NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP MODEL CONTINGENCY PLANS

TO DEAL WITH LENGTHY AIRLINE ON-BOARD DELAYS

Record of Meeting

MEETING DATE

February 26, 2008

MEETING TIME

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

MEETING LOCATION

U.S. Department of Transportation Oklahoma City Conference Room 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, D.C. 20590

PUBLIC NOTICE

The Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT) told the public of the National Task Force meeting in a Federal Register notice published February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7785).

ATTENDEES

Name Affiliation Task Force Designation

Samuel Podberesky

D.Kirit Shaffer ^

Leslie C. Abbott

Brian Bartal

Kathleen Blank-Riether

Brenda Brown

Livaughn Chapman, Jr.

DOT

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Southwest Airlines (Southwest)

American Eagle Airlines (American Eagle)

DOT

Delta Air Lines (Delta)

DOT

Chairman; Designated Federal Official

Vice-Chjunnan

Member alternate or support

Member

Non-member attendee Non-^monber attendee Non-member attendee

PAI Consulting

Name Affiliation Task Force Designation

Roget Cohen

Michael C. Collins

Rebecca Cox

James M. Crites

Briatt Davis

Benjamin R. DeCosta

PaulEtoell

George F. Doughty

Michael E. Duffy

Charles M. Durham III

Gary Eidwards

Jill Eshbaugh

Edwani P. Fabermah

Robert Falter

James J. Gaydos

Daiquiri Gleaves

, Russell Gold

Ralph Hackney

Pam Hamilton

Kate Hanni

Regional Airline Association (RAA)

Disability Rights Advocate

Continental Aurlioes (ContiEental)

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Spirit Airlines (Spirit)

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)

National Air Carrier Association (NACA)

Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority

TranspOTtation Security Administration (TS A)

ExpressJet Airlines (ExpressJet)

Delta

United Airlines (United)

Air Carrier Association of America

DOT

American Airlines (American)

Delta

Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)

Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

FAA

Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights

Member ;

Member

Memb^ alternate I or support i

Member

Member aUemate orsuppetft

Member

Member alternate or support

Member

Non-member 1 attendee

Member

Non-member 1 attendee Member alternate 1 or support

Member

Non-member 1 attendee

Member

Non-member 1 attendee Member alternate or support Non-member 1 attendee Non-member 1 attendee

Member

PAI Consulting

Name 1 Affiliation : Task Force ! Designation

Constance Hardy

Alan Hendry

Steve Hozdulick

Kevin Hudson

Kenneth Johnson

Jerome Jones

Nancy Kalinowski

Howard Kass

Nancy Kessler

William R. Lange

Douglas E. 1 ̂ vin

Tony Lefebvre

Dayton Lehman, Jr.

Thomas Lehrich

Scott Maeey

Lisa Mackall

D. Leo Malloy, Jr.

Richard Marchi

Deborah C. McElroy

Paul McGraw

•DOT;-- '

FAA

Southwest

Frontier Airlines (Frontier)

.Delta"

FAA

•FAA ..;

US Airways

DOT

Compass Airlines (Compass)

bitemational Air Transport Association (lATA)

Spirit

DOT

DOT

DOT

DOT

Skyway AklinesMidwest Connect (Skyway)

Airports Council International-North American (ACI-NA)

ACI-NA

Air Transport Association of America (ATA)

Mbn-niendlfet : attendee i Non-member attendee

Meriibef

Member

Non-memW ]

Non-member attendee i Non-member attendee ' Member alternate or support Non-member attendee

Member

Member, \

Member

Non-member 1 attendee Non-member 1 attendee Non-member 1 attendee Non-member 1 attendee

MembCT

Member alternate 1 or support

Member

Member alternate 1 or support 1

PAI Consulting

Name Affiliation Task Force Designation

Mark Mogul

Robert K. Muhs . . • '

Patrick V. Murphy

Larry Newman

Julie Oettinger

Gwen Papineau

Bradley D.Penrod

Burton Rubin

PaulM.Ruden

Daniel Rutenberg

Leo J. Schefer

Lysa C. Scully

David Seller

Molly W. Smith

David Stamey

Peggy A. S waive

Jim Tabor

Daniel A. Weiss

Warren R. Wilkinson

William H. Williams, Jr.

Coalition for an Airline P^sengers' Bill of Rights

Northwest Airlines (Northwest)

US Airways

ALPA

United

American Association of Airport Executives

AUegbeny County Airport Aufliority

Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights

American Society of Travel Agents

International Airline Passengers Association

Washington Airports Task Force

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)

Delta

FAA

International Airline Passengers Association

PAI Consulting

AirTrari Airways (AirTran)

Continental

Republic Airways (Republic)

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Member support oraltetnaie

Member

Meittber

Member

Meanber alternate or support Member alternate or support

Membo"

Member alternate or support

Member

Member

Member

Member

Non-member attendee Non-member attendee Membea: alternate or support Non-member attendee

Memba:

Member

MembCT

Member

PAI Consulting

Name Affiliation Task Force Designation

Beth Trebendis

Blane Workie

Nancy Zaczek

Thomas Zoeller

Delta

DOT

TSA--

NACA

Hon-member ? attendee Non-member attendee Non-member attendee

Member

CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOMING REMARKS

Mr. Sam Podberesky, DOT, and Tarmac Delays National Task Force (Task Force) Chairman, opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Podberesky welcomed everyone and thanked them for their attendance and participation.

PROCEDURAL ITEMS

Introductions

Mr. Podberesky explained that in attendance were Task Force members and support personnel. Government officials. Government contractors, members of the public, and members of the press. The attendees each introduced themselves.

Ground Rules

Mr. Podberesky reviewed the following ground rules and stated that there will be many meetings and opportunities for discussion.

All ideas have value, so please be respectful of each other. The Task Force wants to reach an understanding even if there is some disagreement.

Honor all time constraints.

Turn off or silence all cell phones.

If you do not feel that you will be able to devote full attention and enough time to the Task Force meetings, speak to Mr. Podberesky or a staff member.

Speak into the microphone.

Avoid making editorial comments. Discuss only your ideas and thoughts.

Speak to a staff member if you have additional requirements.

For security reasons, do not wander around or into other meetings or outside the conference area. Breakfast and lunch are being provided so no one has to leave the area.

PAI Consulting

In the event you need to leave, you will need to be escorted by someone with a DOT badge.

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Mr. Podberesky explained that the Task Force falls under FACA; he then reviewed the FACA requirements. He noted that each Task Force meeting is open to the public and that notices of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register. Interested persons can attend and make oral presentations. However, these presentations will be limited to 5 minutes each.

He added that members must attend the meetings to participate. Written comments will be accepted from members and the public; conference calls are not permitted.

Mr. Podberesky briefly stated that the rules for Task Force working group meetings will be different and will be discussed later in the meeting. However, he stated that working group meetings are not open to the public and teleconferences and e-mail cortespondence will be allowed. He added that once a working group makes a decision, it must present its report to the Task Force.

Mr. Podberesky stated that there is a public docket for the Task Force (DOT-OST-2007-0108). He added that all Task Force records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, and other documents made available to or prepared for or by the Task Force members will be posted to the docket and made available to the public.

Task Force Charter

Mr. Podberesky reviewed the Task Force charter, including its purpose and objectives as noted below:

Purpose: The charter establishes the National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 United States Code, appendix 2, and sets forth policies for its operations.

Scope and objectives:

a) The Task Force will develop model contingency plans for minimizing the impact of lengthy airline on-board ground delays.

b) The Task Force will be responsible for reviewing incidents involving long, on-board ground delays and their causes; identifying trends and patterns of such events; and recommending workable solutions for mitigating the on-board consumer impact of extraordinary flight disruptions.

c) The Task Force will report to the Secretary of Transportation the results of its consideration and a description of model contingency plans it develops.

PAI Consulting

d) The Task Force will not exercise program management, regulatory, or program guidance responsibilities. It will make no decision directly affecting the programs on which it provides advice. The Task Force will provide a forum for the development, consideration, and communication from a knowledgeable and independent perspective of a strategy for dealing with lengthy on-board ground delays nationwide.

Mr. Podberesky also noted that the DOT published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on November 20, 2007, titled Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (72 FR 65233). In the ANPRM, the DOT sought comment, among other things, on whether the Department should require carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays and incorporate them in their contracts of carriage. The comment period closed January 22, 2008. The DOT is reviewing the comments; proceeding with a notice of proposed rulemaking may be the next step in that rulemaking process. Mr. Podberesky stated that the Task Force complements this ongoing DOT rulemaking action, as well as separate actions taken by the airlines and airports.

The Task Force is expected to finish by the end of the summer but is chartered until January 3, 2009. Task Force members represent a cross-section of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that deal with lengthy tarmac delays, including airlines, airports, pilots, associations, and the Government. Membership on the Task Force is based on good faith participation; continued nonparticipation by a member will lead to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) replacing the member. However, Mr. Podberesky noted that scheduling conflicts are understandable.

The task force will meet four times this year, with the next meeting scheduled to be held at the end of April. Mr. Podberesky stated that special meetings and working group meetings will be scheduled and held as necessary.

Objectives

Mr. Podberesky stated that the Secretary asked the DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG) to look into complaints of long delays from passengers who sat for hours on-board aircraft on the tarmac during severe weather during last winter. Mr. Podberesky also stated that the Secretary asked OIG to look into these complaints and provide specific recommendations on what airlines, airports and the Government can do to prevent similar incidents in the future. The OIG recommended, in part, the establishment of a task force to develop model contingency plans.

Mr. Podberesky stated that the duties of this Task Force include—

• Developing model contingency plans to deal with lengthy air carrier on-board delays.

• Reviewing incidents involving long, on-board delays and their causes, identifying trends and patterns of such events, and recommending workable solutions for mitigating the on-board consumer impact of extraordinary flight disruptions.

• Reviewing existing airline and airport contingency plans for extended tarmac delays for best practices.

PAI Consulting

" Reporting to the Secretary the results of its consideration and a description of the model contingency plans developed.

Minutes

Mr. Podberesky stated that because there is an open related rulemaking action, the Task Force minutes also will be placed in the rulemaking docket if any discussion touches on the rulemaking.

OIG PRESENTATION

Mr. Scott Macey, DOT OIG, provided a presentation to the Task Force titled "Perspectives on Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Delays." (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the presentation.)

Mr. Macey discussed the following topics:

• The OIG's mission and organization;

• The genesis of airline customer service issues;

• The OIG's 1999 to 2000 review of airline customer service, including results and recommendations;

• The OIG's 2007 review of long, on-board delays performed at Secretary Peters' request;

• The OIG's follow-up review done at Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee Jerry Costello's request; and

• The flight delay profile at 15 airports during the summer of 2007.

Ms. Deborah C. McElroy, ACI-NA, advised the Task Force that ACI-NA drafted a summary of the OIG's 2007 report. Ms. McElroy provided copies of the summary to the meeting attendees. (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the ACI-NA summary.)

It was suggested that the Task Force use the work done during the two workshops held by ACI-NA on January 17 and 18, 2007, as a springboard. Ms. McElroy stated that she has copies of the summary report from those workshops. She added that the workshops were very productive. It was noted that the summary report would be posted to the Task Force docket. (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the ACI-NA workshops summary.)

Mr. Podberesky asked whether tarmac delays are generally caused by weather and it was noted that is cortect. Mr. Macey added that it is agreed that tarmac delays also are due to airport and national airspace weather delays.

Mr. Benjamin DeCosta, ATL, asked whether the OIG considered passenger tolerance levels. Mr. Macey responded that the OIG did not look into the passenger pain threshold but that it appears to all depend on the particular passenger. He added that an informed passenger is good, and not enough information is begin given to passengers to allow them to make a decision. He

PAI Consulting

added that there does not seem to be a specific number of hours each passenger can or cannot tolerate.

Mr. Leo Schefer, Washington Airports Task Force, asked about cancellations and noted that a cancelled flight is equivalent to an extended delay. The Task Force needs to consider delayed and cancelled passengers in this era of high passenger loads.

Mr. Macey stated that it is important how passengers are handled, especially for multiple cancellations. He added that airlines do not like to cancel flights.

Mr. Schefer noted that what stands out after reading the material is that there is no common threshold for defining delays. He asked whether the Task Force should define a delay and what triggers it. He added that the definition may vary based on the size of the aircraft and that perhaps the airports should have more authority in this matter.

Mr. Dayton Lehman, DOT, added that passenger tolerance depends on where the passenger is going, and pointed out that passengers are more likely to be tolerant of a tarmac delay if, for example, they are on their way to a week vacation on a flight that operates only two or three times a week. Mr. Robert Falter, DOT, added that the disability perspective is good because tolerance also depends on the specific passenger in addition to where that passenger is going.

Mr. Macey stated that the OIG is conducting a follow-up review and gathering airline information. He stated that airlines have trigger points for policy actions and that contingency plans are better today than they were in 2001. However, he added that there is no single standard for deplaning passengers. All circumstances must be considered, including the airport configuration, safety, and security.

Mr. Paul Ruden, American Society of Travel Agents, stated that the Task Force should not assume what people think. Tolerance is very complicated and everyone can have personal opinions. The Task Force needs data and should not make up conclusions.

Mr. Podberesky stated that cancellations are not always in a consumer's best interests. He added that airlines reduce their schedules in anticipation of bad weather and many have liberal rescheduling policies. He stated that consumers may not be aware of these policies and added that there is no general rule.

Ms. Lysa Scully, PANYNJ, discussed the issue of a standard for airports. However, it was stated that it cannot be prescriptive and should only be a guideline. Airlines need to tell the airport if there are problems and if they need to return to the gate to drop off a passenger. It is challenging to create a standard.

Mr. William Lange, Compass, stated that the Task Force has been discussing the issue as being delays but he added that the discussion should also consider a passenger's tolerance to recovery actions, such as cancellations, once an airline has reacted to a delay. It is a complicated issue that is not only related to the initiating event but also what happens to people after the event.

PAI Consulting

PASSENGER PERSPECTIVE

Ms. Kate Hanni, Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights (Coalition), provided a presentation on the passenger perspective. She stated that the Coalition's members hope that model contingency plans can be developed and airlines and airports can modify their behaviors. She stated that minimum standards are required and that the DOT must review and have approval authority over the contingency plans to ensure they are met.

Ms. Hanni discussed the history of the Coalition. She discussed an example of a tarmac delay where there was no good reason not to take the aircraft to the gate to wait. She stated that it was a difficult experience in which there was no food or water, passengers could not use the bathroom, and fights broke out among the passengers. She stated that after 9 hours and passenger threats, the pilots took the aircraft to the gate.

Ms. Hanni stated that the Coalition began with 100 stranded passengers and has grown to 22,000 members, with unpaid advisors and a hotline to assist passengers.

Ms. Hanni played an audio of stranded and delayed passenger telephone calls and an airline pilot complaining about reduced rest time. She added that these particular individuals were on the tarmac for 4 to 8 hours. (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the transcribed audio presentation.)

Ms. Hanni stated that all hotline calls are returned and the Coalition learns what will and will not be tolerated. She stated that she has 9,000 calls from passengers whose needs were not met while stuck on aircraft. She stated the Coalition is gathering statistics to try to determine the average delay time and if there is a psychological and physical tolerance level. Ms. Harmi stated that the Coalition is trying to help passengers get through these situations. She stated that casual travelers do not understand the situation. Ms. Hanni added that flights not reported by airlines or counted by the Federal Government because they were cancelled or diverted cannot be verified. She stated that the DOT acknowledges that it does not count tarmac delays eventually cancelled or retum to the gate, which she states can cause a 25 percent error in the numbers.

Ms. Hanni stated that passengers do not want to board a flight if it is not going to take off. Passengers want honesty and timely flight information. She added that passengers also want essential needs taken care of if they are stranded, such as food, bottled water, bathrooms, medicine, and cabin temperatures. Ms. Hanni stated that passengers should be able to choose to deplane after 3 hours if it is safe and feasible. She stated that this time limit is no more arbitrary than State age limits for drinking or obtaining a driver's license. She stated that airlines also should have contingency plans for alternate transportation and the retum of passengers' baggage. She added that this needs to be enforceable and contingency plans need to be monitored.

Ms. Hanni stated that airports play an important role and that they must have a legal right to make a deplaning gate available. She added that airport contractors must be obligated to remain open if passengers are stranded.

PAI Consulting 10

Ms. Hanni stated that Mr. James F. Crites from DFW has sponsored meetings and that the Task Force's work will be easier because of those meetings. She added that the PANYNJ also has useful care plans. She stated that the DOT should set and enforce minimum protections just like part 139 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. She added that there always is room for the airlines to compete for passenger good will above what is required by regulatory standards.

Ms. Hanni stated that the Coalition is moving forward, and DOT should set minimum standards. She added that other options include airport authority requirements and State legislation.

Ms. Hanni added that the Coalition supports funding for increased capacity because passengers being stranded is an unintended result of congestion. She added that the reauthorization legislation needs to be passed so the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) can be worked on.

Mr. DeCosta asked if the Coalition has any airline response to the passenger complaints heard on the audio. Ms. Hanni responded that generally customer service departments disregard the complaining passengers and that is why people call the hotline. She said that airlines are not very responsive and the Coalition tries to get the telephone numbers of individuals higher up at the airlines to escalate the issue.

Mr. Schefer asked where the 3-hour deplaning standard came from. Ms. Hanni stated that it was a compromise. The Coalition members wanted a shorter time period but were advised that it would be impossible to get agreement from the airlines for less than 3 hours. She explained that the time limit actually is 3 hours with two 30-minute extensions. She added that the best option would be for people movers to go out to the aircraft to deplane passengers so the airplane does not have to taxi back to the gate. She added that the World Health Organization states that the chance of developing fatal blood clots doubles after 4 hours.

Mr. Podberesky stated that he would like the airlines' perspective and insights on the complications of bringing an aircraft back to the gate.

DELTA AIR LINES PRESENTATION

Mr. Gary Edwards, Delta, provided a presentation titled "Delta's Extended Ground Delay Response Program." (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the presentation.)

Mr. Edwards discussed the following topics during his presentation:

• The development of Delta's Operational Control Center;

• The Operational Control Center's mission statement;

• The national awareness of airline extended ground delays;

• Delta's proactive operational planning; and

• Delta's reactive irregular operations (IROP) strategy.

PAI Consulting 11

In summary, Mr. Edwards stated that safety is paramount through all decisions. Mr. Edwards noted that Delta hates on-board delays just as much as the customers. He stated that IROPs are multiday events, and when they enter one, they already have a plan to get out. Delta's goal is to always avoid or minimize customer impact through proactive planning when possible. He added that the flying public does not always see all the causes of delays, and Delta's goal is to get the airplane in the air. He stressed that hard caps for mandatory deplaning is a bad idea and that airlines policing themselves would be a better solution.

Mr. Jerome Jones, FAA, asked what flight attendants and gate agents can do when there are complaints from passengers or they see situations developing. Mr. Edwards stated that Delta's Operational Control Center relays information from flight attendants and captains regarding the situation. The captain and dispatcher will decide what needs to happen and pass the information to the Operational Control Center. If an airplane needs to retum to a gate, the Operational Control Center contacts the airport to see if the airplane can retum to a gate. He added that if an airplane needs to retum to a gate, it will. Mr. Edwards stated that each division goes through its chain of command and each higher level organization has a representative in the Operational Control Center.

Ms. Daiquiri Gleaves, Delta, stated that passengers have differing opinions about what to do— some passengers want to get off the airplane, while others want to remain and not have the flight cancelled. In one situation, an airplane retumed to a gate but was not connected to the gate. Passengers were offered the option of deplaning after 1.5 hours and then again after 3 hours. One passenger asked to deplane after 3 hours but was told the flight would then be cancelled. The passenger withdrew the request. Ms. Gleaves stated that no one can definitively say how long a passenger is willing to stay on board. Mr. Jones asked what kind of feedback Delta receives from flight attendants and pilots in these situations. Ms. Gleaves stated that the flight attendants and pilots agreed that the situation was handled well but there was still fmstration.

Mr. Ruden, American Society of Travel Agents, finds a phenomenon of gate agents not knowing what is going on when there are unexpected delays. The gate agents appear to be out of the communication loop. This is fmstrating for passengers and presents a credibility problem. Mr. Edwards stated that many times customers receive an electronic notice through Delta's alert system (for example, e-mail, text message) even before the gate agents. However, this is often because of constantly changing information and not because of a lack of communication. He added that the FAA statistics reflect that ground delay programs often change. Therefore, Delta will hide this information if they think it will change without affecting any flights.

Mr. DeCosta stated that as an airport leader, the problem is "fog of war" situational awareness, meaning the airport does not know early enough about what is happening and by the time they do it is usually too late. Mr. DeCosta asked how Delta handles unexpected events such as deicing events. Mr. Edwards stated that deicing is always difficult and handled by thinning and reducing expectations. He added that Delta's icing is usually short-lived at ATL, so it is not that much of an issue. However, if Delta gets too far behind, the company has learned to communicate at all levels and update and amend its plan as necessary. He added that Delta works with the airport to try to solve the problem. Mr. DeCosta stated that in the worst situations

PAI Consulting 12

not everyone knows what is happening to amend the plan coherently to avoid massive delays and cancellations. Mr. Edwards stated that enacting and staying on the plan is the responsibility of the Operational Control Center working with airport staff He added that sometimes the Operational Control Center has to be reactive. Mr. DeCosta noted that in tough situations the FAA and air traffic control can help, but it requires good coordination with the control tower and Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON).

Mr. Roger Cohen, RAA, asked if the fifth mnway at ATL helped and how much infrastmcture i^nprovements would help. Mr. Edwards stated that he cannot quantify that, but he said that the fifth mnway provided exponential help with delays. He also added that air space is even more important than real estate.

Mr. Patrick Murphy, US Airways, mentioned that groups want a legal hard cap on the amount of delay time before passengers are required to be deplaned and asked if that would be bad and how Delta would adapt. Mr. Edwards stated that if there was a 4-hour cap that caused you to deplane passengers and ultimately cancel flights, there would be many more problems, such as in Europe passengers would be stranded for at least 48 hours. In this situation, you lose command and control of your infrastmcture. You miss maintenance actions because the airplane is not at the correct airport at the correct time. This all snowballs and becomes unmanageable. If IROP is the reason, the airport infrastmcture also cannot support the event and all hotels would be filled. He stated that airlines are not going to keep passengers locked on an airplane in a punitive manner.

Ms. Hanni stated that the Coalition's hotline received a lot of calls from passengers at ATL in a deicing line. Passengers wanted to deplane and get a flight the next day. There also were concems of no food or water. She pointed out that no one is hearing the passengers' human experience on the airplane. Ms. Hanni added that there was even a situation where an airplane retumed to the gate and passengers were given 15 minutes to get food and then were relegated to sitting on the airplane for another 4 or 5 hours. She states that this changes the data to a shorter amount of time on the tarmac, which is a benefit for the airline but not the passenger.

Mr. Edwards stated that a Delta flight caimot push back from the gate without a deicing slot in the queue, and there are 12 airplanes moving toward the deicing pad at all times. He stated that if the airplane stays at the gate with the door open, the passengers can come and go as they please. In the 15-minute example, he stated that Delta does not do that just to change the data because there are bigger issues during IROP.

Ms. Hanni stated that during this event, the FAA reported that there were 90 airplanes waiting for deicing. Mr. Edwards responded that there is no way that happened because there is not space for 90 airplanes in the queue at ATL.

Ms. Hanni stated that ATL received money to purchase buses; she asked about using those buses to deplane passengers. Mr. DeCosta stated that the new buses and hard stands are for aircraft arriving without a gate and are not for deplaning passengers.

PAI Consulting 13

Ms. Hanni stated that the big issue for passengers is when the airplane returns to the gate and they are told not to leave and have to continue sitting on the airplane. Mr. Edwards stated that he would need more information before he could respond to this allegation. Ms. Hanni stated that the Coalition will be releasing a report card for every airline on Wednesday that includes all of the flight numbers.

Mr. Podberesky stated that an unintended result of a hard cap could be that an airline could deplane passengers and then put them back on, which could go on forever without the airline ever violating the hard cap. This situation is still bad for the consumer.

Mr. Schefer asked if an aircraft can be held until it has a slot in the deicing queue, can it also be held at the gate until it has a slot for takeoff. Mr. Edwards stated that most airport layouts and infrastmctures will not support that scenario because of the many airlines merging into takeoff queues. Mr. Schefer asked if new airport designs could include a system that when an airplane leaves a gate, the pilots know how long they have to wait before they can take off. Mr. Edwards said that could be done but there are real estate issues and airspace issues. Help is needed to redesign the airspace.

Mr. Larry Newman, ALPA, asked why there are not better deicing solutions like a "car wash" at the end of the mnway. That could be a short-term partial solution. He added that airlines could also look at their practice of only stocking an aircraft on an outbound leg and not at each stop. The airlines could also have an additional stock at each airport.

Mr. Edwards spoke about the Munich deicing model and stated it was expensive and there were environmental issues. He added that he has no opinion on the stocking issues but there could be supply chain issues.

Mr. Kenneth Johnson, Delta, noted that stocking involves a predictability factor and it could take more time for spontaneous catering that may never be used, which would cause more delays. Stocking across the board is not economical or practical.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES PRESENTATION

Mr. Robert Muhs, Northwest, provided a presentation titled "Reducing Tarmac Delays at NWA." (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the presentation.)

Mr. Muhs discussed the following topics during his presentation:

• The need for advance planning;

• Northwest's customer first guidelines;

• Northwest's taxi delay tool for real-time airport surface control;

• Operational strategies;

• Diversion management for both summer and winter weather events; and

• The Sensis surface movement system.

PAI Consulting 14

Mr. Muhs stressed that Northwest does not support hard caps for deplaning passengers. He noted that Northwest's goal is to move an airplane safely and on time and minimize the amount of time on the tarmac. He pointed out that Northwest's current processes are in place because of the January 1999 Northwest delay incident. He added that the way to prevent what happened in January 1999 is to partner with the airport authorities.

Mr. Muhs outlined Northwest's real-time taxi delay tool that allows everyone to see what is happening for better airport surface control. He also discussed Northwest's Sensis surface movement system and how this can be used for better situational awareness.

In summary, Mr. Muhs stated that advance planning is key. The airlines should expect seasonal dismptions and establish contingency plans for unexpected events. En route weather causes challenges that are not evident to passengers, so communication is key in these situations. He stated that customer first guidelines should prevail. He recommended using real-time performance tracking systems and noted that it is important to have primary altemate stations that are ready and equipped to handle flight diversions.

Mr. Schefer asked if the Sensis tool cut down on tarmac delays. Mr. Muhs responded that there has been a positive impact on deicing but he cannot give exact numbers for tarmac delays. Sensis enabled Northwest to find inefficiencies in its deicing and fix them. He added that in the summer, tarmac delays are usually because of a national airspace issue and not a surface issue, so Sensis is not very helpful in the summer. He stated that Sensis is available for everyone to see and that Northwest provides a feed to the FAA, as well as to the airports.

Mr. Ruden mentioned hard caps and stated that it sounds like the passenger issues Ms. Hanni discussed would not happen with Northwest's system. He questioned where the disconnect exists, because extreme ground delays still happen with sophisticated systems in place. Mr. Muhs noted that this is an interesting dilemma. It may be a perception issue because delays in air travel are not as expected as they are in other modes of travel. Or, it could be that passengers have no control. He did note that long delays are rare. The national airspace, scheduling, and customer demands all are issues. Mr. Muhs stated that there is a belief by passengers that airlines know about problems in advance, but that is not reality. If hard caps are imposed, an airline would not violate a hard cap. So, the only altemative would be to cancel the flight. He asked whether that was better or would it be more of a disservice to the passengers. Mr. Muhs believes that it would be better to be able to provide good flight information.

Ms. McElroy stated that ACI-NA advocates a departure queue management program. Mr. Muhs stated that anything that helps with predictability would be positive. He added that it costs the airlines money to sit on the tarmac.

Ms. Hanni asked about Northwest's strategies for diversions. Mr. Muhs stated that Northwest's preferred option is to fuel and go. Northwest uses an FAA diversion recovery tool that often works for quick tumarounds. Ms. Hanni then asked about major diversions. Mr. Muhs stated that, in that situation, deplaning is the strategy, but that usually is easier said than done. There are issues with airport secured areas when deplaning. Ms. Hanni then asked how Southwest handles the issue.

PAI Consulting 15

Ms. Hanni stated that she understands that Southwest does not leave the gate until they are able to take off Mr. Steven Hozdulick, Southwest, stated that Southwest tries to have aircraft remain at the gate until they are ready to go, and to let passengers know if the airplane has to be deiced. Ms. Hanni noted that Southwest's and Northwest's statistics are good. Mr. Hozdulick stated that communication is important, and that they try to give customers a choice before boarding.

Mr. Muhs stated that you get an Expect Departure Clearance Time (EDCT), which changes to a ground stop because of weather. He added that weather is dynamic and makes communication hard.

Mr. Cohen pointed out that there are a lot of airports available to the regional airlines for diversions. However, the airlines with hub and spoke systems are different.

Mr. Bill Lange, Compass, noted that a regional airplane may be able to divert to a small airport but the passengers would not be able to deplane because there is no TSA coverage at some small airports.

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION'S REMARKS

Secretary Mary Peters thanked the Task Force and noted that the work it was doing is important and President George W. Bush and herself have made helping travelers a high priority. She noted that with summer approaching she wants to have concrete recommendations that the DOT can move forward on. Secretary Peters stated that President Bush has highlighted the problems from last summer and has challenged the DOT to make the system more responsive to travelers.

Secretary Peters noted that the DOT is—

• Working on regulations to help passengers know what to expect when they book a flight, allow us to step up oversight of chronically delayed flights, and enhance protections for consumers who are bumped, experience delays or have complaints against airlines.

• Creating holiday fast lanes with the cooperation of the Department of Defense that could also be used at other times.

• In the short term, putting temporary caps in place in the New York region.

• Redesigning the airspace.

• Proposing changes to landing fee policies.

• Expanding capacity.

• Evaluating pricing to manage congestion around busy airports.

• Working on NextGen and increased capacity.

• Working toward long-term solutions not only to treat travelers better but to solve the issues.

PAI Consulting 16

Secretary Peters noted that weather cannot be controlled and that unexpected incidents can cause delays. Therefore, model contingency plans are important.

Secretary Peters stated that the Task Force is complementing the efforts already undertaken by some airports and airlines. She added that finding a way to limit delays and cancellations is important. Secretary Peters stated that 2007 was the worst year to date for delays and cancellations, with increased customer complaints about business and personal impacts. She added that there also have been baggage and customer service complaints and hortor stories about long waits.

Secretary Peters stated that she wants specific recommendations to prevent these types of events in the future. The Task Force was established to create new partnerships and plans. Its members form a diverse group that all want to put the customer first. She stated that the customer and customer needs must come first.

Secretary Peters stated that she wants the Task Force to put everything on the table and honestly review how existing practices do or do not work. She wants tangible results for travelers. Secretary Peters noted the Task Force should review procedures that work and identify new procedures and partnerships.

Secretary Peters wants to report to President Bush that the DOT has met his challenge. She is looking forward to reviewing the Task Force recommendations.

AIRPORT PERSPECTIVE

Mr. Jim Crites, DFW, provided a presentation to the Task Force titled "Planning for Irregular Operations at DFW International Airport." (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the presentation.)

Mr. Crites discussed the following topics:

• Specifics of DFW;

• Potential emergency situations;

• Irregular operations;

• Current environment driving forces and challenges;

• DFW's event contingency plan, including the irregular operations planning/process;

• The DFW executive commitment; and

" The DFW irregular operations plan, including key components, the process for maintaining it, and preplanning considerations.

In closing, Mr. Crites stated that integrated partnering works, and executive management support is critical. There needs to be active participation for training and support of the plan at all levels. Mr. Crites stated that technology is important for continuous, shared situational awareness. He

PAI Consulting 17

explained that customers are empowered by their personal devices, such as Blackberties and cell phones, because they can receive communications. He added that you need to be mindful and attentive to the needs of service providers, and know what resources are available to you outside of your organization. You need to think beyond the borders of the airport. For example, the Red Cross can help in certain situations.

Ms. McElroy mentioned a DFW seminar with a technology discussion and asked what airport technologies are available. Mr. Crites stated that there are a couple of products that provide multiple data streams to provide a holistic view of the situation at the airport, and that they are now linking it to hotels. He added that some airports negotiate a flat rate for hotel rooms. Mr. Crites stated that airports have no authority, but they do have a desire to leverage the infrastmcture to support the airlines and facilitate delivery of a constant service.

Mr. Lehman asked if DFW holds daily conference calls, or if there is a trigger. Mr. Crites responded that there are preplarmed conference calls and ad hoc conference calls.

Mr. Podberesky asked how an airline disembarks its passengers if its gates are full. Mr. Crites stated that they can use gate docks or other available gates, including spare gates.

Mr. Podberesky then asked if there are ways to service airplanes on an active mnway. Mr. Crites stated that there are no ways to do that, but they can service the airplanes on non-movement areas such as deicing pads. He added that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is developing and deploying a catenary wire system to provide lightning protection. This same system would enable someone to safely approach an airplane, but once a door is opened, there are other issues. Mr. Podberesky noted that lightning protection seems to be a recent issue. Mr. Crites stated that because of injuries resulting from lightning strikes, employees will not service airplanes during lightening storms. There now are lightning detection systems, and lightning protection systems are next. Lightning causes a lot of service dismptions.

Based on passenger perceptions that they are not moving, Mr. Ruden asked if airports could create a standstill to make a movement area a non-movement area. Mr. Crites stated the FAA has control over movement areas, but airports can ensure airlines that they will not lose their spot in the takeoff queue if they have to pull them out of line to give another airplane room to move into a non-movement area.

PERSPECTIVE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Mr. Michael Collins, a disability rights advocate, provided a presentation to the Task Force titled "Passengers with Disabilities and Tarmac Delays: Canaries in the Coal Mine?" (See separate Task Force docket entry for a copy of the presentation.)

Mr. Collins discussed the following topics:

• Who are the people with disabilities, including types of disabilities;

• Common issues impacting travel by people with disabilities;

PAI Consulting

• Special protection for people with disabilities;

• Why this is important and why does it matter;

• Suggestions for how to accommodate passengers with disabilities; and

• Things to remember and sources of additional information.

Mr. Collins noted that most disabled persons are not easily identifiable. However, those who travel may require assistance. He stated that if people with disabilities are accommodated during an extensive delay, then other passengers should be okay. He did commend the industry for its efforts to support disabled passengers over the last 20 years. Mr. Collins added that it is important to hear other people's comments and suggestions.

Mr. Podberesky stated that the presentation has a lot of good points and suggestions. Mr. Collins added that many individuals with disabilities can accommodate themselves if they know what they are facing. Even providing worst-case-scenario information is important to know.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

WRAP UP

Next Meeting

Mr. Podberesky stated that the next meeting is tentatively planned for end of April in the same DOT location. It will be a full-day meeting.

At the next Task Force meeting, there are plans to have presentations by the following:

Air traffic control, providing a perspective on holds and ground delays and uncertainties in the system;

The PANYNY;

ExpressJet, providing a regional airline's perspective;

Another airport, as yet undetermined;

Another airline, as yet undetermined;

TSA possibly, outlining the security issues with deplaning passengers at airports with limited TSA personnel; and

CBP possibly, outlining the issues with deplaning passengers at airports without CBP offices or personnel.

Mr. Podberesky noted that if anyone else is interested in presenting they should speak up.

PAI Consulting 19

Review of Incidents

The Task Force discussed what incidents it should review, because the charter states that it will review incidents. Mr. Podberesky stated that the OIG report already adequately addresses the incident in late 2006 and incident in early 2007 during which passengers were stranded on board aircraft for extended periods of time so an overview of other incidents would be good. Ms. Hanni stated that the Coalition tracks thousands of tarmac delay incidents, including instances involving diversions and cancellations. Mr. Podberesky stated that if Ms. Hanni provides the information to the Task Force, it can review the list to pick out certain events but will not review each and every incident.

It was noted that these meetings are open to the public and all information has to be available to the pubic. That prompted a discussion about having this data available to the public on the docket, and Mr. Paul McGraw, ATA, stated that they would want to have an opportunity to defend any incidents. Mr. Schefer added that when people are upset, they usually are not the best at providing observations, so perhaps Ms. Hanni's data should be compared to flight data to retrieve the meaningful data. Mr. Podberesky noted that if the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data supports Ms. Hanni's data, the Task Force can approach the airline and ask it about the data's accuracy. Ms. Hanni noted that within 45 days data disappears.

Ms. Julie Oettinger, United, pointed out that no one is denying there are problems, and based on the time available to the Task Force, it may not help to review incidents. Mr. Podberesky pointed out that the charter calls for the Task Force to perform this review and the OIG recommended the Task Force review incidents. He added that the review will facilitate creation of a list of the causes of tarmac delays.

Mr. Collins noted that it is important to find out if incidents are not part of a record and why. He added that it is important to determine the causes of incidents and that by performing a top-down look, improved policies can be developed.

Ms. Hanni added that incidents occur more frequently than BTS data shows since BTS does not collect data about flights that are cancelled or diverted. Mr. McGraw noted that issue is the subject of another proceeding.

Mr. Ruden believed that the Task Force should be looking at some examples and doing a case study to understand what happened. He added that it is the Task Force's mission to address mitigating the impact of delays and not just addressing the delays. Mr. Podberesky noted that the two are not that different because the cause of tarmac delays also affects passengers.

Task Force Procedures

The Task Force discussed its procedures from this point forward. Mr. Ruden noted that further briefings would be helpful but asked how the Task Force will create model contingency plans such that any airport, airline, or the FAA could adapt the plan to its own use.

The Task Force then discussed if there should be one model plan or separate plans based on the size of the airport or airline. It was noted that there are core issues common to all so it was

PAI Consulting 20

suggested the model should have a common set of issues for all, as well as subsections based on the size of the airport or airline.

Review of Causes of Delays

The Task Force discussed whether it should address the causes of ground delays. Although several members questioned whether it was outside the scope of the Task Force's charter to review the causes of ground delays, there appeared to be a general consensus that it is necessary to understand the causes to diminish the delays and, therefore, mitigate the effect of delays on passengers.

Establishment of Working Groups

The Task Force discussed whether it should establish working groups or work as a whole, and the general consensus was that it would be beneficial to use working groups that could report back to the Task Force. The Task Force determined that it would start with two working groups as follows:

• Working Group 1, to review the common needs of significantly delayed passengers on aircraft and disembarking from aircraft; and

• Working Group 2, to list the possible causes of lengthy tarmac delays.

After those working groups complete their tasks, the Task Force will form two additional working groups that will address these issues from an airport perspective and from an airline perspective. Each of these working groups will have cross-representation. Mr. Podberesky noted that there will be contractor support for the working group. He stated that he will canvass the Task Force members in the next week or two to determine interest in participating on the working groups.

PAI Consulting 21

ACTION ITEMS

Action Responsible Individual

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Complete Task Force record of meeting.

Canvass Task Force for working group chairs and members.

Report on common needs of passengers and disembarking from aircraft.

Report on causes of tarmac delays.

Presentation for next meeting with copy to Peggy Swalve by April 24, 2008.

Presentation for next meeting with copy to Peggy Swalve by April 24, 2008.

Presentation for next meeting with copy to Peggy Swalve by April 24, 2008.

ACI-NA summaries to Peggy Swalve and Nancy Kessler.

Peggy Swalve/ Sam Podberesky

Sam Podberesky

Working Group 1

Working Group 2

Lysa C. Scully, PANYNJ

Larry Newman, ALPA

Charles M. Durham III, ExpressJet

Deborah C. McElroy, ACI-NA

CERTIFICATION OF THIS RECORD OF MEETING

I, Samuel Podberesky, certify that this record of meeting is accurate.

Signed: Samuel Podberesky, Chairman

Dated:

PAI Consulting 22