oversight

Growth and Use of Washington Area Airports

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-08-18.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

          RESTRICTED      Not 4 b 1 released outside the General
          Aecounting Office except on the basis of specific appmval
          by the Office of Legislative Liaison, a record of which is kept
D) sr4s   lby the Distribution Sectin, Publications Branch, OA$




          Growth And Use Of
          Washington Area Airports
          Federal Aviation Administration
          Department of Transportation




          BY THE COMPTROLLER GE~NERAL"
          OF THE UNITED STATES



            9S5 7g3p                                 AUG. 1 ,1 971
                                                FILE GOPY - CamP aN
      1 w~~~~
                  COMPTROLLER GENEAL OF THE UNITID STATI
                                           t.C.
                              WA~~~~WAINO'UN.     _m




B-159719


 Dear Senator Spong:

      This is our report on the growth and use of Washington area air-
ports made ?ursuant to your request of April 26, 1971t, and subsequent
discussions with your office.

       The report which is summarized in the digest includes historical
 data relative to the growth and evolution of Washington National and
 Dulles International Airports, a discussion of recent efforts by the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration to balance service at National and Dulles,
and an analysis of other selected aspects of area airport traffic. We plan
to furnish you with a report at a later date in response to your question
 concerning the legal status and jurisdiction over improvements made by
the air carriers at National in the event the airports are sold.

      We plan to make no further distribution of this report unless copier
are specifically requested, and then we shall make distribution only after
your agreement has been obtained or public announcement has been made
by you concern,ing the contents of the report. We did not obtain comments
from Department of Transportation officials on this report. This fact
should be taken into consideration in any use made of the information pre-
sented.

     We trust the information furnished will serve your purposes.

                                            Sincerely your s,




                                   Acting Comptroller General
                                          of the United States

The Honorable William B. Spong, Jr.
United States Senate




                       50 TH ANNIVERSARY 1921- 1971
COMPTROLLER GENERAL 'S                        GROWTH AND USE C' WASHINGTON AREA
REPORT TO THE                                 AIRPORTS
HONORABLE WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR.               Federal Aviation Administration
UNITED STATES SENATE                          Department of Transportation B-159719

DIGEST

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

       At the request of Senator William B. Spong, Jr., the General Accounting
       Office (GAO) examined into selected aspects of the management and use of
       Washington National and Dulles International Airports. GAO also compared
       the flight service available at the three airports in the Washington area--
       National, Dulles, and Friendship Airports.
       National and Dulles Airports, owned by the Federal Government, are man-
       aged and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department
       of Transportation.
       Friendship Airport, owned by the city of Baltimore, is operated by the
       city's Department of Aviation.
       GAO did not obtain written comments on the matters discussed in this report.
       from the Department or FAA.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

       dationaZ Airport development
       National, opened for commercial air service in 1941, has become one of
       the busiest airports in the United States. National originally was con-
       structed for the use of low-speed propeller aircraft but since 1966 has
       been used by multiengine jets.
       Restrictions were placed on the use of jets, some directed at making Na-
       tional principally a short-haul airport--limiting service to cities within
       650 miles. (See p. 10.)
       Because of the scheduling practices of the airlines, however, substantial
       long-haul service is now provided at National. Nineteen cities outside
       the 650-mile limit have direct service from the Washington area only from
       National, ard several cities beyond 650 miles have nonstop service only
       from National. (See p. 32 and app. II and III.)
       In June 1967 the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) began an investigation to
       determine whether certificates of air carriers authorized to serve Washing-
       ton area airports should be revised or suspended. The principal reason for
       this study was the need to relieve serious passenger traffic congestion in
       National's terminal and parking lots and on National's access roads.

Tear Sheet                               1U                  G 1 81    97 1
In April 1970, acting on information furnished by the Department, CAB
discontinued its investigation and stated that the need for the investi-
gation rno longer existed. (See p. 11.)
Use of stretch jets
In April 1970 air carriers were allowed to use a stretch version   of the
                                                   conditions generated  by
Boeing 727 at National, to temporarily alleviate
an air traffic controllers' "slowdown" in effect at that time.
After the slowdown had been concluded, however,   the air carriers were al-
lowed to continue  using  the stretch jet at National.  FAA planned to study
the effects that the use of stretch jets would have on the future growth
of Friendship and Dulles. (See p. 14.)
 In February 1971 the Administrator of FAA concluded that the use   of the
                                                                growth  and
 stretch jet had no impact on conditions at National or on the
 use of Dulles. The Administrator pointed out, however, that the togeneral
                                                                      identify
 decline in operations a;t the airports in 1970 made it difficult
 trends. (See p. 14.)
                                                                      the number
 In March 1971 the Secretary of Transportation imposed a freeze on time
 of stretch jet operations at National  at levels existing  at that       (78
 flights daily) until facts warranted  a change of  this policy.
                                                                      daily op-
,An FAA official stated that the limitation had been relaxed to 84        78
 erations at the request of the CAB Chairman, because retention of thecarriers
 daily operations limitation would have  worked a  hardship on the  air
 that already had scheduled crews, maintenance, and aircraft for the summer
 traffic.
Modernization of NationaZ Airport
                                                                     scope
 In September 1968 a firm of architects employed by FAA to study themodern-
 of future activity at National reported that the airport should be
 ized and expanded to accommodate 16 million passengers annually by 1980.
 (See p. 15.)
                                                                Budget in-
 FAA's 1972 budget submission to the Office of Management andshare
 cluded a request for $26 million to cover the Government's cost of of  a
 major modernization of National. FAA estimated   thie total         moderniza-
 tion to be $157 million. It was anticipated that the air carriers and con-
 cessionaires would provide $79 million and $52 million, respectively.
 Although the President's budget for fiscal year 1972 included only    $2 mil-
 lion for runway and apron improvements, an FAA official advised   us  that
 FAA planned to seek financial participation by the air carriers during     fis-
 cal year 1972 to initiate construction of  the planned  modernization  of  Na-
 tional without Federal assistance. (See p. 16.)




                                     2
Dulles International Airport development
Dulles was opened in 1962.   During its early years growth was below expec-
tations.
After FAA's 1966 decision to allow jets into National, the air carriers
began increasing scheduled jet service into National. Currently the ma-
jority of jet service for the area is furnished at National.
The result is that National is used at virtually maximum allowable levels,
whereas use of Dulles continues to be at a minimum much of the time.
(See p. 18.)
Air carriers' schedules have resulted in high use of Dulles during certain
peak hours, virtual nonuse at other times, and fairly uniform use of Na-
tional throughout the day. (See p. 24.)
Expansion of Dulles
In late 1969 FAA forecast an accelerated increase in the use of Dulles.
FAA predicted that if this increase were achieved, the terminal facilities
would have to be expanded before 1974.
The President's budget for fiscal year 1972 contains $14.7 million for the
expansion of the Dulles terminal and $2.8 million for the expansion of the
mobile lounge fleet. (See p. 27.)
Because the use of Dulles has declined significantly since late 1969 and
because in the past FAA has tended to overestimate the growth in the use
of Dulles, the planned expansion of the Dulles terminal facilities seems
to be questionable. It appears that the expansion merely would serve to
accommodate the air carriers in their practice of scheduling most of their
service during a limited peak period during the day. (See p. 27.)
Concerln over imbalance in use of airports
The National Capital Planning Commission, responsible for developing and
adopting a comprehensive plan for the District of Columbia, becamie con-
cerned in 1966 when FAA decided to allow jet service at National. At that
time and again in May 1970, the Commission recommended that FAA study the
future role of National as an air terminal in the Washington area and sus-
pend further construction at the airport until study results were available.
The Commission advised GAO that it was studying long-range needs for air
transportation and terminal facilities in the Washington area but that this
study would not be completed until June 1973. (See p. 29.)
In April 1969 the Administrator began a study to determine alternatives for
increasing utilization of Dulles. The study was directed toward methods
to transfer a portion of National's traffic to Dulles. (See p. 29.)



Tear Sheet                          3
The study whihn was completed in September 1969 indicates that FAA could
take action to create a better balance in the use of the area's airports.
GAO found no indication, however, that such action had been planned. (See
n. 30.)




                                   4
                          Contents
                                                          Paie
DIGEST                                                           1
CHAPTER

      1    INTRODUCTION                                          5
      2    MANAGEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF NATIONAL AND
           DULLES                                            8
               National Airport                              9
               Admission of stretch Jets                    13
               Modernization plans                          15
               Dulles International Airport                 18
      3    CONCERN OVER IMBALANCE IN USE OF AIRPORTS        28
               National Capital Planning Commission         28
               Department of Transportation                 29
               Comparison of selected long-haul ser-
                 vice at Washirnton area airports           32
APPENDIX

      I    Comparison of equipment and seating capacity
             for nonstop Chicago service at Washington
             area airports--April 1, 1970,and May 1,
             1971                                           37
  II       Schedule of daily Washington National direct
             service to and from cities beyond the 650-
             mile limit compared with similar Dulles
             and Friendship service as of May 1, 1971       41
 III       Comparison of daily nonstop Washington area
             airport service to and from cities outside
             the 650-mile limit as of flay 1, 1971          42
                          ABBREVIATIONS

CAB        Civil Aeronautics Board
FAA        Federal Aviation Administration
GAO        General Accounting Office
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S                         GROWTH AND USE OF WASHINGTON AREA
REPORT TO THE                                 AIRPORTS
HONORABLE WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR.               Federal Aviation Administration
UNITED STATES SENATE                          Department of Transportation B-159719

DIGEST

WHY THE REVIEW    WAS MADE
     At the request of Senator William B. Spong, Jr., the General Accounting
     Office (GAO) examined into selected aspects of the management and use of
     Washington National and Dulles International Airports. GAO also compared
     the flight service available at the three airports in the Was:iington area--
     National, Dulle-, and Friendship Airports.
     National and Dulles Airports, owned by the Federal Government, are man-
     aged and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department
     of Transportation.
     Friendship Airport, owned by the city of Baltimore, is operated by the
     city's Department of Aviation.
     GAO did not obtain written comments on the matters d!scussea in this report
     from the Departient or FAA.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

     National Airport development
     National, opened for commercial air service in 1941, has become one of
     the busiest airports inthe United States. National originally was con-
     structed for the use of low-speed propeller aircraft but since 1966 has
     been used by multiengine jets.
     Restrictions were placed on the use of Jets, some directed at making Na-
     tional principally a short-haul airport--limiting service to cities within
     650 miles.    (See p. 10.)
     Because of the scheduling practices of the airlines, however, substantial
     long-haul service is n~w provided at National. Nineteen cities outside
     the 650-mile limit have direct service from the Washington area only from
     National, and several cities beyond 650 miles have nonstop service only
     from National.    (See p. 32 and app. II and IfI.)
     InJune 1967 the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) began an investigation to
     determine whether certificates of air carriers authorized to serve Washing-
     ton area airports should be revised o: suspended. The principal reason for
     this study was the need to relieve serious passenger traffic congestion in
     National's terminal and parking lots and on National's access roads.


                                          I
InApril 1970, acting on information furnished by the Department,  CAB
discontinued its investigation and stated that the need for the investi-
gation no longer existed. (See p. 11.)
Use of 8t2etch jets

InApril 1970 air carriers were allowed to use a stretch version of the
Boeing 727 at National, to temporarily alleviate conditions generated by
an air traffic controllers' "slowdown" ineffect at that time.
After the slowdown had been concluded, however, the airFAAcarriers    were al-
lowed to continue using   the stretch Jet  at National.        planned to study
the effects that the  use  of stretch jets  would have  on the  future growth
of Friendship and Dulles. (See p. 14.)
In February 1971 the Administrator uf FAA concluded that the use of the
stretch Jet had no impact on conditions at National or on the growth and
use of Dulles. The Administrator pointed out, however, that the general
decline inoperations at the airports in 1970 made itdifficult t( identify
trends. (See p. 14.)
 InMarch 1971 the Secretary of Transportation imposed a freeze on the number
of stretch Jet operations at National at levels existing at that time (78
 flights daily) until facts warranted a change of this policy.
 An FAA official stated that the limitation had been relaxed to 84 daily78op-
 erations at the request of the CAB Chairman, because retention of thecarriers
 daily operations limitation would have worked a hardship on the air summer
 that already had scheduled crews, maintenance, and aircraft for the
 traffic.
Modernization of National Airport
InSeptember 1968 a firm of architects employed by FAA to study the scope
of future activity at National reported that the airport should be modern-
ized and expanded to accommodate 16 million passengers annually by 1980.
(See p, 16.)
FAA's 1972 budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget in-
                                                                       a
cluded a request for $26 million to cover the Government's shareof ofmoderniza-
major modernization of National. FAA estimated the  total cost
tion to be $157 million. Itwas anticipated that the air carriers and con-
cessionaires would provide $79 million and $52 million, respe'-tively.
Although the President's budget for fiscal year 1972 included only $2 mil-
lion for runway and apron improvements, an FAA official advised us thatfis-
FAA planned to seek financial participation by the air carriers during
cal year 1972 to initiate construction of the planned modernization of Na-
tional without Federal assistance. (See p. 16.)




                                    2
DuZlee InternationalAirport development
Dulles was opened in 1962. During its early years growth was below expec-
tations.
After FAA's 1966 decision to allow jets into National, the air carriers
began increasing scheduled Jet service into National. Currently the ma-
jority of jet service for the area isfurnished at National.
The result is that National isused at virtually maximum allowable levels,
whereas use of Dulles continues to be at a minimum much of the time.
(See p. 18.)
Air carriers' schedules have resulted in high use of Dulles during certain
peak hours, virtual nonuse at other times, and fairly uniform use of Na-
tional throughout the day. (See p. 24.)
Expasaion of DutZes
In late 1969 FAA forecast an accelerated increase in the use of Dulles.
FAA predicted that if this increase were achieved, the terminal facilities
would have to be expanded before 1974.
The President's budget for fiscal year 1972 contains $14.7 million for the
expansion of the Dulles terminal and $2.8 million for the expansion of the
mobile lounge Mleet. (See p. 27.)
Because the use of Dulles has declined significantly since late 1969 and
because inthe past FAA has tended to overestimate the growth inthe use
of oulles, the planned expansion of the Dulles terminal facilities seems
to be questionable. Itappears that the expansion merely would serve to
accommodate the air carriers in their practice of scheduling most of their
service during a limited peak period during the day. (See p. 27.)
Concern over imbaZance in use of airports
The National Capital Planning Commission, responsible for developing and
adopting a comprehensive plan for the District of Columbia, became con-
cerned in 1966 when FAA decided to allow Jet service at National. At that
time and again inMay 1970, the Commission recommended that FAA study the
future role of National as an air terminal in the Washington area and sus-
pend further construction at the airport until study results were available.
The Conmission advised GAO that it was studying long-range needs for air
transportation and terminal facilities in the Washington area but that this
study would not be completed until June 1973. (See p. 29.)
InApril 1969 the Administrator began a study to determine alternatives for
increasing utilization of Dulles. The study was directed toward methods
to transfer a portion of National's traffic to Oulles. (See p. 29.)



                                   3
The study which was completed in September 1969 indicates that FAA could
take action to create a better balance in the use of the area's airports.
GAO found no indication, however, that such action had been planned. (See
p.30.)




                                  4
                            CHAPTER 1

                          INTRODUCT ION

     Washington National and Dulles International Airports
are owned by the Federal Government and are managed and op-
erated by the Federal Aviation Administration, Department
of Transporation.  In January 1959 the Administrator of FAA
delegated to the Director of FAA's Bureau of National Capi-
tal Airports the responsibility for planning, directing and
supervising the engineering, management, operation, and
maintenance of National and Dulles.

     The Bureau responsibilities included negotiating con-
tracts with the air carriers and other commercial enter-
prises regardIng charges and operating standards and proce-
dures for service, facilities, equipment, and other re-
sources, to render necessary air transportation services to
the public at the airports and to obtain appropriate reim-
bursement for facilities and services furnished by the Gov-
ernment.

     In February 1971 the Administrator abolished the Bureau
and delegated the above responsibilities for the two airports
to the Mlnager of National who reports to FAA's Director of
Airports Service.

     Friendship Airport is owned by the city of Baltimore
and is operated by the city's Department of Aviation. The
Director of the Department of Aviation acts as Manager of
the airport. The Director performs functions at Friendship
similar to the functions performed by FAA's airport manager
of National and Dulleii.

     At the request of Senator Spong, we examined into se-
lected aspects of the management and use of National and
Dulles Airpcrts. Particular emphasis wa.s placed on the
growth and evolution of the airports, recent efforts by FAA
to balance service at the airports, and an analysis of se-
lected aspects of area airport traffic.

        National was opened to commercial traffic in June 1941.
It is    situated on about 850 acres of land and includes three


                                S
runways, two major passenger terminal areas (main terminal
and north terminal), and various other facilities. The
principal runway is 6,870 feet long and 200 feet wide. Of
the other two runrays, one is 5,212 feet long and 200 feet
wide and the other is 4,724 feet long and 150 feet Vide.
On the basis of FAA standards, these runways can handle 60
flights an hour under instrument landing conditions.

     The passenger terminal     rhaving 46 loadi   posi
  rM  -   t -               sl=of
                -ec-onstrdrL-ebasi    h  f   eo
                                             t   .      mp
Passengers at National walk from the terminals t:o the lad-
ing position to board aircraft. As of H.y 1971, 12 air
carriers served National.

     Construction of Dulles was completed in 1962.The -    r-
port is situated on 10,000 acres of land and tnlwds     o
parallel north-south runways, each of which is 11,500 feet
long and 150 feet wide, and a thrd dialonal       y 10,000 .
feet long and 150 feet wide. On the basis of FM sta
these runways can handle 95 flights an hour under In- t
landing conditions.

     The Dulles terminal building was designed around the
mobile lounge, a new concept in airport development for
holding and moving passengers between the terminal and the
aircraft. The building is rectangular (600 feet long and
150 feet wide) and is designed to accommodate ftture ex-
pansion. The terminal contains 24 gates for moving passen-
gers into and out of mobile lounges and presently is operat-
ing with a complement of 23 mobile lounges. The terminal
contains also 10 gates where air carriers may load and in-
load passengers at the terminal without using mobile lonmgs.
As of May 1971, 13 air carriers were serving Dulles Airport.
     Friendship Airport was opened to commercial traffic in
1950. It is situated on about 3,200 acres of land and in-
cludes three runways. One of the runways is 9,500 feet long
and 150 feet wide, one is 9,450 feet long and 200 feet wide,
and the remaining one is 6,000 feet long and 150 feet wide.
On the basis of FAA standards, these runways can handle 30
flights an hour under instrument landing conditions.




                                     6
     The Friendship passenger terninal was also cnstructed
on the finger-design concept and includes 32 gate positions.
As of My 1971, 10 air carriers served Friendship.




                             7
                        CHAwPTER 2

    MANAGEMENT AND UTlLIZATION OF NATIONAL AND DULL S

     In 1941 National was opened for comercial air service.
Since its opening National has become one of the busiest air
carrier airports in the United States. Because of the con-
tinued growth in comerciel aviation, the possible future
need for additional airport facilities was brought to the
attention of the Congress in the late 1940's by an official
of the Civil Aeronautics Acdministration.
     In 1950 the Congress passed legislation authorizing
construction of an additional airport (Dulles) in thetWash-
ington area. In Senate Report 1720, dated February 10, 1950,
concerning proposed legislation for the new airport, the
Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce stated:

          "Since the Washington National Airport is,
     to all intents and purposes, saturated by exist-
     ing traffic, it will obviously be impossible for
     that airport to handle the 40 percent increase in
     air-carrier movements which will occur between
     now and 1955.
          "It has been found that Washington National
     Airport itself cannot be expanded because further
     construction would encroach on the channel of the
     Potomac River."

     In congressional hearings and debates that followed,
it was also brought out that the runways at National would
not be of sufficient length and strength to sustain four-
engine jet aircraft that were to be available for commercial
service before 1960.
     Although the construction of Dulles was authorized in
1950, it was not until 1957 that definitive planning for the
airport began. In January 1957 a special Subcommittee of
the Senate Committee on Appropriations held hearings concern-
ing additional airport facilities in the Washington area.
In justifying the need for an additional airport in Washing-
ton, capable of handling jet aircraft, Government officials
testified that National could not handle the volume of
                              8
traffic expected in the Washington area in the late 1950's
and early 1960's an4 that National could not handle four-
engina jet aircraft. Also the president of the Air Transport
Association stated during these learings that:
          "The debate over the last few years has set-
     tied, it seems to me, the issue of whether Uish-
     ington needs a second airport fDullesJ. The fine
     installation at Washington NIatior-l Airport is
     now beg -used to capacit. ---XfIt-any f-If                 xn-
     men are air travelers--nd I know that you are--
     you have sensed the fact not only through statis-
     tics, but through your own experience. There is
     a limit to the capacity of Washington National
     Airport, and that capacity has just about been
     reached."
     On the basis of these and subsequent hearings concern-
ing the need for an additional airport in the Washington
area, funds were made available for construction of Dulles.
NATIONAL AIRPORT

     As originally constructed, National was intended to
serve low-speed propeller aircraft in commercial service in
the early 1940's. After i960, however, the air carriers be-
gan introducing lightweight and mediumweight smultiengine jet
aircraft into commercial service and FAA began to reassess
National's ability to accommodate volume operations of the
new jets.

     In Nhy 1963 FAA issued an advisory circular entitled
"Jet Policy for Washington National Airport." The circular
concluded that National was capable of handling occasional
jet operations of executive or general aviation character
but was incapable of safely accommodating volume jet opera-
tions or scheduled jet operations requiring access to the
airport terminal for passenger handling purposes. Therefore
operations at National were limited to selected jet aircraft
and classes of general aviation service that utilized the
airport's general aviation ground service facilities.

     In July 1965, however, the Director of the Bureau rec-
ommended that the Deputy Administrator, FAA, consider

                              9
revising its policy at National to allow admission of com-
mercial jets. The Director stated, in part, that:
     "There is increasing pressure from individual Air
     Carriers to remove the jet restriction. The pres-
     ent jet policy is restricting the airlines using
     WNA [National] and connecting cities to piston
     aircraft only. United Air Lines now at Midway
     desires Chicago-Washington-LaGuardia service with
     Caravelles. American Air Lines and Braniff are
     introducing BAC 111 in their fleets this fall.
     There appears to be no question that all carriers
     using WNA are eager for modifications or lifting
     entirely the jet restriction.

     "The jet ban at Washington National has become  an
     artificial and unreal basis for allocating  Air
     Carrier traffic between WNA on one hand,  and
     Friendship and Dulles on the other.  We  have al-
     ways underestimated the capacity of Washington
     National, each year's estimate of the saturation
     level is exceeded by the year's actual traffic.
     Therefore, an unqualified removal of the restric-
     tion could create practical problems which make
     it necessary to establish certain restrictions."

     In April 1966 FAA revised its policy and allowed the
                                                          to
air carriers to provide jet service at National, subject
the following restrictions.

     1. The largest jet that may serve the airport is Boe.
        ing's three-engine 727-100--this plane accommodates
        from 93 to 105 passengers, depending on the seating
        arrangements.
                                                       airport
      2. The scheduled jet aircraft operations at the 10
         are limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and     p.m.

      3. The maximum scheduled nonstop distance of jet flights
         serving the airport is limited to 650 miles. Seven
         cities, referred to as grandfather cities--Memphis,
         Tennessee; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis, Mis-
         sou':i; and Miami, West Palm Beach, Orlando, and
         Tampa, Florida--were exempted from this distance
         limitation.
                               10
     The restrictions were designed primarily to limit (1)
the noise pollution on affected citizens and (2) any adverse
affect on the growth of Dulles. In September 1966 FAA lim-
ited also air carriers' operations--takeoffs or landings--
at National to 40 an hour, to obtain some control over con-
gestion and delays.
     In June 1967 the Civil Aeronautics Board instituted an
investigation to determine whether certificates of air car-
riers authorized to serve Washington, D.C., and Beltimore,
Maryland, should be revised or suspended to require that
certain services or classes of services be removed from Na-
tional and provided at one of the other Washington area air-
ports. The principal reason for the investigation was the
need to relieve serious passenger traffic congestion in Na-
tional's terminal and parking lots and on National's access
roads.

     Between July and December 1967, informal efforts were
made by the CAB examiner assigned to the investigation to
achieve a voluntary solution to the problem. Also informa-
tion pertinent to the investigation was obtained from air
carriers, Government agencies, and civic parties.

     In a February 1968 letter to the CAB examiner, the As-
sistant General Counsel for Litigation, FAA, requested that
no further prehearing conferences or procedural steps be
scheduled until the Department had an opportunity to file a
statement of its position by late May or early June 1968.
The letter stated that the delay we; necessary to allow for
completion of certain FAA studies relative to flight delays
and air travel demand at the three area airports and com-
pletion of studies concerning access to, and modernization
of, National.
     We were advised by FAA and CAB officials that, after
the February 1968 letter, further informal discussions rela-
tive to the investigation were held with the Department but
that a formal statement of position was not received from
the Department until April 1970.
     In April 1970 the Department supported a motion placed
before CAB by American Airlines in March 1970 to dismiss
CAB's investigation on the basis that congestion at National

                             11
had been reduced. Data furnished by the Department to the
CAB indicated that, by the end of 1970, the terminal pas-
senger capacity at National would be increased by 60 percent
and that, between 1967 and 1969, passenger traffic had in-
creased by only 9 percent.
     The Department also pointed out that the 40 per hour
flight limitation imposed at National had also resulted in
relieving congestion. Acting on the information furnished
by the Department, CAR dismissed its investigption on
April 27, 1970, and stated that the need for its investiga-
tion no longer existed.




                             12
 Admission of stretch jets
     While the American Airlines motion to dismiss the in-
vestigation was under consideration by CAB, FAA was con-
sidering admitting Boeing 727-200 stretch jets into National
Airport. The 727-200 is a larger version of the 727-100
and carries about 30 more passengers.

     In January 1970 the Bureau completed a report on the
use of the 727-200 jets at National and furnished it
Administrator.                                       to the
                 This report concluded that the 727-200 jets
could not be employer: profitably at National without mate-
rially altering the prospects for growth at Dulles and
Friendship Airports. The report indicated that, on
                                                       the
basis of calendar year 1969 aircraft passenger load factors
(56 percent of seats occupied) and the number of flights
then scheduled into National, the annual increase in passen-
gers at National could amount to as much as 3.4 million
                                                           if
all 7 2 7 -100's serving National were replaced with 727-200's.

      In its report She Bureau further refined its estimates
to determine the probable short-term effect of the intro-
duction of the 727-200 jet on passenger traffic at National
and estimated that, by mid-1971, seven of the air carriers
would use the 727-200 jets on 134, or about 30 percent,
                                                          of
their daily flights serving National. According to
                                                     the
Bureau these flights would probably increase passenger
                                                         traf-
fic at National by about a million a year. The report
stated that much of this potential gain would be generated
by diversion of passengers from flights serving Dulles
                                                        and
Friendship.

       The Bureau pointed out that the Department's support
of the motion to dismiss the CAB investigation would be
difficult to sustain in the face of a decision to admit
727- 2 00's into National that could increase passenger
                                                         levels
at the airport by an additional 30 percent in the short
term and produce a substantially greater increase in
                                                        the
future.

     On April 9, 1970, after receiving the Bureau report
and 2 weeks before CAB withdrew its investigation, the
Administrator announced his decision to admit 727-200 FAA
aircraft into National to temporarily alleviate conditions


                              13
generated by an air traffic   controllers' slowdown in effect
at that time. The slowdown    was concluded on April 15, 1970.
The Administrator, however,   decided to continue admitting
the 727-200's into National   and to study the effects that
it would have on the future   development of Dulles and
Friendship.
     On May 20, 1970, in response to a request of the Spe-
cial Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for a
full report on the use of stretch jets at National, the
Administrator advised the Secretary of Transportation that:

     "Traffic and economic analyses conducted by the
     Office of Aviation Economics and the Bureau of
     National Capital Airports, independently, clearly
     indicate that the unrestricted admission of the
     727-200 to National would have a serious impact
     on both the traffic and economic growth of Dulles
     and Friendship Airports. For this reason, we be-
     lieve that the admission of the aircraft to Na-
     tional should be conditioned on an effective Inter-
     line Agreement among the airlines that would as-
     sure the continuation of the norma' growth patterns
     at the other area airports. Such an agreement
     would of course be subject to Civil Aeronautics
     Board approval."
As of June 1, 1971, an effective interline agreement between
the air carriers had not been negotiated.

      In February 1971 FAA completed a report analyzing the
effects of Boeing 727-200 operations at National. On the
basis of the report, the FAA Administrator concluded that
the admission of 727-200 aircraft into National had no im-
pact on conditions at that airport or on the growth and
utilization of Dulles. In a letter transmitting the report
to the Senate Commerce Committee, however, the Administrator
pointed out that the general decline in air carrier opera-
tions and reductions in passengers transported at the air-
ports in 1970 obscured the identification of meaningful
trends.




                              14
     Also, on March 16, 1971, the Secretary of Transporta-
tion advised Senator Spong that:

           "As you know, the FAA is presently involved
     in an in-depth analysis of flight operations at
     both Washington National and Dulles before as well
     as since the introduction of stretch jets at Na-
     tional. The preliminary review, which was sub-
     mitted to you last month is essentially inconclu-
     sive as to the effect of stretch jet operations at
     National either on the problems of ground conges-
     tion there or on the level of operations at Dulles.
     Part of the reason for the inconclusiveness of the
     data submitted in that preliminary report is that
     during the period of stretch jet operation at Na-
     tional there was a decline in aviation activity
     generally.
     "In view of your continued concern with this mat-
     ter, and in light of the fact that actual experi-
     ence has not yet provided the answers to your
     questions, I am taking appropriate action to im-
     pose a freeze on the number of stretch jet oper-
     ations at National at the present level until the
     facts warrant a change one way or the other."
     An FAA official advised us that, at the time that the
Secretary made this statement, there were 78 daily opera-
tions of the 727-200 at National but that the Secretary
subsequently increased the limitation to 84 daily operations
which constitutes the current level of 727-200 operations
at the airport. He stated that the limitation had been in-
creased at the request of the CAB Chairman to accommodate
the 1971 summer scheduling planned by the air carriers and
that the CAB Chairman had made the request because the re-
tention of the limitation of 78 daily operations would have
worked a hardship on the air carriers that already had
scheduled crews, maintenance, and aircraft for the summer
traffic.

Modernization plans

     In May 1966 FAA awarded a contract to a firm of archi-
tects to (1) estimate the scope of future activity at

                             IS
National, (2) establish a program necessary to satisfy this
activity, (3) develop master plan approaches fitted to the
program, and (4) recommend the direction to be taken. In
September 1968 the firm submitted its report to FAA in which
it concluded that the airport should be modernized and ex-
panded to accommodate 16 million passengers annually by
1980.

     The architects advised FAA:

     "This study has been made with full recognition of
     the great importance of direct and convenient ac-
     cess to the capital city on the one hand, and the
     existence of some local pressure to eliminate air
     activity at the airport on the other. Due to its
     close-in location, Washington National Is better
     able to support its metropolitan area than any
     other major airport. The nuisance imposed on the
     metropolitan area by the airport is overshadowed
     by that superior service offered to the area and
      to the eastern United States. The location is
     consistent with the role of Washington National
      as the airport for short haul access to the Dis-
      trict. In our opinion, this function must be
     maintained, and the facilities to support same
      must be up-graded to be consistent with the de-
      mands on the airport."

     FAA's 1972 budget submission to the Office of.Manage-
ment and Budget included a request for $26 million to cover
the Goverrment's share of a major modernization of National.
The proposed modernization is based on a modified version of
a plan proposed by the firm of architects and includes,
among other things, expanding the main terminal, expanding
the north terminal area, and adding passenger loading fingers
and passenger waiting rooms. FAA estimated the total cost
of the modernization to be $157 million, of which it antici-
pated that the air carriers and concessionnaires would pro-
vide $79 million and $52 million, respectively.

      The President's   budget for fiscal year 1972 includes
 about $2 million for   FAA for runway and apron improvements
 at National but does   not include the $26 million for the
 Federal share of the   proposed modernization of National.

                                16
An FAA official advised us that FAA planned to seek finan-
cial participation by the air carriers during fiscal year
1972, to initiate the modernization of National without
Federal assistance.

      Federal Highway Administration plans provide for ini-
tiating construction during fiscal year 1972 to upgrade
U.S. Route 1 in the -icinity of Crystal Plaza, Virginia, to
an eight-lane spur from Interstate Route 95 at a cost of
about $9 million. Although this spur would connect with an
overpass leading from Route 1 to National Airport and would
provide some benefit to users of the airport, the primary
purpose of the spur, according to Federal Highway Adminis-
tration officials, is to serve increased traffic in the
Crystal Plaza area. There is no apparent connection be-
tween the funds requested for the spur and the planned mod-
ernization of National.




                            17
DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

     In 1962 Dulles was opened to commercial service and
began to share with Friendship Airport near Baltimore,
Maryland, the jet aircraft service provided by the air car-
riers to the area. Dulles provides primarily long-haul do-
mestic and international service; Friendship provides both
short-haul domestic service and long-haul domestic and in-
ternational service. Neither Dulles nor Friendship has
placed any restrictions (other than instrument landing ca-
pacity) on the number of flight operations an hour or on
the hours during which flights mPy be scheduled.

     During Dulles' early years the growth in its use ap-
peared promising, although below expectations. After FAA's
decision in 1966 to open National to jet aircraft, however,
the air carriers steadily increased jet service for the
area at National. Currently the majority of jet service
for the area is furnished at National. This has resulted
in the use of National at virtually maximum allowable lev-
els, whereas Dulles has continued to be substantially un-
derutilized.

     The following table compares the actual air carrier
operations and related passenger traffic at National and
Dulles for each calendar year since 1964.

Calendar   Air carrier operations       Passenger traffic
  year       National     Dulles      National       Dulles

                               (thousands)

  1964         210.7       28.2         5,993.9        782.3
  1965         220.1       32.6         6,726.4        946.6
  1966         216.6       37.1         7,665.9      1,106.3
  1967         238.5       51.0         9,126.6      1,476.4
  1968         235.0       58.9         9,672.6      1,661.4
  1969         221.8       63.4         9,905.1      2,010.9
  1970         212.3       62.1         9,400.1      1,981.0

     Using available data we   compared the hourly use of the
two airports. The table and    photographs on the following
pages show the variations in   the use of the airport facili-
ties during peak and nonpeak   periods of the doy.

                               18
                    Average Hourly Aircraft Operations
                          and Passenger Traffic

                                    Dulles

                                        2-week test period       January
            84 days tested (note a)        in June 1970            1971
 Hour       Operations   Passengers   Operations   Passengers   Operations
ending       an hour       an hour     an hour       an hour     an hour
 8   a.m.       1              18             1          47         -
 9   a.m.       7             294             9         434         6
10   a.m.       5             224            U1         304        11
11   a.m.       2              87                       137         6
12   m.         7             232            ;          390         9
 1   p.m.       8             302                       286         8
 2   p.m.       3             111             3          97         3
 3   p.m.       5             199             7         303         7
 4   p.m.       7             353             9         272        11
 5   p.m.      13             806            10         651        12
 6   p.m.      17           1,135            19       1,258        16
 7   p.m.      16             751            21         877        15
 8   p.m.       9             456            14         649        11
 9   p.m.       9             345             9         309         8
10   p.m.       6             240            13         454         8
                                 National
 8 a.m.        29             944            38      1,016         25
 9 a.m.        35          1,256              3      1,642         32
10 a.m.        41          1,637             40      1,794         36
11 a.m.        41          1,570             41      1,739         35
12 m.          41          1,641             39      1,807         34
 1 p.m.        38          1,617             38      2,019         39
 2 p.m.        36          1,361             41      1,692         33
 3 p.m.        39          1,636             41      1,874         37
 4 p.m.        35          1,671             43      2,225         36
 5 p.m.        42          2,352             47      2,498         38
 6 p.m.        44          1,861             44      2,432         41
 7 p.m.        42          2,187             42      2,782         44
 8 p.m.        41          1,972             43      2,395         37
 9 p.m.        41          1,910             42      2,048         38
10 p.m.        41          1,696             31      1,835         38
aThe periods tested were a week each month covering Dulles operations
 in calendar year 1969 and a week each month covering National opera-
 tions in calendar year 1968.




                                      19
                                             o-o,                        ,.

     -                                        C~~~OŽ            -



                                                    · ro~~~~~nC

                                                           CD           0




                                              CL               CL           1t         w



                                                        EL

                          CDOcO                                             C




                                                     0~~~~

                                                    3   .E C                fL



                                             20            C        E
                                             Ct



                                                    t
                                                      .C
                                                          ~~o,.
                                                            d                          r

                                              0.u,,
                                              Co Ll     ~0                             0
                               Imme~          -
                                               C-
                                              O~~ -c
                                                         ~c-O                          m



                         CD




                               c       ~     ry

                               CC
                         Sa·




     L~~~~~~~~~~z4                         I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




                         o                                 I
                                                                                ii',       ,d·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a


                          0            ~l~~



I~       ~           ~                      i4~I·                       tnt                               is
                          20
                                             a))




                         0              U                a
    0)


    S                    r      Cl j         .r          -0
                                             2           c
u   c                                   CC




          Z              ~~~~~~~O
                           Spr, cfr




                                !P
    .0o                                 0


                                I.- C                    0



                         c                   o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




    I;                                                                             U
          U                                  o                                     0)e
          'U                                                                       Ctr
                                                    ~~~~~~
                                                   .~~~~s ,      a


                                                   Sy==~~~~~~~~~~c~
                                                              o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'




          a)~a
          3
          0
                 ~~       eno
                                E:~
                                                         c


    c2




    0)
                 21""5
                                      .,   0D                   ~              I

                     __               "~   C+s~r~-      Ci                    C
                                           oE .C
                                           o~           V               -~g

                                                                        CLo




                                                        o               .5 C

                                                            cm
                                      Zi '
                                                                .5             C
                                                        ~~                    ~o

                          8~~E
                                             0
                                                    I0..~iU                    I   L
                                      C" r                                     C



                                       O            C
                                                    .                     a    a


                                             0~c~           t                      g
                                                                        0C~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                                             O      't;~2
                                                                        P~~~~~~~~~~~~




                                  C~~~~~~~~




                                                                              ~~~0 ~~~~~~
                                                                                       ~~
                                 Cc                                                              t
                                                                    rcB        5~~~~~~~
                                                                              orsio
                                                                                   SaZ~~~~~~~~




                                       22 a         n               e                  d




kh~~~~B~~~,   ~~~1                                                                               F~~




                            22
                                                   .-                 E
                                                                      .-




                                                    "            EE


                                                            *E                         U--




                                               .5
                                                C0          .
                                                                .i.
                                                                      :
                                                                              g.
                                                                                  i   N


                                8                               0                  :1

                                               AO



                                               0
                                               .                 aT .




                           F,                                    V




                                      Z      ~ ~        .   :




             Li




                                                                                                                     E
                      3-        ,__                             .         !                ''L0'H
                  '




                                .E


                                C     23                                      E

                                                                                                        7,,,,   ad       ,
                                                                      b                             *




                                                                                                                     %n
I~~~~~~~~~




                                      23ID                                            e,




                                      23
     As indicated by the table and photographs, the air car-
riers' scheduling practices have resulted in high use of
Dulles during certain peak hours and virtual nonuse at other
times, compared with fairly uniform use of National through-
out the day.

     The Dulles terminal facility is designed to handle
1,600 passengers an hour expeditiously. According to FAA
this design capacity has been exceeded on occasion because
the air carriers have scheduled flights at Dulles to maxi-
mize the services furnished during peak hours of the day--4
to 8 p.m.--when passenger demand is the greatest. The ac-
centuated peak traffic conditions could be overcome by per-
suading the air carriers to revise their flight schedules to
provide for a more even flow of traffic throughout the day.

     In late 1969 FAA forecast an accelerating increase in
the use of Dulles and indicated that, if this increase were
achieved, the terminal facilities would have to be expanded
before 1974. Comparisons of estimates of growth in passen-
ger traffic and aircraft operations at Dulles with actual
experience are shown in the graphs on the following two
pages.




                             24
        PROJECTION OF DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS


             ---                   CONSULTANT PROJECTION 12/60
      150 -_ .. |..I...."          BUREAU PROJECTIONS 10/69
                                   ACTUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

      140 -


      130 -

      120 -




      100:/


z      90
       00                                   -S



.,0    70

       60


       50


       40




       20 -      Note:        First quarter aircraft operations for calendar
                              year 1971 weredown about 7 percent from the
                              first quarter in calendar year 1970
       10

                  l _        I         I         I      I      I      I      I      I.
        9965     1966       1967     1968    1969     1970   1971    1972   1973   1974   1975
                                                     CALENDAR YEAR

                                                      25
    PROJECTIONS OF DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PASSENGER TRAFFIC


             .----- CONSULTANT PROJECTION 12/60
             "m""""""'BUREAU PROJECTION 8/69
                       ACTUAL PASSENGER TRAFFIC



     6




     5
                                                                        *



                 -j4~.                                            -
z


                         .
         3                        0-*'4
                j~                                 s'44




                         first quarter in calendar year 1970


                     1967    19           1910          1971     197
                                                              1972. 3
                                                                p1974       1975
     AS51966
                                                 CALENDAR YEAR



                                                   26
     During the fiscal year 1971 appropriation hearing be-
fore the Subcommittee on Transportation, House Committee on
Appropriations, FAA officials indicated that they planned to
expand the Dulles terminal. They stated that, as presently
envisioned, the terminal would be extended 320 feet to the
west at a cost of about $14 million. The FAA officials in-
dicated that the expansion was required because the growth
of Dulles was accelerating and would reach the design ca-
pacity of the existing terminal facility (4 million passen-
gers annually--1,600 passengers an hour) by 1973.
     The President's budget for fiscal year 1972 contains
$14.7 million for the expansion of the terminal and
$2.8 million for expansion of the mobile lounge fleet, based
on the anticipated inadequacy of the facility by 1973.
      The tendency to overestimate the growth in the use of
Dulles in past projections, as shown by the foregoing
graphs, raises a question of whether the need for expansion
of the facilities really is critical at this time or whether
such an expansion merely would serve to accommodate the air
carriers in their practice of scheduling most of their ser-
vice during a limited peak period during the day. Also,
since August 1969, air travel generally has declined and the
xje of Dulles has declined also. It seems that these facts
should be considered in connection with the planned expan-
sion.




                             27
                        CHAPTER 3


         CONCERN OVER IMBALANCE IN USE OF AIRPORTS

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

     The National Capital Planning Commission, a Federal
agency, is responsible for developing and adopting a compre-
hensive plan for the District of Columbia, including recom-
mendations or proposals for Federal and District develop-
ments or projects in the National Capital area. One of the
Commission's responsibilities is to make recommendations for
transportation and related terminal facilities, including
airports.

     The Commission became concerned when FAA revised its
policy in 1966 to allow commercial jet service at National.
At that time the Commission recommended that FAA make a de-
tailed study of the future role of National as an air ter-
minal in the Washington ares and suspend further construc-
tion at the airport until study results were available.
Again, in 1968 when FAA began to consider the architects'
proposal for expansion of National to accommodate 16 million
passengers (see p. 16), the Commission urged FAA to defer
expansion until a comprehensive plan covering the Washington
area's future air traffic needs was available.

     In January 1970 the Commission released an information
report entitled "The Air Revolution and the National Capital
Region." The report deals primarily with the increases in
major commercial air traffic expected by 1990 and the changes
needed in the Washington metropolitan area to accommodate
the expected increases by use of an integrated system of
air service for the Washington area.

      The report points out that the physical facilities at
National are obsolete and are being further constrained each
year by increased high-rise construction in Virginia, which
limits both access to and expansion of the airport's facili-
ties. The report also indicates that Dulles Airport is
threatened by the encroachment of new urban development and
could become obsolescent if corrective action is not taken
to limit further private construction in the area of the air-
port.

                             28
     In May 1970 the Commission's Director of Long Range
Planning and Regional Affairs advised the Senate Subcommit-
tee on Business and Commerce, Committee on the District of
Columbia, that:
     "*** growth by accretion at National has pro-
     ceeded for a number of years. Until a detailed
     study of air facility needs in the Washington/
     Baltimore Bi-region is undertaken no reasonable
     assessment of National's future role can be
     made except on an 'ad hoc' basis. This is hardly
     an acceptable procedure for such a major termiial
     facility.
     "It is strongly suggested that a moratorium be
     placed on any expansion, in service and facili-
     ties, at National until. an Air Facilities Study
     for the Washington/Baltimore Bi-region is avail-
     able to provide guidance for any improvements at
     the Washington National Airport."
     We were advised by the Commission that it was studying
long-range needs for air transportation and terminal facili-
ties in the Washington area but that the study would not be
completed until June 1973.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

     In April 1969 the Under Secretary of Transportation re-
quested the Administrator, FAA, to study possible alterna-
tives for expanding utilization of Dulles. The Under Secre-
tary suggested that the study consider the establishment of
a private corporation or a regional airport authority to
manage the Washington area airports and methods that could
be used to effect a transfer of part of National's traffic
to Dulles. He suggested also that, among other things, con-
sideration be given to:

    1. Precluding the operation of new airbuses with larger
       passenger capacities at National Airport.

    2. Reducing the limitation on flight operations an
       hour at National in effect at June 1, 1969 (40 an
       hour).

                               29
    3. Imposing a lower mileage radius below the 650-mile
       limitation for flight operations serving National.

     On May 16, 1969, the FAA Administrator advised the Uln-
der Secretary regarding the preclusion of airbuses that:

    "Jet aircraft authorized to operate at Washington
    National Airport have been limited to the smaller
    two and three engine models. This limitation has
    been in force since the inception of jet opera-
    tions at the airport in April of 1966 and was
    widely publicized to all carriers using the air-
    port. In concert with other restrictions, this
    policy acts to hold passenger flow through the
    airport in check while also contributing to the
    noise abatement effort.

     "Under the policy, two or three engine aircraft
     larger than the Boeing 727-100 (basic 727) are
     not permitted to operate in commercial service
     at National. This restriction has been main-
     tained despite extensive efforts by the car-
     riers, principally American Airlines, to gain
     approval for use of the 727-200 (stretch 727).

     "Each of the major manufacturers (Boeing, Lock-
     heed, and McDonnell Douglas) has been informed
     of our aircraft size limitations and that such
     limitations would preclude use of airbus type
     aircraft at National."

     The Administrator formed a task force to consider the
other suggestions of the Under Secretary relative to restric-
tions at National. The task force study which was completed
in September 1969 concluded, among other things, that air
traffic congestion in the technical sense was not a problem
at National but that the congestion problem related to han-
dling people, principally, to inadequacies in parking and
roads and to crowding within the terminal area.

     The task force stated that the FAA could divert traffic
from National through economic manipulation and/or regulation
but that there would be no assurance that the traffic which
left National would be transferred to Dulles. The task

                             30
force indicated that traffic diverted from National could
(1) go to Dulles, (2) go to Friendship, or (3) be taken from
the metropolitan area. It concluded also that such a diver-
sion could result in a significant curtailment of short-haul
service at National, loss of passengers to other modes of
travel, and loss of revenue.

     With regard to the reduction in the number of hourly
air carrier operations suggested by the Under Secretary, the
task force advised that:

    "Any reduction in the 40 slots available would al-
    most certainly be distributed among all the car-
    riers on a similar basis, and would affect the
    local service carrier and the short-haul, commuter
    carrier at least as much as the longer-haul car-
    rier. Some of the shiort-haul operations that
    would thus be lost o DCA [National] would almost
    certainly shift to Baltimore, some would probably.
    shift to Dulles, but a larger percentage could
    simply disappear from the air transportation mar-
    ket. Many passengers currently using DCA to fly
    distances of less than 250 miles would undoubtedly
    resort to other means of travel rather than suffer
    the extra ground travel time of approximately 30
    minutes to either BAL [Friendship] or IAD [Dulles].

     "Needless to say, airline opposition to any re-
     duction in available slots would be vigorous and
     would probably be buttressed by considerable
     Congressional support and pressure from the fly-
     ing public in other cities served by Washington
     National. On the other hand such a reduction,
     depending on its extent, would be applauded by
     Congressional critics of the airport and those
     in the community who wish to see its operations
     curtailed. Despite anticipated airline opposi-
     tion, a straight reduction in available slots
     is probably the most equitable means for all
     airlines of tightening the restrictions cur-
     rently in effect at Washington National Airport."

     In considering the suggestion that flight operations
serving National be reduced to an operating radius below

                             31
650 miles, the task force considered principally a 50-mile
radius reduction and the elimination of the rule exempting
the grandfather cities from the 650-mile limitation. The
task force concluded that elimination of the rule exempting
grandfather cities from the 650-mile rule would affect 50
flights daily out of National, of which 25 would go to Bal-
timore, 15 would go to Dulles, and the remaining 10 would
stay at National by scheduling one intermediate stop within
the distance limitation.

     In assessing the 50-mile perimeter reduction, the task
force stated that it would be impossible to measure the ef-
fect of the reduction on operations or passengers due to
the many scheduling possibilities available to air carriers.
As a result, the perimeter reduction was considered in con-
junction with other restrictive actions, including the elim-
ination of the rule exempting grandfather cities from the
650-mile perimeter restriction. The task force estimated
that, in addition to the 40 flights that would leave National
by eliminating the rule exempting grandfather cities, 54
more operations could be moved from National by implementing
a 50-mile reduction in the perimeter and that, of these
flights, 32 would go to Dulles and 22 would go to Friendship.

     Although the task force conclusions make it apparent
that FAA could take actions to achieve greater balance in
the use of the area's three airports, we found no indication
that such action had been planned.

COMPARISON OF SELECTED LONG-HAUL
SERVICE AT WASHINGTON AREA AIRPORTS

     As of April 1, 1970, there were 61 daily nonstop
flights scheduled between Chicago and the Washington area
airports; of these flights, 40 operated in or out of Na-
tional.

     On May 1, 1971 (13 months later), 65 daily nonstop
flights were scheduled between Chicago and Washington area
airports. Of these flights, 45--or 69.2 percent--operated
between Chicago and National, 15--or 23.1 percenit--operated
between Chicago and Friendship, and five--or 7.7 percent--
operated between Chicago and Dulles. Of the 45 flights at
National, 19--or 42 percent--used Boeing 727-200's. The


                            32
increase of five flights at National from April 1970 to May
1971 and the substitution of the larger 7 2 7-200's resulted
in a projected annual increase of 369,015 seats for flights
between National and Chicago.

     Of the flights between National and Chicago, 10 origi-
nated or terminated at Chicago and the remaining 35 flights
originated or terminated at points beyond Chicago. Appen-
dix I presents data on the changes in service between Chi-
cago and each of the Washington arza airports from April 1,
1970, to May 1, 1971.

     Appendix II presents a comparison of selected current
long-haul direct service from National to cities outside che
650-mile limit having service to the same cities from other
Washington area airports.

     Although the 6 5 0-mile maximum limitation on nonstop
flights between National and other airports was intended to
encourage the use of National for short-haul service, appen-
dix II shows that, because of the scheduling practices of
the air carriers, substantial long-haul service is provided
at National. Nineteen cities outside the 6 50-mile limit
have direct service from the Washington area only from Na-
tional. For example, one round trip daily from National is
the only direct service available between the Washington
area and El Paso, Texas.

     Also most of the direct service available to a number
of other distant cities is provided through National, usu-
ally by way of Chicago. Six direct flights are scheduled
daily between Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the Washington
area, five of which originate or terminate at National, four
of the five going by way of Chicago and one by way of St.
Louis, Missouri, a grandfather city. Six direct flights are
scheduled daily between Omaha and the Washington area<, five
of which, going by way of Chicago, originate or terminate
at National.

     Four direct flights are scheduled betweer Tucson, Ari-
zona, and the Washington area, three of which, going by way
of Chicago, originate or terminate at National. Of the nine
flights between Phoenix, Arizona, and the Washington area,
five originate or terminate at National, including four


                            3
which operate through Chicago. Of the 10 direct flights
daily between Oklahoma City and the Washington area, six
operate to or from National, including four which operate
through Chicago.

     We also compared the nonstop service provided by the
air carriers between the Washington area and the cities ex-
empted from the 650-mile limit. This comparison which is
presented in appendix III shows that National is the primaly
Washington area airport from which such service is avail-
able. For example, the carriers offer nonstop service to
Orlando, Tampa, and West Palm Beach, Florida, only through
National.




                             34
APPENDIXES




   35
                                                               APPENDIX I


                     COMPARISON OF EQUIPMENT

                AND SEATING CAPACITY FOR NONSTOP

                  CHICAGO SERVICE AT WASHINGTON

                           AREA AIRPORTS

                APRIL 1, 1970, AND MAY 1, 1971

                                 April 1,      May 1, 1971      Differ-
                                   1970         (note a)          ence
Daily flights                             61              65               +4
Daily passenger seats
  available                            6,261           6,921         +660
Projected annual passen-
  ger seats available            2,285,265      2,526 165       +240,900

                       CHICAGO-NATIONAL

                   April 1,             May 1, 1971             Differ-
Aircraft             1970                (note a)                 ence
Daily flights

B727-200               -                          19                    +19
B727-100                    34                    20                    -14
B727                         6                     6

       Total                40                    45                    +5
Daily passenger seats available

B727-200                                       2,337              +2,337
B727-100               3,201                   1,875              -1,326
B737                       546                   546                -
       Total           3 747                   4 758              +1,011
Projected annual passenger seats available
                   1 367,655             1,736,670              +369,015



                                  37
APPENDIX I


                   CHICAGO-FRIENDSHIP

                 April 1,             May 1, 1971   Differ-
                   1970                (note a)       ence
Aircraft

Daily flights

DC8S                      2                               -2
DC8F                      2                               -2
                          3                   1           -2
B707
                          4                   2           -2
B720
                          2                   7           +5
B727-200
B727-10C                  4                   4
                     -                        1           +1
B737

       Total             17                  15           -2

Daily passenger seats available

DC8S                     396                            -396
DC8F                     262                            -262
                         397                132         -265
B707
                         460                230         -230
B720
                         246                861         +615
B727-200
B727-100                 372                372
                          _                  91          +91
B737

       Total                   _2.133     1,686         -447

Projected annual passenger seats available
                   77.8545              615,390     -163.155




                                 38
                                                APPENDIX I


                      CHICAGO-DULIES

                 April 1,         May 1, 1971      Differ-
Aircraft           1970            (note a)          ence

Daily flights

B727-100                4                 5             +1

Daily passerner seats available

B727-100               381             477             +96

Projected annual passenrer seats available
                   139,065          174,105        +35,040

aThe projections of annual seating capacity are based upon
 actual seating capacity for equipment in use as of May 1,
 1971. Data on equipment in use and on seating capacity
 were provided by FAA officials.




                             39
                         SCHEDULE OF DAILY WASHINGTON NATIONAL DIRECT SERVICE

                             TO AND FROM CITIES BEYOND THE 650-MILE LIMIT

                         COMPARED WITH SIMILAR DULLZS AND FRIENDSHIP SERVICE

                                                AS OF MAY 1,          1971


                                                              Washington National
                                                   Service          Service
                                Service            through      through other
                                through          grandfather    cities within       Total
                                                     cities     650-mile limit    flights                 Stretch 727's
                                Chicago
                                                        Two or          Two or         Two or                    Two or
                                    Two or
                                                 One     more    One     more   One     more              One     more
                             One     more
                             so           p
                                     stpsto
                                      stops      sto     s p      stop
                                                                  tops   Stops    op    stops             stop    stops
         Name of city


                                4       -            -        1                              4       1        _
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Alexandria, La.                 -       -            -        -              -       1       -       1
Baton Rouge, La.                -       -            -        -
                                -       -            -        3                              -       3
Billings, Mont.                                                                                      2                1
                                -       -            2        2              -               2
Bismark, N. Dak.                                                                             1       -
                                1       -                     -
Boise, Idaho                                                                                 -       1
Butte,    Mont.                 -       -            -        I              -       -
                                                     4        2              1       1       6       7        -       4
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.          1       4
                                --                                           4       -       4       -                -
Daytona Beach, Fla.                                                                                  1        1       1
                                1       1            1        -              -       -       2
Denver, Colo.
                                2       -            -        -              -       -       2
De Moines, Iowa
                                1       1            -        -              -       -       1
El Paso, Tex.                                                                                2       -        1       -
                                -2                            -              -       -
Fargo, N. Dak.
                                -       -            2        -              -       -       2
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.                                                                         -       1
                                -       -            -        1              -       -
Ft. Myers, Fla.                                                                                      2        -
                                -       -            -        2              -       -       -
Helena, Mont.                                                                3       -       3       1        -
Houston, Tex.                   -       -            -        1
                                -       -            -        -              1       -       1       -        -
Jackson-Vicksburg, Miss.
                                4       -            4        -              1       -       9       -        3
Kansas City, Mo.                                                                                              1
                                2       -            -         1             -       -       2       1
Las Vegas, Nev.                                                                                               1
                                1       1            -         -             -       -       1       1
Lincoln, Nebr.                                                                                                11
                                -       -            1         -             -       -
Little Rock, Ark.                                                                            -       5         -      3
Los Angeles, Calif.             -       3            -         2             -       -
                                        -            -         -              2       -      2       -         2      -
Madison, Wis.                   -
                                -       -            -         1                         -   1       1         -
Melbourne, Fla.                                                                                                3      -
                                -       -            -         -                             7
Memphis, Tenn.                                                                                                 3      2
                                2       -                     -              1       2       3       2
Minneapolis, Minn.                                                                                   1
                                -       -            -            1                  -       -
Missoula, Mont.
                                        -            -            -                  -       2       -        1
Moline, Ill.                    2
                                3       1            -                       -       2       3       3        1       3
Oklahoma City, Okla.                                                                                          -1
                                4       1                                            -       4       1
Omaha, Nebr.                                                                                                          -
                                -       -                -        -          4               4       -        1
Orlando, Fla.                                                                                1       4        1       1
Phoenix, Ariz.                  1       3                -        -              -       1
                                -           -            -        2              -           -       2            -   1
Portland, Oreg.
                                -           1            -        -1             -                        -       -
Reno, Nev.                                                                                           1            -   1
                                                 -                -              -       1       -
Rochester, Minn.
                                    2                             -              -       -       2
 Salt Lake City, Utah
                                    -       -                     2              -               -   2            -   2
 San Diego, Calif.
                                    -       2            -        2              -       2       -   6            -   4
 San Francisco, Calif.                                                                                            -   1
                                            -            2        1              -       -       2   1
Sarasota, Fla.                                                                                                    1   -
                                            -            1        2              -       -       1   2
 Seattle, Wash.                                                                                                   -
                                            -            -1                                          1
 Shreveport, La.                                                                                                  -    1
                                    -       1            -        3              -       -       -   4
 Spokane, Wash.                                                                                                        -
                                    1       -            -        -              -                   -1
 St. Loui3, Mo.
                                    -                    -1                                      1    -
 Tallahassee, Fla.                                                                                                2    -
                                    -                    2        -              2       -       4    -
 Tampa, Fla.
                                    -                    2        -              -       1       2    1           -
 Titusville, Fla.                                                                                                 -    1
                                    2       1            -        -              -       -       2    1
 Tucson, Ariz.                                                                                                    2
                                    1                                            2       -       3    -
 Tulsa, Okla.                                                                                         -           -    -
                                                                                 -       -       1
 West Palm Beach, Fla.

 Note:
                                                                                     limit, which have
           This schedule includes flights to or from all cities outside the 650-mile
                                                                                     city or one city
           service from National by way of a nonstop flight to or from a grandfather between National
                                                                                once
           :nside the 650-mile limit. It excludes flights which stop more than
           and the 650-mile limit.

           One-stop service for National indicates that                the city is (1) the tirst stop after or last
           stop before a grandfather city or (2) a city                within the 650-mile limit, Flights serving
           cities beyond the first stop are included in                the 'two or more stops" column. Flights ser-
           ving more than one city outside the 650-mile                limit are included in the appropriate cate-
           gory for each city served.
                                                                                       APPENDIX II




                                                     Total
    Dulles            Friendship                    flights,
         One or              One or     Total       National,
Nonstop   more      Nonstop   more    Dulles and   Dulles and
service    stops    service   stops   Friendship   Friendship

    _-         _    -            1         1            6
    ....                                                1


           .            -        -         -.           3


    -          1        -        -         1            2
   14          1        4        3        22           35

    8          2        3        2        15           lb
    _-              -   -        1         1            3

    -          -        4        -         4           6
    -          -        _        3         3           4
    2                   5        3        10           14

    2                   2        3         7           16
    -          -        _        4         4            7
                                 1         1            2
   14          2        7        4        27           32
                    -        -                          2
               1        -        4         5           12
    -          2        -        1         3            8
    -          2        -        -         2            4
    -          2        -        2         4           10
    -          -        -        1         1            6
                        --       4         4            8
    2          1         -       1         4            9
    -          2         -       4         6            8

               5        -        -         5            7
    4          -                           4            6
    8          3        4        9        24           30
    1          -        -        3         4            7
    2                   2        1         5            8
    -          -        -        1         1            2
    -          1        2        6         9           10
    -          -_                1         1            2
               _        -        3         3            7
    -                   --   -                          3
               1        -        -         1            4
    2                            2         4            7

32 additional flights which fly nonstop to or from a grandfather city and which te-ninate
or serve more than one grandfather city are presented in appendix III. Three flights pre-
sented above, which serve both National and Friendship, are prcsented as service furnished
to or from both airports and are presented also in appendix III.

For this schedule we used flight schedule data prepared by the Bureau from general scls2d-
ules effective April 25, 1971, and filed by the air carriers with the CAB. In comparing
the Bureau data with the '*Official Airline guide" for May 1, 1971, a standard reference of
the Air Traffic Conference of America, we found 23 additional flights which were recorded
on one list and not on the other. We were advised ly ;epresentatives of the air carriers
that all 23 flights were in service on May 1, 1971.


                                                                41
APPENDIX III


             COMPARISON OF DAILY NONSTOP WASHINGTON

         AREA AIRPORT SERVICE TO AND FROM CITIES OUTSIDE

             THE 650-MILE LIMIT AS OF MAY 1, 1971

                 National            Dulles           Friendship
               Number Avail-    Number    Avail-    Number Avail-
                 of     able      of        able      of     able
  City        flights   seats   flights     seats   flights seats

Minneapo-
  lis, Minn.     9        907         -
Memphis,
  Tenn.           6       650         -      -        -
St. Louis,
  Mo.            12     1,186         -      -        2            186
Orlando,
  Fla.            5       523         -      -        -              -
Tampa,
  Fla.            4       440         -      -
West Palm
  Beach,
  Fla.            2       212         -      -        -              -
Miami,
  Fla.           16     1.680         -      -        4            442

                 54     5,598                          6           628

Note:     The numbers of flights and aircraft seating capacity
          were computed on the basis of data furnished by FAA
          officials.




                                                          U.S. GAO, Wash.. DC.
                                 42