Creating a 21st Century Aviation Network

On Tuesday, Congress again demonstrated its inability to move an FAA bill that includes comprehensive, real reform of our nation’s air traffic control system.  While those on Capitol Hill continue to disagree, we at the Department are putting consumers first, and keeping modernization of our aviation system in the fast lane.

Our nation’s aviation network should be as safe, reliable, and efficient as possible, and while there are no quick-fixes, we are taking action.  We’re working to both improve the system, and protect consumers when there are disruptions.

We are pursuing new technologies—like NextGen—that will allow our skies to accommodate two to three times the current number of planes by updating our air traffic control system from a ground and voice-based one to a satellite-based, cockpit-to-cockpit one. 

We have proposed enhancing the on-time performance data carriers report to the Department so that we, the industry and the public have access to more complete information on flights that are cancelled, delayed or diverted. 

Recently I announced new measures designed to help reduce delays during the busy summer travel season, including opening a second westbound route for aircraft…sort of like a new interstate highway in the sky. 

Additionally, to give aircraft more flexibility, we are allowing the use of alternative routes to avoid severe weather.  One of these is an “escape route” into Canadian airspace that will allow planes departing from the New York area to avoid going through summer thunderstorms and high winds.

While we’re talking about New York, I should mention we have proposed a new way to handle congestion at LaGuardia Airport—one of the top-three most delayed airports in the country.  We proposed market-based solutions that would use competition and choice to reduce fares and delays.  We propose using an auction process to allocate a limited number of flight slots, which would force airlines to improve efficiency.  The proceeds from the auction would be invested in new congestion reduction and capacity improvement initiatives in the New York region.

The Department is also working on a number of consumer protection initiatives for passengers.  We’re doubling the limits on the compensation required to be paid to “bumped” passengers and extending those requirements to smaller aircraft.  We’ve proposed requiring airlines to have legally binding contingency plans for extended tarmac delays, to respond to consumer complaints within 30 days, and to publish complaint data online. 

There’s no reason our aviation system cannot be prepared for the needs of the 21st century, and this Department is doing all it can to ensure our skies are as safe and efficient as possible.

-Secretary Peters

Comments

[Nick C]

Perhaps the solution to improving our air traffic situation is by offering alternatives to air traffic.

The hub-and-spoke system was the hallmark of the glory days of air travel. What the federal government should be promoting, and the airlines should be pitching, is a similar system that would use high-speed trains to complement the air travel network.

First off, most people, I think, would rather be on the ground than in the air. Secondly, regional rail networks could easily have several times the capacity of the present air system.

For example, instead of forcing commuters from the Bay Area to Southern California to choose between a half-dozen airports on either end of their journey, why not run several high-speed trains daily from Oakland to Los Angeles?

If Amtrak — and perhaps other competing transportation companies (read: airlines) — were to offer consistent and reliable high-speed rail service in corridors other than the Northeast, we could probably get a lot of folks off of airplanes.

The problem is there is no alternative, and no incentive to develop one. Until there is, we will continue to wait.

[JW]

A 21st Century Aviation Network includes High Speed Rail. Seems like we should be talking about that more than airplanes which pollute more and take longer to get to places under 350 miles from your destination. We won't need 3 times the airspace if gas is $10 a gallon.

[Chad Shackford]

I would love a system that gave the consumer (passenger) more information. Then the market really could decide. A big problem historically is that the passenger has not been able to make an informed decision. The only information we are typically given when buying a ticket is price and schedule. If there were a web based platform informing the passenger of the pros and cons of a particular flight, they could make a more informed decision before they bought the ticket. For example, I could schedule a flight that will be delayed or cancelled with a 50% probability or pick the one leaving 30 minutes later that increases my chances of getting there on time to 90%. I just want to be able to make an intelligent choice. Customer satisfaction, aircraft type, seat configuration, legroom, passenger amenities, average passenger loading, etc. are all things I would like to know before I purchased the ticket. Plus, I would be willing to pay more if I felt confident I would be getting a better experience.

[Josh Hunter]

The plain and simple truth is the only way to reduce air traffic delays is build more runways at the major airports. Even with old equipment, enroute controllers can move a lot of traffic, but without extra runways, those airplanes have to wait in line before they can land, hence the delays. Opening up new routes does nothing to reduce delays, in fact it increases them by lengthening the line of airplanes waiting to land.

[jeff koppa]

Absolutely right on! Flying an airplane 100 miles or less to feed a Hub and Spoke concept that worked with $1.00 fuel does not make economic sense anymore. Lets get those trains back in the system.

[RD]

You really don't want to be on a train for long trips. The railroads pay no attention to arrival times (they are always late, even in the vaunted Northeast Corridor), freight has priority over passengers, when they travel faster than 100mph, they are dangerous -- especially if the same line is also used for freight, and if you're not going downtown, you have a real problem getting from the station to where you want to be (same as with airports). It looks good now, but think of the effect if a substantial number of the highway and aviation users get on the train.Once again, we have an imaginary train being touted as a panacea -- it's not that easy. Look at the true history of Acela if you want a scare. AND consider this -- passenger rail has NEVER made money at any time in history or anywhere in the world. Passenger rail always operates as a goverment subsidized service. OK, now go make decisions about passenger rail...