BACKGROUND

Currently, nine airports in the United States (and 367 airports worldwide) are considered “capacity constrained.” According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

[a]irports that exceed 80 percent of their hourly capacity, for at least 50 percent of the time, are considered to be capacity constrained. If 80 percent of hourly capacity is exceeded 75 percent of the time, the capacity constraint is considered to be severe. Airports that exceed 60 percent of their hourly capacity, for at least 50 percent of the time, are considered congested.

The most recent FAA forecast shows that 11 U.S. airports are expected to be runway capacity constrained by 2026, increasing to 14 by 2031, and an additional 16 airports are at risk of significant congestion by 2031. The forecast considers planned runway development approved through National Environmental Policy Act evaluations. Many other airports are facing passenger terminal capacity constraints, including gates, terminal space, and ground access. Capacity constraints affect not only the airports experiencing the congestion, but also those communities with or seeking air service to congested airports. Capacity constraints could also affect competitive access. 

While congestion can be avoided by increasing capacity, that is not always possible. And, where possible, airport infrastructure needs are many and varied. The 2023 airport infrastructure needs study conducted by Airports Council International – North America identified a backlog of planned and necessary airport infrastructure projects totaling $151 billion through 2028. Where new capacity cannot be built, congestion can be managed.

Under U.S. law and practice, FAA limits operations at three capacity constrained airports by requiring carriers to obtain an FAA-issued runway use authorization or "slot." FAA also engages in schedule facilitation with air carriers at several other airports to ensure the efficient use of airspace. 

Airport proprietors are responsible for managing all other aspects of airport use and its effects on the immediate surroundings. As a result, they bear significant responsibilities to the national transportation system and the communities they serve. While airport proprietors’ have certain rights to manage congestion at their facilities, they are limited by federal law.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to provide a full understanding of U.S. law, including statutory provisions and relevant administrative and judicial interpretations, applicable to the various aspects of airport congestion management and competitive access, including the authorities upon which FAA relies to issue runway use authorizations, establish runway capacity limits, act as slot coordinator at congested airports, and engage in schedule facilitation; a survey of the legal authorities permitting and limiting the ability of airports to manage capacity; and an exposition of how the federal authority and airport proprietors' rights interact. 

As part of the legal analysis, the report will address the practical impact of congestion management practices on competitive air carrier access to affected airports, the extent of property rights over runway use slots, and the legal basis for slot trading and leasing. 

In addition, the project will compare U.S. runway congestion management laws and practices to the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines (WASG) collectively published by the International Air Transport Association, Airports Council International, and the Worldwide Airport Coordinators Group, which serves as the modern foundation of the global slot coordination process. The analysis will note the WASG elements that cannot be implemented in the United States for lack of legal authority.

RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION

This research will be conducted in two phases and four tasks in a firm fixed-price agreement. At the conclusion of Phase I, ACRP will make a determination whether to proceed with Phase II. The tasks will be as follows.

Phase I

Task 1a. Kickoff call. Participate in a call with the panel to discuss the scope of work.

Task 1b. Conduct background research and collect relevant material. Based on the initial complete review of the source materials, submit a detailed report outline. The outline should contain sufficient detail to describe what a report of appropriate length will contain. This outline should also contain the estimated pagination for each proposed section and/or subsection. This material will be submitted for ACRP consideration and approval. Participate in a conference call with the ACRP panel 3 weeks after submitting the outline.

Phase II

Task 2. After ACRP approval of the detailed outline, conduct additional research and case and statutory/regulatory analysis. Collect additional primary data to the extent necessary.

Task 3. Submit an initial draft report in accordance with the approved outline (including any modifications required by ACRP). Participate in a conference call with the ACRP panel 3 weeks after submitting the initial draft report.

Task 4a. Revise the initial draft report as necessary and provide a marked-up and clean version of the draft final report.

Task 4b. ACRP will provide written comments, each of which will need a point-by-point response. The report will be revised as appropriate and submitted as a final report.

FUNDING: $100,000

25% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 1 outline

50% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 3 report

25% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 4 final report

SPECIAL NOTES

A. To be selected, proposers must include a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and other airport professionals (active or retired), including airport staff and/or consultants with relevant experience.

B. Proposers will be evaluated by individuals collectively knowledgeable in this problem area. Evaluations are based upon the proposers’: (1) knowledge, experience, and accomplishments in the subject area (demonstrated by the project team’s qualifications, resumes, and the diversity of perspectives); (2) understanding the concept of the problem (demonstrated by the research plan and statement of resources); (3) understanding of the work (demonstrated by the team’s proposed approach to conducting the research and preparing the report); (4) schedule for completing the work; and (5) if applicable, prior relevant publications.

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations.

D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/3227. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

E. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academies of Sciences. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academies of Sciences. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB’s policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, “Use of Copyrighted Material,” in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.

F. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication-ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

G. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.

HOW TO PROPOSE

Proposals should be submitted as a single PDF, not to exceed 50 pages, with the following information and in the following order:

• A summary sheet;
• A research plan that describes each task in sufficient detail to allow the review panel to make an informed assessment of the likelihood of the proposer’s success. The plan must include:
  • An introduction that provides a concise overview of the proposer’s understanding of the topic and the issues presented, the proposed team’s experience and qualifications relevant to the topic, and the team’s proposed approach to conducting the research and preparing the report;
  • A brief outline of the proposed contents of the report;
  • Detailed information on the proposed research methodology for each task in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of achieving the objective(s);
  • Statement of resources (e.g., hours per person per task) allocated to this project and timelines for each task;
• Resumes of key team members along with a description of responsibilities;
• Any additions, deletions, or changes you may wish to suggest to the scope of work for undertaking the work; and
• If applicable, a list of relevant prior publications.

Proposers should read Guidance for Working on ACRP Legal Studies Projects for more information.