What was entirely missed in all the coverage of the Air Transport Association’s July 4 request to the FAA to impose more delays on business and general aviation in the New York metropolitan airspace, was how the request actually shot its arguments to impose new user fees in the foot. Using 70 percent of the airspace is apparently not enough for the airlines, according to ATA’s logic. Airlines need more, they say, while simultaneously denying the system was built, and is run, for them. Related Story  It certainly begs the question of what that “fair share” really is in an airline-centric air traffic control system.
To me, the controversy is not about modernization or even how to pay for it, but the airlines’ failure to address its own over scheduling. Judging from the coverage, ATA would have us believe that business and general aviation is 30 percent of operations and thus needs to pay more for their use of the system through new user fees.
While the attack was against general aviation, the impact on regionals is serious. First, user fees would cost regionals more than $100 million. Related Story  As if that were not enough, the increasing congestion has forced laser focus on ridding congested airports of regional jets. Indeed, the congestion rulemakings for O’Hare and LaGuardia specifically targeted regional jets in favor of having airlines up-gauge to larger equipment. Now, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is gunning for regional jets wanting larger and fuller aircraft at its airports. Related Story
For the record, regional jets are only a convenient target that masks a greater problem. Business and general aviation is the other foil for airline over-scheduling. The FAA calculated that if all business/general aviation flights were grounded nationwide, it would yield a paltry seven-to-nine percent, for which such operators currently pay eight percent of system costs. Such aircraft account for less than four percent of all operations at the nation's 10-busiest airports. Meanwhile, ATA, which only pays for 77 percent of the system, says airlines pay for 90 percent of the system but only if they count charter and fractional flights as well as foreign and cargo carriers in their calculation, according to the FAA. Last time I looked the FAA classifies charter and fractional flights as business and general aviation.
As for airspace congestion, general aviation aircraft mostly fly above and below the altitudes used by the airlines and, indeed, change their schedules and routes to mitigate the likelihood of flying into congestion. In addition, turbine business aircraft fly far less than scheduled airlines, averaging only about 370 flight hours per year, less than 10 percent of the flight hours averaged by an airliner's aircraft. In fact, according to the FAA, hours flown by business aircraft have remained essentially constant for several years, while airport hub operations have increased. Even the National Air Traffic Controllers Association shares my skepticism. "Severe weather accounts for over 70 percent of delays, which are exacerbated by the hub-and-spoke operation, and the rest is airline staffing woes, air traffic controller staffing shortages or the airlines' own operations,” it said recently.
What is also missed in all the ink dedicated to the subject is the fact that this is not about modernization at all. It is about the industry’s response to the current congestion crisis. While weather plays a huge role in delays and cancellations, the number of commercial aircraft thrown into the system plays more than its part as noted by the MIT story in this issue. Couple that with high load factors and the increasing inability to re-accommodate passengers should problems arise, and you have a perfect storm of passenger, and by extension, Congressional discontent that is being reported to no avail. In fact, articles recounting passenger horror stories have become a cottage industry, especially with You Tube; all of which could outweigh all the articles ATA got published when it launched its campaign earlier this year. Related Story While ATA would point to the crisis as reason enough to impose new user fees, it is actually a perfect illustration of the industry’s callous attitude toward passengers. Indeed, user fees would reward the industry and the FAA for their failures to passenger problems and modernize the system.
Considering the congestion crisis has been a major story since at least December, I wonder why the airlines have not done more to address the problem besides asking for more airspace. Yes, there have been the piddling announcements about delay guarantees from United (UAUA) and JetBlue (JBLU) but they peg the outside time waiting for takeoff at four hours which should be as unacceptable to them as it is the passengers. It brings new meaning to the old airline adage – if you have time to spare, go by air.
Other passenger-oriented announcements center on a new deal with a celebrity chef for chow on United, the introduction of first and/or business class on regional aircraft, better seating in business and first on international routes and the odd new route or up-gauging from smaller regional jets to larger RJs. Don’t they get it, increased amenities mean little if the rest of the trip is excruciating.
The only other passenger-oriented efforts this spring has been the industry’s fight against the passage of any passenger bill of rights. Is this really the best the airlines can do in the current crisis? While it may not be the right solution, it at least addresses the problem. The industry’s lackluster consumer performance prompted Congress to weigh in, asking DOT to investigate what it calls deceptive scheduling practices. Related Story  In addition, both passengers and legislators are moving to require new consumer statistics that would capture data on diverted and flights that leave the gate, wait on the taxiway for hours only to return to the gate after the flight has been cancelled. ATA supports this.
For their part, regional airlines are helpless in the face of delays since it is the major carriers that not only do all the scheduling, but impose more heavy delays on their regional partners than they do on themselves. In addition, they also do all the booking, meaning any complaints related to denied boarding, an increasingly onerous problem, should go into the major-carrier column, not regionals. Related Story
The point is clear, airlines have no scheduling restraint and the problem really is too many flights scheduled on to too few runways and gates. What is also clear is the fact there are no easy answers, especially since anti-trust provisions preclude the airlines discussing scheduling as a whole. As for me, I don’t put as much faith in modernization as everyone else because I’ve been in the industry for more than 30 years and know that, while modernization will yield additional capacity, the airlines will still schedule to the max and the passenger be damned.