Why our political system is causing you flight delays
I saw an article in the NY Times today on landing slots. Here it is, entitled: Seeking a Place at Airports
It revives the age-old debate about who controls the landing slots at airports and whether there should be a more equitable way to distribute them. Today, slots are controlled by the airport owner (although the FAA claims ultimate ownership). Additionally, slots are essentially held onto by carriers as long as they are in business. Meaning busy airports are effectively closed to new airlines unless a current one goes belly-up or pulls out.
This is what allowed Southwest to get into LaGuardia -- ATA went under, and Southwest swooped in to buy the slots and gates.
(See: Southwest bid's for ATA's LaGuarida slots) Similarly, Delta and US Airways swapped slots between LaGuardia and Washington National last year to their mutual benefit (See: Delta, US Airways trade slots in New York, Washington)
At some airports, you have to win both slots AND gates. This is more common at airpots where a few airlines own most of the gates.
Even if they aren't using them, big carrier's long-term leases can prevent upstart carriers from getting hold of them (or they can put pressure on the airport authority NOT to allow the new airline in. Delta at ATL has been known for this through the years).
The airports we're mainly talking about here are Newark, LaGuardia, JFK, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan Washington National. Most other airports are not slot or gate constrained (with a few exceptions).
The main topic here is: How to divvy up slots? There are two main issues at the heart of this:
1) Fairness: Competition is in the public interest, so the FAA and airport authorities should be seeking fair ways to allocate slots and gates to airlines that allow the most competition between carriers.
2) ATC efficiency: Airports and the FAA, as well as airlines and the general public, also have a vested interested in ensuring the airports are running at the highest levels of operational efficiency to keep delays minimal.
Unfortunately, today's system is an epic fail on both those accounts.
Let me explain: Network carriers hold onto their slots at all costs to prevent any competition, short term or long term. This not only prevents new airlines from entering (or smaller airlines growing), it also means network carriers use their slots with small planes that can fly profitably (or as close to it as possible). Think about it this way -- you're American Airlines. You have 20 slots at LGA. These slots are legacy from years ago and don't reflect your current operational imperatives. As such, rationally you should drop 5 of them just like you have at most airports in the country. But if you do, Southwest might get their hands on them and start flying there more flights to Chicago, competing against your core business. So you hold onto them. But you can't afford to put 738s and 757s on them (that would require filling close to 200 seats!). Instead, you put little regional jets on them to places like Cleveland, Detroit, or Columbus.
The result is reduced competition and smaller average plane size. Those things directly contradict the 2 tenets of what we were trying to do: Make it fair and efficient.
The solution has to do with airports or the FAA re-claiming the slots and gates and creating a new system for distributing them. This involves "congestion pricing" mentalities (charge higher for peak period usage of runways and gates) and/or flat-rate fees (charge the same, not less, for a regional jet as a wide-body to incentivize larger planes). This could be in an auction setting, or using some other formulas designed to create the right outcome.
Wouldn't that be brilliant? YES! The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the group that owns and operates the 3 main NY-area airports, tried just that! (See: Auction Airline Slots).
But the Air Transport Association (ATA), the industry group representing the airline industry, took them to court!! The network carriers were opposed to it since it would disrupt the current favorable conditions they enjoy. They took the DOT to court, and they won! It turns out, it's unlawful (say what?). (See: FAA Airport Slot Auctions Illegal. Now What?). Obviously the network carriers have a vested interest in the status quo: Holding onto slots and keeping new entrants out, and the DOT and other political groups didn't have the stomach to push it through despite near universal agreement among aviation experts that it was the smart (and perhaps only) way to control delays.
So how does the ATA propose the FAA handle over-subscribed airports and runways:
"We urge the FAA to put their focus and attention on increasing capacity and airspace redesign to make progress in actually reducing delays."
But as I have already documented well on this blog (and will continue to), the issue of delays is NOT the airspace, it's the finite capacity at airports. Increasing capacity is a near impossibility at any of the NY-area airports, NextGen or not.
So once again, the system fails us. Better luck in this decade, perhaps.
Evan
Posted by Evan
