Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

FAA-2006-25709

On File at Federal Register August 25, 2006

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | FAA Version - Bookmarked

As Published in the Federal Register August 29th

The FAA is proposing a rule to address the potential for increased congestion and delay at New York's LaGuardia Airport when the High Density Rule expires there on January 1, 2007. The rule, if adopted, would establish an operational limit on the number of aircraft landing and taking off at the airport. To offset the effect of this limit, the proposed rule would increase utilization of the airport by encouraging the use of larger aircraft through implementing an airportwide, average aircraft size requirement designed to increase the number of passengers that may use the airport within the overall proposed operational limits.

By: Aviation Policy and Plans, Nan Shellabarger

November 18, 2005

FAA Memorandum: AEM Analysis of Noise at LGA for Performance Based "Upgauging" Rule

Both AEM analysis scenarios indicate a reduction of equivalent area impacted by noise. The existing HDR results in a 23.9% reduction relative to the unrestricted baseline for the 65 DNL noise level. The proposed "upgauging scenario" results in a 15% reduction relative to the unrestricted baseline for the 65 DNL noise level. The noise impact reduction of effected areas are primarily due to the reduced number of landing/takeoff cycle caused by imposing the limitation of operations (reduced from 1337 to 1194). The supplemental requirement for large aircraft fleet bias within the "upgauging scenario" lessens the mitigation created by operations limitation (reduced LTO cycles) yet it is not significant enough to make the equivalent area greater than the unrestricted baseline situation. Therefore, AEE concludes no significant noise impact change due to the proposed "upgauging scenario."

By: Sandy Liu

August 29, 2006

Initial Regulatory Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Assessment and Unfunded Mandate Reform Act Assessment - Bookmarked

FAA estimates that this proposed rule would result in about a 37% decrease in the average delay per operation at LaGuardia. Present value net benefits are estimated at $4.3 billion from 2007-201 9; net benefits over an infinite time horizon total about $7.5 billion. The benefits are estimated by comparing the no-rule scenario (similar to the situation at LaGuardia in 2001) with the proposed upgauging scenario.

There are almost no costs associated with the proposed rule. The only exception is for the cost of designing and carrying out periodic lotteries that may be required to assign unused operating authorizations. These present value costs total about $11.3 million through 2019, and $19.4 million over an infinite time horizon.

By: FAA, Operations Regulatory Analysis

September 13, 2006

LGA Slot Operators - September 7, 2006

By: FAA

September 13, 2006

LGA Slot Holders - September 7, 2006

By: FAA

September 14, 2006

Re: Newport News-Williamsburg Intl Airport Exhibits

Additional Exhibits

Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss our New York air service and LaGuardia (LGA) slot issue. This is a big issue for us, and I appreciate your personal involvement. I was offered the opportunity to add to the exhibits supporting our case, and I enclose the following toward that end.

By: James Smith

September 19, 2006

Summary of DOT/FAA Meeting with ATA and Member Airlines - September 19, 2006

Prior to the September 19th meeting ATA submitted to the FAA, via e-mail, a list of questions from their members about the LaGuardia NPRM. The list of questions is attached below, as well as a summary of FAA’s verbal response to those questions.

FAA answered the questions in the context of the NPRM. The FAA asked for comments on any issue that, in the opinion of the commenter, we did not make clear in the NPRM. DOT/FAA General Counsel also notified airline participants that they could submit sensitive or confidential submissions, and we would maintain the confidentiality.

By: DOT

September 19, 2006

Summary of FAA Meeting wtih ACAA - September 19, 2006

The FAA notified the Air Carrier Association of America that detailed notes of this meeting would be placed in the docket. ACAA was told that the FAA would try to answer its questions in the context of the NPRM, but we urged that ACAA provide written comments on any issue that, in the opinion of the commenter, we did not make clear in the NPRM. DOT/FAA General Counsel also notified the participants that they could submit sensitive or confidential submissions, and we would maintain the confidentiality.

By: DOT

September 22, 2006

Airports Council International Request for 30-day Comment Extension Period | Word

The Airports Council International - North America respectfully requests an extension of the comment period in Docket No. FAA-2006-25709, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport.  The notice instituting this proceeding directs that comments be filed on or before October 30, 2006.  We hereby request that the FAA extend the comment period for an additional 30 days.

This proposed Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport is a highly significant rulemaking from the standpoint of ACI-NA member airports, which also includes The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  In addition, this rule has the potential to have a material impact on the ability of small-hub and non-hub airport members to access LaGuardia Airport.  The stated comment period is too short a time period to adequately examine and address the potential effects upon our members, especially the three options for providing access to LaGuardia from small and non-hub airports.

It is also our understanding that the survey data that FAA will gather the first week of October regarding the air service at LaGuardia will not be available to the public until November.  This information is critical for us to adequately evaluate the appropriate parts of the rule.

We therefore respectfully request that the comment period be extended until Wednesday, November 29, 2006.

By: ACI-NA, Gregory Principato, 202-293-8500, gprincipato@aci-na.aero

October 3, 2006

Request of Air Transport Association and the Regional Airline Association to Extend Public Comment Period

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc. and the Regional Airline Association hereby request the Federal Aviation Administration to extend the public comment period for this rulemaking.

Given the complexity of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the significant legal and public policy issues that it raises, good cause exists to extend the comment period. The FAA and the public will benefit by allowing ATA, RAA and their member airlines adequate time to fully research and understand the operational consequences and the legal and policy implications of the proposed rule. Further, an extension will not delay promulgation of a final rule as the FAA must obtain legislative authority to complete the proposed rule and, as an interim measure, FAA also has proposed new operating restrictions to prevent excessive delays at LGA during the pendency of this rulemaking. For these reasons, and to allow for the inherent scheduling difficulties that arise during the year-end holiday season, ATA and RAA request the FAA to extend the comment period to January 22, 2007.

By: ATA, David Berg, 202-626-4000, dberg@airlines.org / RAA, Deborah McElroy, 202-637-1170, mcelroy@raa.org

October 4, 2006

Comments of the Florida Aviation Test Center

I agree there is a congestion problem at LaGuardia Airport and the surrounding airports. However, I think the FAA is making a big mistake by creating another rule that helps to control airport congestion. The FAA is putting itself in a position to monitor all airports individually and not as a whole as per their real role. They are telling the airport what size aircraft can be used and how many passengers can be allowed under operational limits. The previous temporary rule in 1969 has not solved the real problem. Let the HDR expire and allow the free market system a chance to solve it. Legislation is not the proper method for managing the National Airspace System.

By: Richard Duley

October 10, 2006

Summary of FAA Meeting with PANYNJ - October 10, 2006

The FAA told the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that notes of this meeting would be placed in the docket. The Port Authority was told that the FAA would try to answer its questions in the context of the NPRM, but we urged them to provide written comments on any issue that, in the opinion of the commenter, we did not make clear in the NPRM. DOT/FAA Counsel also notified the participants that they could submit sensitive or confidential submissions, and we would maintain the confidentiality.

By: DOT

October 12, 2006

Response of the Air Carrier Association of America to Request to Extend Public Comment Period

The ACAA believes it would not be in the public interest to keep the entire docket open for these additional three months, although the ACAA does not object to a short extension of the comment period. The ACAA believes it is important that the FAA move forward with its review of the current restrictions and how those restrictions impact competition and true airline deregulation.

If the FAA agrees to extend the comment period on the rulemaking to the end of January, as proposed by the ATA/RAA, or to the end of April, as proposed by the Port Authority, the incumbent carriers will continue to utilize slots to add capacity in markets where limited incumbents are frozen. Instead of promoting competition, this will only enable further attacks on competition. The public will not benefit from delaying consideration of these issues for several additional months so that the status quo is once again maintained.

Counsel: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420, efaberman@acaa1.com

FAA-2006-25709
FAA-2006-25755

October 13, 2006

Comments of Senator Richard Lugar and Congresswoman Julia Carson

We are writing to respectfully request that you consider adding low-priced flights between Indianapolis International Airport and New York LaGuardia Airport by allowing AirTran to have access to additional slots at the beginning of 2007.

We are writing in response to the two Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposals issued by the Federal Aviation Administration: Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport Proposed Rule (Docket 2006-25709) and Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport (Docket 2006-25755). We are particularly interested in the Congestion Management NPRM that encourages keeping and expanding low-priced air services as you review LGA operations.

Indianapolis International Airport has undergone significant growth in the last year, including the addition of low-fare service alternatives. AirTran Airways entered the IND market in April 2005, with daily service to Atlanta, Orlando and Tampa. Since then, AirTran has more than doubled its daily departures from ND. For Hoosiers, LGA is an important market, and awarding AirTran slots for LGA-IND service would increase service options for our constituents and possibly lead to increased employment at IND.

By: Richard Lugar and Julia Carson

October 19, 2006

City of Syracuse Department of Aviation Request for Extension of Comment Period

The City of Syracuse Department of Aviation respectfully requests an extension to the comment period in Docket No. FAA-2006-25709, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport. The notice states that all comments are to be filed on or before October 30, 2006.

We are very concerned about the impact the proposed Congestion Management Rule could have both to existing LGA service at Syracuse Hancock International Airport, and future growth of the service. To that end, we hereby request that the FAA extend the comment period for an additional 180 days, until April 27, 2007, to allow us additional time to determine how this proposed change could impact operations at Syracuse.

By: Anthony Mancuso

October 21, 2006

Comments of Safe Aviation for Everyone, Inc.

The FAA's proposed congestion management rules at LGA have many good aspects, but like in the National Redesign Program, it ignores the very basic dimensions of SIITS and a socially and ecologically sound pricing system that are increasingly becoming more important in a globalizing world where the aviation industry is not (yet) carrying its load based upon the principles of ecological sustainability, equity and accountability.

By: Safe Aviation, Frans Verhagen, 718-275-3932, gaia1@rcn.com

On File at Federal Register October 23, 2006

Extension of Comment Period | Published in Federal Register October 24, 2006

This action extends the comment period for the NPRM published August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51360). Under the NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish an operational limit on the number of aircraft landing and taking off at New York's LaGuardia Airport. This extension is a result of requests from the Airports Council International - North America, the Air Transport Association of America and the Regional Airline Association, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for additional time to comment on the proposal.

Comments must be received on or before December 29, 2006.

By: Nan Shellabarger

October 31, 2006

Comments of Air Canada

The NPRM is deeply flawed. While Air Canada believes that there are numerous problems with the NPRM, the fact that the NPRM squarely violates the express terms of the US-Canada Bilateral Air Service Agreement itself is sufficient reason why the NPRM should be withdrawn for further consideration and deliberation. However, to the extent that the FAA were to choose to make this NPRM final, it must exclude Air Canada (and other Canadian airlines) from the operation of this rule, and make clear that the access to the LaGuardia Airport that the Government of Canada obtained for its carriers as a result of intensive bilateral negotiations will remain undisturbed.

Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604

November 5, 2006

Comments of the University of Central Missouri

The primary benefits of the congestion management rule for LaGuardia Airport, which will be used after the HDR will expire on January 1, 2007, will decrease delay due to congestion and keep the balance between the maximization of the capacity and crescent demand. Not only allocations of Operating Authorizations but other features have to be taken into account in order to achieve those benefits. Even if the NPRM encourage the using of larger aircraft, we are very concerned about the frequency of flights to serve passengers’ needs. Compatibility between distributed mix, frequent flights, and customer’s needs congenially meets passenger’s demands and using airspace and ground space efficiently. Use of the capacity from issued Operating Authorization and exemption also should be less than the ground space and airspace limitation to decrease air traffic controllers’ workload and congestion at the airport. Otherwise, delay at LaGuardia will be an unsolved problem. The proposed rule may increase airlines’ expenses due to upgauging requirements. There is no indication, observing current economic and financial airliner’s perspective, that such changes may affect tickets price favorably for passengers, so the FAA should evaluate this factor as well. Moreover, the final rule should be revised if it adversely affects international trade. To make the practical final rule, these basic concerns are very important to decrease the congestion and serve customers’ demands.

By: Haruethai Pattanapisudtichai

November 7, 2006

Comments of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The following is a list of that information, which we understood could be inserted in the public record:

• The initial Operating Authorizations, are grandfathered based upon the flights operated October 1-6, 2006. Please provide slot specific data for flights operated during this pivotal week.
• The Port Authority requests that the FAA provide the NEXTOR and TAAM modeling results referred to in the NPRM.
• The NPRM describes data analysis that was used to estimate annual average seating capacity targets. The Port Authority requests a copy of the T-100 data and subsequent analysis that were used to establish the average target aircraft size.
• The FAA references research on aligning gate space with slot auction results. As operator of LGA, the Port Authority requests a copy of the research to evaluate its assumptions on gate use policies and airline lease management procedures.

By: Opinions and Appeals Division, Carlene McIntyre

October 1, 2006

LGA Scheduled Departures: 10/1/2006-10/6/2006 - 176 pages

By: OAG Data

December 2, 2006

Nextor TAAM Model Briefing Results

LaGuardia Airport Systems Operations Study: Impact of Airport System Operations in the Presence of Airline Aircraft Upguaging.

By: Sasha Klein and Jeffrey Wang

March 1, 2005

T-100 Data: April 2004-March 2005

By: GRA, Inc.

November 27, 2006

LGA Gate Data

By: PANYNJ

November 13, 2006

Comments of the Canadian Embassy

The Government of Canada recognises that Canadian base slots are subject to generic non-discriminatory US rules, such as "use or lose." However, the 1995 Agreement states that Canadian slots shall not "be withdrawn for the purposes of providing a US or foreign airline with slots for international services or to provide slots for new entrants."

The Government of Canada therefore asks the FAA to exempt the 42 base slots allocated to Canadian carriers from the LGA Proposed Rule to ensure that the 1995 Agreement is respected.

By: Government of Canada

November 21, 2006

Comments of Kentucky State Representative Bill Farmer

By: Bill Farmer, 502-564-8100, bill.farmer@lrc.ky.gov

November 27, 2006

Comments of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Should service between Port Columbus International Airport and LaGuardia be terminated or significantly reduced as a result of this rule, Ohio, and central Ohio in particular, will be negatively affected. Current service is critical for central Ohio business executives to have fast and convenient access to our country’s primary financial center.

We strongly urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the proposed new rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA Reauthorization in 2007.

By: Linda Woggon, 614-228-4201, occ@ohiochamber.com

November 28, 2006

Comments of the City of Williamsburg

This letter on behalf of my office is in support of the Comments of Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport. We believe we speak for the entire Newport News/Williamsburg business community when we say that AirTran's three roundtrips to LaGuardia Airport are critical to the companies, organizations, and citizens of this area. We strongly urge the FAA to allocate the LGA slots needed to continue operation of all three flights.

By: Michele Mixner DeWitt

November 28, 2006

Comments of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

Given the potentially negative impact that FAA’s new rule would have on the Lexington community and the fact that the rule wouldn’t accomplish the objective of reducing congestion at LGA anyway, we urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the new rule. Instead, we believe the matter should be addressed by Congress as part of the broader debate on FAA reauthorization next year.

By: Mayor, Teresa Ann Isaac, 859-258-3100, mayor@lfucg.com

November 29, 2006

Comments of the Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce

We urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the proposed new rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA Reauthorization in 2007.

By: Robert Quick, 859-254-4447

November 29, 2006

Comments of the Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority

Beyond the negative Impact the rule may have on East Tennessee, we believe It is generally misguided in that the FAA Is wrong in positing that it is better to increase service and concentrate competition on fewer, larger markets while abandoning smaller markets altogether. Diversity in travel options Is a strength, and the competitive-forces within the airline Industry are better able to reach an optimal capacity allocation by route than the bureaucracy of the FAA.

We urge you to postpone Implementation of the proposed rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA reauthorization in 2007.

By: Kirk Huddleston

November 30, 2006

Slot Holders and Operators

By: DOT

November 30, 2006

Comments of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce

We urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the proposed rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA reauthorization in 2007.

By: Mike Ridenour

November 30, 2006

Comments of the Kentucky House of Representatives

Given the potentially negative impact that FAA’s new rule would have on the Lexington community and the fact that the rule wouldn’t accomplish the objective of reducing congestion at LGA anyway, we urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the new rule. Instead, we believe the matter should be addressed by Congress as part of the broader debate on FAA reauthorization next year.

By: Representative Robert Damron, 859-887-1744, repdamron@earthlink.net

December 1, 2006

Comments of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce

The possibility that Birmingham to LGA service will terminate in the face of the FAA’s newly proposed rule is a serious concern to our airport and community. Nonstop service to New York provides the region’s business community with fast and convenient access to the nation’s primary financial center.

We urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the proposed new rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA Reauthorization in 2007.

By: Russell Cunningham

December 7, 2006

Comments of New York Department of Transportation | Word

The New York State Department of Transportation supports the concepts in the Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport as proposed in the August 29 rule-making, and commends the FAA for creativity in managing a persistent demand/capacity issue at one of New York State’s most important airports and critical transportation assets.

The Department supports Exemption option number three, as it provides the greatest number of exemptions to small and non-hub communities, including those in New York State.  The Department also points out that additional analysis and coordination may be needed to ensure that land side infrastructure can adequately accommodate the additional passengers that would be passing through LaGuardia based on these proposals.

By: NYDOT, Gerardo Mendoza

December 15, 2006

Comments of Queens Borough President

The FAA, in the materials circulated with its proposed rule, refers to federal rules which state that an environmental assessment does not have to be conducted in the absence of "extraordinary circumstances," which it does not define. Allow me, however, to propose that the need to create a special rule to regulate air traffic at just one out of hundreds of our nation's airports does indeed constitute "extraordinary circumstances." Not surprisingly, the FAA has once again failed to fulfill what we believe to be one of its mandates- that is, to protect the public interest as well as that of the private aviation industry. After all, the FAA is a government body, financed and made possible by public funds. Even if the FAA is not legally required to take certain steps, such as conducting a meaningful environmental assessment, that does not mean that there is no moral imperative to protect the public to the extent possible.

For all the reasons discussed in this document, I demand that the FAA rescind the proposed rule for congestion management at LaGuardia as it is currently written and maintain the status quo there until a more satisfactory plan can be developed. The FAA needs to go back to the proverbial drawing board and work with the entities I mentioned above, as well as with the communities surrounding LaGuardia and those communities' representatives. In my many years in public service, I have rarely seen the FAA reach out in a meaningful way to a community when considering significant action which would impact that community. If the federal government, of which the FAA is part, cannot work for us, then it should at least work with us. Accordingly, I look forward to working with the FAA to ensure that LaGuardia- one of the greatest airports in the country can continue to thrive as a good neighbor in the great Borough of Queens.

By: Helen Marshall

December 18, 2006

Re: Comments of Charleston County Aviation Authority - Same Letter as Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce

By: Susan Stevens

December 18, 2006

Re: Comments of Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce

The possibility that CHS - LGA service will terminate in the face of the FAA's newly proposed rules is a serious concern to our airport and community. Nonstop service to New York provides the Charleston business community with fast and convenient access to the nation's primary financial center. It helps boost incoming business and tourism to the Charleston area, and enhances Charleston's national stature.

Congestion can be regulated by the total number of slots made available at the airport (75 per hour), but is not dependent upon how large the aircraft are that use those slots, the brand of airline that uses them, or the destinations to which those aircraft fly. We urge you to recommend that the FAA postpone implementation of the proposed rule and allow Congress to resolve the matter as part of the broader debate on FAA reauthorization in 2007,

By: Charles Van Rysselberge

December 20, 2006

Re: Letter on Behalf of Kentucky State Representaitve Bill Farmer

Representative Farmer is concerned about the potential adverse effect the proposed rulemaking would have on the current nonstop air service provided between Lexington, Kentucky's Blue Grass Airport and LGA. He fears that this daily service might be in jeopardy because the rulemaking would cap the number of flight operations to LGA from smaller towns such as Lexington. Further, he has concerns about the FAA's authority to issue such a rule and the basis for its decision.

By: US Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

December 21, 2006

Comments of Kent County Department of Aeronautics

The possibility that GRR-LGA service will terminate in the face of the FAA's newly proposed rules is a serious concern to our airport and community.

By: James Koslosky, 616-233-6000

December 22, 2006

Comments of American Airlines - Bookmarked

American has been - and will continue to be - a strong supporter of the FAA's efforts to reduce delays and manage congestion at airports like O'Hare and LaGuardia. However, the proposed rule goes too far in regulating the industry - and without good cause. Competition is vibrant and robust at LaGuardia. Confiscating and redistributing slots would only serve to create administrative and logistical difficulties. Regulating average aircraft size is unnecessary as there is no evidence that consumer demand is unmet by the industry's existing level of service at LaGuardia. Rather than try an untested and overbroad new regulatory scheme, the FAA should use what has served consumers well in the past to govern LaGuardia's future.

Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com

December 26, 2006

Comments of Ed Perkins - Full-Text of Filing

Use of LaGuardia's limited capacity for frequent services by small jets and turboprops is a criminal waste of a scarce resource. Air travelers heading to/from just about everywhere in the country would be well served by regulations restricting the use of small planes at LaGuardia (and other high-use airports). Granted, exemptions for a few daily flights to small communities would be in the public interest. But wasting airside capacity on frequent small-plane flights on such high-density routes as Boston, Chicago, and Washington is absurd. On behalf of travel consumers, generally, I urge adoption
of the proposed rule.

December 27, 2006

Re: Comments of Dane County Regional Airport - Madison, WI

The proposed rule not only maintains the current restriction of seventy-five operations per hour but contains aircraft size limitations which may cause the elimination of non-stop, air service from Madison, Wisconsin to New York’s LGA airport.  LaGuardia is ranked as Madison’s fourth most popular destination city pair with over 52,000 passengers annually.  The existing non-stop service to LGA is an economically self-sustaining service that is coveted by the community and critical for the economic development needs of south central Wisconsin.  The University of Wisconsin, which is among the largest academic and scientific research centers in the country, not only has an important student population base in the New York metropolitan area but also requires access to the important financial and cultural centers in the area.  Specifically of concern to the Dane County Regional Airport is the restriction of access to LGA to small hub airport markets that are greater than 300 miles from the LGA airport.  There are many small communities throughout the nation which rely on regional jet aircraft access to LGA that are more than 300 miles from LGA and that would be subject to the aircraft size requirement in the proposed rule.  The size requirement necessitates that airlines increase aircraft fleet size they operate to LGA therefore discriminating and putting at risk regional jet access for small hub markets such as Dane County Regional Airport, Madison, Wisconsin.

By: DCRA, Bradley Livingston

December 27, 2006

Comments of The Rhode Island Airport Corporation

The Corporation supports the goals of maximizing LaGuardia capacity and ensuring continued access to this important airport for small communities.  However, the Corporation submits that proposed rule, by protecting LaGuardia/small aircraft operations at only Small Hub and Non-hub Airports is inequitable and inefficient.  Four Medium Hub airports – Providence, Norfolk, Manchester and Buffalo, could lose LaGuardia services.  The short Providence T.F. Green-LaGuardia distance and limited traffic clearly require a small turboprop aircraft such as the SAAB 340’s now in use.  If this service remains outside the regional services pool, US Airways could be forced to discontinue the flights and reassign capacity to a longer sector where large aircraft would be profitable

By: RIAC, Mark Brower

December 28, 2006

Comments of Alaska Airlines

Alaska supports the FAA's goal of maximizing usage of operating authorizations and promoting access opportunities for new and limited incumbent carriers. However, we discourage the FAA from pursuing a "market‑based" means of reallocating such authorizations at LGA or at any U.S. airport.

Counsel: Alaska, Megan Lawrence, 202-626-6781

December 29, 2006

Comments ot The Air Carrier Association of America - Bookmarked

It is time to make changes to the Slot/Operating Authorization rules governing operations at LGA, as they continue to negatively impact the air transportation system, LGA, airline competition, and the American public. The ACAA applauds the FAA for addressing airspace and congestion issues and market limitations caused by the restrictions on OAs. The FAA has taken important steps to improve the system, reduce delays and consider alternatives in an effort to continue those improvements. Unfortunately, much more needs to be accomplished to promote competition at LGA. It is therefore essential that this NPRM make prompt changes to allow some additional competition at LGA. On October 19, 2006, the ACAA submitted comments on the FAA's "Proposed Order and Request for Comments" regarding Operating Limitations at LGA (Docket No. FAA-2006-25755). ACAA reaffirms those comments and requests the FAA address ACAA's recommendations in the final Rule

Counsel: ACAA, Edward Fabermen, 202-719-7420

December 29, 2006

Comments of AirTran Airways - Bookmarked

AirTran urges the FAA to take immediate steps to provide opportunities for competition against carriers that have ten to twenty times the number of operations at LGA than AirTran is allowed. While the FAA considers long term changes that are important to the industry, it is essential that some intermediate steps be taken to allow even limited competition to exist at LGA. If these interim steps are not taken, some markets served by limited incumbents could lose all service and certainly no new lowfare service will be added. Thus, markets will continue to be blocked from obtaining low-fare service options to LGA. At the same time, the legacy carriers with hundreds of Operating Authorizations can enter and add flights in any market. Is this competition? Of course not; yet despite decades of debate and analysis, no changes have been made to these anti-competitive restrictions. It is therefore essential that the FAA immediately provide at least twenty (20) additional LGA OAs to limited incumbents that operate full size jets in LGA markets.

Counsel: Wiley Rein, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420

December 29, 2006

Comments of Airports Council International - North America - Bookmarked

The FAA’s NPRM describes the problems of congestion and delay that would reasonably be expected at LGA in the wake of the upcoming elimination of the High Density Rule if neither the Port Authority nor the FAA took action. ACI-NA understands the importance of avoiding gridlock at LGA and shares many of the goals of the FAA’s proposed rule; but ACI-NA believes that various elements of the proposed rule are unduly complex, intrude unnecessarily on the Port Authority’s role as the airport proprietor, are unauthorized by law, and will not be effective.  In these comments ACI-NA will focus upon certain fundamental principles that should guide the FAA as it considers how problems of congestion and delay can best be addressed when they arise because of airport capacity limitations.  ACI-NA urges the FAA to recognize that the Port Authority should have the lead role in managing operations at its airport in a way that maintains LGA’s “operational balance” and avoids unacceptable levels of congestion and delay.

By: ACI-NA, Scott Lewis

December 29, 2006

Comments of Akron-Canton Airport - Bookmarked

Promoting competition and new entry has been a longstanding mandate for "slot" controlled airports. The FAA can achieve that objective and strengthen competitive service by including in the final Rule a provision that would allow FAA to allocate OAs to either AirTran or CAK for the third CAK‑LGA roundtrip flight. Any limited incumbent servicing a small community with full‑size aircraft or any small‑hub airport with such service on October 1‑6, 2006 which has lost OAs for that service by January 1, 2007, should be provided OAs by the FAA in the final Rule.

By: Akron-Canton, Frederick Krum

December 29, 2006

Re: Comments of American Association of Airport Executives

AAAE remains committed to building an aviation infrastructure that will accommodate the growing demand for air service, which the FAA has forecasted to be serving 1 billion passengers by 2015. Constructing a system capable of handling that demand is critical, not only for aviation, but for the national economy as a whole. While the FAA needs to take steps to ensure that service to LGA and the NAS is not compromised by unnecessary congestion and delay, we hope that such measures will be interim steps until such time as new capacity can be acquired through technology and pavement

By: AAAE, Thomas Zeller

December 29, 2006

Comments of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked

Although Delta Air Lines would prefer that there be no artificial constraints on airline operations at any airport, Delta appreciates that congestion issues need to be evaluated at LGA, and that the current operational limitations unfortunately may remain necessary to prevent the return of unacceptable delays and congestion at LGA upon expiration of the High Density Rule on January 1, 2007, as directed by Congress. However, maintaining the existing operating caps, coupled with a reasonable Use-or-Lose provision and a workable mechanism for allowing Operating Authorizations to be bought and sold in market transactions, are all that are necessary to completely address any congestion issues at LGA. The NPRM, however, goes well beyond the imposition of reasonable, narrowly-tailored flight limitations and proposes to micro-manage carrier business decisions through several intrusive and disruptive administrative mechanisms that go far beyond addressing congestion/delays and would have no impact on either.

Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999

December 29, 2006

Comments of International Air Transport Association

Airline schedules, by their nature, involve more than one airport, often in different countries or continents. Connectivity, both on‑line and interline is a key facet of the scheduling process. Any solution that is likely to ease the problem in one location, even an airport such as LaGuardia with limited international operations, should be considered in an international context, with the active involvement of airlines and others directly involved in the air transport industry.

The proposed rule regarding aircraft size is also very complicated and is likely to be difficult to impossible to implement and could also result in loss of important international connecting services to the detriment of both airlines and their passengers. Even if this complex rule can be implemented it could have the result of airlines dedicating aircraft to LaGuardia that are larger than the market demands which would operate less efficiently than the aircraft that they replaced. Due to long lead times in ordering and delivering aircraft these larger aircraft are not readily available and would have to be diverted from other airports and other routes. Not only would LaGuardia routes be mismatched to passenger supply and demand, but other routes could be affected as well.

Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin

December 29, 2006

Comments of Jetblue Airways

Jetblue supports a reallocation of unused general aviation slots to carriers wishing to grow at LGA as noted in this filing. Then, and only then, subject to the suggested modifications noted in this filing, Jetblue supports the FAA's proposals though we are eager to see if any other comments filed in this docket present less complex proposals aimed at achieving the same results while protrecting the minimal interests of new entrant carriers. The nature of new entrant carriers, limited to 20 authorizations or fewer, cannot be overlooked and simply lumped together with the interest of carriers that have enjoyed a relatively competition-free existance at LGA for decades. By exempting new entrants from the NPRM's proposals as suggested herin, competition and the resulting benefits to consumers will be increased at LGA and other carriers' existing scheduled will be less impacted.

Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill, 202-776-2000

December 29, 2006

Re: Comments of Louisville Regional Airport Authority

As the smallest medium hub airport in the nation' we have concern over a number of aspects of the proposed rulemaking that have the potential to hamper our ability to provide reliable, convenient and competitive access to the New York market for the citizens of Kentucky and Southern Indiana. The NPRM proposes several measures designed to reduce delay and promote the efficient use of limited airport facilities while providing new entrants and limited incumbants with the opportunity to expand their presence at LGA. While we support the FAA's efforts to retain a cap of 75 operations per hour we are concerned that other aspects of the proposal that will limit access from medium sized communities by mandating aircraft types that are contrary to market demand, increase the overall travel time to and from New York, fail to reduce airspace congestion at and around LGA and take away the certainty of uninterrupted service to LGA for small communities like Louisville, Kentucky

By: LRAA, CT "Skip" Miller

December 29, 2006

Comments of Midwest Airlines - Bookmarked

The FAA's proposal to enact a new capacity reduction regime at LaGuardia Airport, cannot be lawfully adopted by the agency. Midwest Airlines objects to the adoption of the proposed FAA regulation in the strongest possible terms.

In addition to the fact that the proposed rule is beyond the statutory authority of the FAA to adopt, the rule lacks merit in virtually all of its aspects The FAA's upguage proposal exceeds the authority of the FAA (or the DOT, for that matter) to adopt or enforce since neither agency has the right to specify the type of equipment, accommodations or facilities an air carrier may offer to satisfy business development or public demand. Further, the rulemaking proceeding violates the mandate of the Administrative Procedure Act that requires interested parties receive notice of the agency proposal and be given an adequate opportunity to comment upon it. Here, the FAA has not stated in its proposal a crucial element of the rule and that is by what allocation mechanism carrier operating authorizations will be redistributed after they are confiscated. Midwest will address these and other issues in its comments, which supplement those filed by the Air Transport Association, of which Midwest is a member.

Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-3300

December 29, 2006

Re: Comments of The National Air Carrier Association

We commend the FAA for undertaking this action at a critical time when capacity issues are becoming more widespread and more difficult to resolve in the face of the improved economics of the airline industry and significant increases in the forecast for future passenger air transportation demand. The FAA took similar action to control capacity at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport recently. We believe that action was a good solution for that particular airport and capacity problem. While the details of that congestion management program are markedly different from this proposal for LaGuardia, we agree each airport presents a different challenge, and that calls for unique solutions. While, we emphasize the need for continued focus on deregulation and improvements in the aviation infrastructure that promote added capacity and competition, we agree that action must be taken at LaGuardia and that additional, selected airports may need capacity control mechanisms in the future.

By: NACA, Ronald Priddy

December 29, 2006

Comments of New York Aviation Management Association

The NPRM fails to acknowledge The Port Authority's existing lease arrangements with tenants. The imposition of the proposed regulations may come in direct conflict with existing contracts and may unduly limit The Port Authority's negotiating leverage when discussing future contracts. Related to this, the NPRM fails to appreciate the role lease arrangements can and should play in creating the desired efficiencies. While the NPRM discusses considerations for resolving the congestion problems through market‑based and administrative alternatives at LGA, it does not factor in the role of leasing contracts to effect change.

By: NYAMA

December 29, 2006

Comments of The City of New York - Bookmarked

The proposed regime is too rigid and too cumbersome The NPRM creates enormous administrative burdens for the airlines, for FAA, and for airports. It proposes to manage each airline's use of each OA, in 15‑minute increments, instead of the HDRs more workable 30‑minute increments. The system of tracking and evaluating the use of each unique OA will require a staff of analysts and managers to assess performance and compliance. Airports could similarly face significant burdens if administrative requirements are tied to AlP grant assurances.

The Port Authority has begun to craft an airport utilization model based on the number of seats per aircraft as measured against the size of aircraft that each gate, individually, could accommodate. This model is easy to understand, easy to administer, and consistent with the relationships that have been developed throughout US aviation history of leaving the assignment and utilization of terminals and gates to a process of negotiation between the airport operators and its community of airlines.

By: New York City Economic Development Corp

December 29, 2006

Comments of Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport

Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport requests that in the Final Rule, the FAA provide two OAs to PHF, a small community that had three LGA roundtrips served by AirTran with full size aircraft but lost one roundtrip because the two OAs it was utilizing were no longer available. The service was lost even though AirTran and the PHF community took all available actions to obtain two additional OAs to resume the third roundtrip. Having three roundtrips from PHF to LGA is extremely important to both air travelers and the local economy. By providing the service, the FAA will support the entire community and all passengers utilizing the service. Such an action would not impact the system and would have enormous benefits for all.

By: NNWIA, James Smith

December 29, 2006

Comments of Northwest Airlines - Bookmarked

statutory authority to control congestion and ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace does not support the complex and intrusive NPRM proposal for confiscation and (as yet unrevealed) redistribution of carrier operating rights at LaGuardia. The NPRM goes well beyond the type of aircraft movement and operational controls that are necessary to manage congestion – and instead seeks to micro-manage Operating Authorizations and control competitive scheduling decisions by carriers. The NPRM is fundamentally at odds with the Congressional mandate to place "maximum reliance on competitive forces and on actual and potential competition." And, as described in detail below, the NPRM violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Northwest urges that the radical interventionist measures of the NPRM be abandoned in favor of a more conservative secondary market approach - such as that now in use at O'Hare.

Counsel: Northwest, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184

December 29, 2006

Comments of The Regional Airline Association - Bookmarked

Although the LGA NPRM provides for continuation of some flights operated with smaller aircraft serving smaller cities, the more smaller‑city flights protected the greater the average seat‑size penalty imposed on the airlines serving LaGuardia. Aside from a limited exception for small‑community service and the operation of five roundtrips per day with any size aircraft without incurring a penalty for the operation of small aircraft, other operations would be subject to the overall seat‑size requirements imposed by the LGA NPRM. Although the LGA NPRM offers three alternative exceptions for small community/small aircraft service, not one of the exceptions provides the blanket relief for small‑hub/non‑hub service with small aircraft Congress adopted in Air‑21.

By: RAA, Roger Cohen

December 29, 2006

Comments of Republic Airline, Chautaqua Airlines and Shuttle America

While the Republic Group Carriers recognize the need to continue limitations on the number of flights at LGA to prevent delays there, the NPRM would go way beyond that objective by proposing certain unprecedented regulatory measures that would not address delays and congestion at LGA, but go to the heart of commercial decisions which Congress left to airlines, not the FAA, to determine based on "competitive market forces". These hyper-regulatory measures include the 10% annual confiscation provisions and the proposed aircraft "upgauging rule", which would impose an average aircraft target size designed to force airlines to use larger aircraft. The Republic Group Carriers strongly oppose these ill-advised, misguided and unlawful provisions, which, if finalized, would have substantial detrimental consequences for the traveling public, smaller communities and regional airlines.

Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999

December 29, 2006

Comments of Roanoke Regional Airport Commission

Roanoke fully endorses the concept of an exemption pool to preserve service to LGA from small communities, particularly communities that have historically had access to LGA and are within a distance band for which connecting flights are not a satisfactory alternative, and where service to an alternate NYC area airport would be a significantly greater inconvenience than it would be for a longer haul market.

By: RRAC, Jacqueline Shuck

December 29, 2006

Comments of US Airways - Bookmarked

Any successful regulatory proposal must be tethered to reasonable, clearly­ defined policy objectives. This is especially important at LGA, where a history of detailed access regulations dating to the 1960s has led to successive layers of rules designed to fix other rules. This has left the airport with an overlay of regulation – not only complex, federally established rules for slots (to become known as Operating Authorizations with mandated aircraft sizes and destination restrictions, but also a uniquely restrictive local "perimeter rule" that bars flights to/from destinations more than 1,500 miles. Like an overmedicated patient, a healthy LGA needs less medical intervention. More careful diagnosis and pin‑pointed therapy promises a far better outcome than the shock therapy proposed by the FAA.

Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 202-326-5153

December 29, 2006

Comments of Westjet

Westjet supports the stated objective of enhancing access to LaGuardia by new entrant airlines but respectfully submits that the proposed regulatory framework would not be sufficient to acheive that objective. Westjet recommends that allocation procedures for new entrant carriers at LaGuardia provide for each successful new entrant applicant to receive the slots/authorizations necessary to operate at least six daily round-trip services.

Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970

January 8, 2007

Reply Comments of the Air Carrier Association of America

On December 29, 2006, the Air Carrier Association of America filed comments on the Federal Aviation Administration's "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" on the Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport. Comments have also been filed by a number of other parties, including the carriers that have controlled LGA for twenty years.

Notwithstanding the fictional claims of the carriers dominating LGA, true competition does not exist at the airport. Those carriers fully understand their control and that their mission is to maintain that control for as long as possible. If competition is going to exist, changes must be made to the Slot/Operating Authorization rules governing operations at LGA, as they continue to negatively impact the air transportation system, LGA, airline competition, and the American public. Since only a few carriers control LGA and government regulations block any expansion by smaller carriers, immediate steps must be taken to modify those regulations. It is essential that the FAA disregard the illogical arguments of the legacy carriers (as refuted below) and use this rulemaking to make prompt changes to allow real competition to exist at LGA.

The ACAA acknowledges that some of the NPRM's proposed changes may require Congressional approval or even additional regulatory proposals and comments. However, what the ACAA highlights here and in other comments is that certain changes can be implemented immediately. The FAA should make those changes now and then should turn to the other issues that have not been examined sufficiently. The changes proposed by the ACAA have already been thoroughly vetted and will provide instant improvement in competition at LGA without significantly impacting the larger LGA carriers. The FAA will then be able to build on that foundation once it has been able to decide on the rest of the NPRM issues. Furthermore, by taking some action now, the FAA will be able to better focus on the leftover issues that require a more detailed analysis without wasting time on issues that have already been reviewed.

By: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420, epfaberman@acaa1.com

January 23, 2007

Comments of Congressman Ben Chandler

LEX is an essential gateway to Central Kentucky's culture and commerce that adds immeasurably to our quality of life. The termination of direct access to our country's financial center is terribly worrisome and I urge the FAA to reconsider this portion of the proposed rule. In my view, major changes in airport access such as this one should be considered during congressional reauthorization of the FAA in 2007.

By: Ben Chandler

January 26, 2007

Surreply Comments of US Airways

In light of the overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule, US Airways reiterates its view that the Agency should withdraw its proposal and re-engage the many stakeholders about ideas for congestion management at LaGuardia.

A small number of parties chose not to provide substantive feedback and observations on the proposed rule as requested by the FAA. Instead, these entities chose to repeat a litany of complaints and allegations that do not meaningfully contribute to the on-going dialogue between the FAA and stakeholders, and moreover, have been previously rejected by the Agency.

One of those commentators - the ACAA - filed "reply comments" in this Docket on January 8, 2007. Because the ACAA's comments were particularly, and unjustifiably critical of US Airways' consistent and principled positions, US Airways is compelled to respond. ACAA's comments misinterpret and misrepresent US Airways' stated positions, with little regard for fact or reality. Equally misleading, ACAA frequently attempts to suggest how US Airways might react to a particular idea or concept, and presumes to know the carrier's motives for its positions in this proceeding. US Airways can firmly represent that ACAA is wrong on all these points.

US Airways will not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of ACAA's criticisms, as such a response needlessly wastes Agency resources and in no way furthers the discourse on this important subject. We trust, however, that the Agency, upon a full and complete review of the initial comments of US Airways, and the many others who oppose the draft rule, will agree with many of the positions they have advanced, and once again reject the disingenuous positions advocated by ACAA.

Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 202-326-5153, howard_kass@usairways.com

January 31, 2007

Additional Reply Comments of The Air Carrier Association of America

For over ten years, the FAA has addressed the issue of competition at LGA. American travelers living in, working in, and traveling to the New York area deserve the benefits that real competition will bring to the airport. Now is the time to act. By making some initial pro-competitive and pro-consumer changes now, the FAA can then turn to the more extensive reviews of other NPRM proposals. However, if the FAA once again makes no changes on any issues in an attempt to satisfy US Airways' quest for continued dominance, the cycle of avoidance and delay will continue.

Counsel: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420

May 15, 2007

FAA Letter to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

On May 9, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration received a copy of a document titled "Draft Term Sheet (May 8, 2007) LaGuardia Leasing Policy - PANYNJ Approach for LGA Demand Management," relating to proposed changes in gate utilization at LaGuardia Airport. To my knowledge, neither the FAA nor the Department of Transportation was provided with a copy of the document prior to its dissemination to various air carriers by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey at a meeting I understand took place on May 8, nor has a copy been received from the Port since that date.

Although we have not yet thoroughly reviewed the Draft Leasing Policy, we are concerned that the manner in which it was drafted -particularly statements linking implementation of the Draft Leasing Policy with certain FAA regulatory actions - could cause carriers to believe that the FAA has acquiesced in the Port's approach regarding gate utilization at LaGuardia. As the Port is aware, that is not the case.

In fact, the FAA, the Department and the Port have had only one meeting on this subject, on March 22, 2007, during which only the most general parameters of the Port's gate utilization plan were described to us. We registered appropriate reservations at that time.

We regret that the Port did not include an express statement in the Draft Leasing Policy that it had not been coordinated with the FAA or the Department. Since such a disclaimer does not appear in the document, to avoid confusion we will place a copy of this letter in the docket for the LaGuardia rulemaking. I request that an appropriate disclaimer be placed on any further versions of the document.

The FAA stands ready to review the merits of the Port's proposal to determine whether there are any legal obstacles - including but not limited to federal preemption - that would preclude or otherwise require modification of any proposed changes in current leasing policy at LaGuardia of the scope described in the Draft Leasing Policy.

By: Kerry Long

On File at Federal Register April 16, 2008

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Bookmarked

Original Signed Copy - 34 MB

As Published in the Federal Register April 17, 2008

Lease Agreement for Common Slots - Bidder and Recipient Agreements - Bookmarked

On August 29, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking to address congestion at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, which included a proposal to administratively incentivize carriers to use larger planes. The FAA prefers to use measures that allow carriers to respond to market forces to drive the most efficient airline behavior and is amending its original proposal. To minimize disruption, the FAA proposes to grandfather the majority of operations at the airport and develop a robust secondary market by annually auctioning off a limited number of slots. The FAA is proposing two different, mutually exclusive options. Under the first option, the FAA would auction off and retire a portion of the slots and would use the proceeds to mitigate congestion and delay in the New York City area. Under the second option, the FAA would conduct an auction as it would under the first option, but the proceeds would go to the carrier holding the slot rather than the FAA and no portion of existing slots would be retired. This proposal also contains provisions for use-or-lose, unscheduled operations, and withdrawal for operational need. The FAA proposes to sunset the rule in ten years.

By: Nan Shellabarger

April 11, 2008

Initial Regulatory Evaluation - Bookmarked - 34 mb

The need for this regulation is driven by a market failure with regard to congestion at New York area airports. Properly functioning markets are the most efficient method of allocating scarce goods and services. In some instances, however, markets can fail to produce an efficient outcome, as when an externality exists. A "negative externality" arises when producers are able to avoid some of the costs of
production attributable to their actions while continuing to capture the full benefits of their activities. Without a cap on operations at LaGuardia Airport, an air carrier can over-schedule operations in a manner that creates delays for all other airport users, but incurs costs only for delays to its own aircraft. The costs to society in aggregate of such practices exceed the total of the benefits to individual air carriers. The existence of externalities often requires some type of governmental intervention, as in the caps and auctions proposed in this rulemaking, to prevent overuse and enable markets to efficiently allocate resources.

By: Office of Aviation Policy and Plans

April 14, 2008

Categorical Exclusion - Bookmarked

The FAA has reviewed the proposed action and determined that it is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation according to FAA Order 1050.1E, in accordance with paragraphs 312d and 312f, without limitation. Additionally, the implementation of this action will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with paragraph 304.

The implementation of the slot limitation rule will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances that would warrant preparation of an EA or EIS and determined that no such circumstances exist.

By: FAA

April 14, 2008

Technical Report: Categorization and Allocation of Limited Slots - Bookmarked

This technical report provides a detailed description of the procedure to be used for the assignment of Limited Slots as required in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport, Docket No. FAA-2006-25709, RIN 2120-AI70. Each operating authorization defined under the LaGuardia Order would be converted to a corresponding slot. Each such slot has an associated 1/2 hour time window and an associated air carrier. Under the proposed rule each such slot will be designated as either a Common Slot or a Limited Slot.

Under the proposed rule, 20% (approximately) of the Limited Slots would revert to the FAA on the effective date of the proposed rule. These slots are called 0-year slots. 20% (approximately) of the Limited Slots would revert to the FAA in each of the subsequent four years. These are called 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year slots depending on the year in which they revert to the FAA. As described in the SNPRM preamble, when a slot reverts to the FAA, it will either be retired in order to reduce congestion or reallocated via auction.

By: FAA

April 30, 2008

Request of the Air Transport Association, Regional Airline Association and the Air Carrier Association of America to Clarify Notice and Extend Public Comment Period

The SNPRM describes leasing slots to carriers with mandatory terms and conditions; violation of those slot terms may result in default. However, DOT provides no description of potential lease terms and conditions, the definition of default, or what the consequences of a default may be. In addition, DOT intends to procure services to conduct auctions, but has yet to do so. As DOT states in the Initial Regulatory Evaluation, it cannot provide the complete details of the auction process but provides auction features it “…would expect any acceptable auction services would include.”

Without any information on the lease terms that could result in loss of slots, and a definitive auction method, carriers cannot plan for future sales and the public is prevented from effectively commenting on this proposal. These are fundamental concerns. Without additional information the SNPRM fails to provide sufficient public notice and the opportunity to comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, there should be no harm in providing addition time to comment since DOT will have to develop these fundamental details in order to implement this rule.

We request that DOT suspend the comment period, clarify and amend the SNPRM to provide adequate public notice on the above provisions and provide a 60-day comment period after posting its clarification in the docket.

Counsel: ATA, David Berg

April 30, 2008

Re: Comments of The National Air Carrier Association

Our principal concern in providing comments to the FAA on the proposed amendment relates to the reduction in unscheduled operations availability at the airport and its potential precedent to apply to other airports that are operating under a similar schedule reduction order, such as New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark-Liberty International Airport.

The proposed slot reductions for unscheduled operations would have negative consequences for many of our NACA carriers, particularly for those flights that are operated on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense Air Mobility Command. These flights are contracted by the U.S. government through AMC to ferry military personnel and cargo to and from the United States and major theatres of military operations. The airports in New York, particularly JFK, are a major point of departure and entry for U.S. military personnel. Although unscheduled for purposes of the FAA and the order for LGA, these flights do operate on an agreed-upon schedule between the carrier and AMC. Maximum flexibility is often required, as these operations are subject to a number of operational challenges that differ from regularly scheduled passenger service. By reducing the availability of slots for unscheduled commercial operations during a part of, or for the whole, day, the FAA will be limiting the flexibility of our carriers to schedule their commercial operations. Consequently, the FAA’s proposal creates a financial hardship to an already beleaguered industry.

By: NACA, Thomas Zoeller, tzoeller@naca.cc

May 2008

Slot-Based Approaches to Airport Congestion Management - Comments of University of California, Irvina Department of Economics - Bookmarked

This paper analyzes slot-based approaches to management of airport congestion, using a model
where airlines are asymmetric and internalize airport congestion. Under these circumstances,
optimal congestion tolls differ across carriers, and since a slot-sale regime (with its uniform slot
price) cannot duplicate this pattern, the equilibrium it generates is inefficient. Flight volumes
tend to be too low for large carriers and too high for small carriers. Under a slot-trading
regime or a slot auction, however, the existence of a fixed number of slots causes carriers to
treat total flight volume (and thus congestion) as fixed, and this difference can lead to an
efficient outcome.

By: Jan Brueckner, jkbrueck@uci.edu

FAA-2008-0517 - Congestion Management Rule for JFK and Newark
FAA-2006-25709 - Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport
FAA-2008-0221 - Operating LImitations at Newark

May 8, 2008

Request of AirTran, American, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways for Waiver of Slot Usage Requirement

The recent spike in fuel prices has created a highly unusual and unpredictable condition that is beyond the control of the carriers arid will affect the airlines for some time to come, thereby providing good cause for the requested waiver.

While carriers are doing all that they can individually to adjust for the current market environment throughout their networks - including network management, fuel conservation initiatives and other cash preservation efforts - there is the very real prospect that carriers will be unable to adjust fully for changes in fuel prices and demand patterns at airports subject to federal caps when combined with a use or lose regulation.

Aside from assisting carriers at this critical time, a suspension of the use or lose regulations likely would also have a positive impact on DOT/FAA efforts to reduce congestion and delay nationwide, but in particular in the New York region. With all three major New York‑area airports now capped for congestion reduction purposes, a temporary suspension would allow additional flexibility for carriers to adjust schedules that could further reduce congestion on the ground, in the air, and throughout the national air transportation system. The benefits of this include reduced delay for consumers, both in the air and on the ground. At the same time, this could also benefit airlines through more efficient operations that would require less costly fuel burn leading to reduced emissions and a positive impact on the environment.

The carriers seeking this waiver are not opposed to permitting other airlines to add incremental flying in slots where the historical slot holder has temporarily withdrawn service as a result of any relief granted by FAA. Of course, any operating rights temporarily transferred should only be permitted to be scheduled or operated concurrent with any waiver from the applicable regulations or orders (See Footnote 1). In addition, no historical incumbent rights would attach to the temporary operation of the slots by an operator that is not currently a holder of the slots.

By: AirTran, American, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways

May 20, 2008

Request to Clarify Notice and Extend Public Comment Period of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

As operator of LGA, the Port Authority’s proprietary rights and responsibilities include allocation of gate and terminal facilities. At LGA, this is accomplished through a combination of common use gate facilities, and leased terminals. In addition, the Port Authority is responsible for overall management of groundside facilities used by LGA passengers, employees, contractors and others. Allocations, reallocations, and/or changes for the total number of slots or Operating Authorities at LGA will impact upon the Port Authority’s exercise of these airport proprietor’s rights and responsibilities. Based upon these proprietary interests, the Port Authority requests a clarification of the SNPRM, and a corresponding extension of the public comment period.

The SNPRM does not provide sufficient notice and opportunity to comment under the Administrative Procedure Act because of the additional and corrected information necessary for a proper evaluation of the proposals set forth in the SNPRM. Due to the importance of these issues and interests of all parties who would be affected by the proposals set forth in the SNPRM, the Port Authority respectfully requests that the comment period be suspended until the record is amended and clarified as requested herein, and that the comment period be extended for a 60-day period after the docket is so amended and clarified.

Counsel: Port Authority, Carlene McIntyre, 212-435-3503

May 23, 2008

Consolidated Supplemental Request to Extend Comment Periods of Air Transport Association

We respectfully request expedited review of this consolidated supplemental request to extend the SNPRM comment period or to conform it to the NPRM comment period and extend both comment periods to August 22, 2008.

By: David Berg, 202-626-4234, dberg@airlines.org

FAA-2008-0517 - Congestion Management Rule for JFK and Newark
FAA-2006-25709 - Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

May 29, 2008

Re: Request of American Association of Airport Executives to Clarify Notice and Extend Public Comment Period

The American Association of Airport Executives has a strong interest in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to impose auction mechanisms to reallocate and retire slots at New York's LaGuardia Airport and the closely related notice of proposed rulemaking concerning congestion at John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport. Because of the importance of the issue of congestion management to our members, we respectfully request that the comment period for both rulemakings be suspended until the record is amended with additional pertinent information and that additional time is provided to submit comments.

The rulemakings describes a slot auction system without describing in detail either the manner in which the auctions would be conducted and implemented. AAAE seeks clarification of what the auction rules would be, and the statutory authority for such activity by the FAA.

The rulemakings propose a new slot cooperative agreement and/or leasing system with mandatory lease terms, whose violation apparently will result in forfeiture of a lease by a defaulting air carriers/lessor. The terms and conditions of these leases are not described in either rulemaking.

By: Todd Hauptli

June 2, 2008

Re: Letter from the Federal Aviation Administration to The Air Transport Association of America

This is in response to your April 30, 2008, letter requesting an extension of the comment period for the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking entitled "Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport" (Docket No. FAA-2006-25709), as well as your supplemental request that the comment period for both this rulemaking and the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning congestion at John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport be extended to August 22, 2008. The SNPRM comment period is scheduled to close on June 16, 2008; the comment period for the NPRM is scheduled to close July 21, 2008.

As discussed in the preamble of the SNPRM, the auction procedures that would be used to auction any new or reverted slots are not the subject of the proposed rulemaking, which is why the FAA continues to believe that these procedures need not be subject to notice and comment within the context of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As you -are nq doubt aware, matters "relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts" are not subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. §553, the portion of the APA addressing rulemaking. This does not mean that parties interested in bidding on any available slots will not have an opportunity to review any auction procedures and provide input. As discussed in the preamble to the SNPRM, any auction will be conducted under the agency's Acquisition Management System, and interested bidders will be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed auction procedures at a point closer in time to a particular auction.

The FAA believes 60 days is an adequate time to allow for comment on both the SNPRM and NPRM, and does not believe it is necessary to extend the comment period as you have requested. The FAA also believes that there is value to interested parties in having the close of the comment period for the NPRM fall several weeks after the close of the comment period for the SNPRM. While many of the issues in the two rulemakings are similar, both JFK and Newark have significantly different operating profiles from LaGuardia, and commenters would likely need additional time to address issues unique to those two airports. Therefore, the FAA denies your request for an extension. However, as stated in 14 Code of Federal Regulations § 11.45, we will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.

By: Rebecca MacPherson

Lease Agreement for Common Slots - Bidder and Recipient Agreements - Bookmarked

FAA-2008-0221 - Operating LImitations at Newark
FAA-2008-0517 - Congestion Management Rule for JFK and Newark
FAA-2008-0547 - Chicago O'Hare Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season
FAA-2008-0549 - JFK and Newark Liberty Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season
OST-2000-7181 - DCA Beyond Slots
OST-2008-7182 - DCA Within Slots
FAA-2006-25709 - Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

June 5, 2008

Opposition of Virgin America to Request for Waiver of Minimum Slot Usage Requirements

We respectfully oppose the May 8, 2008 petition of American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, AirTran Airways, and US Airways, to waive current and proposed minimum slot usage requirements for the entire Winter 2008/2009 season at DCA, EWR, JFK, LGA, and ORD because of an increase in fuel prices. For the following reasons, Virgin America submits that the Joint Carriers’ request is anti-consumer, contrary to precedent, and without merit. Accordingly, it should be denied.

The steady and protracted increase in fuel prices over the past sixteen months does not justify wholesale waivers of slot minimum usage requirements at five of the most important, high-demand airports in the country, over an entire Winter season. Already, the large percentages of relatively small aircraft operations at these highly congested airports represents a waste of scarce assets. To permit these Joint Carriers to officially retain their slots, when excess demand exists from carriers like Virgin America, would be arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with the waiver standard and precedent, and bad public policy.

Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8898

June 6, 2008

Re: DOT Denying Extension of Comment Period Request of American Assocation of Airport Executives

You have based your request on concerns that were also raised by the Air Transport Association and other air carrier associations with members who serve LaGuardia. As I have already responded to those concerns, I will not repeat the agency's position here. Rather, I direct you to the docket for this rulemaking for an explanation of why we believe these issues do not support an extension of the comment period.

The FAA believes 60 days is an adequate time to allow for comment on both the SNPRM and NPRM, and does not believe it is necessary to extend the comment period as you have requested. Therefore, the FAA denies your request for an extension.

By: Rebecca MacPherson

FAA-2008-0221 - Operating Limitations at Newark
FAA-2008-0517 - Congestion Management Rule for JFK and Newark
FAA-2008-0547 - Chicago O'Hare Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season
FAA-2008-0549 - JFK and Newark Liberty Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season
OST-2000-7181 - DCA Beyond Slots
OST-2008-7182 - DCA Within Slots
FAA-2006-25709 - Congestion Management Rule for LaGuardia Airport

June 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Air Transport Association in Support of Waiver of Minimum Slot Usage Requirement

The Air Transport Association supports the temporary waiver of minimum slot usage requirements for the Winter 2008/2009 season, as requested by letter dated May 8, 2008 from ATA members AirTran Airways, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways.

The need to comply with minimum use requirements, also known as “use-it-or-lose-it” rules, at slot-controlled airports (or airports that the Department of Transportation has proposed subjecting to operating restrictions) could skew service decisions, and even impede the necessary process of finding a rational mix of service and markets to meet the new reality of sharply higher operating costs. As was the case in the months following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, airlines serving these airports need a brief period to assess the longer-term trends in the industry and adjust their schedules and service accordingly.

The request for a temporary blanket waiver for the Winter 2008-2009 season (roughly through March, 2009) would allow the affected airlines to focus on long-term stabilization. A stable, financially sound U.S. airline industry serves the interests of the traveling and shipping public by providing the critical air transportation services that drive approximately 10% of GDP and that knit our country together. The joint temporary waiver request will provide a brief respite from what has become an unexpected an extraordinary disruption of the industry, and should not be interpreted as a means of shielding noncompliance with slot use requirements prior to the time the waiver is granted. Moreover, the carriers requesting the waiver have stated that they are not opposed to the temporary transfer of slots that are not used by their holder to other operators for the term of the waiver. Within those parameters, such a waiver would not harm the interests of other airlines or the public

Counsel: ATA, David Berg, 202-626-4234

Addendum to Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Technical Report: Categoriazation of Limited Slots - Bookmarked

This technical report provides a detailed description of the procedure to be used for the assignment of Limited Slots as required in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Each operating authorization defined under the LaGuardia Order would be converted to a corresponding slot. Each such slot has an associated 1/2 hour time window and an associated air carrier. Under the proposed rule each such slot will be designated as either a Common Slot or a Limited Slot.

Under the proposed rule, 20% (approximately) of the Limited Slots would revert to the FAA on the effective date of the proposed rule. These slots are called 0-year slots. 20% (approximately) of the Limited Slots would revert to the FAA in each of the subsequent four years. These are called 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year slots depending on the year in which they revert to the FAA. As described in the SNPRM preamble, when a slot reverts to the FAA, it will either be retired in order to reduce congestion or reallocated via auction.

June 9, 2008

Request for Furthur Information from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

On May 20, 2008, the Port Authority filed a request to clarify and extend the public comment period of the SNPRM, stating the need for additional information to make a fully informed comment on the proposals within the SNPRM, and an extension of time to make comments until after receipt of that information. To date, the Federal Aviation Administration has not responded in the docket to this request, it has since denied similar requests of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. and the American Association of Airport Executives.

The Port Authority renews its request for the information contained in its May 20, 2008 filing. To date, the FAA has only provided a model slot leasing agreement, lacking a statement of the acts or omissions of a slot holder the terms that may result in a loss of the relevant slot. In failing to provide the information requested in the Originial Port Authority Comment, the FAA has made it impossible for the Port Authority to give a fully informed comment on the SNPRM.

Counsel: PANYNJ, Carlene McIntyre, 212-435-3503

June 5, 2008

FAA Memorandum: Re-Post of "Changes in Small Community Air Service Pattern at LGA: January 2007 vs: 2008" | Word

FAA has re-posted this table in the docket, at the request of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, since they assert that the original table that was filed in the docket is unreadable.

June 10, 2008

Re: Federal Aviation Administration Response to Extension of Comment Period Request of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

As an initial matter, the FAA believes it has provided ample explanation of both its legal authority to conduct an auction and the two different proposals contained within the SNPRM. We have nothing further to say on these matters at this time. Naturally, we will address any concerns raised in the comments to the docket in issuing any final rule. Second, you have asserted a need to review the FAA's utilization records for the use-or-Iose requirement in the existing LaGuardia Order in order to comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 80 percent usage requirement. We believe you already have ample information at your disposal as the airport's proprietor to comment on whether the 80 percent usage requirement that has been in effect at the airport for the past 40 years is appropriate. Certainly you have not requested this type of information in commenting on the proposed usage requirement in the past, most recently in response to the NPRM for this rulemaking. Likewise, no other interested party has claimed that they are unable to provide meaningful comment on this issue. Accordingly, we believe that your own experience at the airport provides not only a sufficient basis for meaningful comment, but one that may bring a different perspective from the one held by the FAA which is based on the agency's own experiences at the airport.

The FAA continues to believe 60 days is an adequate time to allow for comment on the SNPRM, and the agency does not believe it is necessary to extend the comment period as you have requested. Therefore, the FAA denies your request for an extension. However, as stated in 14 Code of Federal Regulations §11.45, we will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.

By: FAA, Rebecca MacPherson

June 11, 2008

Re: East Carolina University Department of Economics Letter Requesting Reconsideration of Number of Slots per Hour

I would like the FAA to reconsider the number of slots per hour proposed for LaGuardia Airport. The currently considered 75 slots per hour rule regardless of the time of day seems rather inflexible given the ebb and flow of actual flight operations. For example, see attached Figure 1 which reveals substantially longer actual travel times averaging 80 minutes from Boston Logan Airport arriving in LGA in July 2003 in the early evening (between 6-8pm). This figure reflects every non-stop flight during the month between these two airports for major commercial carriers. Whereas for flights departing BOS at 3pm, the actual travel time to LGA is 20 minutes less (on average for the month).

From a minimizing delay perspective, given the cascading effect of flight delays…My suggestion would be to consider altering the number of scheduled operations throughout the day to account for anticipated slow-downs (maybe 75 scheduled operations is too many for the 5-6pm block?) also, maybe 75 is not enough for the earlier morning blocks?

Rather than using a fixed rule: 75 maximum regardless of the departure time, the FAA should consider being more flexible expanding this when possible and reducing it when necessary. The total number of daily flights could still ultimately be the same, however, there maybe improvement in operations by altering the schedule load.

By: Nicholas Rupp

June 12, 2008

Renewed Request of The Air Transport Association of America to Extend the Public Comment Period

Less than a week before the close of the comment period in this rulemaking proceeding, on July 10, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration added a significant agency analytical document to the docket to supplement the administrative record. This submission, titled “Final Limited Slot Allocation Technical Report,” addresses critical aspects of the auction process FAA has proposed, is just the latest such addition to the administrative record, and forces one to ask: when will the record finally be complete?

The FAA has initiated a procurement process to identify a vendor to develop and provide software to conduct the proposed auction. The presolicitation notice makes clear that while the FAA has general auction characteristics in mind, details about the auction process remain unanswered. These details are material to understanding the SNPRM, should (but likely won't) be added to the administrative record and be made available for public comment before a final rule is promulgated, and the final rule should consider and respond to the public input on these critical factors. When these actions are viewed as a whole, FAA's conduct in this proceeding falls well short of what is required by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc. has a strong interest in this proceeding, which seeks to establish a process to confiscate slots from ATA members operating at New York's LaGuardia Airport ( and then reallocate them by an untried and novel auction process, and also retire some slots. It is apparent that the FAA's view of its APA obligations is different than ours and that it will press forward with this proceeding notwithstanding the process concerns we, and others, have expressed. Nevertheless, we now renew our request for FAA to extend the comment period, at a minimum, to August 22, 2008, to allow time to fully review the materials recently added to the docket and consider their implications. Such an extension is not only consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but, we believe, compelled by them

Counsel: ATA, David Berg, 202-626-4000

June 13, 2008

Re: FAA Letter to The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey - Denial of Request for Extension of Comment Period

It appears that you had not received our denial of your May 20, 2008 request for an extension of the comment period when you submitted the June 9 request. You have, however, raised a new concern related to the draft lease agreements that the FAA has placed in the docket. Specifically, you state that these lease agreements lack "a statement of the acts or omissions of a slot holder the terms that may result in a loss of the relevant slot." These terms and conditions may be found in article 5 of the two draft documents. The FAA does not anticipate adding new terms and conditions at this time, although it may make some modifications to the draft documents based on input by parties commenting on the LaGuardia rulemaking.

While the FAA noted in its denial of your initial request for an extension of the comment period that you had raised a concern about the Documented Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) prepared for this rulemaking, we failed to respond to that concern. We decline the request to renew or extend the comment period on the NPRM after the documented categorical exclusion is revised and re‑published. Should the FAA determine that the revisions suggested by the Port Authority are warranted, then the FAA may, but would not be required to, issue the revised categorical exclusion for public review and comment before any final rule is published.

By: Rebecca MacPherson

June 13, 2008

Re: DOT Denying Extension of Comment Period Request of Air Transport Association of America

As a basis for your request, you have reiterated your position that the FAA has not provided the conditions or the auction methods, without which you could not effectively comment on the proposal. We believe we have already responded to this concern in our earlier denial, and we continue to believe our position in the matter is correct.

You also argued that the submission of the technical report on fair allocation earlier this week was filed so late as to allow time for meaningful comment. The technical report is not a new document, and was originally submitted to the docket on April 16, 2008 as document number 98. The new submission is a duplicate.

The FAA continues to believe 60 days is an adequate time to allow for comment on both the SNPRM and NPRM, and does not believe it is necessary to extend the comment period as you have requested. Therefore, the FAA denies your request for an extension.

By: Rebecca MacPherson

June 13, 2008

Answer of the Regional Airline Association Supporting Renewed Request to Extend the Public Comment Period

For the reasons stated by the Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association urges FAA to extend the comment date in this proceeding to August 22, 2008, to provide due process to interested stakeholders, including the regional airlines that would be adversely affected by the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the cities they serve.

Counsel: RAA, Roger Cohen

June 13, 2008

DOT Denying Air Transport Association Request for Extension of Comment Period

As a basis for your request, you have reiterated your position that the FAA has not provided the conditions or the auction methods, without which you could not effectively comment on the proposal. We believe we have already responded to this concern in our earlier denial, and we continue to believe our position in the matter is correct.

You also argued that the submission of the technical report on fair allocation earlier this week was filed so late as to allow time for meaningful comment. The technical report is not a new document, and was originally submitted to the docket on April 16, 2008 as document number 98. The new submission is a duplicate.

The FAA continues to believe 60 days is an adequate time to allow for comment on both the SNPRM and NPRM, and does not believe it is necessary to extend the comment period as you have requested. Therefore, the FAA denies your request for an extension. However, as stated in 14 Code of Federal Regulations § 11.45, we will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.

By: Rebecca MacPherson

June 16, 2008

Comments of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked

Both options presented in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are deeply flawed and should be rejected. Delta submits these separate comments to emphasize in particular:

• The proposal in Option 1 that FAA itself auction slots would exceed the agency’s constitutional and legal authority. FAA cannot constitutionally impose aviation taxes, and it cannot auction slots. If FAA proceeds down this path, it will succeed only in enriching lawyers, wasting taxpayer money, and disrupting the national air transportation system.
• Option 2 also suffers from legal flaws, but more importantly it embodies an aviation policy that fundamentally contradicts the claimed intentions of the current Administration to support a “free market” and minimize bureaucratic intrusion into private affairs. Having concluded for some unexplained reason that private parties acting in their own economic self-interest are not selling enough slots under the current rule, the FAA proposes to force private parties to sell slots they would rather use to operate their airlines. This unprecedented governmental intrusion into private economic decision-making would unnecessarily disrupt existing airport operations and almost certainly force the transfer of slots from carriers who value them more to others who value them less.

Delta urges the FAA to abandon the proposals of the SNPRM.

Counsel: Scott McClain, 404-773-6514

June 16, 2008

Comments of the Regional Airline Association

As if staggering fuel price increases, a weakened economy, a burdensome airline tax structure and a failure to provide a modem air traffic control system were not enough, the Federal Aviation Administration is continuing to propose unlawful regulations intended to drive service by Regional Airline Association members out of LaGuardia International Airport by imposing an oppressive and unprecedented auction tax on the right to take off or land at LGA. Despite overwhelming opposition to the FAA's initial rulemaking proposal to discourage service by smaller aircraft at smaller cities, in apparent recognition of the unlawfulness of that proposal, FAA has now issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to use its contracting authority to auction slots as if they were excess FAA equipment, which is clearly unlawful, just as the original congestion pricing and auction proposal were unlawful. Moreover, the FAA's failure to provide complete and adequate information regarding its proposal and the time necessary to analyze that information renders its supplemental proposal procedurally unlawful for failure to provide due process to stakeholders.

RAA supplements its previous comments in this proceeding in further opposition to the FAA's latest effort to evade the legal requirements that preclude it from auctioning slots as part of its effort to reduce the number of flights operated by regional airlines at LGA to the detriment of communities that will lose service, the consumers who benefit from the competition provided by regional aircraft flights and the regional airlines, their employees and the manufacturers and lessors of regional aircraft.

Despite the complete absence of a reasonable justification for the FAA's auction proposal, FAA has attempted to ramrod it through at the expense of due process and without regard to property rights of slotholders. Just before the end of the comment period FAA was still adding complex and complicated reports in the docket and refusing to grant interested parties time to analyze them as part of their comments in this proceeding. RAA supports ATA's arguments that the procedures adopted by FAA and its failure to provide timely information and explanations to the parties have deprived the parties of due process rights.

Counsel: RAA, Roger Cohen

June 16, 2008

Comments of United Air Lines - Bookmarked

Although the SNPRM's stated objective is to reduce anticipated congestion and delay at LGA, the FAA's core proposal - to impose a new regulatory system involving the confiscation of slots from incumbent carriers for reallocation to other carriers by auction - would not address that objective. Worse yet, the auction proposal, if finalized, could lead to less efficient slot utilization, disruption and termination of some existing services, and higher prices for consumers.

United supports the comments submitted by the Air Transport Association of America In particular, United strongly endorses ATA's detailed account as to why the FAA lacks legal authority to reallocate slots using an auction mechanism. Even if the FAA had the requisite legal authority to implement the proposed rule, however, implementation would be disastrous because the proposal is utterly flawed as a matter of policy and would not achieve the FAA's stated objectives, but would do serious harm to airlines, passengers, and communities. United's purpose in filing separate comments is to amplify, rather than reiterate, ATA's arguments and to provide the particular perspective of the nation's second-largest carrier and an incumbent slot holder at LGA. United has a significant interest in the outcome of this rulemaking because the FAA's proposal, if implemented, would severely harm United, its asset base and operations at LGA, as well as United's passengers and the communities that United and its United Express partners serve from LGA. United strongly believes that implementation of the SNPRM would be a disastrous development as a matter of policy, and that the FAA has not established an adequate record, including the requisite legal, factual, and analytical foundation, to justify finalizing the proposed rule as written. For all of these reasons, United urges the FAA to withdraw the SNPRM.

Counsel: United and Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960

June 16, 2008

Comments of the Air Transport Association of America - Bookmarked

The FAA’s proposal to implement slot auctions at LaGuardia is unnecessary as far as managing congestion is concerned, is ill-advised as a matter of policy, and is unlawful to boot. Under current conditions and for the foreseeable future, it appears that a congestion management program at LaGuardia is needed in order to avoid unacceptable delays in the New York-New Jersey air management region and beyond. However, congestion management can be accomplished, as it has been in the past, without resorting to unauthorized and ill-conceived “market-based” experimentation in one of the nation’s busiest air corridors. The flying public, DOT, Congress, and carriers all share the goal of improving performance at LaGuardia and in the northeast. The NY ARC pointed in the right direction: we should all focus on implementing the ARC’s recommendations for alleviating congestion in the New York-New Jersey area.

Counsel: ATA, David Berg, 202-626-4000

June 16, 2008

Comments of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

As expressed by much of the industry, it is very apparent that the SNPRM lacks sufficient detail of how the slot auctions would be conducted or implemented. In efforts to manage congestion at the New York area airports in a compressed timeframe, the DOT and the FAA have not fully examined the implications of a slot auction system. In December 2007, the New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee expressed opposition of the use of a slot auction system to address congestion at LOA and other New York airports. Until a well thought out, vened plan has been established; AOPA strongly suggests this rulemaking be suspended.

By: AOPA, Andrew Cebula

June 16, 2008

Comments of the Airports Council International - North America - Bookmarked

ACI-NA believes that the FAA cannot and should not adopt either of the proposed rules set forth in its SNPRM. The FAA has not shown that it has statutory authority to adopt the proposed rules or that the FAA’s suggested scheme would achieve its stated objectives, promote air carrier competition or preserve service to small communities. The SNPRM fails to recognize the primary role of local airport proprietors in managing congestion at their airports and seeks unlawfully to usurp the proprietary right of the Port Authority to control how its facilities at LGA are used. Instead of pursuing its misconceived “slot auction” proposal, the FAA should work collaboratively with the Port Authority and the air carriers to develop and implement a reasonable and effective program of congestion management for LGA.

Counsel: Anderson & Kreiger, Scott Lewis, 617-621-6560

June 16, 2008

Comments of American Airlines - Bookmarked

American is concerned that the LGA SNPRM represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in commercial aviation. Despite being touted as a market-based mechanism, the confiscation and auction scheme proposed in the LGA SNPRM is more akin to collectivization. A system of periodic governmental seizure and redistribution of assets is completely at odds with the FAA's mandate to place umaximum reliance on competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition" (49 U.S.C. § 40101(a) (6)). Deregulation has fostered one.".of the most brutally competitive industries in history. The government should focus on creating more capacity and managing it more efficiently, and let competition take care of itself - as it always has, and always will.

Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647

June 16, 2008

Comments of the American Association of Airport Executives

While we acknowledge that the situation at LGA is unique, AAAE reaffirms its position that the only real solution to aviation congestion and delays that does not penalize communities or economic growth is to expand the capacity at our Nation’s airports. A healthy and robust Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge program are the essential tools for increasing airport capacity throughout the United States.

AAAE does not believe that the SNPRM as proposed contains adequate statutory authority to be implemented without Congressional authorization, or that it will adequately address the cause of these delays. AAAE believes that the SNPRM contains numerous provisions that give rise to an unknown number of negative consequences harming both competition and small community service. It is for these reasons that the AAAE does not believe that the SNPRM should be enacted.

By: Todd Hauptli

June 16, 2008

Comment of Bureau Economics of the Federal Trade Commission - Bookmarked

We find the proposal to be a reasonable, measured introduction of auctions to improve the efficiency of congestion management and to gain experience using auctions for allocating slots. The proposal does not provide great detail about the auction design, and as the spectrum auctions demonstrate, tailoring the rules to fit the application is crucial; the airline industry is sufficiently unique, complex, and important to warant auction designs specifically tailored to it. We think it is important that any candidate auction designs be thoroughly analyzed and tested, perhaps in an experimental setting. In light of the tradeoffs between auctions and congestion pricing, it is likely socially beneficial for both solutions to be given a trial. We therefore support the current proposal to consider the implementation of auctions, but also encourage consideration of a congestion pricing test.

By: Michael Baye

June 16, 2008

Comments of the Canadian Airports Council

The members of CAC cannot support the Department's proposal to create slot auctions at LaGuardia airport. The Department does not have the authority to impose the proposed rules, and it is clear that the proposed rules usurp the exclusive right of the airport to sensitively control the way that its facilities are used. Should the Department decide to continue with this proposal, the CAC recommends the Department extend an exception to international flights, Including transborder flights between Canada and the U.S.

By: Jim Facette

June 16, 2008

Comments of Daniel Kaspar and Darin Lee - Retained by ATA to Provide Independent Economic Analysis - Bookmarked

Although the FAA’s modified proposal does away with the ill-conceived minimum aircraft size requirement that was a prominent component of the earlier NPRM, it is still plagued by serious conceptual flaws and relies on assumptions that are unjustified or demonstrably incorrect. As a result of these serious shortcomings, the proposal would impose—without adequate economic analysis or support—a number of unnecessarily intrusive regulations—including a complex and unnecessary auction mechanism to involuntarily reallocate a portion of LGA slots. Moreover, key findings of the FAA’s accompanying Initial Regulatory Evaluation—including its cost benefit analysis—are gravely flawed and rely on unrealistic (or simply incorrect) assumptions and oversimplifications that result in grossly overstating the likely benefits of the proposed rule.

FAA casts the current SNPRM