The Pros and Cons of Fixing Flight Delays

N E W   Y O R K, Feb. 12, 2001 -- You cannot fit a gallon of milk into a quart-sized jar — at best, you'll spill a lot of milk — but that kind of forced delivery seems to be what the aviation industry is trying these days.

The air traffic system is bursting at the seams, with record numbers of passengers and flights clogging U.S. airports, creating bottlenecks on runways and in the air.

The Federal Aviation Administration acknowledges more than 450,000 flight delays last year — a 20 percent jump over 1999 — and attributes about a fifth of those to runway congestion, equipment problems or traffic volume. And officials admit those figures are an underestimate, since they depend on highly specific definitions of "delay," and don't necessarily measure all the holdups experienced by passengers.

But flight delays are a little like the weather — everybody talks about it, but nobody seems to do anything about it. And in spite of the growing problem and growing outcry from travelers, that's not likely to change soon.

It's not that people aren't trying. Various technologies are being developed to make flying and air traffic control more efficient, including using the global positioning satellite system. There's talk of softening air traffic control rules, building more airports and runways, and of better managing the pace of flights.

But few options are actually on the table that would dramatically reduce the number of delays, in the short or the long term. And there is disagreement over how well each option would work, if at all, or if it would actually make the current situation worse.

Not Enough Runways? Build Some More!

How did we get here? Deregulation of the airlines in 1978 was intended to broaden air service and make it more affordable. It succeeded all too well. The number of flights has nearly doubled, the number of passengers flown annually has risen from just over 250 million in 1978 to approximately 600 million in 1999. Access by customers at smaller airports has increased, while fares have fallen.

Unfortunately, airport infrastructure has not kept pace. Only two new airports — Denver International and Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport — have been built. And during the last 10 years, only six new runways have been added at large hub airports.

Experts say more airports and runways are the surest ways to improve the situation, and airport executives are clamoring for them. Virginia Buckingham, executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Boston's Logan International Airport, is part of a coalition of airport administrators lobbying for expedited construction of new runways.

"The construction of runways needs to be a national priority just like the infrastructure priorities of past centuries — the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, all were driven from the federal government as a national priority overcoming significant local political obstacles," she said.

John Mazor of the Air Line Pilots Association also thinks runways are the practical answer: "Every one of those airplanes that's up in the sky had to have an airport and piece of concrete to take off from and he's got to have another airport and another piece of concrete to land on," he said. "So the airplanes funnel out of the airports into the sky and then they funnel back into the airports. We just cannot get around the fact that we must build airports and runways at a much greater rate than we have over the past two or three decades."

Opposition Grounds Runway Work

But laying down concrete is a lot easier said than done, given community opposition to airport expansion, especially those communities already struggling with the noise and air pollution from existing runways. Environmental reviews and community protests typically slow the process to a crawl. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for example, got clearance to construct a third runway years ago — and it's still undergoing public hearings and environmental reviews.

Environmental issues often crop up, such as preventing pollution of nearby waterways from de-icing agents. Baltimore-Washington International Airport recently settled a lawsuit claiming it was illegally discharging toxic chemicals into nearby streams.

Jack Saporito, executive director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, has lobbied against expansion at Chicago's largest airport. He also heads the umbrella organization US-Citizens Aviation Watch Association, which combines grass-roots opposition groups from airport communities around the country.

Saporito points to studies showing increased incidences of cancer and respiratory disease attributed to airport emissions, as well as the effects of noise pollution. He says the government and the air industry have downplayed the negative effects of airports on neighboring communities, and believes that runway construction will only lead to more and greater health problems.

"The first thing we need is a moratorium on all airport expansion," he said. "We need to sit down and objectively, scientifically, honestly analyze the situation. They haven't done that."

Buckingham acknowledges local opposition to expansion, but says that no other option will so dramatically reduce delays. "The FAA says that new technology will add three or four flights an hour, while new runways can add 30 or 40 flights an hour," she said. "And when we're looking at a billion people flying in 10 years, almost 60 percent growth in air travel, you have to look at dramatic solutions. You can't just play around the margins."

But Saporito suggests a solution in a different direction: "What we need to be doing is taking all of these billions and billions of dollars [being appropriated to] 'modernize' the air transportation system — which has meant expansion — and redirect what I consider wasted tax dollars to develop other forms of mass transit, such as a world class high speed rail system."

"The problem is Congress wants this economic globalization so bad, they want to prop up the aviation industry that's part of it, and they've decided that that's more important than public health and the environment."

Too Congested? Send Those Planes Elsewhere!

Another possible relief valve can be found in the smaller airports in outlying areas that may be more feasible for fliers than before. So-called reliever airports could pick up the slack for big city airports and offer a foot in the door for smaller airlines. For example, in the New York City area, Southwest Airlines operates out of MacArthur Airport in Islip, Long Island.

In Boston, MassPort has promoted other airports within its network and in neighboring states, such as T.F. Green International Airport in Warwick, R.I., and Manchester Airport in New Hampshire, to ease pressure on Logan.

"We have so many underutilized facilities that have great aviation assets," said Buckingham. "To leave those basically empty or just beneath their capacity makes no sense when the hub airports are experiencing such a crunch. We want to reserve Logan for its highest and best use from a customer perspective: We should be the international gateway, the long-haul airport for New England. We should provide key point-to-point service for the Metro Boston area. But we do not have to be all things to all people."

Administrators point to the economic benefits of reliever airports, spreading the economic benefits of commercial aviation throughout a region. In addition, decommissioned military bases and general aviation, or private, airfields may expand to bring in commercial service. Westchester County Airport in White Plains, N.Y., which was a private field and home of an Air National Guard Unit, now serves a million passengers a year through American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways. And Pan Am recently began service to Sanford International Airport, a facility about 16 miles from downtown Orlando, Fla., which is primarily used for private and charter flights.

Terminals Are Quiet ... Almost Too Quiet

But reliever airports also bring dissent from communities, and the unhappy feeling among carriers that customers don't want to use a smaller airport miles from their destination. If you build it, will they come?

MidAmerica Airport, which is adjacent to Scott Air Force Base in St. Clair County, Ill., opened almost three years ago in the hope that passengers could be lured away form the increasingly congested Lambert International Airport in nearby St. Louis. That airport is proposing a $2.6 billion expansion program, and is facing considerable community opposition.

But the terminal at MidAmerica is pretty much vacant; Pan Am is its only commercial carrier.

David Stempler of the Air Travelers Association says reliever airports can suffer from the fact that no one wants to fly there. Passengers who are headed for or departing St. Louis might find MidAmerica attractive. "To the extent you have discount carriers at some of these locations certainly will entice people to go there," Stempler said. But connecting passengers switching to another flight for some other city will not use it, because there is nowhere for them to go.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg thing: The airlines are only going to send planes to places where they think there are going to be passengers, and passengers will only go where there are planes.

"You could develop and expand these regional airports, but I don't think you should necessarily force airlines or companies to go there," he said. "Communities might want to incentivize them," by offering lower rents, lower landing fees, and access to public transportation.

Too Many Planes? How About Fewer Flights?

Another way delays could be cut would be by flying fewer planes. This might seem practical because the top 10 airlines reported running flights that were as much as one third to one half empty in January.

Fewer, fuller flights would mean less congestion, but in this case, it's the airlines who are opposed.

First, there is the number of flight slots the FAA either allocates or sells to airlines in a given airport. Airlines are loathe to give them up, especially to a competitor. And there are competitive pressures on airlines to provide service to passengers who want to fly at a given time.

Businessmen want to fly at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., so it wouldn't help to ease congestion by steering business flyers to a noontime flight — they won't go.

"Caps or slot limitations are the ceiling against which the airlines bump their heads when they try to put more airplanes in and out of an airport in a given unit of time than the FAA and the pilots feel can be safely accommodated," said ALPA's Mazor. "That's got nothing to do with morning rush hour and evening rush hour other than the fact that those are the times when it is most likely you will bump up against those slot limitations."

Passengers may also resist limits on the number of flights, said ATA's Stempler. "We really oppose that because what it will do is drive fares up and turn people away. Now that argument might have some weight if the airlines were sending empty planes out there, but for the last two years I haven't been on an empty airplane. These are planes filled with people who want to get places, and so the airlines are trying to accommodate them by sending those flights out there."

Stempler feels it is not a "demand" problem (people wanting to board airplanes) but a "supply" problem (the infrastructure needed to meet that demand). "For example, at Newark [International Airport in New Jersey], Continental in one given hour has scheduled more flights than the throughput of that airport can handle," he said

He likened it to rush hour on the 14th Street Bridge in Washington, where every day there are more vehicles than the roadway can handle. "People just say, 'I'm prepared to take that congestion because I need to get to where I'm going, and I don't want to wait until 9 o'clock to leave.'"

Likewise, in aviation, are passengers willing to shift their priorities? "Passengers will say, 'Well, we hate delays, we don't want to sit on a runway for 30 minutes.' Ask them, 'Would you pay $200 more for this flight to avoid those delays?' No, they won't. Or would they forego going today — they have to go tomorrow or the next day? No, they don't want that, either."

One experiment being proposed by ALPA is to give airlines a limited period of antitrust immunity, so that they may confer and negotiate with each other about consolidating or shifting flights, according to Mazor. "The airlines might get together and say, 'Look everybody, we've got 10 flights taking off at 5 o'clock to 5:15 and they're all leaving 80 percent full. Why don't we agree to cut back two of those flights and then everybody will still get their ride but the airplanes will maybe be 90 percent full?' They'll have eliminated one or two departures to relieve the congestion. That's not a magic bullet either, it's just one of the many different approaches that we're having to take to try to reduce congestion."

But in a period when airlines are now consolidating, creating mega-carriers and fueling fears of anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices, any suggestion of loosening antitrust laws will not go down well. (For a related story on the DOT Inspector General's report slamming the aviation industry, click here.)

In addition to shifting flights around, another suggestion being discussed is pricing of tickets to match demand. For example, a ticket for a flight scheduled to depart at rush hour will cost more than a ticket for 2 o'clock, when demand is less. But MassPort's Buckingham isn't sure that will work: "We are seeing our peak really being spread more and more throughout the day, so it won't necessarily help as traffic grows faster than our ability to handle it. So that might become a less helpful option."