A Number of Initiatives to Reduce Flight Delays and Enhance Capacity Are Ongoing

Several initiatives to reduce flight delays and enhance capacity are  ongoing. These initiatives which FAA, the airlines, and the airports are  implementing are incorporated into FAA’s major capacity-enhancing  effort: the Operation Evolution Plan (OEP). The OEP is a rolling 10-year  plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system  and focuses on airport surface infrastructure, and technological and  procedural initiatives at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. To help expedite the process for building runways, Congress and FAA  streamlined the environmental review phase of the runway process. Seven more runways and one runway extension are included in  the OEP and are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay- prone airports, such as New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare, FAA is  exploring administrative and market based options. For example, FAA is   considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La  Guardia and is currently limiting the number of scheduled arrivals during  peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O’Hare. For domestic flights, Domestic Reduced Vertical  Separation Minimum was implemented in fiscal year 2005 in the  contiguous United States and Alaska and adds six additional flight levels  between existing flight levels. Challenges in Reducing Flight Delays and Enhancing Capacity Remain

A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity  remain. A daunting challenge that FAA and other aviation stakeholders  will have to address is funding the various initiatives that are designed to  address flight delays and enhance capacity. The successful  implementation of many of these initiatives is predicated on the  availability of funding However, since 2000, which is to date the worst year  in history for delays, the financial condition of the aviation industry has  changed significantly. Another important challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing  capacity at delay-prone airports, such as those shown in table 1, some of  which have little capacity to physically expand and would find it difficult  to build even one more runway, either because they lack the space or  would face intense opposition from adjacent communities. In addition to addressing the capacity needs of the most delay-prone  airports, FAA, airlines, and airports will also have to address the emerging  capacity needs of new metropolitan areas in the South and Southwest. The second category includes developing alternative modes of  intercity travel other than air transportation, such as high-speed rail. For example, the  last major new airport—the Denver International Airport completed in  1995—cost almost $5 billion to build. Chief among them is funding these initiatives  during a time when the federal government and the aviation industry are  experiencing significant fiscal problems.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since the unprecedented flight delays in 2000, a year in which one in four flights were delayed, our aviation system has been adversely affected by many unanticipated events--such as the September 11th terrorist attacks, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)--that significantly reduced the demand for air travel. However, demand for air travel is rebounding. For example, the number of passengers traveling by air increased from 642 million in 2003 to 688 million in 2004. Flight delays have been among the most vexing problems in the national transportation system and are defined by the Department of Transportation as instances when aircraft arrive at the gate 15 minutes or more after scheduled arrival time. In 2004, one in five flights were delayed primarily at New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare. Delays at these airports have consequences for the rest of the system. GAO's testimony addresses the following questions that pertain to flight delays and enhancing capacity: (1) What initiatives are ongoing by the federal government, airlines, and airports to address flight delays and enhance capacity? (2) What are some of the challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity? (3) What other options are available for reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity?

What GAO Found

Several initiatives to address flight delays and enhance capacity are ongoing. Many of these initiatives are reflected in FAA's February 2005 Operation Evolution Plan, which is a 10-year plan to increase capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system at 35 of the busiest airports in the United States. New runways opened in the last 6 years at the Phoenix, Detroit, and 5 other airports. Seven more runways are scheduled to open by the end of 2008. Congress and FAA also streamlined the process for building runways. In addition to building runways, several other initiatives were implemented. For example, in January 2005, FAA implemented the Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum which is designed to increase high altitude routes in the contiguous United States and Alaska. To reduce flight delays at some of the delay-prone airports, FAA is limiting the number of takeoffs and landings during peak periods at New York La Guardia and Chicago O'Hare and is considering auctioning off landing and take off rights at New York La Guardia. A number of challenges in reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity remain. Chief among them is obtaining funding for the initiatives mentioned above; their successful implementation is predicated on the availability of funding from several sources, including FAA, airlines, and airports. Another challenge is reducing flight delays and enhancing capacity at delay-prone airports, such as New York La Guardia, which have little capacity to expand and would find it difficult to build even one more runway. Other options to address delay problems include adding new capacity by building new airports. According to FAA, airport authorities in Chicago, Las Vegas, and San Diego are evaluating the need for new airports. Another option is to develop other modes of intercity travel, such as high-speed rail, where metropolitan areas are relatively close together. These options may conflict with the interests of one or more key stakeholder groups; and, in many cases, would be costly.