American And Ual Willing To Drop Ord Flights

I've never been a fan of goverment getting into airline business,
but I have to make an exception this time. It's clear that the airlines
can't do it themselves. Time for Mineta, et al. to "layeth the smack down".

-----------------------------
U.S. puts heat on airlines for cuts
O'Hare holdouts see federal threat as `saber rattling'

By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune transportation reporter. Tribune staff reporters H. Gregory Meyer and Hal Dardick contributed to this report from Chicago
Published August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The government increased pressure on the nation's two largest airlines Thursday to dig deeper for more flight cuts at O'Hare International Airport, officials said after the second sluggish day of negotiations to reduce delays.

At least some of the 16 carriers involved in the schedule-reduction talks strongly resisted the call to cut flights, officials said. The deadline to agree to voluntary reductions is early next week, officials said.

The airline holdouts were said to view as "saber rattling" U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's threat to impose flight caps at O'Hare if the talks seeking voluntary cuts fail, officials close to the discussions said.

Still, there were signs of some progress. American Airlines and United Airlines were reportedly willing to go beyond the 7.5 percent flight cuts they made earlier this year--possibly agreeing to an additional 5 percent reduction--if other carriers that increased service at O'Hare this summer also shaved off flights.

Some cuts could be relatively painless, officials said. They include American shifting some flights back to its St. Louis hub, from which the airline moved flights to O'Hare last November. United could rid its schedule of some flights that provide frequent service to certain cities and that are often canceled, officials said.

Capitol Hill sources, meanwhile, indicated that although Mineta has the authority to impose strict flight controls, the Bush administration wants to involve Congress in any move to re-regulate the airline industry.

But patience has run out over O'Hare delays.

"If the airlines operating at O'Hare cannot voluntarily agree to reduce flights, I am sure that the FAA will impose some flight reductions after they consult with Congress," said U.S. Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.), a senior member of the House Aviation Subcommittee.

The reluctance by some airlines to voluntarily cut flights appeared linked to their belief that despite Mineta's stern warnings, unilateral government action restricting access to O'Hare was not imminent.

Some progress--but not nearly enough cuts to relieve congestion at O'Hare--was reported in the talks Thursday between the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The meetings will resume Friday "and in the coming days if necessary," Mineta said.

"More needs to be, and will be, done," he said.

FAA officials asked Chicago Aviation Commissioner John Roberson and other city officials to phone airline CEOs and ask for flight reductions and to drum up support among congressional lawmakers, sources said.

Sixty-eight percent of O'Hare arrivals were on time in June, compared with 83 percent in June 2003, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported Thursday. Seventy percent of O'Hare flights departed on time in June, compared with 85 percent in June 2003. O'Hare ranked last in on-time arrivals and departures for the first six months of 2004.

To implement flight reductions in November, in time for the holiday travel season, an agreement must be reached and published in Department of Justice documents by Wednesday, said Department of Transportation spokesman Brian Turmail.

If a voluntary agreement is not reached by then, congressional hearings would be held on the O'Hare bottleneck, followed by an administrative order from Mineta restricting flights there, officials said.

"The best thing by far would be a voluntary agreement," said a congressional official. "Issuing an order that imposes landing-slot controls is more complicated politically, and they would need to go to Congress to get cover."

Involuntary flight limits would mark a return to strict controls put in place in 1968 during government regulation of the airline industry.

Airlines would be assigned a specific number of landings each hour at O'Hare--as opposed to today's first come, first served policy. Daily flights at O'Hare would be reduced significantly.

Though airlines were deregulated in 1978, flight caps imposed in 1968 stayed in place for more than 30 years. They were finally lifted in phases between 2000 and 2002.

At what had been expected to be a one- or two-day meeting this week, the FAA asked the carriers to voluntarily cut more than 60 flights, limit arrivals to a maximum of 86 landings per hour between 7 a.m. and 8:59 p.m., and shift some flights to less busy periods.

Sources said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey told the airlines she would be willing to increase the targeted arrival rate to the low 90s each hour if they agreed to significant flight reductions.

At a news conference in Chicago Thursday, Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) said he had warned about O'Hare's delay problems when Chicago lobbied in 1999 to revoke the flight caps.

"I think it's time that we no longer dance around the obvious. The city ought to admit that it made a mistake and it ought to ask the FAA to reimpose the high-density rule at O'Hare," Fitzgerald said.

Mayor Richard Daley has said he opposes reintroduction of mandatory flight caps because they could become permanent. The caps imposed in 1968 were intended to last six months. The mayor has a $15 billion O'Hare expansion plan waiting for FAA approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich offered support for the expansion plan, saying Thursday that the FAA "needs to get moving."

Blagojevich also said the proposed south suburban airport near Peotone, which Daley opposes, should be part of the region's aviation program.

- - -

O'Hare ranks last

Among 31 major U.S. airports, O'Hare International Airport ranked worst in on-time performance during the first six months of 2004.

FIVE WORST IN ARRIVALS

By percentage of on-time arrivals

O'Hare 64%
Newark 72%
Atlanta 73%
LaGuardia 74%
Philadelphia 76%

ON-TIME ARRIVALS AT O'HARE For all carriers in June 2004
6-6:59 a.m. 87%
7-7:59 86%
8-8:59 84%
9-9:59 82%
10-10:59 78%
11-11:59 75%
Noon-12:59 77%
1-1:59 p.m. 74%
2-2:59 71%
3-3:59 66%
4-4:59 64%
5-5:59 56%
6-6:59 50%
7-7:59 47%
8-8:59 51%
9-9:59 60%
10-10:59 66%
11 p.m.-5:59 a.m 80%

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Chicago Tribune
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
 
The problem isn't the airlines. The problem is the FAA's outdated and inefficient air traffic control system. The FAA has been amazingly slow in implementing technologies that have been available for some time now which would make the ATC system much more efficient. I'm amazed airlines haven't put more pressure on Congress to get the FAA moving on this. The inefficiencies in the ATC system cost domestic airlines collectively in the billions of dollars per year.
 
The problem at ORD is this: An insufficient amount of concrete to allow for more than 200 takeoffs and landings every hour. (200 is the best it can get. Even if you get a 10 kt wind in an undesirable direction, the arrival rate will go down.)

While I agree that the FAA is in dire need of a technology upgrade, it's not the reason for the troubles at ORD.

Hopefully, by Mineta twisting some arms, the airlines will reduce the schedule to account for what the airport can handle.
 
This could be a real boom for AA. While both UAL and AA use ORD as a hub, UAL must rely on it for passenger connections as well. AA can focus on the local business traffic and dedicate a/c to this particular market. All lower yield connecting traffic can shift to STL. I think the new runway should be open in STL soon. This would be a 3rd parallel that would produce a pretty effecient hubbing system.
 
How about replacing the swarms of RJs with lower CASM mainline jets? It isn't exactly rocket science... More jets that carry fewer people isn't the answer to congestion problems.
 
Isn't funny how people are blaming the ATC system for the problems at O'HARE and elsewhere? I seem to remember some brave individuals(PATCO) :up: over 20 years ago who went on strike over this very issue and were crushed by REAGAN and the FAA :down: . Of course with all the scabs in this industry,their strike was doomed to failure, and the problems in the ATC have only multiplied!
 
<_< I know this might sound odd, but think about it! It's not only ORD! There is just so much space, (sky), over our country! And our industry is rapidly filling it with more and more Aircraft! Could ORD be just the start of a bigger problem??? :unsure:
 
More mainline (bigger) aircraft and less RJ's (small) aircraft. You need less aircraft movements but carry the same number, if not more people.
 
We need a new ATC system. One that provide a greater control over a/c. One that lets planes fly better more efficient routes saving time and fuel. Just something other than this stone age system we currently use.
 
Diversion said:
How about replacing the swarms of RJs with lower CASM mainline jets? It isn't exactly rocket science... More jets that carry fewer people isn't the answer to congestion problems.
[post="166435"][/post]​


BINGO! WE HAVE A BINGO!

ATC places the same amount of protected space around a small jet as they do a big jet, with the possible exception of a "heavy" due to wake turbulence. Therefore, instead of decreasing the average number of persons on each jet IFF code, they should be increasing the average amount of persons on each jet IFF code. The net result is fewer targets in the sky and less delays. I said this in a different forum years ago and everyone ignored what I was saying. Now, with RJ's everywhere, the point I was making then has come to fruition.
 
Looks like things aren't going very well.
----------------------------------------------

Link

Jon Hilkevitch
Summit on O'Hare delays was miscalculated

Published August 9, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The flight delay statistics are grim, but just how bad is congestion at O'Hare International Airport as vacationers try to get away this month during the busiest travel period of the summer?

To put the situation in terms that an automobile driver would understand, the congestion choking O'Hare and the surrounding airspace is so severe that airline pilots bound for Chicago from the East often must start "tapping the brakes" somewhere around Cleveland.

Instead of flying in a straight line, pilots program onboard computers to guide the planes in slow, gentle S-shaped turns. The maneuver, imperceptible to passengers, kills time while flight crews wait to enter the jammed-up arrival streams of traffic to O'Hare.

Tricks like that, plus airline scheduling practices that add a half-hour to an hour to each domestic flight to make on-time performance at O'Hare appear not quite so awful, are what you, the passenger, get along with a bag of mini-pretzels. But even a salty snack doesn't cover up the bad taste of almost 60,000 delayed flights at O'Hare in the first half of the year.

So it was with great anticipation (by some) that help was on the way last week when U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion Blakey called 16 airlines to a conference in Washington seeking to cut O'Hare flights to manageable levels. The plan was that nobody would leave until a temporary solution was hammered out and victory could be proclaimed over overscheduling at O'Hare, which has caused major delays at airports around the country.

Mineta was given the authority by Congress last year to summon the airlines to one-on-one talks and pressure them to reduce flights because a messed-up commercial aviation system is a drag on the economy, and it's a potential danger to safety. The three-day scheduling conference, which broke up unsuccessfully Friday and was to continue by telephone Monday, was Mineta's final attempt to persuade the air carriers to cut O'Hare flights voluntarily, before he was prepared to impose mandatory flight limits that could be much harsher.

The airline summit was a stunning miscalculation and embarrassment for the government. Airline executives--well aware that President Bush and influential members of Congress oppose government intervention in the private sector as much as they do, and knowing that all bets are off until after the November presidential election--were not intimidated by Mineta's threat to decree a flight-cap "slottery."

"Even with Uncle Sam putting a gun to their head, none of the airlines is willing to show their cards, their price structures or their competitive position," said one airport operator in the Midwest. "No matter how bad the delays, nobody wants to reduce hourly flights from O'Hare to New York City, Washington and Newark."

Sources said the schedule-reduction talks recessed last week with American Airlines complaining that United Airlines, which operates the most flights at O'Hare, is unwilling to go far enough in making additional cuts. Bankrupt United pointed blame at American for ramping up O'Hare flights in November, starting a new war for domination of O'Hare.

And both major carriers yelped that the government should have prevented the fledgling airline Independence Air from landing at O'Hare this summer with a total of 24 additional daily takeoffs and landings.

Independence Air, USA3000 Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines and other small carriers that have jumped into the O'Hare market recently are refusing to cut more than a token flight or two, saying they will not be shoved out of O'Hare by American and United.

"The airlines are struggling in bankruptcy or near it, and now they are being told to reduce flights," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who asked Mineta in January to hold the scheduling conference. "It's a painful decision, but one that has to be carried out."

The temporary flight reductions sought by the FAA to restore a semblance of on-time performance at O'Hare are not huge--about 60 fewer flights out of 2,900 a day, including the smoothing out of airline schedules during the busiest travel hours. Such cuts to reduce delays would not make O'Hare, which for the first half of the year ranked last in performance, No. 1.

It's a minimally effective short-term solution to stop the bleeding until O'Hare is expanded, a state-backed south suburban airport in is built in Will County and existing airports in the region are upgraded to accommodate more commercial air service.

The proposed airport near Peotone is still farmland, but Mineta and the FAA unwisely shut the door at last week's meeting with the airlines to talk about using a reliever airport that could immediately help ease the O'Hare crunch: Gary-Chicago International Airport.

Mineta turned down requests from Indiana Gov. Joseph Kernan and the state's congressional delegation for officials from the Gary airport to participate in the airline scheduling conference, officials said.

"We are not the long-term solution to O'Hare's problems," Gary-Chicago Administrator Paul Karas said. "But for the 2.7 million travelers in our market who can drive more quickly to Gary than to O'Hare, we can provide relief today."

With the prospect of higher airfares and less seat capacity at O'Hare in the months and possibly years to come, Karas is optimistic that "the lemon O'Hare has to deal with now should become lemonade for Gary."

----------

Contact Getting Around at [email protected] or c/o the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Read recent Getting Around columns at www.chicagotribune.com/go/gettingaround.
 
LaBradford22 said:
The problem isn't the airlines. The problem is the FAA's outdated and inefficient air traffic control system. The FAA has been amazingly slow in implementing technologies that have been available for some time now which would make the ATC system much more efficient. I'm amazed airlines haven't put more pressure on Congress to get the FAA moving on this. The inefficiencies in the ATC system cost domestic airlines collectively in the billions of dollars per year.
[post="166291"][/post]​

Yeah, but it's much easier for Congress to blame the airlines for the problem, rather than shifting money away from "Pork Barrel" projects to fund something the country really needs.
 
Whats really compunding the problem is the RJ issue and fact that the other cariers are filling in the spaces and the govt isnt doing anything about that. Seems like a Govt branded forced competition.

First AA re shuffels the hub Result UAL fills in the Gaps with 2-3% increase in flights even though they are in BK.

Next Both AA and UAL are given the rub to decrease flights which is uneven (refer to paragraph above) and guess what, The other carriers take the lead from UAL and fill in the gaps.

Now the FAA is talking big trash and will force UALand AA to reduce even more! If they dont stop the growth in ORD period regardless of who wants access, nothing will change and we suffer. Next thing you know JBLU comes waltzing in and then their goes the neighborhood.

Who is to blame for the congestion, ask Bush, He is the one who appointed someone with absolutly no background in aviation to head the FAA. Oh thats right he also appointed her to run the NTSB with no background either and oh yeah I forgot she was only there for a few months also. The system is screwed up and we only have big TALKERS/Politicians and no leadership with a plan to fix it.