Air Gridlock

Del Quentin Wilber, The Post's national aviation reporter, was online Oct. 24 at 2 p.m. ET to discuss how the surge of air traffic at New York's JFK airport is impacting the nation's problems with flight delays.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

In today's story he writes: "Departures from JFK are up more than 20 percent from last year and 50 percent from 2003. To make matters worse, the increase is occurring in some of the most congested airspace in the world. On bad days, problems quickly ripple across the country, tying up air travelers from Los Angeles to Washington."

A transcript follows.

____________________

Del Quentin Wilber: Welcome everyone!

I hope you are all having good travels and aren't stuck in delays. Right now, bad weather is already creating some problems along the east coast: http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp.

I want to encourage anyone who wants to join my group of informants on the road to email me at wilberd@washpost.com. The only way I can write good stories is to hear from you. I'll send you a Washington Post luggage tag if you join the team. Any good story ideas out there? Any horrific/terrific experiences? Let me know. Let's get this started.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: How much of the current gridlock is attributed to the outdated "highways" in the sky?

These highways correspond to highways on land vs. allowing planes to truly fly from point A to point B. Look over Dulles on a clear day and you can see the contrails of dozens of planes using one such highway. They come out of the NE and turn SW over Dulles (or thereabouts).

With GPS navigation available as an add-on to ALL land-based traffic (or at least turn by turn directional ability), why is it taking years to implement this in the sky? (Obviously this will cost money, but think about the increased efficiency this will provide, thereby allowing the economy to benefit!)

Del Quentin Wilber: Good question. Everybody acknowledges that the current system is antiquated and was built decades upon decades ago when you needed ground-based navigation. So those highways are getting snarled, just like traffic on the Beltway during rush hour. Those highways also limit the way controllers and airlines can move flights effeciently. They are working on a new solution, GPS-based navigation. But that system won't be deployed for years. And airlines will have until 2020, I believe, to fully equip their planes to use the service. The ground-based part of the system is scheduled to be up and running by 2013, I think.

Even then, some analysts argue that the next-generation air travel system won't really make much of a dent in delays. But most people in the industry say it will be a huge help.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Isn't the root of the problem the one-price slotting fees charged airlines at all airports?

Del Quentin Wilber: That is a good question. Transportation officials are considering imposing something called "congestion pricing," or fees that rise during peak times to encourage airlines to move flights into other less busy slots. They argue this is a great "market based" solution to congestion problems.

There are a few airports where this might work, like JFK, but many airports are not near their capacity limits, even at peak hours, regulators acknowledge.

The airlines hate this proposal, however, and will really battle back on that issue. They believe the government should do more to increase capacity at airports and not set limits on flights. They say that the difference in just a few minutes in a flight schedule can make a flight profitable. Some analysts believe congestion pricing will work; others say that the airports/FAA would have to boost such very very high to affect airline schedules and it's a hopeless effort. It is really up in the air whether this will work or not, from what I've been told. So, we'll see how this all shakes out.

_______________________

Del Quentin Wilber: I have received several excellent notes from readers on today's story. I'm going to share them -- anonymously -- with you guys and respond to them. I encouraged all of the emailers to send their notes to letters@washpost.com to be published on our op-ed page.

First question from a reader in Washington state:

Hi Del,

I read your article on the JFK congestion problem. I can never understand why people never consider the obvious solution. Schedule fewer flights but use bigger airplanes and you can move the same number of people. Most airlines fly smaller airplanes like 737's and A320's domestically. Slots at congested airports should be decreased and airlines if they want to move more people should use 757's, 767's, and 747's for example. You can carry as many or more people and not congest the airport air space. Seems obvious to me.

xxx

Now, that is a thoughtful response.

This is an age-old debate in the industry: frequency, ie., the number of flights an airline can offer from one destination to another, versus load, or the number of people they can carry on a plane.

The airlines right now are in love with frequency. Hence, their reliance on a network of regional jets. They know business travelers -- the most lucrative set of passengers they can grab -- want to fly when they want to fly. So they have found they do much better flying more planes to a destination during the course of the day than just one or two. Also, the major carriers operate out of hubs. To make their networks work, they need to tap small markets to help them feed their big jets flying on international/long haul routes. Without that feed, they can't support their operations or more profitable long-haul rlights. Those smaller markets simply can't support flights of large jets.

So that is where the debate stands now and that is why you are flying on lots of regional jets. That could change over time. Airlines have stopped ordering 50-seat regional jets and are focusing on larger ones.

But I thought that was a smart comment.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Is there anyone in Congress who's trying to do something about reducing airline congestion at our airports? Are there any short-term solutions that would be effective and not too costly?

Del Quentin Wilber: There are competing bills that address a variety of issues. But they mostly seemed aimed at providing more comprehensive information to the public about delays/etc rather than changing the system. The short term solutions are limited. The FAA/DOT believe that limiting the growth of flights during peak times at JFK will help ease congestion. We'll see what happens, though. The long term solutions involve better navigation technology that will allow the FAA to handle the expected increase in flights over coming decades.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Today is the 29th anniversary of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Back then slots at Kennedy, LaGuardia, O'Hare and National were regulated by the FAA in response to severe congestion experienced at these airports, especially during the 1960's. The slot allocation system that was used seemed to work reasonably well in terms of preventing delays, but ran afoul of the free market inspired policies after airline deregulation. In your opinion what are the chances we will go "back to the future" and have the FAA regulate access at the nation's busiest airports.

Del Quentin Wilber: It's possible. But it would be limited and probably focsed on just a few of the busiest ones. National and LaGuadia are still heavily regulated. So, we'll see.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Part of the next generation navigation is supposed to be better weather forecasts. Do you think that will make air congestion any less, or is it all about on the ground problems, and flight paths?

Del Quentin Wilber: All of the above. The weather data now is pretty darn good. But the next-generation system will give controllers/airlines a lot more flexibility in navigating around bad weather.

_______________________

ATL to DCA: It all boils down to limited capacity. our nation spends millions when really we need to simply adjust the airlines schedules and force them to be more feasible. shouldn't the airports be more restrictive in airlines developing their schedules?

I used to do airport planning and capacity analysis. I used SIMMOD, a simulation capacity model. The airports have significant capacity, but it does not matter how many runways the airport has when you have 10-15 flights scheduled to arrive and another 10-15 scheduled to depart via one runway and the same taxi network at 12:30 p.m.. It just will not work. It casues all types of delays from gate delays, to taxiway delays, to slowing planes down on the approach in airspace.

The airlines still support the economic theory that passengers demand being at the airport at 12:30 p.m., and still view passengers as bodies and not people. I understand the old demand related to 7:00 a.m. flights and 5 p.m. flights as the business world worked that way. however, with the current security issues that canot really work and we all must change. I desire to travel at more comfortable times. I have stood in the security line at BWI too many times. Why struggle for a 7 a.m. flight when you need to be in the airport by 5:45 a.m. at some airports?

Del Quentin Wilber: I totally understand your feelings. I had to go to New York for this JFK story. I did it in one day. Got to Dulles at 6 a.m. (4 a.m. wake up call) and left at 10 p.m. It was a trudge. Anyway, airlines schedule flights for market demand. They aren't going to schedule flights at noon if competitors are offering flights at 8 a.m. that entice lucrative business travelers. Not if they want to survive. Some analysts believe the airlines are losing lots of money during ineffecient operations, like burning fuel on tarmacs waiting to taxi for take off. So, maybe in the future some of those economic incentives will turn around. Some airlines, like American, don't have too many peak banks of flights at their hubs, particuarly at Dallas. It seems to work well for American, their executives say.

_______________________

Del Quentin Wilber: This is an interesting comment from a reader in Rockville who sent me an email:

Yes it is irresponsible to claim that this systemwide backup is an airlines issue. It is, rather, an integrated transportation issue. Get more of the the short and medium distance journeys onto a properly constituted commuter and intercity rail network, and the need for flights of 300 miles or less will dramatically drop.

I am happy to support a 100% gas tax to help fund this rail network.

_______________________

Washngton, D.C. Has air traffic completely come back to pre-9/11 levels? And if so - how do the delays we experience now compare to before?

Del Quentin Wilber: That is a great question.

Flights are up since 2000. But they have held fairly steady in the last few years. Here is the data:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/air_carrier_traffic_statistics/airtraffic/annual/1981-2001.html

That data also contains cargo flights, though.

Here is what BTS sent me for the story I was working on for the most recent years in terms of commercial flights. You can thank Dave Smallen, their spokesman, for digging that data out:

Total Passenger Departures Performed - All Carriers at U.S. Airports.

2003 9,446,696

2004 10,502,780

2005 10,601,587

2006 10,293,870

2007 6,976,318

2007 is thru July. I don't have the pre-9/11 data for pax carriers broken out.

_______________________

Anonymous: This will only solve a small part of the problem, but I wish airlines could do a better job of tracking passengers with their luggage. Twice I have been willing to board an earlier connecting flight to my destination only to be told I have to wait for my scheduled flight, only to arrive and discover my bags were on the earlier flight. This makes a difference because there had been seats on the earlier flights and once the later flight was overbooked, which meant someone was then delayed. That could have been avoided had I been on the earlier flights.

Del Quentin Wilber: Ah, baggage woes. Airlines are mishandling more bags than ever before. We did a story on this earlier this month.

____________________

Del Quentin Wilber: Well, everybody, my time is up. Thanks for checking out the chat. Feel free to send me emails or join the team. wilberd@washpost.com

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.