Amendments to the On-Time Disclosure Rule

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