Media Could Simply Recycle Airline Delay Stories

I warned just yesterday that media outlets would start running a whole bunch of stories about how airline delays are up. I was right. See Bloomberg, Time, New York Times, IHT, USA Today, MSNBC, etc.

Yet, all of these stories could just as easily have been written in 2000 and 2001, before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, just like this one. The FAA claimed to have taken steps to alleviate delays going into the summer of 2001, after having the worst delays in history the year before. What was suggested at that time? Building new runways:

But earlier Thursday, Garvey told a House panel that runway construction is crucial for reducing delays in the longer term.

While technology can boost airport capacity up to 10 percent, new runways can improve it up to 40 percent.

She said the FAA is streamlining the environmental process for approval of new runways.

Well, this report in May of 2001 noted the problems.

If congressional shortcut efforts are successful, 39 runways at 25 airports
could be added across the country in the next 10 to 15 years at a cost of
$6.5 billion, aviation experts predict.

At least 18 new runways are planned to be operational by 2010.

Even so, the expansions would hardly be enough to keep up with expected air
travel demand. Today, 13 major U.S. airports are strained to overcapacity,
and by 2006, 32 of the nation's top 50 airports will be so too.

So, how many were actually built between 2000 and 2006? Anyone? Bueller?

It would appear to be a grand total of 15 runways (assuming all listed were completed in the time frame).

That barely keeps pace with the demand from 2000, let alone growth going forward.

The 9/11 attacks gave the travel industry and government a few extra years before the problems would once again resume their upward move beyond the existing capacity.

As this site notes, "..there are thousands of airports in the United States, yet more than 70% of commercial traffic is concentrated in 27 hub airports. These airports have added a total of four new runways since 1995."

You aren't going to reduce traffic and congestion at the airports unless new capacity is built into the system or alternatives are built to relieve that congestion.

Why has the situation returned to the pre-9/11 levels? Simple. People are traveling and the prices for air travel are still extremely reasonable and no new capacity has been added to airports or the routes that are causing problems and infrastructure has not been upgraded to handle higher capacities.

For example, there are no new runways at JFK, LGA, or EWR in the New York City metro area. The situation in New York City airspace is extremely crowded as the three area airports share the airspace and incursions are a disaster waiting to happen. Spacing aircraft out further means fewer planes in a given patch of the sky, and less planes in the air means less flights going where they have to go. It doesn't matter how many flights are scheduled.

Airlines may factor in waiting times into their flight schedules, but even those waiting times are still exceeded because of the ripple effect. Say a flight from Boston gets into New York 15 minutes late. That means that the turnaround runs late and the slot for that plane to fly out to Chicago gets bumped. The delays pile up and spread through the system. A problem in New York could have a ripple effect for days after the situation appeared to clear.

A passenger bill of rights pushed by Congress will do absolutely nothing to improve the number of planes that takeoff or land. It might help those planes delayed more than three hours. Duty rules limit the number of hours that pilots can be in the air. It also does nothing to deal with flight delays due to weather.

The outdated air traffic control system also plays a big part of the problem, and Congress is not even bothering to address that.

The fixes that need to be addressed:
1) new airports to relieve congestion at existing airports;
2) new runways at airports where there is room to expand and it makes sense to be incorporated into regional transportation systems;
3) fund high speed rail for the Boston to Washington, DC corridor, the San Francisco to San Diego corridor, and the New York to Chicago routes;
4) implement new air traffic control system that allows safer routings of planes in close proximity to each other;
5) identify bottlenecks in the existing system and begin working to reduce them until the long term solutions can be put in place.

In the New York metro area, this means making Stewart Airport a major part of the solution. That means building a link between the airport and Midtown Manhattan that enables high speed transfers. It would have the immediate impact of reducing congestion at LGA and JFK because they simply do not have capacity.

Similarly, the high speed rail links would provide city center to city center transit options that are comparable in time to airline flights for those cities. The US is severely limited in its rail options. Acela service on Amtrak has been limited due to top speed limitation and infrastructure limitations. Money must be spent to improve the infrastructure, enabling the trains to travel faster between NYC and Washington. Dedicated high speed rail lines should be considered, though the costs will be exorbitant, especially in the Northeast corridor.

So, who is to blame for the situation? Well, airlines continue to plan flights during peak areas knowing full well that there are simply not enough slots for take off, causing unnecessary delays. State and local governments plus NIMBY means opposition to airport expansion projects around the country. Congress and the Administration have decided to take the path of least resistance - sound and fury signifying nothing. There has been no leadership on the subject, and air travel and the transportation system are integral to long term economic growth. Neglecting the transportation system will have significant consequences going forward.