[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3883-3886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1698]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3883]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. OST-95-248, formerly Docket 50053; RIN 2139-AA00]
14 CFR PART 234
Amendments to the On-Time Disclosure Rule
AGENCY: Office of Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Secretary is withdrawing its rulemaking proposal
to revise the on-time flight performance reporting requirements. The
Department had proposed to re-establish the exclusion of flights
delayed or cancelled due to mechanical problems. This withdrawal of the
rule is taken in response to comments made to the notice of proposed
rulemaking by consumer groups, safety experts and various airlines.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Stankus or Clay Moritz, Office
of Airline Information, K-25, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
20590-0001, (202) 366-4387 or 366-4385, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 26, 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration
(``RSPA'') issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') (60 FR
29515; June 5, 1995) seeking public comments on the proposal to revise
the on-time flight performance reporting requirements by re-
establishing the exclusion of flights delayed or cancelled due to
mechanical problems. The NPRM also sought comments on (1) the
retroactive application of the proposal, (2) the collection and
publication of flight completion data, and (3) the filing frequency of
the data collection.
Shortly, after the RSPA issued the NPRM, its Office of Airline
Statistics was transferred to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS). BTS renamed the office the ``Office of Airline Information''
(OAI). OAI administers the on-time flight reporting program.
Comments to the NPRM were received from eight air carriers (America
West, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest
Airlines, Trans World Airlines, United Air Lines, and USAir); three
labor unions (the Air Line Pilots Association, the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and Southwest Airlines
Pilots' Association); seven consumers groups (American Automobile
Association, Aviation Consumer Action Project, Best Fares Magazine,
Consumers Report Magazine, International Airline Passengers
Association, J.D. Power and Associates, and the National Consumers
League); one research group (Aviation Foundation); one state agency
(Michigan Department of Transportation); and 19 individuals, which
include three pilots and one mechanic. Also, letters to DOT Secretary
Pena from Representatives Luther and Oberstar, Senator Pressler and the
House of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure co-signed by Congressmen Duncan, Shuster, Costello,
Weller, DeFazio, LaHood, Lipinski, Bachus, Clement, Seastrand, Kim, and
Ewing were placed in the docket.
The issues addressed by the comments were safety, consumer
interest, publication of a completion factor, reporting frequency, cost
of reporting, and restatement of prior data. Each of these issues is
discussed below under separate captions.
Safety
The American Automobile Association (AAA) has over 37 million
members and operates approximately 900 accredited travel agency
locations. AAA does not believe that any air carrier would cut safety
to gain a perceived marketing advantage. According to an informal
survey by AAA travel agencies, flight delays were low on the list of
air passenger concerns.
The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) believes the inclusion of
mechanical delays and cancellations creates a conflict between safety
and on-time performance. ALPA cites the report ``Zero Accidents--A
Shared Responsibility,'' prepared by a group of safety experts, that
reporting mechanical delays and cancellations could intimidate
maintenance personnel and encourage unsafe practices. ALPA wrote,
``While airlines and their employees will always consciously place
safety ahead of on-time performance, the rule as amended in September,
1994--to include mechanical delays in the on-time reports--raises the
potential of a conflict between one-time performance and the commitment
to safety.''
American Airlines believes that DOT should continue requiring
airlines to report mechanical delays and cancellations as they have
done since January 1995 without any impact on safe operations. American
said that there has not been any reported instance where a pilot or
mechanic was pressured to compromise safety, since American and other
airlines did not change their safety-related dispatch of aircraft. By
letter dated April 21, 1995, the chief safety officers of American,
Delta, United and USAir advised Secretary Pena that airline employees
would not compromise safety because of on-time reporting
considerations. They stated that reporting mechanical delays and
cancellations creates an incentive for air carriers to improve their
mechanical performance through the use of spare aircraft and parts,
mechanic staffing, scheduling practices, fleet decisions, etc.
In testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Robert W. Baker, American's
Executive Vice President--Operations, stated ``No mechanic would
jeopardize the lives of customers and fellow workers, as well as his or
her career to give us a possible boost in a DOT dependability
statistic.'' He went on to state that if the industry were now sending
out unsafe aircraft to avoid delays, that fewer delays would be
reported. However, the incidence of delays has not decreased.
In a letter to Secretary Pena, the Aviation Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure stated, ``Including mechanical delays
may actually enhance safety by giving airlines an incentive to keep
their aircraft in top condition to avoid mechanical problems.''
Moreover, since mechanical delays and cancellations have been included
in the carriers' reports, there is no evidence that safety
[[Page 3884]]
has been impaired. A correlation to reporting mechanical-related delays
is the reporting of weather-related delays. The subcommittee stated
that it knows of no instances where an airline employee avoided deicing
an aircraft, flew in dangerous weather conditions or engaged in risky
behavior in order to improve on-time performance. ``Given the
competence and integrity of aviation workers, we cannot believe that
any of them would put on-time performance ahead of human life.''
Delta Air Lines states that there is ``no safety issue associated
with on-time reporting.'' Delta refutes Northwest's claim that, during
a January 1995 safety conference, there was ``unanimous'' agreement
that reporting mechanical delays and cancellations have negative safety
implications. Delta along with American, United and USAir represent
68.4 percent of revenue passenger miles and 58.5 percent of departures
among reporting carriers. These four carriers have confidence in the
integrity of their pilots and mechanics that ``they would not
compromise safety to make an on-time goal.''
Since there is no evidence that any airline or employee has ever
compromised safety to achieve an on-time flight, Delta questions DOT's
logic for singling out mechanical delays for exclusion from the
reporting system. Delta believes that mechanical delays should be
treated in the same manner as weather delays, fueling delays and
deicing delays, since they all involve an element of employee judgment.
Mr. Jeffrey R. Grunow believes U.S. air travelers are intelligent
consumers and do not need the benevolent protection of the government
on this issue. One of the FAA's roles is to monitor the maintenance of
aircraft. Maintenance delays should remain in the on-time reports.
International airline Passengers Association (IAPA) believes that
the consumer should know if an airline is ``suffering many mechanical
delays, it may be an early sign of financial distress or retention of
older aircraft too long.'' Also, IAPA believes in the integrity of the
professional mechanics, flight crews and cabin crews to operate in a
safe manner. If DOT is concerned that a mechanic would take improper
action to improve a carrier's on-time performance, it should impose
substantial fines or criminal sanctions for such an act.
The international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAMAW) strongly supports the exclusion of mechanical delays and
cancellations from on-time reporting. It states that interests of
airline safety cannot be subordinated to the carriers' competitive need
to improve on-time performance percentages. IAMAW stated that safety
experts believe that ``inclusion of mechanicals intimidates maintenance
personnel and encourages potentially unsafe practices.''
Mr. Darryl Jenkins, a visiting scholar at George Washington
University, does not believe that safety will be adversely impacted by
the reporting of mechanicals. However, if the Department believes
otherwise, then delays due to weather should not be included in on-time
performance report because dispatchers face a conflict between on-time
performance and safety.
State of Michigan Department of Transportation believes including
mechanical delays and cancellations could compromise safety. Airline
personnel may feel compelled to send out an aircraft with mechanical
problems to maintain on-time performance records.
Northwest Airlines contends that the inclusion of mechanicals may
compromise safety by placing undue pressure on maintenance personnel
and increase the likelihood of human error. Northwest states that the
elimination of mechanicals from the Department's on-time reporting
system ranked among the top five safety recommendations of the Aircraft
Maintenance Procedures and Inspections Workshop at the 1995 Aviation
Safety Conference. Northwest stated, ``including mechanical delays in
on-time reporting may well have an impact on the safety of our system.
There is no legitimate reason for assuming any additional safety risk
for the sake of more pristine on-time performance data. We can and
should choose to eliminate this risk.''
Southwest Airlines believes the only practical means of resolving
the inherent conflict between on-time performance and safety is
reinstitution of the exclusion for mechanical problems. Because on-time
rankings are widely reported in the media, they have become an
important component in airline advertising.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) states that the
inclusion of mechanicals puts added pressure on an employee to get a
job done properly and in a timely manner. SWAPA recommends that DOT
take the safe and proven action of not reporting mechanicals.
TWA believes that there is a serious risk that operating personnel
will feel pressured by the on-time reporting requirements to release
aircraft faster, and that the risk of error will be increased by such
pressure.
United Air Lines states that including mechanicals in its on-time
reports for the first several months of 1995 has not otherwise affected
United's operation or its commitment to safety. Passenger safety is
still the most important responsibility of air carriers. For the
Department to second-guess its earlier decision to include mechanical
delays and cancellations and now reverse itself can only cause
consumers and the airline industry, generally, to question the
Department's credibility.
USAir (now US Airways) states that there is no evidence to support
the argument that on-time reporting statistics affect safety or
maintenance practices. Excluding mechanical delays rewards carriers
that choose to operate with older, less reliable aircraft, or with less
rigorous preventive maintenance programs.
Mr. Ed Wayman, an accountant with piloting experience, says that he
always takes the safe course when it comes to flying, and this goes
double when he has family along. He believes that mechanicals should be
reported so that he and others can make more informed decisions.
Mr. Roger White, a pilot and airline consumer, believes that no
pilot is going to take an aircraft with a questionable mechanical
defect. No airline will survive if it intimidates mechanics into
releasing non-airworthy aircraft. Too many people are involved in the
process to say that one person alone can allow an unsafe aircraft to
fly.
Representative Oberstar states, ``The purpose of the [on-time]
reporting was to encourage airlines to modify their behavior, not take
risks. For that reason, mechanical delays, which are beyond the control
of the carriers, wisely were not included in the counts.''
Representative Oberstar adds, ``Mechanical delays are beyond the
control of the carriers. It is critically important to safety that such
delays be honored until the repairs are made. No good public purpose is
served by giving an airline a black mark for fixing an airplane.''
Representative Oberstar argues that the Department should remove
mechanical delays from the reports.
Consumer Interest
AAA stated that flights delayed or cancelled because of mechanical
problems should be included in the air carrier on-time performance in
order to provide the most reliable and accurate information to the
consumer.
American and Delta believe that the inclusion of mechanical delays
and cancellations is pro consumer, allowing
[[Page 3885]]
the consumer to know his overall chance of receiving on-time service.
Delta believes that if mechanical delays are excluded, the
Department should limit the exclusion to the one flight where the
mechanical occurred. The Department should not allow carriers to reap
an unintended windfall by permitting exclusions of downline delays
which may be only tenuously related to the initial event.
The National Consumers League, International Airline Passengers
Association, Aviation Foundation, Best Fares, Consumer Reports Travel
Letter, Aviation Consumer Action Project and JD Power Associates filed
a consensus statement. Their main concern is that the traveling
consumers receive ``reliable, accurate, complete, and consistent
information to make sound travel decisions.'' They believe that
carriers must report their mechanical delays and cancellations to have
reliable, accurate, complete, and consistent data.
Donald J. Arndt, a business traveler, wants more informative data
to help when making travel decisions. Delays should be reported in five
categories: weather, mechanicals, airline-induced, taxi delays, and
other (passenger-induced, no fault of air carrier). If DOT drops
mechanical delays and cancellations from the data, it should just stop
providing the information. Mr. Arndt stated, ``The main problem we have
today is the amount of lying that goes on with airline information.''
Peter Bentley requests that DOT not exclude mechanical delays and
cancellations. He believes exclusion would distort the on-time results
in favor of the least efficient airlines and be detrimental to the
airlines that do not inconvenience their customers and still maintain
safe aircraft.
The Aviation Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
believes that on-time performance data provide important information to
consumers that would lose value if certain types of delays were
excluded.
Mr. Roy L. Farrelly, a pilot from Delta Air Lines, states that
excluding mechanical delays would make the reports useless.
Ms. Laurie Fitch, Mr. Joseph M. Grohsan, Ms. Wendy Jaquez, Mr.
Kenneth R. Kirkwood, Mr. G.L. Krayniak, Mr. Daniel C. Palmer, Mr. Gary
Reed, and Mr. William M. Patterson filed separate comments. They want
total, accurate information to make travel decisions. They support the
inclusion of mechanical delays in the on-time statistics.
IAPA would like the reason for flight delays to be identified. Some
delays are caused by weather, by the air traffic control system or by
the airlines. ``Any accurate system of on-time reporting should give
higher grades to the airline that gets its passengers to its
destination, rather than the airline that has a mechanical, cancels a
flight and strands the passengers.'' Excluding mechanical delays from
on-time reporting ends up penalizing a carrier that serves its
passengers by getting them to their destination by using a backup
aircraft when it has a mechanical problem.
Mr. Darryl Jenkins wrote, ``In reality, the Department has failed
to appreciate the power of information in the hands of the consumer.
Information that is incomplete, unreliable and inaccurate--such as is
being proposed--only sustains poor performance and reinforces
marketplace inefficiencies.''
Mr. Keith. Johnson, a pilot from United Airlines, supports the
exclusion of mechanical delays and cancellations. He also believes that
carriers like United, Delta and American are at a disadvantage because
they use the latest technology that records their takeoff and landing
times automatically. Northwest and Southwest use manual input, which
Mr. Johnson believes can work to those carriers' benefit.
National Consumer League asks that DOT provide complete information
about airline on-time performance. Excluding mechanicals is basically
unfair. An airline that encounters a few weather delays, which are
unavoidable, loses out in the on-time rankings to another carrier that
misses the bad weather but has many flights delayed and canceled
because of mechanical problems, because mechanical problems are not
part of the calculation. By excluding mechanicals, DOT penalizes the
very airlines that have chosen to put in place aggressive preventive
maintenance programs.
Mr. Craig Searls says that it is very important to business
travelers to assess the probability of arriving at their destination
on-time. He believes most delays are caused by the weather, mechanical
problems and system operation delays. The weather can be estimated from
the newspapers, but the only way to assess the likelihood of mechanical
problems is through DOT's on-time performance reports.
United Air Lines believes that including mechanical delays avoids
the differences in how airlines categorize mechanical delays, and
provides uniform and complete public disclosure. Excluding mechanicals
skews the data and produces an inaccurate assessment of air carrier
performance.
USAir believes that excluding mechanicals would be a real
disservice to consumers because it paints an inaccurate picture of
carriers' performances.
Mr. James Whelan, an aircraft maintenance professional with 30+
years of experience, states that maintenance delays are part of an
airline's overall on-time performance and should be included in the
statistics.
Mr. White wants to know what percentage of all flights arrive on-
time, not just the ``good flights'' or those that do not have a
mechanical problem.
Autre E. Wilson and Betty S. Wilson filed a joint comment. They
believe mechanicals should be included in the on-time performance
reports to provide the public with a real picture of airline
performance. Air traffic controllers at St. Louis Lambert International
Airport are frequently cited as the cause of airline delays when, in
fact, the actual cause is an air carrier that operates many older jet
aircraft.
Publication of a Flight Completion Factor
American believes that mechanicals should be included in the
completion percentage even if they are excluded from the on-time
percentages. DOT could require air carriers to tag those flights which
are to be excluded from dependability reporting due to mechanical
problems. DOT would then have comprehensive data to compute an accurate
departure-completion percentage for each airline, as well as the
ability to audit carrier compliance with the rules governing mechanical
exclusions.
Delta believes the Department should collect and publish the
overall scheduled completion rates for all carriers, which is the ratio
of total domestic flights scheduled to total domestic flights
completed. Nonscheduled and extra-section flights should be excluded
because the numbers of such operations vary from carrier to carrier and
from season to season and would distort the percentages. Delta believes
publishing a completion factor would reward carriers that incur the
cost of having spare aircraft and crew available.
IAPA believes that airline passengers should have information on
the actual number of flights completed by an airline compared to the
number of flights scheduled. All flights should be included regardless
of the reason for cancellation, i.e., mechanical or weather problems.
Northwest and Southwest support the publication of completion
percentages so long as mechanicals are excluded and
[[Page 3886]]
airlines will not be forced to incur any significant additional burden
or cost. They believe the reasons for excluding mechanicals from the
completion percentages are the same for excluding mechanicals from the
on-time reports. Northwest believes that the completion percentage
should be based on the number of scheduled departures completed rather
than the number of scheduled miles completed.
The National Consumer League believes that one of the deficiencies
in DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report is the failure to include
information on which carriers most often complete their scheduled
flights.
TWA believes that the publication of a completion percentage will
provide useful information to consumers but, because the information is
already available in reports filed with DOT, no further submissions
should be required of carriers.
United believes that DOT can readily publish a completion factor
from the data that is now reported. However, if mechanicals are once
again excluded, United see no benefit of only reporting weather and air
traffic-control related cancellations.
USAir states that a completion percentage should be based on the
number of scheduled flights completed compared to its number of
scheduled flights. Using T-100 data would skew the data, because extra
section flights would cause a carrier's completion percentage to be
overstated.
Reporting Frequency
American and Delta believes that less frequently reporting would
not reduce reporting burden and support monthly reporting.
Northwest believes that significant savings to the airlines, CRS
operators and the Department could be realized by the change to
quarterly submissions.
Southwest states that less frequent reporting would not
significantly reduce the burden on carriers or increase the usefulness
of the information to consumers, who receive more current information
by monthly, rather than quarterly reports.
TWA supports the continuation of monthly reporting. TWA states that
since carriers will still have to collect on-time performance data, it
will not make any difference whether they submit the data monthly or
quarterly. There is no significant saving from less frequent reporting.
United Air Lines prefers monthly reporting, because consumers
benefit from having the most recent and reliable information on which
to base their purchasing decisions.
Cost of Reporting
Delta states that it is less costly to report under the current
system where carriers report all domestic scheduled passenger flights.
Resubmission of Prior Data To Exclude Mechanicals
Northwest supports the retroactive application of the mechanical-
based exclusion in order to preserve the integrity and consumer
usefulness of the Department's historical on-time data.
While United Air Lines believes that airlines should continue to
include mechanicals in their on-time performance, if the Department
decides to exclude them, then the airlines should refile past reports
for the intervening months to ensure that all monthly data are
comparable and consistent.
Determination
Based on the reporting experience since 1995, the Department has
decided to withdraw its notice of proposed rulemaking. There have been
no incidents where a carrier operated a flight with an unairworthy
aircraft to improve its on-time flight performance. The requirement to
report mechanicals may create a market-based incentive for airlines to
improve preventive maintenance procedures and to have readily available
back-up flight crews and aircraft. Title 15 CFR Part 234 does not
specify an on-time flight performance standard that carriers must meet.
Rather, the carriers' reports provide consumers with information on
carrier performance, which the consumer may use in carrier selection.
The Department compared the carrier rankings for the calendar year
1994 with calendar year 1995. The former period excludes mechanical
delays and cancellations, while the latter period includes all flights.
With the exception of two carriers, on-time performance percentages
were lower in 1995. The lower on-time percentages can be attributed, in
part, to the elimination of the mechanical exclusion. We believe the
1995 reports are a more truthful portrayal of air carrier performance.
Because we are continuing current practice, there is no need for
collecting and publishing flight completion data. The carriers
expressed little interest in reducing filing frequency so we are,
therefore, not making any change.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 1999.
Rodney Slater,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-1698 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-U
