In April 2011, DOT issued its second “Enhancing Airline Passenger  Protections” rule. As a  result, DOT data provides an incomplete picture of delay, cancellation,  and diversion trends. This information corroborates what we were told by various stakeholders,  including airline officials and aviation researchers. 5). DOT has historically not collected flight performance information from  smaller airlines because of the burden it has perceived would be placed  on these airlines. New Rule Has Nearly Eliminated Long Tarmac Delays but is Correlated with an Increase in the Likelihood of Flight Cancellations

		The Number of Long Tarmac Delays Has Declined in Recent Years

Since 2004, tarmac delays of more than 3 hours peaked in 2007, three  years before the tarmac delay rule was implemented. Since these rules took effect in April 2010, tarmac delays  greater than 4 hours have been eliminated, and tarmac delays of more  than 3 hours nearly eliminated, reducing the hardship of long on-board  delays for some passengers. As a result of challenges rebooking  passengers, such cancellations can lead to long overall delay times. Our Analysis Finds That the Tarmac Delay Rule is Correlated with an Increased Likelihood of Flight Cancellations

Since a variety of factors in addition to the tarmac delay rule may be  correlated with airline cancellation decisions, we developed logistic  regression models that control for several factors that are likely to be  associated with these decisions in order to measure the likely effect of the  tarmac delay rule. We used two models to analyze cancellations. EU Requirements Provide More Comprehensive Passenger Protections, but May Also Increase Costs for Airlines and Passengers

		Passenger Protections Requirements Are More Extensive in the EU than in the United States or Canada

Passenger protections requirements for flight delays, cancellations, and  denied boarding are overall more extensive in the EU than they are in the  United States or Canada. Some airlines in the United States and the EU told us  that compliance costs such as these can lead to higher fares. The amount of a sanction also differs between the two member states. Conclusions

Flight disruptions remain costly for passengers, airlines, and the  economy. Although DOT’s rules have benefited some passengers, DOT’s current  flight performance data may not fully inform consumers of airlines’ quality  of service as intended. By collecting data only from the largest airlines,  DOT does not obtain and therefore cannot provide consumers with a  complete picture of flight performance, particularly at airports in rural  communities or among smaller airlines. To enhance DOT’s understanding of the impact of tarmac delays and  flight cancellations, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation  take the following action:    Fully assess the impact of the tarmac delay rule, including the  relationship between the rule and any increase in cancellations and  how they effect passengers and, if warranted, refine the rule’s  requirements and implementation to maximize passenger welfare and  system efficiency. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we examined how (1) trends in and reasons for flight delays  and cancellations in the United States differ for smaller and larger  communities; (2) the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) tarmac delay  rule has affected passengers and airlines; and (3) requirements and  practices for protecting passengers from flight delays, cancellations, and  denied boardings in the United States, Canada, and the European Union  (EU) have affected passengers and airlines. It also provides information on airline- reported sources of delays and cancellations, based on our analysis of  DOT data. Incidence of Flight Cancellations in 2010 Relative to 2009

To examine the incidence of flight cancellations before and after the  tarmac rule’s implementation, we collected data on flights for May through  September in 2009—before the rule went into effect—and for the same  months in 2010, after the rule’s implementation. The data show that flights are rarely canceled after leaving the gate.   Airport on-time performance.
Why GAO Did This Study

Flight delays and cancellations are disruptive and costly for passengers, airlines, and the economy. Long tarmac delays have created hardships for some passengers. To enhance passenger protections in the event of flight disruptions, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently introduced passenger protection regulations, including a rule that took effect in April 2010 designed to prevent tarmac delays more than 3 hours (the tarmac delay rule), as well as other efforts to improve passenger welfare. As requested, this report addresses (1) whether flight delays and cancellations differ by community size; (2) how DOT's tarmac delay rule has affected passengers and airlines; and (3) how passenger protection requirements in the United States, Canada, and the European Union (EU) affect passengers and airlines. GAO analyzed DOT data, including through the use of regression models, as well as data from FlightStats, a private source of flight performance information. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed government, airline, and consumer group officials in the United States, Canada, and the EU.

What GAO Found

Airports in rural communities have higher rates of delays and cancellations than airports in larger communities, but DOT data provide an incomplete picture of this difference. DOT's data include flights operated by the largest airlines, representing about 70 percent of all scheduled flights. GAO analysis of FlightStats data, representing about 98 percent of all scheduled flights, show more substantial differences in flight performance trends by community size than DOT data. DOT has historically not collected data from smaller airlines because of the burden it could impose on these airlines, but without this information, DOT cannot fully achieve the purpose of providing consumers with information on airlines' quality of service. DOT's tarmac delay rule has nearly eliminated tarmac delays of more than 3 hours (180 minutes), declining from 693 to 20 incidents in the 12 months following the introduction of the rule in April 2010. While this has reduced the hardship of long on-board delays for some passengers, GAO analysis suggests the rule is also correlated with a greater likelihood of flight cancellations. Such cancellations can lead to long overall passenger travel times. Airlines and other aviation stakeholders maintain that the tarmac delay rule has changed airline decision-making in ways that could make cancellations more likely. To test this claim, GAO developed two regression models, which controlled for a variety of factors that can cause cancellations and measured whether the time period following the imposition of the tarmac delay rule is correlated with an increase in cancellations. The two models assessed flights canceled before and after leaving the gate, for the same 5 months (May through September) in 2009 and 2010. In both cases, GAO found that there was an increased likelihood of cancellation in 2010 compared to 2009. EU requirements provide airline passengers with more extensive protections, such as care and compensation, for flight delays, cancellations, and denied boardings than do U.S. or Canadian requirements. But these protections may also increase costs for airlines and passengers. For example, some airline officials in the United States and the EU told GAO that increases in the amount of denied boarding compensation has increased their overall costs. Additionally, enhanced passenger protections, such as those in the EU, can create enforcement challenges if regulations are unclear or not universally enforced.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT collect and publicize more comprehensive data on airlines' on-time performance and assess the full range of the tarmac delay rule's costs and benefits and, if warranted, refine the rule's requirements and implementation. DOT did not comment directly on the recommendations, but indicated that it would soon begin a study of the effect of the tarmac delay rule.