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
STATUS: A research agency has been selected for the project. The contracting process is underway.
