Delays Malaise: Time for Change?

As the story goes, a disgruntled passenger complains toan airline representative, "Your flights are always delayed so much! Why doyou bother publishing a schedule?"

"But sir," the quick-witted employee responds, "if we didn'tpublish a schedule, how would you know how late our flights were?"

Most of us would agree that this joke used to be a lot more amusingthan it is today! Flight delays in the U.S. for 1999 are the worst on record andthreaten to cost airlines and passengers approximately $4.5 billion; this figurecould triple by 2008. As the demand for air travel continues to increase,airports and the air traffic control system stretched to the breaking point ...or perhaps beyond it.

Who's to blame? Depends on who you ask. The FAA blames the weather, theNational Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) blames the airlines, andthe airlines blame everyone but themselves. The truth is that some of theproblems have been weather-related and airline-scheduling-induced, but mostof the delays have been caused by inefficiencies in an outdated system that hasincreasing demands placed on it every day.

A recentreport by the Air Transport Association (ATA) - the Washington lobby grouprepresenting the airline industry - warns that flight delays in the U.S. willdramatically increase in the next ten years unless the FAA makes a concertedeffort to alleviate air traffic congestion. The report forecasts that by theyear 2008 there will be an increase in passenger volume of approximately 43%with an additional 2,500 aircraft in service; unless significant improvementsare made, this will result in a 250% increase in passenger delays.

Looking at the recent past, the period April to August 1999 averaged a 20%increase in delays over last year, more than half of which occurred during thetaxi-out phase ... mostly ground stops caused by flow control. The controller'sunion (NATCA) has stated publicly that airlines are to blame because of theirscheduling, but the ATA has concluded that airline schedules account for only7.5% of delays.

The FAA has stated that approximately 72% of delays experienced in theaforementioned April-to-August period were due to weather. However, the ATAdiscovered that mismanagement of the severe weather avoidance process by theFAA's Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC, otherwise known as"central flow") created unnecessary ground stops on aircraft. Lastsummer, for example, flights were held at the gate because a line of severethunderstorms was forecast to have a 50% chance of forming from Buffalo toKansas. Unfortunately, the ATCSCC didn't bother to track the actual storm front,and 700 flights were delayed unnecessarily for up to four hours. According tothe ATA, the FAA needs to improve ATCSCC command and authority over regionalTraffic Management Units (TMUs) at the various Air Route Traffic Control Centers(ARTCCs) which currently operate with a degree of autonomy that, according tothe ATA, precludes coordination.

Delayed passengers, of course, blame the delays on whom they can most easilyvent their anger: the airlines.

The FederalAviation Administration is the federal agency primarily responsible for ensuringthe safety of civil aviation. Its charter includes regulating civil aviation topromote safety and fulfill the requirements of national defense; encouraging anddeveloping civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology; developing andoperating a common system of air traffic control and navigation for both civiland military aircraft; research and development with respect to the NationalAirspace System and civil aeronautics; developing and implementing programs tocontrol aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation; andregulating U.S. commercial space transportation. Talk about heavy lifting! Tomake matters more interesting, the FAA is expected to fulfill all theseobligations on a budget that is passed around Congress like a hot potato. Is itany wonder, then, that the FAA has too many responsibilities and too fewresources?

Toits credit, the FAA has initiated several modernization programs aimed atimproving traffic flow. One of these, the Display System Replacement (DSR), wasintroduced last April at Cleveland ARTCC ... with disappointing results. Anincrease in miles-in-trail (MIT) separation between aircraft (from the usualfive nautical miles lateral separation and 2,000 feet vertical separation) wasimposed by the FAA in order to provide an introductory comfort level forcontrollers. This resulted in a 51% increase in year-over-year delays for themonth of April. Exacerbation of the delay problem ensued with the introductionof DSR to Chicago and New York ARTCCs. According to NATCA, DSR is fundamentallyflawed and its introduction should be discontinued until software improvementsare made.

Another system aimed at improving traffic flow is the Standard TerminalAutomation Replacement System (STARS). It has also been tested, again withdisappointing results. This system is intended to be introduced eventually to172 terminal-level ATC facilities that control traffic within 50 miles ofairports. Part of the problem with the initial tests have been caused by the newSTARS system being linked to the older ARTS computer system presently being usedat these facilities.

One problemevident in both the DSR and STARS system tests is that the FAA is trying toimprove the air traffic control system by ad hoc methods: a little improvementhere, a little modification there. Or as FAA Administrator Jane Garvey put itnot long ago, the FAA "is doing the best it can to fix a complex andoutdated system that has been plagued by unusual problems."

Taxesraised from airline tickets, cargo and fuel sales are deposited in the AviationTrust Fund (ATF). Although more than $10 billion has been going into the ATFannually, only $4 billion has been used each year to expand and improve aviationinfrastructure. A bill titled AIR-21 is before Congress that would require thefederal government to use all ATF money to improve aviation infrastructure. Mostobservers in both industry and government believe that money raised for thepurpose of ensuring the free flow of air traffic should be allocatedaccordingly, and that it's an abomination that the airways system has beenallowed to stagnate for lack of funds that were earmarked for aviation use.

However, even with ample funds, it is unlikely that major improvements can beaccomplished on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. Radical changes have to occurto ensure safe and timely flow of future air traffic.

Perhaps Congress and the FAA should take note of what is happening in othercountries. Air Services Australia (ASA), for example, is introducing a completelynew air traffic control system at a cost of $500 million. The AustralianAdvance Air Traffic System (TAAATS) is planned to be operational in July nextyear. This is the largest public works program ever undertaken in Australia, andserves to illustrate how important that country considers the safe andexpeditious flow of air traffic in the future.

Recently, yet anothercurve has been thrown at the ATC system. With the advent of improved technologyhas come a new generation of regional jets (RJs). These aircraft seat between35-70 passengers and are rapidly replacing turboprop commuter aircraftthroughout the country. Regional jets are quieter, more comfortable andperceived to be safer by the traveling public.

However, the introduction of RJs has increased the total number of aircraftflying in high-altitude airspace where MIT flow control is prevalent. Despitepilot union misgivings about the introduction of such aircraft, all majorairlines are introducing regional jets to their feeder networks. Regional jets,such as the Embraer RJ 145 and Fairchild 428Jet, complicate an already-cloggedhigh-altitude airways system because they have cruising speeds lower than largerjets. For example, at FL350, the Fairchild 428Jet cruises at Mach 0.72 while aBoeing 747-400 cruises at Mach 0.85. These large cruise-speed differencesgreatly complicate the job of air traffic controllers in high-altitude sectors,and create a slowing-down effect that ripples throughout the system.

Muchhas been said about the inconvenience to the traveling public due to delays, butthe degradation of safety due to increased congestion at airports and alongairways is a more serious issue. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), forexample, has experienced such a steep increase in runway incursions that aRunway Incursion Action Team (RIAT) has been created to deal with the problem.

Among other problems, LAX traffic is so busy during peak travel times thatground controllers have to speak very rapidly in order to communicate with allaircraft on their frequency. Of course this raises the stress level of thecontrollers, but it also makes it very difficult for pilots to understandinstructions, especially those for whom English is not their first language. Asa consequence, many misunderstandings occur and safety infractions ensue. Everyrunway incursion has the potential of becoming a major accident.

LAX is not unique - there are many other major airports in the U.S. withsimilar problems. Airports already operating at capacity are utilizingcontroversial procedures in an effort to maximize airport usage. One suchprocedure is called Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO), wherein aircraft aregiven instructions to hold short of a runway intersection after landing toenable other aircraft to simultaneously take off from intersecting runways. Manyairline pilots feel that this procedure is inherently dangerous, since thelanding aircraft may either travel farther than the runway intersection duringits landing roll or have to go-around due to an operational problem. Pilots ofboth aircraft may also misinterpret instructions.

The most obvious cure is to build more airports. Unfortunately, publicsyndromes of NIMBY (not in my backyard) and BANANA (build absolutely nothing,anywhere, near anything) are so prevalent that new airport construction rarelyoccurs.

Another possible solution is to diffuse the congestion from airports such asLAX by redirecting commuter and regional traffic to existing secondary airports(e.g., Burbank, Long Beach, Ontario). While this solution would also meet withpublic resistance from local residents surrounding such airports, it is perhapsthe most expedient and practical solution to airport congestion at the moment.

Other possibilities might allow civil aircraft to use military airports thatare underused or for new commercial aviation airports to be built on militaryland. Such a proposal has been suggested for the 24,000-acre Miramar naval basenear San Diego. Proponents of a new, two-runway airport north of FortunaMountain at Miramar point to the financial and ecological benefits that would begained by having extra traffic capacity in the San Diego area away fromresidential areas. This would not only allow a reduction of traffic at SanDiego's Lindbergh Field Airport, but would increase present safety margins. Ahigh parking lot complex on short approach to Lindbergh Field's runway 27 andthe fact that there is only one short runway at this field makes Lindbergh, fromthe airline pilot's viewpoint, one of the most perilous facilities in the U.S.Others have even suggested that capacity might be improved for San Diego byhaving a terminal built on the U.S. side of the border at Tijuana's RodriguezField. Both of the suggested improvements for San Diego illustrate that there arepossibilities to expand airport capacity ... if only the political will canbe mustered.

Japan has undertaken ambitious new airport construction projects such asKansai Airport in the Bay of Osaka which opened in 1994. Constructing newairports on reclaimed land reduces public complaints about noise pollutionbecause aircraft approach over water instead of encroaching on urban areas.However, the cost of this type of new airport is enormous - Kansai airportconstruction costs were approximately $15 billion - and construction sites arelimited to suitable bays on the coast. There are also environmental concernsregarding reclaiming land and utilizing it in this manner that must beaddressed, and might not be politically tolerable in the U.S. Japaneseauthorities have been able to justify reclamation airport construction becauseof the limited land mass of Japan, but the U.S. has much more land than Japan,and environmental resistance to such projects would almost certainly be morepronounced.

As forthe problems of airway congestion and aircraft traveling at different cruisingspeeds, a system of "random routes" and "free flight" - inwhich high-altitude aircraft would not be restricted to predetermined airways -would provide ample room for future traffic. However, this cannot occur with thetechnology in place today (although the required technology is certainly withinrelatively easy reach). Another possible approach would be to assign traffic tovarious flight levels or airways based on performance capabilities, althoughthis may not be practical given the sheer number of aircraft and air routes, notto mention the unpredictable need for weather-avoidance flexibility.

Let's face it: There are no easy answers to the monumental problems facingthe FAA. The best solution would probably be to scrap the present "legacytechnology" altogether, and introduce a completely new system ... asAustralian aviation authorities are doing. While the geographic size ofAustralia and the contiguous U.S. are comparable, the airways system in the U.S.is far more complex and the demands on it are far greater. The population of theU.S. is approximately 14 times larger than Australia and is more widespreadthroughout regional cities - consequently, there are many more airports and airroutes in the U.S. Investment of public funds in new technology to replace thecurrent air traffic control system throughout the U.S. could cost as much as $10billion. However, this is only the equivalent of one year's deposits in the ATF.In other words, the money is available ... only the political willto act is missing.

It's not as though there is not enough land mass or airspace in the U.S. forairport and airways expansion. Everybody wants cheap, safe air travel that canbe relied on to depart and arrive on time regardless of weather. So where's theproblem?

The problem isthat Congress wants this done with minimum investment, homeowners want it donewith no new airports or runways being built, and passengers want it done with nodisruptions to service. Can this be accomplished?

Some - including the Clinton administration - believe that privatization ofairports and the airways system is what's needed, saying that this might be theonly way that innovation will occur fast enough to ensure the continued safeoperation of aircraft. Under privatization, taxes raised and deposited in theATF could initially be made available to private enterprise. Funding for futureoperation of airports and airways would be raised by user fees.

The proponents of privatization argue that since private enterprise isinherently more efficient than government, future user fees would most likely beless than the present level of taxes on tickets. While the FAA works with thebest intentions, it is commonly understood that government agencies neveroperate as efficiently or as quickly as private enterprise. Largely, this isbecause of too much interference from politicians, too little funding andbureaucratic structures. However, opponents - particularly those involved withgeneral aviation - say that a privatized system funded by user fees wouldinevitably discriminate among airport and airspace users based primarily ontheir ability to pay, and would therefore be the death knell for privateaviation in the U.S.

The money needed to improve aviation infrastructure has beenraised in taxes, but much of it has been included in general revenue rather thandirected to airway and airport expansion where it is so badly needed. Passage ofAIR-21 would go a long way to alleviate this situation, although improvementsare already long overdue. There's no escaping the fact that delays due totraffic congestion are going to get worse before they get better. It's alsoinevitable that safety - on the ground and in the air - will degrade in thefuture unless dramatic changes are made as soon as possible. (In this author'sopinion, transferring management of the airways system to private enterprise isthe best way to have change occur quickly.)

Strangely enough, the so-called "Passenger Bill of Rights"legislation recently presented to Congress never mentioned the most criticalaspect of an air traveler's concern: his or her safety. Sometimes, it seems,Congress can't see the forest for the trees.