. It is
deceptive, and we are very aggressive on that front.
Mr. DeFazio. But if they have an asterisk saying additional
fees and charges may apply, see our web site, how is that, like
for your extra bag?
Mr. Costello. Mr. DeFazio, I wonder if you would yield.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The line of questioning when I asked that
specific question of Mr. Scovel, I asked him specifically about
recommendations that he made to the Department of
Transportation concerning ``deceptive'' practices.
We were talking about 56 departures within a 15-minute
window, and I asked the question, trying to find out if we can
get an answer if, in fact, the Inspector General has
recommended to the Department of Transportation that they take
legal action for deceptive practice.
I would say that that is a deceptive practice. If you have
more flights scheduled to take off that are impossible to get
off the ground when they are advertising to depart. So my
question was: Have you taken any action in that specific
category, not on pricing and other issues but on advertising
flights that are to depart when we know that it is impossible
for that flight to depart on its scheduled advertised time?
Mr. Gribbin. We have actually done three things along those
lines in the worst and most congested airports, for example.
Mr. Costello. But my question specifically is: Have you
penalized or taken action against an airline like you have for
pricing for deceptive practices for over-scheduling?
Mr. Gribbin. What we have done is we have tried to change
the system under which airlines operate to discourage that kind
of behavior.
Mr. Costello. So the answer is no.
Mr. Gribbin. No.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was maybe going around, but I
was getting there because I thought when I heard those
categories proffered that it probably did not specifically
relate to the deceptive advertising.
This again, unfortunately, brings me back to my first
point. We don't really necessarily have to deal with a wacky
economist who has been dead for well more than 200 years, who
used to be found walking around Edinburgh in his nightshirt
with a candle and then they would take him back home and say,
sit down and write some more, and he is the one on which we are
basing our regulation of passenger rights in the 21st Century.
But, again, he did say some good things, and one of the
things he would say is that in order to have free markets and
market-based systems, consumers have to have perfect
information.
I think in this case, we are making it really clear. They
aren't getting perfect information. They are getting deceptive
information, and you are trying to correct the underlying
problem, but you haven't used your regulatory role to take
action against these deceptive practices.
That is correct, right?
Mr. Gribbin. Actually, we are doing both. We are trying to
correct. First of all, there is more than Adam Smith that
supports pricing as a way to alleviate congestion. You would be
hard pressed to find an economist that does not.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure, but a lot of people like to depend upon
the Wealth of Nations and things he said, and I think they all
pretty much agree that consumers need perfect information or
near perfect information or at least some good information. In
this case, they are getting nothing. They are being treated
like mushrooms.
Mr. Gribbin. That is exactly why we have proposed, again,
having the information available. The other problem is there is
information available to consumers, but it is difficult to
find.
Mr. DeFazio. It is very difficult to find. I have cruised
those web sites, and they don't have all the flights on there
reliably.
I mean you can find some flights on some of those web sites
that analyze departures, but they don't analyze all sites. It
is not very, very accessible, and I think I am fairly skilled
at finding information. So it is not.
Mr. Gribbin. It should be easy for the consumer.
Mr. DeFazio. But the question would be if they have been
making recommendations for seven years, you take action in this
category in this Administration. I know you haven't been there
seven years. You have been in and out a couple of times, the
revolving door, but you are there now.
The question is why haven't you taken action on any one of
those seven years worth of recommendations on an enforcement
action on deceptive advertising?
That is another way of changing behavior, right, and that
is a market signal to the airline. This is not acceptable. You
can't schedule 56 flights in a 15-minute segment, and you can't
tell people they are going to take off then.
If you do that and they can't and they miss their
connecting flight, we are going to start whacking you. That is
another way of changing behavior because we are talking about
airlines here. Right?
Mr. Gribbin. Right. Again, we have proposed in our ANPRM,
which I know you are not particularly fond of, we have proposed
a whole series of changes.
Mr. DeFazio. But you are proposing to propose changes which
you know can't happen before you leave office. Anything you get
penned, we are going to throw out, I will tell you, because it
is not going to be any good.
Mr. Gribbin. You may want to keep this one.
Mr. DeFazio. I am just saying there are actions that need
to be taken now, that you could take with your delegated
authority to change market behavior, deceptive behavior, but
you are choosing not to use that authority.
Mr. Gribbin. Well, let's use the example of multiple
airlines taking off at the same time. We have 35 airlines or 30
and only 10 can take off. So it is three to one. Which 20 would
we penalize?
Mr. DeFazio. I would say since you want to go with a
market-based system, all of them, and see which one will take
the fines and which ones won't, and then some of them will move
their flights around. I don't know.
You are a regulator. I have a better solution here. In
terms of regulating, you want to want to use the market.
But back to the Chairman, when you are talking about that,
how many flights were involved in the 56 flights in the 15-
minute window?
Mr. Costello. One airline.
Mr. DeFazio. Oh, one. Well, in that case, it might work,
huh?
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. You are telling me multiple, but in this case
there is one. So couldn't we then use the club on them, change
their behavior?
Why are you so loathe to use your lawful powers as a
regulator?
We are not going to agree here, and I am not going to get
anywhere, but let me try this. Should we regulate safety on a
market basis?
Certainly, no one would fly a plane that was unsafe because
if it crashes, it is bad publicity, and then you lose
passengers and all that stuff. You have to pay higher insurance
premiums. Who knows? You might even get sued and all this
stuff.
So should we delegate safety to the same trash bin that we
have delegated passenger rights?
Mr. Gribbin. We haven't delegated passenger rights to a
trash bin.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, effectively. Shall we say the black
hole? All right, trash bin was bad. The black hole.
Mr. Gribbin. I prefer to disagree with either analogy.
Again, what we are trying to do on the passenger rights
side is not applicable to safety. Safety clearly is our number
one priority. We are not going to allow the market to
differentiate between planes that are safe and planes that may
not be safe.
Mr. DeFazio. Even with the customer service initiative that
we held a 10-hour hearing on last week where apparently
airlines became clients or customers to the regulators, and--
unlike passengers who aren't given a web site and 10 options
when they have a problem with an airline--the airlines were
given, hand-carried by management personnel, packets that
outlined the appeals procedure of anything your regulator might
tell you, you have to do to all sorts of different offices
including oh, my God, you can always go to the Secretary if you
need to because we are really concerned if our people are
trying to regulate you here?
Mr. Gribbin. I will go back to my point.
Mr. DeFazio. It is a failure.
Mr. Gribbin. We are not going to allow the market to
distinguish between safe and unsafe aircraft. All aircraft will
be safe.
Mr. DeFazio. I am glad to hear you say that.
Mr. Gribbin. There are instances, and Kate and I have
talked about this. Do you want a Federal regulation that says a
plane has to turn around after two or three hours?
Okay, well, what if that plane is second in line?
What if that plane is an international flight?
There are circumstances where actually the customers would
choose not to do that. So if this was a clear black and white,
easy regulatory matter, that would be one thing. But you have
dozens of airline and hundreds of airports and millions of
passengers.
Mr. DeFazio. If I could, but what you have chosen to do is
say, airlines voluntarily might adopt procedures to deal with
passengers who are unduly delayed according to their own
operations capabilities. Okay, that is better than nothing.
If they do adopt it, they must audit it.
If they do adopt it optionally, they have to audit and you
can oversee the audits.
But if they don't adopt it, then there is nothing. They
don't have to, do they?
Mr. Gribbin. They have to adopt it. They all have to have
plans.
Mr. DeFazio. But a plan with no parameters.
Ms. Hanni. But with no oversight out.
Mr. Gribbin. No. There would be oversight.
Ms. Hanni. By the DOT.
Mr. Gribbin. They would all have to propose plans. They
would all have to audit the plans.
Mr. DeFazio. They would propose a plan that you would
review for adequacy or they would just have to have a plan?
Mr. Gribbin. They have to have a plan and they have to
disclose to the public what that plan is.
Ms. Hanni. But the ANPRM explicitly said there would be no
DOT approval of those plans.
Mr. Gribbin. Correct.
Ms. Hanni. No oversight by the DOT of those plans.
Mr. Gribbin. Right.
Ms. Hanni. It would be whatever plan they present with no
consequences.
Mr. Gribbin. It is their plan.
Mr. DeFazio. But it would be market-based because you
wouldn't choose to fly on that airline because you would go to
their web site and find buried somewhere what their policy is
when you are stuck on the plane for five hours.
Then you would say, I have to go check out the other
airline. Oh, only four. Maybe I will go with them.
Ms. Hanni. If you are lucky enough to have a computer.
Mr. DeFazio. Then you would go to the other web site to
find out how chronically delayed they are, but that doesn't
exist, so you wouldn't know.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair hates to disturb this discussion
going on here, but we have votes on the floor.
Let me comment, Mr. Gribbin, that the difference between
what DOT is doing regarding a plan and so on is much different
than the legislation that we passed.
Mr. Gribbin. That is correct.
Mr. Costello. It, in fact, would be in law that the
Secretary would have to approve the emergency contingency plans
and would have to enforce those plans and to take action,
assess penalties when there are violations. There is a huge
difference between what you are proposing to do and what the
legislation, in fact, does if, in fact, we can get it passed
out of the Senate.
We will have some additional questions for you that we will
be submitting that we would expect you to respond to.
We appreciate your testimony here today, and that concludes
this Subcommittee's hearing today.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 41946.153