Aviation Data Modernization; Proposed Rules
Federal Register Notice
February 17, 2005
Volume 70, Number 32
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 241 and 249
Dockets No. OST-1998-4043
RIN 2105-AC71
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (the Department) is proposing
to revise the rules governing the nature, scope, source, and means for
collecting and processing aviation traffic data. Those reporting
requirements are known as the: Origin--Destination Survey of Airline
Passenger Traffic (O&D Survey); and Form 41, Schedule T-100--U.S. Air
Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight
Market and Form 41, Schedule T-100(f)--Foreign Air Carrier Traffic Data
by Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market (collectively, the T-100/T-
100(f)). Current traffic statistics no longer adequately measure the
size, scope and strength of the air travel industry. This NPRM proposes
to simplify the requirements placed upon Carriers reporting the O&D
Survey. The proposed O&D Survey will eliminate the ambiguity in the
identification of the Participating Carrier and eliminate the need for
manual data collection by designating the Issuing Carrier as the
Participating Carrier. It will also increase accuracy by expanding the
volume of data to 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries, and make the
data more useful to Department, airport, and industry planners by
collecting broader information about the Ticketed Itinerary sale and
the scheduled itinerary details. The proposed T-100/T-100(f) will
improve the quality of the data by maximizing the congruence of the O&D
Survey and the T-100/T-100(f).
DATES: Comments must be submitted by April 18, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Pittaway, Office of Aviation
Analysis, 400 Seventh St. SW., Room 6401, Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-8856.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You can view and download this document by going to the Web site of
the Department's Docket Management System
(
http://dms.dot.gov/). On that page, click on "simple search." On the next page, type in the
last four digits of the docket number shown on the first page of this
document, 4043. Then click on "search." An electronic copy of this
document also may be downloaded from
http://regulations.gov and from
the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at
(202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal
Register's home page at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/index.html and the Government
Printing Office's database at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
Department's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Public Meeting
Based on the significant proposed changes to the O&D reporting
system, the Department is considering holding a public meeting. If
necessary, the public meeting would allow the Department to gather
additional input from the Air Carriers and other stakeholders. Any
meeting would be open to the public and a record of the meeting would
be placed in the rulemaking docket. If the Department decides a public
meeting is necessary, the Department will publish a notice announcing
the meeting in the Federal Register.
Table of Contents
A. Authority
B. Background
- Current Method of Collecting O&D Survey Data
- Current Method of Collecting T-100/T-100(f)
- Office of Inspector General's Report
- Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
C. Need for Data Modernization
- Background
- Review of Deficiencies in the Current O&D Survey
D. O&D Survey Data Usage
- The Department
- Other Government Agencies
- Other Stakeholders
E. Limitations of O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f)
F. Need for Regulatory Action
G. Development of the Record in this Rulemaking
H. Scope of this Rulemaking
I. O&D Survey Redesign
- Summary of the Proposed O&D Survey
- Discussion of the Proposed O&D Survey
- Reporting Requirements
- Significant Issues Related to the Data to Be Collected
- Transition Period
J. T-100/T-100(f) Considerations
- Background
- T-100/T-100(f) Changes to be Considered
K. Data Dissemination
- Dissemination of Data by Month
- Proposed Construction of One-way Trips
- Proposed Proration Method
- Proposed Changes to Confidentiality
L. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
M. Glossary
N. Proposed Rule
A. Authority
The Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-443)
requires the Department of Transportation (the Department), under the
authority of the Secretary for Transportation (49 U.S.C. 329(b)(1)), to
collect and disseminate information on civil aeronautics and aviation
transportation in the U.S., other than that collected and disseminated
by the National Transportation Safety Board. The Department must, at
minimum, collect information on the origin and destination of
passengers and information on the number of passengers traveling by air
between any two points in air transportation. Additionally, the
Department must be responsive to the needs of the public and
disseminate information to make it easier to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of the commerce
of the U.S. (49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(7)). In meeting this responsibility,
the Department collects data submitted under 14 CFR Part 217 (Reporting
Traffic Statistics by Foreign Air Carriers in Civilian Scheduled,
Charter, and Nonscheduled Services), 14 CFR Part 241 (Uniform System of
Accounts and Reports for Large Certificated Air Carriers) and 14 CFR
Part 298 (Exemptions for Air Taxi and Commuter Air Carriers).
Under 14 CFR Part 217, Foreign Air Carriers that are authorized by
the Department to provide scheduled passenger services to or from the
U.S. must file Form 41 Schedule T-100(f) "Foreign Air Carrier Traffic
Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market," accumulated in
accordance with the data elements prescribed in Section 217.5 (14 CFR
Part 217 section 217.3). These requirements reflect changes made to
international data submissions by large Air Carriers (Docket No. OST-
1996-1049, RIN 2105-AC34, 62 FR 6715; Docket No. OST-1998-4043, RIN
2139-AA08, 67 FR 49217).
Under 14 CFR Part 241, all U.S. certificated and commuter U.S. Air
Carriers must report their traffic movements in the T-100. Under 14 CFR Part 217, all Foreign Air Carriers
that operate to the U.S. must report their traffic movements involving
a U.S. point in the T-100(f). Participation in the O&D Survey is
required by 14 CFR Part 241 Section19-7. The source documents are
airline tickets ending in double-zero (major domestic markets) or zero
(all other markets), reported only by the first honoring and Operating
Air Carrier, which shall report the required data for the entire
Ticketed Itinerary.
B. Background
This NPRM is part of an effort by the Department to conduct a
broad-based review of the requirements for aviation data and to
modernize the way the Department collects, processes and disseminates
aviation data. Specifically, it addresses the collection and processing
of traffic reporting requirements described in the O&D Survey and T-
100/T-100(f). It reflects prior analyses of the aviation data collected
and processed by the Department and the effective use of that data by
the government, the airline industry, consumers, and other
stakeholders, which indicate a need to revise and update the O&D Survey
and T-100/T-100(f).
1. Current Method of Collecting O&D Survey Data
The O&D Survey collects a sample of itineraries quarterly from
large certificated U.S. Air Carriers. Foreign Air Carriers granted
antitrust immunity as part of code-share agreements with U.S. Air
Carriers contribute O&D Survey data under a similar but separate
program. The current method of gathering data for the O&D Survey
requires large certificated Air Carriers that transport passengers
(i.e. "Participating Carriers") to examine each flight coupon to
determine whether the ticket, or Ticketed Itinerary, is reportable.
Reportable tickets are those with a ticket number ending in a double-
zero (major domestic markets) or zero (all other markets). In practice,
tickets ending in zero are reported, presumably representing ten
percent of all Ticketed Itineraries. The ticket must be reported unless
it is apparent that another Participating Carrier has already reported
it. If it is not apparent, then the Participating Carrier must report
the ticket. Data are reported quarterly.
If the Participating Carrier issued the ticket, it will likely have
saved the itinerary data for use in reporting the ticket to the
Department's O&D Survey. If the Participating Carrier did not issue the
ticket, the Carrier must either receive the necessary data from the
Carrier that issued the ticket or employ staff to examine the physical
passenger document and transcribe as much of the Ticketed Itinerary as
possible from a used flight coupon.
2. Current Method of Collecting T-100/T-100(f)
The current method of gathering data for the T-100/T-100(f)
requires Reporting Carriers (e.g. all Carriers required by 14 CFR Part
217, 14 CFR Part 241, and 14 CFR Part 298 to report operating
statistics) to report the movement of traffic in accordance with the
uniform classifications prescribed. They are compiled by Flight-Stage
as actually performed and represent 100 percent of operations. The
requirements reflect revisions made to T-100/T-100(f) reporting
requirements for both Foreign and Domestic Air Carriers (Docket No.
OST-1996-1049, RIN 2105-AC34, 62 FR 6715; Docket No. OST-1998-4043, RIN
2139-AA08, 67 FR 49217). Data are submitted monthly.
3. Office of Inspector General's Report
At the request of The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS),
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Passenger Origin-
Destination Survey (O&D Survey) data submitted by the Air Carriers to
the Department. The OIG report, released in February 1998, acknowledged
that passenger data was critical for basic departmental
responsibilities and for making sound policy decisions. It declared the
O&D Survey to be insufficiently reliable for use in supporting these
decisions. Specifically, the OIG report concluded that "[a]lthough O&D
data are used by Department analysts to provide quantitative support
for key policy and funding decisions, we found that O&D data are
unreliable for use in making these important decisions." (Office of
Inspector General Audit Report Number AV-1998-086 Feb. 24, 1998 p.iii).
4. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In July 1998, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation
and International Affairs and BTS jointly issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (July 15, 1998, 63 FR 28128) as a first
step in reviewing aviation data collected by the Department (Docket
OST-1998-4043-1). The Department solicited comments about (1) whether
the existing airline traffic and financial data should be amended,
supplemented or replaced; (2) whether selected forms and reports should
be retained, modified, or eliminated; (3) whether aviation data should
be filed electronically; and (4) how the aviation data system should be
reengineered to enhance efficiency and reduce costs for both the
Department and the airline industry. The ANPRM explored not only the
scope of traffic and financial information, but also the sources of
data, the timing of the reporting of data, the methods of processing
data, and the release of data to the public. The Department
subsequently conducted additional outreach and research activities to
further assess data requirements and potential improvements to the
reporting and processing systems. In the ANPRM, the Department stated
its goal that the aviation data systems should be reviewed and
modernized to adapt to the present and future needs of commerce.
As a result of the ANPRM, the Department issued an NPRM on August
28, 2001, to assessment changes to the T-100/T-100(f) Traffic Reporting
System (Docket No. OST-1998-4043, RIN 2139-AA08, 66 FR 45201). On July
30, 2002, the Department issued a final rule modifying the T-100/T-
100(f) Traffic Reporting System (Docket No. OST-1998-4043, RIN 2139-
AA08, 67 FR 49217). This NPRM proposes additional data modernization
changes that were not previously addressed in prior rulemakings.
C. Need for Data Modernization
In 1947, the U.S. Government under the Civil Aeronautics Board
(CAB) began keeping information about the origin and destination of
passenger air travel based on passenger reservations. In 1968, the O&D
Survey was overhauled and the basis of counting passengers was changed
to the present system of counting sold tickets reported after first
use. With the exception of a few added data elements to record code-
share ticketing, the O&D Survey collected today has changed little
since 1968, although some changes were made to the T-100/T-100(f)
(Docket OST-1996-1049, RIN 2105-AC34, 62 FR 6715; Docket OST-1998-4043,
RIN 2139-AA08, 67 FR 49217). The industry, however, has changed a great
deal since then.
1. Background
Worldwide, the scheduled air transportation industry is divided
into those Carriers that share passengers with one another on the same
Air Travel Ticket, a practice called interlining, and those Carriers
that operate independently without interline agreements. For both types
of Carriers, only one Carrier serves as the Issuing Carrier, but for
interlining Carriers, the Issuing Carrier plays a coordinating role for all other Carriers
included in the Ticketed Itinerary. The Issuing Carrier is responsible
for holding the ticket purchaser's funds until they are earned, paying
taxes due to government agencies, and paying the travel agent
commission, if any. The Issuing Carrier is also known as the plating
Carrier because, in the age when flight coupons had red carbon paper
backing, the Issuing Carrier's three-digit identifier was stamped on a
metal plate that travel agents and airline ticket agents used to
imprint the first three positions of a 13-digit ticket number of an Air
Travel Ticket.
The Issuing Carrier holds the ticket purchaser's funds until they
have been earned by providing transportation to the passenger. When the
passenger's travel plans include travel on multiple Carriers on the
same Ticketed Itinerary, the Carrier that transports the passenger
provides evidence to the Issuing Carrier that the passenger has been
transported in order to receive its share of the funds. This process is
called "interline settlement" or "interline billing." When
presented with evidence that the passenger has been transported, the
Issuing Carrier credits the billing Carrier with its prorated share of
the passenger's fare. Since sharing passengers internationally is
common, the interline billing process is standardized worldwide across
all Carriers that choose to interline passengers. Because travel
agencies all over the world sell tickets on Carriers located in many
countries, and because passenger travel plans often involved multiple
Carriers, interlining Carriers and travel agents worldwide created the
standard agent ticket, which is used universally by interlining
Carriers. These Carriers use identical, or near identical, billing
processes to facilitate the handling of shared tickets. Even when
travel is scheduled on a single Carrier, extenuating circumstances due
to weather, mechanical, or other operational difficulties can result in
passengers being transported on multiple Carriers. After accommodating
a displaced passenger, the Carriers use standard interline billing
processes to transfer funds from the Issuing Carrier to the Carrier
that transported the passenger. Carriers that do not choose to
interline passengers and that do not rely on travel agents to
distribute their travel products are not bound by these standard
procedures and agreements, but most Carriers choose to use industry
standard procedures nonetheless.
Tax authorities generally require the Issuing Carrier to remit all
taxes and fees associated with the Air Travel Ticket on behalf of all
Carriers that appear on the Ticketed Itinerary. The Issuing Carrier,
regardless of the identity of the Carrier that will operate each Flight
Coupon Stage, will remit the tax tied to each Flight Coupon Stage. A
case in point is the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),
Public law 107-71. Under the ATSA, the Issuing Carrier remits the
September 11th Security fee. Even though the fee is calculated based
upon the number of Flight Coupon Stages in the Air Travel Ticket,
carriers that transport the passengers have no responsibility for
collecting and remitting this fee.
For example, a passenger purchasing non-stop service transportation
from Washington to St. Louis and back will be assessed the September
11th Security Fee one time for each One-way Trip. The Issuing Carrier
will remit the September 11th Security Fee within 60 days of the
purchase of the ticket, regardless of the scheduled travel date. Here,
if U.S. Airways, Inc. (US Airways) issues a Ticketed Itinerary with
outbound travel on US Airways and return travel scheduled several
months later on United Air Lines (United), it is the responsibility of
US Airways, as the Issuing Carrier, to remit the September 11th
Security fees for travel on both outbound and return travel. Passengers
pay the September 11th Security fee based on the number of enplanements
described in the Ticketed Itinerary, not on the number of actual
enplanements that the exigencies of travel actually require the
passenger to make. If, on the day the passenger leaves Washington, a
problem arises that results in the passenger traveling to another city
(and, perhaps, on another Carrier) to change planes before continuing
on to St. Louis, the passenger is not assessed a second September 11th
Security Fee because the assessment of the September 11th Security Fee
was made by the Issuing Carrier when the itinerary was issued.
It is a misnomer to say that travel agents issue tickets. Travel
agents distribute (sell or issue for free) Ticketed Itineraries on
behalf of an Issuing Carrier, and send the pertinent information about
the sale, and the proceeds of the sale, to the Issuing Carrier.
Originally, travel agents remitted funds directly to Issuing Carriers.
With growing numbers of airlines, the international nature of air
travel, and growing numbers of travel agencies, Carriers and travel
agencies throughout the world formed clearing houses, which came to be
known as Bank Settlement Plans (BSPs), to provide a central location
for handling Air Travel Tickets distributed (sold) by travel agents.
There is a BSP for each country or, sometimes, clusters of countries.
Travel agencies in North America remit sales to the Airlines Reporting
Corporation (ARC), organized in the early 1980s, which operates in much
the same way that BSPs operate in other parts of the world.
When the current O&D Survey was established in the 1960s, the most
common accounting system was a lift-based system. The airline industry
used flown flight coupons, also known as lifts, as the primary source
of accounting and marketing data. It was customary to make a
reservation, and then ticket the reservation at a later time. The
ticket consisted of one flight coupon for each enplanement and a
summary or auditor's coupon. Every flight coupon contained all the
information about the itinerary.
Moving all evidence of the ticket sale to each airline's accounting
center was time-consuming and laborious. In the years prior to the
widespread use of computers, tickets sold in the U.S. took weeks to
reach the Carrier; tickets sold in foreign countries would typically
take months. Some ticket sales were processed within a week or two, but
very often sales took so long that the passenger had completed the
journey before the Issuing Carrier processed the sale of the Air Travel
Ticket. In contrast, after each flight departure, the airport personnel
sent a flight envelope containing all the flight coupons to the
Operating Air Carrier's accounting offices for processing. The flown
flight coupons came to the accounting center organized in flight
envelopes for flights departed mostly in the prior week. By virtue of
the ubiquitous red carbon paper, every flight coupon included a copy of
the entire itinerary. Therefore, in a pre-computer environment, a lift-
based accounting system organized around the lifted flight coupons made
sense. Taxes and commissions had to wait until the sale records reached
the Issuing Carrier, but in a lift-based accounting system, a Carrier's
accounting and market data needs were met with the information on the
lifted flight coupon.
In 1968, the CAB designed the O&D Survey around the lifted flight
coupon to reflect the standard procedures that were in use in the
airline industry. Collecting the ticket sale data after one coupon had
been used was not only in line with Carrier accounting practices of the
time but also had two other advantages. First, this collection method
grouped the reported tickets together in a date close to the
passenger's use of a flight coupon rather than the ticket issue date.
Second, it kept fully refunded and fully exchanged tickets from being included in the O&D Survey.
The CAB also recognized that manual procedures are labor intensive
and expensive. In keeping with the desire to minimize the burden of
collection, the CAB specified very few elements from the ticket for
collection, required only 10 percent of the tickets to be examined, and
limited the number of surveys to four a year.
The Carriers were early adopters of computer systems. The first of
the customer interactions to be automated was the reservation process.
The major Carriers built large reservation systems to match passengers
to departing aircraft. The reservations system computers had an
operating system that was designed specifically for the requirements of
Carrier reservation systems. Passengers and travel agents worldwide
called Carriers to make a reservation and the airline employees entered
the passenger information. Several of the Carriers eventually packaged
their systems as a product, called a Computer Reservation System (CRS).
They sold the ability to access the reservations system to the travel
agents. Marketed as Sabre, PARS, Apollo, and System One, the CRS owners
gained revenue from others' access to the system, and Carriers lowered
their costs because travel agents, rather than airline employees, were
now entering the passenger information into the reservations system.
When the reservations systems began to issue automated tickets, the
travel agent and the airline ticket counters achieved higher efficiency
and productivity. Automated ticketing lowered costs by copying data
already in the reservations system onto a paper ticket. However, since
the reservations computer operating system was incompatible with the
Carrier accounting computers, the information from the ticketing record
had to be copied again onto an electronic record that was transmitted
to the Carrier's accounting computer systems. Since the accounting
system received a copy of the ticket data but not a direct link to the
reservations system, the accounting system had no direct way of
recording changes made in the reservation system.1 Changes to the
passenger's reservation that were important enough to cause an agent to
re-issue the ticket would, in turn, generate a new ticket record that
would be forwarded to the accounting system. Changes to the passenger's
reservation that did not cause an agent to re-issue the ticket would
not be communicated to the accounting system. Nevertheless, whereas
moving manual ticket data from the ticket sellers to the Carriers had
been laborious, slow, and costly, the automated computerized ticketing
process opened up new possibilities to move ticket information quickly,
efficiently, and at low cost to Carriers.
Automated ticket processing opened up cost saving opportunities in
passenger revenue accounting. The huge cost of rewriting an accounting
system from lift-based to sales-based was justified, in part, because
the lift-based accounting system required hundreds of employees trained
to process the lifted flight coupons. Because a sales-based accounting
system makes use of information already stored in the computer,
Carriers gradually shifted away from reliance on information from
lifted flight coupons and toward reliance on information stored from
the ticket sale. By 2004, Carriers use sales-based accounting systems
almost exclusively.
Regardless of the accounting system, there remained a gap in data
when the itinerary included multiple Carriers. Only the Carrier that
issued the ticket had a complete computer record of it. A Carrier that
transported a passenger on a ticket that it did not issue had to employ
staff to enter the itinerary into its computer system. In the 1980s,
American Airlines initiated agreements to share ticket information
about shared passengers with Trans World Airlines, United Air Lines and
Eastern Airlines to avoid the cost of manually re-typing each other's
tickets. In 1990, the system of sharing ticket information was
formalized with an industry standard record structure for all Carriers
called Transmission Control Number (TCN) record. Whenever a Carrier
needed to share information about a ticket with the other Carriers in
the itinerary, a TCN record could be sent between Carriers.
Responsibility to oversee the data sharing was given to the Airline
Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO). ATPCO would forward TCN records to
the operating Carriers in the itinerary on behalf of the Issuing
Carrier. The ATPCO TCN exchange service was offered to all Carriers,
although not all Carriers decided to participate.
The TCN data sharing was created as an optional service to
facilitate more efficient information exchange among interlining
Carriers electing to use the service, not as a compulsory system.
Tickets continued to be created without a corresponding TCN record.
Conversely, multiple TCNs were sometimes created to describe a single
sale. Sometimes this happened because TCN records were generated for
tickets for customers who failed to complete the purchase. Other times,
customers demanded a change that resulted in a second TCN being created
while the first could not reliably be nullified. Testing can generate a
TCN or, sometimes, TCNs by the thousands, for which there was no ticket
sale. Carriers' passenger revenue accounting systems were designed to
find the TCNs they needed for accounting purposes, ignore the
extraneous TCNs, and still be able to accept manual data on tickets for
which no TCN exists. Not all Carriers used TCN records in the course of
business. Of those that did, some created TCNs for their own
internally-issued tickets, while other Carriers did not.
After the CRSs became known as Global Distribution Systems (GDSs)
in the 1990s, they inherited the responsibility to create the TCN
records for travel agency tickets. With this development, TCNs became
the vehicle to send information about the ticket from the travel
agencies to the Issuing Carrier as well as to any other Carrier that
participated in the itinerary. The GDSs sell the TCN information to the
Carriers for a small fee. The GDSs also sell the travel agent's
reservation information. The product, called marketing information data
tapes (MIDT), contains no information about the price of the travel
except the selling class codes and is limited to segments booked
through travel agencies. The MIDT data are marketed to Carriers for use
in business planning activities.
While increasing computerization simplified many of the carriers'
data collection, processing, and exchange activities, manual collection
of the O&D Survey information became more difficult for the
Participating Carriers. With reliance on computerized ticketing and the
shift to sales-based accounting systems, there was little interest or
need to continue the practice of using carbon paper to print the whole
itinerary on all of the ticket's flight coupons. Examination of
coupons, standard procedure in the old lift-based system, is not
necessary in the normal course of business when using a sales-based
accounting system. Since the Department's O&D Survey continued to
require the Operating Air Carrier to provide information from the
lifted flight coupons, it became increasingly vital for the Operating
Air Carrier to receive information about the issuance of the ticket
from the Issuing Carrier. If the first Participating Carrier is not the
Issuing Carrier or did not receive that sale information from the
Issuing Carrier, then the Participating Carrier is required to employ staff to
locate that lifted flight coupon. This is an intensely manual process,
and it is a significant burden on limited human and financial resources
of the Operating Air Carrier. In the pre-computer era, Carriers could
draw on accounting department employees trained in obtaining
information from lifted flight coupons, but increasing reliance on
computer records and sales-based accounting systems left Carriers with
only a small number of employees with sufficient training to glean the
O&D Survey information from a lifted flight coupon. Sales processing by
computer has become so reliable that as of May 2004, the GDSs no longer
print a paper version of the auditor's coupon. Employees with the
skills needed to extract the necessary information from visual
examination of a lifted flight coupon have become increasingly scarce.
The level of effort that the current O&D Survey imposes on an
Operating Air Carrier to identify whether it is the first Participating
Carrier in the itinerary is compounded by the number of Carriers the
Department exempts from reporting to the O&D Survey. Tens of thousands
of passengers fly each day on commuter Carriers and Foreign Air
Carriers operating under code-share agreements. As a result of code-
share ticketing procedures, the identity of the Operating Air Carrier
is often hidden from an outside observer. When the Issuing Carrier does
not provide the itinerary details to the Operating Air Carrier, via a
TCN record or other means, then it is difficult for the Operating Air
Carrier to determine whether any of the other Carriers whose Airline
Designator appears on the ticket as the Marketing Carrier is scheduled
to operate the flight. A Participating Carrier may not be aware that a
Code-Share partner is scheduled to operate a flight. The CFR
specifically absolves the Participating Carrier from the burden of
determining the scheduled Operating Air Carrier if the Issuing Carrier
did not notify it and it is not a Carrier involved in the code-share
agreement.
If the reporting carrier does not know the operating carrier on
a downline code-share segment, it would use the ticketed carrier's
code for both the operating and the ticketed carriers. The reporting
carrier is not responsible for knowing the operating carrier of a
downline code-share where it is not a party to the code-share
segment.
--14 CFR Sec 19-7 V. Selection of Sample and Recording of Data
(D)(2)(b)
In addition to the higher cost, examination of a printed paper
coupon to obtain information that is usually transferred by computer
yields less information than it did in the 1960s, when manual
processing was the norm. Electronic ticketing has become the standard
practice for most U.S. Air Carriers. However, when authorization to
board a plane must be communicated between Carriers, and electronic
means are for any number of reasons unavailable, issuing a paper flight
coupon remains the standard practice of the industry.
The O&D Survey requires Participating Carriers to report
information about an entire ticket based on the knowledge of the flight
coupon they have in hand. Paper coupons today generally only contain
the information for a single flight segment. The itinerary must be
deciphered by examining the pricing area of the ticket. Unfortunately,
the pricing area lists city codes instead of airport codes. For cities
with only one airport, the limitation poses no problem, but for cities
such as New York, the pricing area will list the price to NYC. The use
of NYC obscures whether the passenger is scheduled to arrive at
LaGuardia (LGA) or Kennedy (JFK) or, for that matter, at Newark (EWR)
or Newburgh (SWF) airports.
The passengers' purchased itinerary has always been limited to four
segments per ticket because only four could be printed plainly on
carbon paper copies. If a passenger's itinerary required more than four
flight coupons, the Carriers used two or more tickets in conjunction
with each other. When the itinerary was long enough to require spanning
two tickets, the information from the second ticket was never available
to the Participating Carrier. Recognizing this, the Department exempted
the Participating Carrier from reporting the second and subsequent
conjuncted tickets from the O&D Survey. However, even when some
portions of the Ticketed Itinerary go unreported, the total amount
collected for the ticket is still reported in full. Reported flight
coupons are artificially over-valued when the full ticket value, but
only the partial itinerary, is reported. The number of partially
reported itineraries currently being reported in the O&D Survey is
assumed to be low, but since they are not detectable, there is no
ability to quantify them, and, therefore, the impact of exempting long
itineraries on the current O&D Survey is unknown.
Reliance on the ability of the Operating Air Carrier to examine the
lifted flight coupons no longer provides the best reasonably obtainable
economic information about the purchase of air travel on scheduled
Carriers. The Department acknowledges that the current O&D Survey
burdens Participating Carriers with obligations to examine the details
of lifted flight coupons that they would not ordinarily do in the
course of their business.
Significant among these burdens is the obligation to determine
first Participating Carrier. Under the requirements of the current O&D
Survey, the only way to meet the obligation of determining whether an
Operating Air Carrier is the first Participating Carrier is for each
Operating Air Carrier to examine the complete routing of every Ticketed
Itinerary that was used to transport passengers in the quarter. There
is no other way for Operating Air Carriers to determine whether or not
it is apparent that another Participating Carrier has already reported
the ticket.
The Survey data are taken from the coupon that is lifted by a
participating carrier, unless it is apparent from the lifted coupon
that another participating carrier has already recorded and reported
the data, in which instance the ticket coupon is non-reportable for
the second honoring/participating carrier.
--14 CFR Sec 19-7 Appendix A (I.) General Description of O&D Survey
(B) Narrative Description
The "unless it is apparent" standard for determining whether an
Operating Air Carrier is responsible for reporting a Ticketed Itinerary
is a difficult standard to meet. Every Operating Air Carrier must
diligently examine every Ticketed Itinerary to find out whether it has
a ticket number ending in zero. For ticket numbers ending in zero, when
the Operating Air Carrier is the initial Carrier in the routing, then
clearly it should report the Ticketed Itinerary. When the Operating Air
Carrier is the second or third Carrier in the routing, it must compare
the identifiers of the previous Carriers in the routing to the list of
Participating Carriers provided by the Department's Office of Airline
Information (OAI). Under the current regulation, even the most diligent
Participating Carrier will not report all O&D Survey tickets correctly
if there is an unrecognized code-share flight present in the itinerary,
the itinerary spans multiple physical tickets (known as conjuncted
tickets), or the itinerary includes cities with multiple airports.
2. Review of Deficiencies in the Current O&D Survey
Respondents to Docket OST-1998-4043-1 (ANPRM, July 15, 1998; 63 FR
28128) agreed that the O&D Survey, as it exists, exempts too many
passengers from the report, is cumbersome and expensive to compile, and
fails to collect key elements of information. In addition, the results
of the O&D Survey published by the Department are unwieldy to use. The Department wishes
to address problems such as those identified in the 1998 OIG report,
which concluded that O&D data were unreliable for use in key policy and
funding decisions.2 For example, the Inspector General determined
that of 8,894 city pairs, the O&D Survey report on 6,661 city pairs (69
percent) did not meet the Department's accuracy criteria when using
enplanement statistics as a benchmark. The Inspector General (IG) used
the enplanement statistics as a reliable comparison because they are
also used by the Carriers for aircraft operational purposes. The IG
cited several reasons for the inaccuracies, most of which were
attributed to the fact that the basic reporting requirements of the O&D
Survey have not been aligned with current industry practices.
a. Reporting Exemptions
Exemptions from reporting, granted in the 1960s, have become a
major problem in today's O&D Survey. For example, Carriers flying
planes with 60 or fewer seats are exempt from reporting. As such,
passengers whose entire itineraries are flown on smaller Carriers will
not be reported, yet their participation in the air transportation
system is critical. Similarly, code-share agreements between large and
small Carriers were non-existent when the current O&D Survey was
designed. Today, Carriers of all sizes are connected to a global air
transportation system through global alliances and international ticket
agreements. This intertwining of service adds complexity and increases
the potential for error when reporting Ticketed Itineraries.
For example, the IG pointed out that a Participating Carrier is
exempt from proper reporting of the code-share relationship if it has
no knowledge of that relationship. In a code-share situation, the
Carrier that transports the passenger (Operating Air Carrier) is not
the Carrier printed on the itinerary (Marketing Carrier). The Carrier
that issues the ticket is responsible for knowing when this is
occurring and notifying the passenger of the code-share situation.
However, when the Participating Carrier is not the Issuing Carrier, the
Participating Carrier cannot always report the code-share portions of
the Ticketed Itinerary properly.
Code-sharing with regional Carrier partners has created a situation
wherein customers can begin travel on a regional Carrier that does not
report the O&D Survey because of size exemptions. In that case, the
second Carrier in an itinerary should report the ticket. However, the
second Carrier may not be a code-share partner with the regional
Carrier that first transported the passenger. The second Carrier will
believe the ticket to have been reported by the first Carrier when, in
fact, it has not been reported. This causes the entire itinerary to go
unreported.
Exceptions for Foreign Air Carriers also impact the accuracy of the
O&D Survey, and the IG cited this exception as a prominent problem.
Excluding those Foreign Air Carriers granted antitrust immunity for
alliances with U.S. carriers, Foreign Air Carriers may transport
passengers without reporting their Origin and Destination traffic to
the Department. In consequence, some travelers bound for foreign
countries are counted in the Department's statistics, and some are not.
Excluding these passengers introduces a bias into the statistics that
is difficult to evaluate. As the code-share and marketing alliances
between U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers developed throughout the 1990s,
this reporting gap became even more significant.
b. Sample Size
The IG pointed out that having Participating Carriers report only
those tickets ending in zero or double-zero is not an appropriate
sample design. It is not certain that those tickets will be randomly
distributed across all Ticketed Itineraries. A survey must be based on
a random sample of the population if the results of the survey are to
be generalized to the entire population. Unfortunately, there are
indications that the sample used in the existing O&D Survey is not
entirely random, although it is not always clear how this non-
randomness occurs.
When the O&D Survey was established, ticket numbers were preprinted
sequentially on paper ticket stock. As each customer appeared, each had
an equal chance of receiving a ticket number ending in zero. Since
ticket numbers are now assigned by a computer program, the possibility
that ticket numbers are assigned for reasons other than randomness
arises. For example, a tour operator might use its block of ticket
numbers to issue all the ticket numbers that end in the same digit to
members of a particular tour, resulting in all those tickets being
selected for the sample or excluded from the sample depending on which
tour was assigned ticket numbers ending in zero. One Carrier has
analyzed its ticket numbers and found that 11 percent end in zero,
which would not occur if the numbers were entirely random. While the
sample is intended to be 10 percent of all tickets, analysis by BTS'
Office of Statistical Quality in 2001 concluded that the actual sample
size ranged from 10.1 percent in 1999 to 9.6 percent in 2000. This is a
larger variation than one would expect purely from normal sampling
error, suggesting some non-randomness in the creation or selection of
ticket numbers.
c. Definition of Origin and Destination
The common understanding of a True O&D is a passenger who is
traveling from the origin of the trip to arrive at the destination of
the trip where the individual intends to conduct business or engage in
leisure activity. Passengers generally prefer to arrive at the True O&D
destination in the fewest possible Flight-Stages, but often a passenger
travels over many Flight-Stages, many Flight Coupon Stages, and,
sometimes, many modes of transportation to reach the True O&D
destination, and in the case of a very remote destination, the journey
might take several days. The Department's intent has always been to
track, to the greatest extent possible, the passenger's intended True
O&D.
Carriers, airports, the Department, and other stakeholders use
various methodologies to approximate the passenger's True O&D. The
standard approximation is known as a One-way Trip. The principal
determination of One-way Trip is based on the time spent on the ground
between sequential Flight-Coupon Stages. A short time between
sequential Flight-Coupon Stages implies a connection in a continuing
One-way Trip. A long time on the ground between sequential Flight-
Coupon Stages implies an end of the prior One-way Trip and a beginning
of the next One-way Trip. Flight Number and Fare Basis Code are
sometimes used, in addition to time on the ground, to calculate a One-
way Trip. The One-way Trip is usually completed in a single day,
although the definition of One-way Trip encompasses the possibility
that travel continues overnight and into the following day(s).
However, the information Carriers currently supply in the
Department's O&D Survey is devoid of flight number, travel date,
departure time and arrival time, so the data collected by the
Department has left it without the ability to use time spent on the
ground to establish a One-way Trip. As a result, since the beginning of
the O&D Survey, the Department has used continuous direction of travel
as its approximation of True O&D. This methodology is known as
Directional Passenger construction. In a regulated airline environment, determining passenger trips by measure of least circuity
was an adequate measure of passenger travel. In that environment,
passengers had no incentive to travel in any direction other than
toward their destination as efficiently as possible. However, following
the extensive development of hub-and-spoke systems following
deregulation, passengers are often motivated by price or incentivized
by Carrier loyalty programs that reward taking circuitous connecting
flights even when a non-stop flight is offered.
The Department's Directional Passenger concept considers a
passenger to be on a continuous trip so long as the passenger continues
in the same direction regardless of the number of days the journey
takes, subject to certain circuity rules that allow some backtracking.
For example, the Department's circuity based rules consider an
itinerary of Albuquerque to Denver to Reno to be a single Directional
Passenger trip. However, an itinerary of Albuquerque to Denver to Las
Vegas will never be considered as a single directional trip because the
location of Las Vegas airport in relation to Albuquerque causes the
circuity check to break the trip into two directional passenger trips.
Because the Department does not collect flight date or flight time, the
O&D Survey always identifies Albuquerque to Denver to Reno as a single
Directional Passenger trip, regardless of the number of days the
passenger stays in Denver. On the other hand, regardless of the short
number of hours spent in Denver, the O&D Survey always identifies
Albuquerque to Denver to Las Vegas as one Albuquerque to Denver
Directional Passenger trip and counts the Denver to Las Vegas stage as
a separate Directional Passenger trip.
Itinerary construction and circuity rules together determine
Directional Passengers. When an Albuquerque-Las Vegas passenger
purchases a round trip ticket traveling through Denver on both the
outbound and the return trip, then the directional passenger rules will
recognize the pattern, and determine that the outbound journey should
be considered a single Albuquerque-Las Vegas trip and the return trip
to be a single Las Vegas-Albuquerque trip. However, when an
Albuquerque-Las Vegas passenger purchases a round trip ticket with the
outbound journey changing planes in Denver and a return trip changing
planes in San Francisco, then the directional passenger rules will
interpret the outbound journey to be an Albuquerque-Denver trip, the
return trip will be a San Francisco-Albuquerque trip with a separate
Denver-San Francisco trip sandwiched between them. In this situation,
the Directional Passenger construction views Las Vegas as a connecting
city and does not recognize the passenger's true intention to visit Las
Vegas. Itineraries like Albuquerque to Denver to Las Vegas have
increased as a result of the development of extensive hub-and-spoke
operations by incumbent carriers. Clearly, approximating True O&D using
the Directional Passenger method is less accurate in the current
environment than it was when it was instituted.
The Department cannot approximate True O&D consistently across all
itineraries using the O&D Survey as it is currently collected.
Furthermore, the Department cannot determine Directional Passengers on
a consistent basis because travel that is part of a stand alone
Directional Passenger trip is treated differently than if that travel
is part of a round trip, and round trips are treated differently
depending on the airport in which a passenger might choose to change
planes.
In authorizing Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), the Congress
recognized the concept of One-way Trip in civil aviation law. No PFC on
any passenger may be imposed for more than two boardings on a One-way
Trip (14 CFR 158.9(a)(1)). The concept of One-way Trip was further
ensconced in Federal law on November 19, 2001, when Congress
established the September 11th Security Fee. Section 44940(b) and (c)
of ATSA provides that the fee may not exceed $2.50 per enplanement or
$5.00 per One-way Trip. Congress did not specify the definition of One-
way Trip, but it is commonly understood that it was to be a journey
from the passenger's point of view, concomitant with common practice.
The Carriers assess PFCs and September 11th Security Fees using
time in hub as the principal determinant of a One-way Trip. The
Department believes that the Carrier's method of determination for the
One-way Trips is an acceptable methodology. However, because the
Department uses directional travel as the determinant of its passenger
counts, it cannot effectively monitor the enforcement of these Federal
laws. Since the Department's Directional Passenger methodology for
determining passenger counts does not match the One-way Trip
methodology for determining passenger counts being used by the Air
Carriers to assess the fees, the Department's counts can, at best,
predict only the approximate value of the fees due to government
agencies.
The Department's inability to measure One-way Trips consistent with
industry standards leaves it without an adequate measure of passenger
demand for air travel in the U.S. The OIG issues reports on airline
metrics 3 that use the number of air travelers enplaned as the
measure of air traffic demand. While the number of enplanements can be
an accurate measure of passenger demand at individual airports, it has
unfortunate implications when used as a measure of nationwide air
traffic demand. When Carriers discontinue non-stop service between two
airports, leaving connecting service as the sole option of passengers
traveling between these airports, the number of enplanements doubles
since passengers must now enplane a second aircraft. When enplanements
are used as the sole measure of nationwide air travel demand,
discontinuing direct service has the perverse effect of making it
appear as if air travel demand is increasing. Thus the reduction in the
true number of persons traveling after September 11, 2001 likely would
be underestimated when using enplanements as a measure of demand,
because the airlines' reduction in the number of non-stop flights
caused the travelers to enplane more times to reach their destination.
The Department believes that some of the perceived lack of accuracy in
the O&D Survey is a result of measuring passenger traffic in terms of
the Directional Passenger in an era when airlines are providing
incentives for passengers to use circuitous connecting services.
d. Fares, Taxes, and Fees
Taxation of scheduled passenger aviation today is a combination of
percentage of fare, ticket tax, itinerary-specific taxes such as
international departure tax, and enplanement fees such as September
11th Security Fees, subject to limitations on the number of charges and
fees that can be assessed on a One-way Trip. Because the O&D Survey
commingles taxes and fees with the fare amount, exact measurement of
the portion of the ticket price that represents tax has been an
educated guess even when taxes were based on a percentage of the fare.
e. Passengers Versus Passenger Trips
It is generally believed that all the passenger counts reported in
a quarter represent passengers scheduled to fly in that quarter.
Rather, the current O&D Survey bundles all the travel on a Ticketed
Itinerary in a single quarter. The complete itinerary is reported as if it took place entirely within the quarter
in which travel commences. Therefore, a misunderstanding often exists between passengers reported
and passenger trips. For example, all passengers who travel to a
destination in December and return in January have all their travel
reported in the December quarter; none of the passengers' journeys are
reported in the first quarter of the next year.
f. Reporting Consistency
Different Carriers report data elements in different ways. For
example, some Carriers with single-service cabins report all service as
first-class, while others with single service cabins report all service
as coach. Additional reliability problems occur because the Issuing
Carrier sometimes provides the Participating Carrier with the
information saved when the Ticketed Itinerary was issued, and sometimes
it does not. When the Issuing Carrier does not provide information to
the Participating Carrier, the Participating Carrier can only know what
is printed on the lifted flight coupon and may find it difficult to
report an itinerary correctly. Lack of correct knowledge is explicitly
excused in the CFR.
When the Participating Carrier attempts to decipher the city codes
for the complete itinerary using the pricing area of the ticket,
inaccuracies can result. The designated city codes--not the airport
codes--are present in the pricing section of the ticket. When the
Carrier serves multiple airports in a metropolitan area, such as Dulles
and Reagan National Airports in Washington, the pricing area displays
WAS instead of the airport code. The segment's actual airport in that
circumstance is unknown to the Participating Carrier. This is also the
case with bulk tickets. Participating Carriers that are also Issuing
Carriers can report the ticket price accurately, while Participating
Carriers that did not issue the ticket, and did not receive a TCN,
cannot report the actual amount paid. If the ticket value is not
printed on the paper document, the Participating Carrier cannot know
how to report it correctly.
The majority of users of the government's O&D Survey data purchase
the data from third-party providers, which use internal decision rules
to interpret the data. These independent companies obtain the data from
the Department and reprocess it for sale. These companies make
assumptions about the distortions that are inherent therein. For
example, the third party providers perform extensive analysis on the
data to separate the amount that was likely paid as fare from the
amount that was likely paid as tax. Because the decision rules are
specific to third-party providers, different interpretations of the
same original data exist.
D. O&D Survey Data Usage
A diverse group of stakeholders including the Executive Branch and
Congress use traffic data to help them in making decisions that affect
the national air transportation system and the U.S. economy. Most
responses to the ANPRM, including airports, labor unions, equipment
manufacturers and industry consultants, identified the Department's
aviation data as their most important source of data. These
stakeholders depend upon the Department to provide accurate, timely,
and comprehensive aviation data.
1. The Department
Air transportation is a significant sector of the nation's economy.
Despite wars and economic downturns, the nation continues to experience
long-term increases in demand for air travel. Through its efforts to
measure economic activity, the Department affirms its role in fostering
opportunities for transportation providers to create and maintain the
best transportation system in the world and to enhance the quality of
life of the American people, today and into the future. The Department
uses aviation data to carry out its mandates, among them (1) improving
international air services by seeking market liberalization, (2)
ensuring the benefits of a deregulated, competitive domestic airline
industry, and (3) developing policies to improve air service and/or
access to the commercial aviation system for small and rural
communities.
In particular, the Department uses O&D Survey information and the
T-100/T-100(f):
- To exercise the Department's responsibilities for economic
oversight of the airline industry as mandated under 49 U.S.C. 40101,
including, but not limited to:
- (7A) "Developing and maintaining a sound regulatory
system that is responsive to the needs of the public and in which
decisions are reached promptly to make it easier to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of the commerce
of the United States";
- (9) "Preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or
anticompetitive practices in air transportation";
- (10) "Avoiding unreasonable industry concentration,
excessive market domination, monopoly powers, and other conditions that
would tend to allow at least one air carrier * * * unreasonably to
increase prices, reduce services, or exclude competition in air
transportation";
- (12A) "Encouraging, developing, and maintaining an air
transportation system relying on actual and potential competition to
provide efficiency, innovation, and low prices";
- (13) "Encouraging entry into air transportation markets
by new and existing air carriers and the continued strengthening of
small air carriers to ensure a more effective and competitive airline
industry"; and
- (16) "Ensuring that consumers in all regions of the
United States, including those in small communities and rural and
remote areas, have access to affordable, regularly scheduled air
service";
- As a base of information to assess, maintain, and preserve
competition in the airline industry and in specific aviation markets,
under various federal laws and programs, such as:
- To investigate allegations of unfair and deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition, under 49 U.S.C. 41712;
- To review proposed mergers and acquisitions to assess
their competitive effect;
- To review code-share and marketing agreements between
domestic major Air Carriers, under 49 U.S.C. 41720; and
- To review applications for antitrust immunity between U.S.
and Foreign Air Carriers, under 49 U.S.C. 41308;
- To administer the Essential Air Services program assessing
the air service needs of small communities (49 U.S.C. 41743);
- To administer the Small Community Air Service Development
Program;
- To administer funds under the Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century;
- To administer the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act;
- To monitor the trends and developments in the operating
and competitive structures to ensure that Department policies remain
consistent with commercial developments;
- To determine an Air Carrier's initial fitness to provide
air transportation and review an Air Carrier's continuing fitness to
provide air transportation (49 U.S.C. 41102);
- To evaluate certificate transfer applications (49 U.S.C.
41105);
- To grant or deny permits for Foreign Air Carriers to
provide transportation as a Foreign Air Carrier to the U.S. by determining whether the public interest is being served in
granting the permit (49 U.S.C. 41302) and to approve the transfer of
such permit to another Foreign Air Carrier by determining whether the
public interest is served (49 U.S.C. 41303); and
- To assemble information and prepare reports required and
requested by the President and the Congress.
The O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f), as currently collected,
particularly impact the Department's evaluation of Air Carrier service
to smaller communities. The Essential Air Services program (EAS) and
the Small Community Air Service Development Program are directed
towards smaller markets and require evaluation of service and fares.
For example, under EAS, the Department determines the minimum level of
service required at each eligible community by specifying a hub through
which the community is linked to the national network, and specifying a
minimum service level in terms of flights and available seats. Where
necessary, the Department pays a subsidy to an Air Carrier to ensure
that the specified level of service is provided. Similarly, research
activities such as The Rural Air Fare Study,4 which was conducted
pursuant to Section 1213 of the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act of 1996, require data on all passenger air travel,
including many smaller markets served exclusively by airlines operating
only aircraft having fewer than 60 seats.
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) mandates include (1)
regulating civil aviation to promote safety, (2) encouraging and
developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology, (3)
developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation
for both civil and military aircraft, (4) researching and developing
the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics, (5) developing and
carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental
effects of civil aviation, and (6) regulating U.S. commercial space
transportation.
The FAA also administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
(authorized by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 471), which has the broad objective of
assisting in the development of a nationwide system of public-use
airports adequate to meet the currently projected growth of civil
aviation. It also provides funding for airport planning and development
projects. In addition, medium and large airports where one or two
Carriers control more than 50 percent of passenger boardings must
submit a written competition plan to receive approval to impose a
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) or to receive a grant under the AIP.
All aspects of qualifying, planning, allocating, and monitoring of AIP
funds rely on the integrity of the data that the Department collects.
The FAA uses O&D data for forecasting long-term growth in air
travel demand and for determining corresponding needs for airport
development and airspace system improvements. FAA also uses O&D data
for conducting cost-benefit analyses of proposed safety rulemakings,
infrastructure investments, and air traffic control improvements.
Within the Department, BTS has specific statutory responsibilities
(49 U.S.C. 111(c)) to measure traffic flows, travel times, travel
costs, and variables influencing traveling behavior and to collect data
relating to the performance of transportation systems. BTS is
specifically required to collect data that are suitable for conducting
cost-benefit analyses.
BTS uses O&D data, together with other sources of passenger travel
data (such as its National Household Travel Survey), to analyze
passenger travel by all modes of transportation. Since passengers
periodically shift the modes of transportation that they use (as they
did after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001), passenger
travel patterns by air are of great importance not only to airlines and
airports, but also to transportation planners in other modes as well,
such as highways and rail. BTS uses the O&D data to better understand
what factors influence passengers' choices about which mode of
transportation to use, so that transportation planners can plan
appropriately.
The O&D data are used to measure the prices that passengers pay for
air travel. These travel cost data are the basis of the Air Travel
Price Index (ATPI), the price index developed for measuring airline
prices.
Finally, the Department's Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) administers the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
program, which provides civilian aircraft to the Federal government for
use in war or other emergency situations. RSPA uses the T-100 to
determine which Carriers can make what aircraft available, while
minimizing the adverse effect that these commitments make to the
airlines' normal civilian operations. Estimating these adverse effects
requires data on the revenue that would be affected by the cancellation
of any particular flight.
2. Other Government Agencies
a. The Department of Justice
The Department of Justice (DOJ) uses aviation statistics to assist
in the prevention of anti-competitive conduct that is subject to
criminal and civil action under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The
Department's aviation statistics have been one of the Justice
Department's most important tools used to enforce various criminal
statutes related to Sherman Act violations. DOJ also uses them to
review mergers and acquisitions.
b. The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses the Department's
aviation data to help predict revenues from the collection of September
11th Security Fees. Because the Department's system bases its
determination of passenger trips on least circuity, and the passengers
are paying these fees on the basis of the industry standard One-way
Trip, the Department's data provide poor predictions of these revenues.
The current O&D Survey concept of Directional Passenger, which does not
consistently predict the number of passengers arriving at the airport
to change planes, which hampers DHS' airport security manpower
forecast. The ability to discern the difference between connecting
passengers at a given airport versus passengers beginning their journey
at that airport is critical to effectively managing security staffing
and other resources at the airport. In addition, the O&D Survey cannot
currently provide the critical time-of-day and day-of-week passenger
volume data required by DHS to plan and forecast the manpower
requirements of airport screeners.
Furthermore, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization
Act (Pub. L. 107-42) assigns the responsibility to remit the September
11th Security Fees for all travel described on the Air Travel Ticket to
the Carrier that issues the ticket. Since the Department's O&D Survey
information does not identify the Carrier that issued the ticket, the
Department's data provide insufficient information for DHS to monitor
the Carriers responsible for remitting the fees. Since the Federal
government does not collect statistics about Carriers issuing tickets,
the DHS uses the tickets reported in the O&D Survey as the best
available substitute.
c. The Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce's (DOC) ability to carry out its mandate
to promote tourism is hindered by the Department's inability to know with certainty the beginning and ending
of One-way Trips. Significant numbers of tourists travel by scheduled
air transportation, and the Department's data collection policies leave
DOC using only guesses about origins and destinations based on the
Department's directional passenger counts.
The DOC's Bureau of Economic Analysis is also responsible for
producing the official U.S. Government estimate of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), and to adjust these estimates for inflation using the
GDP Deflator. The GDP Deflator is a price index, similar to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI) that covers a broad
range of prices, including prices not paid directly by consumers. The
accuracy of the GDP Deflator would benefit from more accurate price
data and more timely data. The reporting process proposed in this
rulemaking would allow DOT to provide data that are more accurate to
DOC. By the time the current quarterly O&D Survey data become
available, it is no longer current, and, therefore, cannot be used in
the GDP Deflator.
d. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has a critical need for
passenger O&D pricing information on a monthly basis, available
promptly, so that it can achieve a more accurate index of air travel
prices for incorporation into the monthly CPI. The proposed rule would
provide these more accurate price data on a timely monthly basis. BLS'
ability to evaluate the cost of air travel and incorporate those
evaluations into the consumer price index and the producer price index
is compromised by the Department's current statistical techniques.
Furthermore, the policy of reporting all travel in the quarter when
travel commences compromises the attempt to allocate the cost of air
travel to the proper travel month. The Producer Price Index (PPI) is
supposed to be calculated net of taxes, but the Department's
statistical data does not collect information to enable BLS to separate
fares and taxes. Because BLS computes separate price indexes for
purchases by consumers (the CPI) and purchases by producers (the PPI),
it is important for BLS to be able to separate the purpose for which an
airline trip is taken--whether business or leisure. The existing O&D
data do not provide such information. The proposed rule would collect
information that would enable better analysis of the purpose of travel.
BLS would like to adjust its monthly international price program
for Exports by the amount paid by U.S. resident travelers to the
Foreign Air Carriers on all routes. Because of the reporting exemptions
granted to Foreign Air Carriers flying to the U.S., some U.S. citizens
traveling to foreign destinations on Foreign Air Carriers are counted
in the O&D Survey and some U.S. citizens are not. Lack of consistent
Foreign Air Carrier statistics hinders BLS' ability to keep its
published statistics accurate and effective.
e. The Department of State
The Department of State (DOS) uses the Department's aviation data
to provide the information base for policy decisions in international
aviation negotiations.
f. The Government Accountability Office
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) uses O&D data to
conduct special studies of the airline industry at the request of
Congress. The quality of the analysis that GAO provides to Congress
would be substantially improved by the additional and higher quality
data collected under the proposed rule.
3. Other Stakeholders
Other stakeholders, such as public and private sector individuals,
organizations, and agencies, rely on aviation data.
a. Existing and Potential Carriers
Carriers use the Department's data for traffic forecasting and
evaluation of new routes. Evaluation of new market opportunities by
Carriers is dependent on the O&D Survey. Even with their access to many
internal sources of data, Air Carriers still report that they depend on
the O&D Survey data. Almost all Carriers rely on the Department's data
as the fundamental, and least expensive, source of industry demand
data. For new Carriers, as well as smaller and low cost Air Carriers
for which MIDT data is prohibitively expensive, the O&D Survey is the
only viable source of traffic data. Third-party providers have
developed new tools that enable smaller Carriers to participate in
sophisticated route and strategic planning at a much lower cost. The
success of such planning exercises is dependent, in part, upon the
quantity and quality of data available to the Carriers. In addition,
evaluation of traffic and routes is an essential component of aircraft
acquisition planning.
b. Airports
Department traffic data provide the basis for analysis by the
nation's airports. The O&D Survey, with its fare information, is the
only source of information for airports to study price elasticity. In
addition, the O&D Survey is the airports' primary source of data for
evaluating new routes. The proposed O&D Survey would provide
information about passengers originating at an airport and passengers
transiting through an airport, an important distinction when planning
for services that the passengers demand. Route evaluations are used to
encourage new service from Carriers, and thereby improve their service
to the consumer.
Smaller airports have a particular need for information about the
destinations of passengers. Airports that do not have passenger volumes
high enough to substantiate service to multiple cities need to
establish service to cities in the region where the passengers using
that airport want to go. When the airport can establish service only to
a large city in one direction and most of the potential travelers in
the area tend to travel in another direction, then the small airport
that might have been viable on its own merits if it had service to the
city in the appropriate direction may find that it must rely on the
Federal government's small airport subsidy to remain viable. The O&D
Survey is the primary source of destination information available to
small airports.
Airports and state aeronautical agencies use the data to understand
their customers and the airport's role in its regional transportation
market. Airports must ensure that Air Carriers have reasonable access
to essential airport facilities, so statistical forecasting of
passengers is essential. Airport local and regional planning functions
use, in part, Department O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f) data to plan
buildings and runways that are vital to expanding the nation's air
transportation system into the future. Smaller airports, served
primarily by Carriers that are exempt from current O&D Survey reporting
requirements, are particularly hampered by the lack of relevant
aviation data.
c. Consumers and the General Public
Consumers benefit from the availability and analyses of accurate
and complete aviation data. In the past, the Department received
numerous inquiries from the public regarding domestic airline fares. In
response, the Department began issuing a quarterly report called The
Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report based on the Department's
traffic data. It provides information about average prices being paid
by consumers in the top 1,000 domestic city pair markets in the continental U.S. Similarly, Carriers have a
vested interest in True O&D to effectively conduct route and other strategic planning. If Carriers
are better able to accurately plan their services, consumers will be
better served.
In addition, manufacturers, industry associations, consultants,
academics, researchers, financial analysts, investors, and the general
public use the Department's aviation data as the statistical base for a
variety of studies on topics related to aviation.
d. Labor Unions
Labor unions consider the Department's data as a vital component of
their negotiation strategies. Accurate and timely data are also crucial
during times of economic downturn, particularly when Air Carriers
request concessions from their unions.
e. Equipment Manufacturers
Because demand and traffic patterns reflect utilization of
aircraft, demand and traffic data in the O&D Survey provide fundamental
information on air transport markets that are vital in planning future
products. Consequently, aircraft manufacturers are a prime user of the
Department's traffic statistics.
E. Limitations of the O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f)
The deficiencies of the O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f) have been
known for some time. While changes were made to the T-100 and T-100(f)
on July 30, 2002, the O&D Survey has not been substantially updated to
reflect changes in the industry. It has become apparent that the cost
of inadequate passenger and traffic information is significant for both
the government and private sector aviation communities who rely on this
data to fulfill their responsibilities and grow their businesses.
Furthermore, recent changes in information technology and Carrier
reservation and accounting systems have significantly reduced the cost
of revising the Department's data collection requirements such that the
benefits to all stakeholders of updating the system to provide more
timely, accurate, and useful data far exceed the costs.
The current aviation era is characterized by rapid change. Carrier
pricing can change multiple times a day. Carrier strategies sometimes
change from month to month and require increasingly sophisticated
analysis to support and evaluate business decisions and cases. The
growth in the number of third-party providers of airline analytical
software to evaluate the viability of new routes and other strategic
decisions has made sophisticated Carrier analysis commonplace at even
the smallest of Carriers. These software models, used by Carriers,
consulting firms, and government agencies, require more detailed,
timely, and comprehensive passenger demand data to optimize analyses of
a dynamic industry and plan for its future. The Department's
responsibility to identify and evaluate emerging trends in commercial
aviation is constrained by traffic statistics that are only collected
by month and by quarter and that are insufficiently comprehensive and
detailed. The continuation of collecting insufficient, quarterly data
to measure the transportation industry will severely hamper the ability
of Federal, state, and local governments to provide the infrastructure
to allow the airline industry to contribute to economic growth.
Decisions on aviation infrastructure worth billions of dollars
increasingly require more sophisticated analysis for which more
accurate, timely, and comprehensive data are critical.
The nation is becoming more dependent on fast, efficient air
travel. The nation's economy functions with the understanding that any
person or any shipment of goods can be delivered across the nation
within hours. Adequate quantitative data about the movement of
passengers will help the Department prepare for the future needs of the
transportation system.
Prior to September 11, 2001, delays associated with the capacity
constraints of the air transportation system were undermining the
efficiency of the system. These capacity constraints are now beginning
to reemerge as demand recovers. Furthermore, the events of September
11, 2001, and the subsequent effects of those events on the aviation
industry, further support the need for additional data modernization.
Not only was the collection of data elements inadequate to measure
important aspects of the aviation industry, vital information was not
available in a timely fashion to interpret the short and medium term
impacts of these events. It was also impossible to observe the recovery
of the air transportation system in those crucial days after the system
was restored.
More specifically, the data was inadequate for the following
reasons: first, neither T-100/T-100(f) data (reported monthly) nor O&D
Survey data (reported quarterly for ten percent, or less, of completed
tickets) revealed daily changes in traffic and fares following 9/11.
Without the ability to assess daily traffic levels, the Department
could not fully assess the return of passengers to the nation's air
transportation system and the extent to which the recovery was
progressing differently in various regions of the country. Second,
without any information about the sale of the Ticketed Itineraries, it
was impossible to differentiate between the post September 11th
passengers who purchased non-refundable tickets prior to September 11th
and those travelers that purchased their Ticketed Itineraries after
September 11th and thereby gauge the level of passenger confidence.
Third, quarterly data submissions resulted in a significant delay in
the Department's analysis of the impact of September 11th. The third
quarter of 2001 O&D Survey data showed the 20 days most directly
impacted by the events of September 11th mixed with the 71 days prior.
The next data available in the O&D Survey could not be released until
the end of the following quarter. Fourth, in implementing the
provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization
Act (Public Law 107-42), Congress and the Department exclusively relied
on T-100 in providing assistance to Air Carriers and other industry
participants. Even though the O&D Survey information is more useful in
measuring some aspects of the nation's aviation economy, data collected
only quarterly made it unusable for purposes of fulfilling the Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act or for adequately
monitoring the recovery of the industry following the terrorist
attacks.
Although the events of September 11, 2001 were unprecedented, the
need for more detailed, and more time-specific traffic data to monitor
the impact of significant events on the industry and its recovery from
them is not unique to that situation. Since the terrorist attacks, the
industry has experienced the SARS outbreak, the Iraq war, and various
elevated code orange alerts. In order to monitor the impact of these
extraordinary events on the industry, the Department had to issue
requests for supplemental data from the Carriers. Not only do these
supplemental requests burden the industry with additional reporting
requirements, they also highlight the fundamental need for the
Department to routinely collect more detailed, time-specific data to
fulfill its statutory obligations to monitor the health of the airline
industry and respond to requests from Congress and other government
agencies about the impact of such events on an industry that is vital
to the U.S. economy. The current data collection systems are inadequate for providing timely answers to any question
with more precision than a month for the T-100/T-100(f) and more
precision than a quarter for the O&D Survey. Reliance on data that is
only available quarterly for purposes of measuring the dynamics of
airline prices is a critical shortcoming of the O&D Survey. The ATPI,
for example, is severely handicapped by the limits of quarterly data.
Flight date is an important element of the value of a flight and
therefore an important factor in the computation of the ATPI.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requires
information about passenger travel by time-of-day and by day-of-week to
plan airport security screener staffing requirements. The current T-
100/T-100(f) averages data across a month and the O&D Survey averages
data across an entire calendar quarter, so that variability over time
within the calendar quarter cannot be measured. Variability over time
and dates can only be measured if the Department begins collecting data
about time and date of travel. The volume of passenger traffic varies
by time-of-day and day-of-week and lack of information about passenger
volumes can result in passenger delays due to too few screeners or in a
useless expenditure of Federal dollars due to overstaffing at certain
times.
TSA requires some method of forecasting the collection of revenue
from the Air Carriers. The September 11th Security fee is remitted by
the ticket's Issuing Carrier, but Issuing Carrier is not one of the
data elements collected in either the O&D Survey or the T-100/T-100(f),
making it difficult for TSA to forecast or monitor the proper
remittance of tax dollars.
Neither the O&D Survey nor the T-100/T-100(f) provide any
information about the sale of new tickets (e.g., changes in passenger
booking windows), a key measure of traveler confidence in the air
transportation system. Such information is critical to evaluating the
likely financial impact of exogenous events, such as September 11th or
SARS, on Carriers. In addition, these data limitations preclude the
Department from precisely evaluating the impacts of even endogenous
industry events such as potential strikes or Carrier shutdowns.
The problem resulting from the reporting exemption given to Air
Carriers so long as they do not operate aircraft with more than 59
seats is illustrated by the emergence of Air Carriers flying
substantial fleets of regional jets. For example, the commencement of
operations by Independence Air in June of 2004 caused a profound
adjustment of fares in small, medium and large markets in the Eastern
half of the U.S. However, because Independence Air did not operate
aircraft with more than 59 seats, it did not have to report O&D Survey
data, thereby resulting in an incomplete picture of the effects of this
Air Carrier's start of operations. When a major realignment of fares
can result from the actions of an Air Carrier that qualifies for the
small aircraft size exemption, then the small aircraft size exemption
must be reevaluated.
The FAA acknowledged these and other issues at its 2001 Commercial
Aviation Forecast Conference.5 Accurate and detailed data on the flow
of passengers through the air transportation system is critical to
addressing congestion and developing ways to make the system more
efficient. The FAA requires data on the number of passengers flying at
specific times of day and specific days of the week, allowing it to
calculate more accurately the costs and benefits of safety regulations,
infrastructure investments, operational changes, and other FAA actions.
Lack of information about catchment areas impacts the Department's
ability to assess the effects of competitive services and alternative
airports. A number of government agencies are charged with monitoring
the airline industry and providing sufficient infrastructure to
accommodate its growth. The use of secondary airports increasingly
shapes the operating and competitive structures of the airline
industry. These agencies increasingly require information that allows
them to identify and analyze changes in the catchment areas of various
airports, thereby understanding how such changes impact industry
structure and airport and airway infrastructure planning and
development. For the same reasons, such information would also be
enormously useful to other users of the data, including airports,
airlines, and aviation consulting firms.
BTS is specifically directed to gather data that are relevant to
cost-benefit analysis. One requirement of cost-benefit analysis is
estimating the number of people that are affected by a particular
proposed regulation or infrastructure improvement or technology
investment. A major weakness of the existing O&D Survey is that it does
not provide flight-specific data, so it is not possible to estimate how
many people are flying on any particular day of the week or at any
particular time. Since infrastructure and air traffic control
investments are most likely to produce benefits at times when the
airspace system is congested, it is important to be able to measure how
many people are flying at these times to measure of the number of
people affected by proposed infrastructure and air traffic control
improvements.
BTS' current On-Time Data Base allows analysis of the particular
flights that are affected by delays, but does not have the ability to
know the number of passengers affected by delays. Since the number of
passengers affected is likely to be greatest when congestion and delays
are highest, current data are likely to understate the impact of delays
on the traveling public. Information about the number of people
traveling by time-of-day is vital to understanding the dynamics of the
air transportation system.
The 10 percent sample is inadequate for fulfilling the Department's
mandates and hampers the data quality of the O&D Survey. These data
quality issues have a strong effect on programs that include
measurements of air service to small communities. The EAS program is
particularly impacted. Other programs affected include BTS' quarterly
research series (ATPI), an experimental measure currently under
development. The ATPI uses O&D Survey data and is dependent upon
accurate data for all markets.
The Department's inability to measure True O&D according to the
industry standards using One-way Trips hinders its ability to
accurately measure nationwide air travel demand. Nationwide measures of
air travel demand, airport improvements financed by PFC revenue, and
improved airport security financed by the September 11th Security fees
all depend on the Department's ability to identify One-way Trips.
However, the Department's T-100/T-100(f) statistics count enplanements,
while the O&D Survey statistics count Directional Passengers.
Consequently, the government is without any method of properly
forecasting tax revenue and without means to monitor the effects of tax
policy.
F. Need for Regulatory Action
The Department is obligated to collect and disseminate information
about civil aeronautics including, at a minimum, information on (1) the
origin and destination of passengers in interstate air transportation,
and (2) the number of passengers traveling by air between any two
points in interstate air transportation (49 U.S.C. 329 (b)). In
addition, the Department allocates airport improvement funds, provides essential air service subsidies and
allocates funds to the air traffic control system. The requirement that
the Department judge the need for, and consequences of, a regulation
based on accurate statistical information presupposes that sound
economic information exists.
The Department has a unique role in collecting transportation
industry information. The need for a statutory mandate to collect
traffic statistics is underscored by the extensive differences between
the various airline business models and the level of technical
sophistication that make the task of gathering comprehensive industry-
wide data on air transportation a very formidable task for private
industry or an industry trade group to undertake. The only other
government entities in a position to gather traffic statistics are the
nation's airports. Airports are operated by a variety of State,
Municipal, County and Regional authorities. Collectively, they do not
have the resources to process statistics on all of the passengers
flowing through them on a daily basis, and it would be cost prohibitive
for each of the major airports to develop parallel statistical systems.
It would be a burden on the Air Carriers to require reporting to more
than four hundred airports, and a burden on the airports to reassemble
the data into a nationwide view of passenger air travel. Although
third-party providers offer "enhanced" aviation data, the original
sources of third-party provider data remain the T-100/T-100(f) and O&D
Survey. The underlying need for traffic information cannot be satisfied
anywhere else because there are no other sources of comprehensive
traffic data available in the aviation industry. We therefore conclude
that the changes proposed in this NPRM are required to provide accurate
statistical information.
Respondents to the Department's ANPRM overwhelmingly agreed that
the O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f) segment data are essential. Most
named the T-100/T-100(f) and the O&D Survey as the basis for all
analytical work done in their organizations. Those that have access to
other sources of data reported that they generally crosschecked those
sources with information from either the T-100/T-100(f) or the O&D
Survey. The Department's traffic data provides the press and consumer
groups with the ability to monitor prices and advise the public about
low price alternatives to high fares, which fosters a more competitive
industry that benefits all consumers. The traffic data and the press
and consumer group analysis of the data strengthen American companies
by allowing companies to negotiate with airlines on fares. The traffic
data benefits consumers by providing new entrant Air Carriers with the
ability to demonstrate the strength of their business plan to
investors.
The O&D Survey, however, was singled out most often in responses to
the ANPRM as the data source most in need of improvement. The abundance
of complaints about the deficiencies that exist in the O&D Survey has
caused the public and the aviation industry to be cautious about any
conclusions that can be drawn from this data, yet a wide range of
stakeholders use it because it is the only available source of economic
information that describes key aspects of scheduled air passenger
transportation. Data inaccuracies have doubtlessly led to sub-optimal
decisions by stakeholders that are as impossible to quantify as they
are essential to correct. We therefore conclude that the changes
proposed in this NPRM are made necessary by compelling need to improve
the safety and economic well being of the American people.
Furthermore, OMB has published guidelines for ensuring that Federal
agencies establish practices for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility and integrity of information disseminated by
Federal agencies. Disseminated information must be accurate, clear,
complete, and presented in an unbiased manner. Where appropriate, data
should have full, accurate, transparent documentation and error sources
affecting data quality should be identified and disclosed to users. The
IG has declared that the Department's O&D Survey does not meet the
Department's standard of acceptability of 95 percent accuracy. Since
the O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f) remain the key measure of the
economics of the passenger air travel industry, the Department is under
obligation to provide the most accurate statistical information that it
can reasonably provide. The 1998 OIG report, the 1998 ANPRM, and
subsequent outreach activities support the necessity of aviation data
modernization. The IG found that to compensate for the unreliable O&D
data, Department aviation analysts often requested Air Carriers to
provide supplemental data, but they sometimes simply used their
experience to apply adjustment factors to the unreliable data. Lack of
consistent data collection over time decreases the utility of that
data, while every request for supplemental information increases the
Air Carriers' and the Department's costs. We therefore conclude that
the changes proposed in this NPRM are necessary to implement Congress'
intent for the law.
Because the Executive Branch and Congress utilize this data to form
and implement public policies to foster a safe, healthy, efficient, and
competitive air transportation system that contributes to aviation
safety, national security, and the U.S. economy, agency investment in
aviation information is critical. The private markets and other
government and quasi-governmental agencies agree that this information
is also critical for their needs, but private markets are unable to
provide adequate statistical information to address this need. The
unreliability of the data undermines the Department's ability to
perform its statutory mandate to disseminate information that enables
the transportation system to adapt to the present and future needs of
commerce and to ensure that public policy remains consistent with
changing commercial reality.
G. Development of the Record in This Rulemaking
The Department received 48 comments in Docket OST-1998-4043 in
response to its ANPRM (July 15, 1998, 63 FR 28128) from Air Carriers,
Foreign Air Carriers, airports, industry consultants, trade
associations, and unions. Typical of the responses was that of American
Airlines, which, as both a supplier and a user of data, expressed full
support of the Department's effort to simplify the data submissions and
ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data disseminated to the
public. The Regional Airline Association pointed out that it had long
advocated modernizing the data. Delta Air Lines supported the
initiative so long as it did not require the incursion of unreasonable
computer programming costs. The Air Line Pilots Association and the
Association of Flight Attendants favored any change that would improve
data quality and integrity over the current data.
Comments received about the O&D Survey under the ANPRM indicate
that there is significant concern about the data. Even while
emphasizing the importance of having access to the Department's traffic
data statistics, the respondents stressed that the O&D Survey has
serious weaknesses. Respondents repeatedly mentioned that the data
elements collected were insufficient to meet the data needs of the
public and the aviation industry. There was consensus that the
reporting exemptions granted to some Carriers significantly affected
the reliability and completeness of the data. There was near universal
agreement that the data collected by the Department suffer from a lack of both quality and
consistency. Specific comments point to the O&D Survey's outdated
design, which affects the quality and accuracy of data gathered. This
is amply demonstrated by the list of improvements that were put forth
in the ANPRM. The suggested modifications to make the O&D Survey more
reliable include:
- Change the source of data;
- Decrease the data reporting exemptions;
- Improve data validation;
- Improve definitions of data elements to enhance
uniformity;
- Improve enforcement of timely receipt of data to guarantee
timely release of data;
- Expand the number of elements collected to increase the
usefulness in measuring the industry;
- Increase the accuracy of the data to make it more
reliable; and
- Decrease the complexity of the form of the published data
to make it more useful for decision making.
Stakeholders agree that the collection, processing, and
dissemination of aviation data, particularly through the O&D Survey and
T-100/T-100(f), are critical to the continued function and well being
of the U.S. airline industry. There was general affirmation that the
suggestions the Department proposed in the ANPRM were acceptable.
Furthermore, Executive Order 12866 obligates the Department to collect,
process, and disseminate accurate, timely, and relevant aviation data.
The Department's data is insufficient to accurately determine a
consistent measure of passenger travel using its same general direction
of travel passenger counting methodology. Therefore, it is unable to
fulfill its mandate to provide the most relevant aviation data within
the current reporting requirements.
The air travel industry has grown rapidly since deregulation.
Deregulated markets, code-share and other cooperative marketing
agreements, new airline business models, and the adoption of the hub-
and-spoke model and the rolling hub variation of that model have
changed the fundamental economics of the airline industry. These
changes have left the Department attempting to measure an aviation
economy that is not the economy that the existing data were designed to
measure. As such, 14 CFR Part 241, Section 19-7 ("Passenger origin-
destination survey") has outlived the economic model for which it was
designed. Despite some adjustments (specifically, Docket No. OST-1996-
1049, RIN 2105-AC34, 62 FR 6715; Docket No. OST-1998-4043, RIN 2139-
AA08, 67 FR 49217), these metrics have not kept pace with changes in
the industry, nor do they measure essential features of aviation
economics as we know them today. Therefore, the Department is issuing
this NPRM.
H. Scope of This Rulemaking
The purpose of this rulemaking is to (1) reduce the reporting
burden on the Participating Carriers, (2) make the O&D Survey more
relevant and useful, (3) reduce the time it takes to disseminate the
information and (4) achieve maximum congruence between the O&D Survey
and the T-100/T-100(f). In so doing, the rulemaking will aid industry
and government users by collecting the most accurate and consistently
obtainable economic information about the purchase of air travel on
scheduled Carriers to or from, or within, the U.S. This rulemaking will
address the identification of the responsible reporting entity, the
identification of the data elements required to measure economic
activity in the scheduled passenger air transportation industry, and
the identification of exemptions that shall be allowed in the reporting
process.
The Department seeks to achieve these goals by making the O&D
Survey more relevant and useful to all stakeholders. Specific concerns
associated with the current O&D Survey reporting requirements include
(1) minimizing the number of reporting exemptions, (2) increasing the
level of detail, (3) increasing the quantity and quality of information
collected, (4) eliminating the need for data providers to resort to
manual data collection, thereby reducing reporting costs, (5)
establishing more uniform reporting by updating guidelines and
instructions to the Carriers, (6) achieving maximum congruence between
the O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f), and (7) updating the means of
submission to enhance the timeliness of data release.
I. O&D Survey Redesign
The Department believes that an accurate O&D Survey based on
Revenue Passenger tickets is now both desirable and possible in light
of recent changes in airline information technology.
1. Summary of the Proposed O&D Survey
a. Who Shall Report
The Department proposes that all U.S. Air Carriers, and Foreign Air
Carriers reporting data under antitrust immunity granted under 49
U.S.C. 41308, that are operating at least one aircraft with 15 or more
seats and issuing tickets for travel on scheduled interstate passenger
services to or from, or within, the U.S. participate in the O&D Survey.
By this change, the Department proposes to abandon the concept of first
Participating Carrier reporting a portion of Ticketed Itineraries in
favor of the Issuing Carrier reporting all eligible Ticketed
Itineraries. In light of substantial changes in airline ticketing and
revenue accounting practices, this alternative is the most efficient
and cost effective, allowing for the broadest possible data
availability with a minimum of ongoing reporting effort.
b. Data To Be Collected
The Department believes that a fundamental restructuring of the
data collected under the O&D Survey is necessary for the Department to
fulfill its Congressional mandate to ensure a healthy, safe, efficient,
accessible, and competitive transportation system that meets our vital
national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American
people. The Department acknowledges that this mandate includes meeting
the needs of the aviation community that relies on this data, and we
have endeavored to incorporate as many of its suggestions as possible
in this proposal. The Department recognizes its obligation to measure
passenger travel utilizing techniques that Congress, the industry, and
the public recognize as valid, current, and reasonable industry
measurements. In order to do this, the Department proposes to collect
information about the issuance of the Ticketed Itinerary and to collect
additional information about the travel described in the itinerary.
With these changes, the Department proposes to abandon the concept of
Directional Passenger in favor of One-way Trips to define True O&D.
The Department proposes to expand the scope of data that,
currently, results in an insufficient volume of data to meet basic
tests of validity and reliability. Therefore, the Department is
abandoning the reliance on a 10 percent sample and is proposing 100
percent reporting of eligible Ticketed Itineraries. The Department
intends to eliminate the limitations imposed on the scope of data that
resulted in an overabundance of exceptions that compromised data
quality. Therefore, the Department is removing the various exceptions
for reporting long itineraries and non-standard itineraries and
eliminating alternative data sample collection techniques for travel in
major markets.
The Department proposes to expand the scope of data in order to
gather data elements required to understand and disseminate useful information
about passenger travel and thereby proposes to eliminate the bundling
of ticket taxes and fees with the ticketed fare.
The current O&D Survey includes the following data elements: (1)
Point of origin, (2) Carrier on each flight-coupon stage, (3) fare-
basis code for each flight-coupon stage, (4) points of stopover or
connection (interline and intraline), (5) point of destination, (6)
number of passengers, and (7) total dollar value of ticket. The
proposed revision of the O&D Survey includes additional traffic
elements that occur for each Flight-Stage and sale elements that occur
only once for an individual itinerary.
c. Proposed Traffic Elements
1. Flight-Stage Sequence Number. A two-character ordinal sequence
number beginning with 01 that the Participating Carriers will assign to
each Flight-Stage of a Ticketed Itinerary.
2. Airport Codes. a. Flight-Stage Origin Airport. The airport's
IATA location identifier from which a Flight-Stage departs. The
Department proposes to accept a city code in lieu of airport code only
when the Flight-Stage flight number is OPEN, the itinerary uses a City
Code instead of an airport code, and the scheduled Carrier serves
multiple airports within the city making the origin airport unknowable.
b. Flight-Stage Destination Airport. The airport's IATA location
identifier at which a Flight-Stage arrives. The Department proposes to
accept a city code in lieu of airport code only when the Flight-Stage
flight number is OPEN, the itinerary uses a City Code instead of an
airport code, and the scheduled Carrier serves multiple airports within
the city making the destination airport unknowable.
3. Carrier Codes. a. Operating Carrier. The IATA issued Airline
Designator code of the U.S. Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier
operating the equipment used on the Flight-Stage.
b. Marketing Carrier. The IATA issued Airline Designator code of
the U.S. Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier marketing the Flight-Stage.
4. Scheduled Flight Date. The date on which the Flight-Stage is
scheduled to depart.
5. Scheduled Departure Time. The scheduled local flight departure
time of the Flight-Stage.
6. Master Flight Number. The Airline Designator code and flight
number under which the flight inventory is managed.
7. Scheduled Arrival Date. The date on which the Flight-Stage is
scheduled to arrive.
8. Scheduled Arrival Time. The scheduled local arrival time of the
Flight-Stage.
9. Fare Basis Code/Ticket Designator. The alphanumeric code
identifying the fare by class, qualification, and restriction
associated with the Flight-Stage.
10. Ticketing Class of Service. A one-character code indicating the
service cabin within the aircraft in which the passenger is scheduled
to be seated under the fare rules stated for each Flight-Stage of the
Ticketed Itinerary.
d. Proposed Sale Elements
1. Issuing Carrier Identifier. The Issuing Carrier's assigned IATA
recognized airline numeric code.
2. Ticketed Itinerary Identifier. The alphanumeric identifier for
the Ticketed Itinerary. This identifier identifies a unique itinerary
for each Issuing Carrier Identifier and Date of Issue.
3. Date of Issue. The local date on which the Ticketed Itinerary
was issued.
4. Fare Amount. The Fare Amount is the monetary amount the Issuing
Carrier receives from the ticket purchaser on behalf of all the U.S.
Air Carriers or Foreign Air Carriers included in the itinerary. The
Fare Amount includes the Carrier-imposed fees and surcharges, such as
fuel surcharges, for the carriage of a passenger and allowable free
baggage on the passenger's complete itinerary, denominated in U.S.
dollars, and accurate to two decimal places, rounded. The Fare Amount
excludes taxes and fees imposed by Federal, state, local and foreign
governments and excess baggage fees.
5. Government Taxes and Fees. a. Government Imposed Tax/Fee
Identifier. The government tax or fee identifier. The Department's
codes will be listed in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey
Directives issued by the Department.
b. Government Imposed Taxes/Fee Amount. This field will contain the
value of the tax or fee specified by the identifier that precedes it,
denominated in U.S. dollars and accurate to two decimal places,
rounded.
6. Ticketing Entity Outlet Type. The identifying code of the
distribution channel through which the Ticketed Itinerary was issued.
The Department's codes will be listed in the Passenger Origin-
Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department.
7. Customer Loyalty Program Identifier. The program identification
code assigned to the airline customer loyalty program or alliance
customer loyalty program under which the passenger accrues benefits.
8. Customer Loyalty Program Award Ticket Indicator. The one-
character identifying code to indicate that customer loyalty program
credits were expended in obtaining the Ticketed Itinerary.
9. Number of Passengers. The numeric value representing the number
of passengers traveling on the Ticketed Itinerary. If multiple
passengers have flown on a ticketed itinerary, we are considering
requiring carriers to report separate records, with separate fares, for
any groups of passengers on the itinerary that have flown under
differing fare basis codes or under special discount fares. For
example, if lower fares are paid for children within a tour group, the
children's fares should be reported in a separate data record with a
separate fare. When the projected number of passengers on a group
ticket differs from the actual number, we are considering requiring
carriers to report the actual number of passengers who flew on the
group ticket as of the reporting event. BTS believes that these
disaggregations are necessary to calculate its air travel price index.
We seek comment on carrier practices and handling of group tickets and
on the feasibility of the methodology we are considering.
10. Itinerary Copy Date. The date that the Participating Carrier
copied the Ticketed Itinerary data for submission to the Department.
2. Discussion of the Proposed O&D Survey
a. Traffic Elements
In its comments to the Department's ANPRM, the Regional Airline
Association (Docket OST-1998-4043-11) stated that the measure of
passenger traffic used in the O&D Survey fails to satisfy the
industry's need for timely and relevant information. Unisys Corporation
(Docket OST-1998-4043-22) and Delta Air Lines (Docket OST-1998-4043-21)
stated that the O&D Survey should adopt the True O&D concept. The Port
of Portland (Docket OST-1998-4043-19) urged the recognition of multi-
carrier O&Ds. In requesting that the Department begin using "relevant
information," "True O&D," and "multi-carrier O&D" to measure
passenger traffic, these respondents made clear that, for the aviation
industry, the Directional Passenger is no longer an acceptable measure
of True O&D. The Department agrees with the Regional Airline
Association that, if we are to provide relevant information about the
scheduled air transportation industry, we must change the basic
calculation of the True O&D used in the O&D Survey to the calculation
of One-way Trip commonly used in the air travel industry.
Scheduled Air Carriers in the U.S. use a variety of methodologies
to construct One-way Trips in order to comply with the provisions of
collecting September 11th Security Fees. The most widely accepted is a
methodology based on "time in hub." Here, the number of hours spent
in an airport is the gauge by which it is determined whether the
passenger (1) intended to continue the trip by changing planes, or (2)
intended to remain in that city for other purposes. It is sometimes
known as "the four hour rule" methodology because four hours is the
most common maximum domestic connection time allowed with this method.
In this methodology, certain other decision criteria are applied to
supplement the time in hub determination, such as special rules for
itineraries in which there are no stops that exceed the time allowance,
itineraries with "void" and "OPEN" coupons, and itineraries that
backtrack over the same set of airports.
The Department proposes to define a One-way Trip in terms of time
spent in transit, subject to certain other rules. All other
methodologies that are in use at Carriers require proprietary knowledge
or were uniquely adapted to the needs of a particular Carrier, and
would not apply industry-wide to all Carriers. These characteristics
make the other methodologies unsuitable for use by the Department on a
universal basis. The Department seeks comments from the industry and
the public regarding the optimal method for constructing a One-way
Trip. We will consider all the suggestions for appropriate
determination of a One-way Trip, and establish a consensus of the
guidelines provided by the industry to use in processing data in the
O&D Survey for dissemination. We propose to require the following data
elements for each segment of the Ticketed Itinerary as input for the
One-way Trip determination: (1) Flight-Stage Sequence Number, (2)
Airport Codes, (3) Carrier Codes, (4) Scheduled Flight Date, (5) Master
Flight Number, (6) Scheduled Departure Time, (7) Scheduled Arrival
Date, (8) Scheduled Arrival Time, (9) Fare Basis Code/Ticket
Designator, and (10) Ticketing Class of Service.
1. Flight-Stage Sequence Number. Every Flight-Stage of an itinerary
must have a sequence number assigned to it by the Issuing Carrier.
Should problems arise, a positive identifier, assigned by the provider
of the data, will help facilitate communication and resolution. Flight-
Stage Sequence Number will begin each itinerary with Flight-Stage 01
and continue with sequential Flight-Stages. Surface Flight Coupon
Stages (known within the industry as surface segments, including those
provided by designated surface carriers such as railroads) that are
included in the itinerary will be included in the numbering sequence.
Voids (also known as arrival unknown segments, or ARNK segments) and
OPEN segments are to be included in the numbering sequence.
2. Airport Code. Airport code for both Flight-Stage Origin Airport
and Flight-Stage Destination Airport will be identified by the IATA
location identifier that uniquely identifies that airport. American
Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5) and others commented that the
presence of City Codes in the itinerary in lieu of airport codes
resulted in data inconsistency. In the current O&D Survey,
Participating Carriers from time to time had to attempt to decipher the
itinerary using the pricing area of the ticket. The Department believes
that our proposed change, which designates the Issuing Carrier as the
Participating Carrier, will eliminate the problem caused by manual
examination of the pricing area. However, the Department recognizes
that when a Carrier sells an itinerary known as an "OPEN" itinerary,
where (1) the itinerary is purchased but not booked, (2) the purchased
itinerary includes a City Code instead of an airport code, and (3) the
scheduled Carrier provides service to multiple airports at that city,
then the airport code is unknowable. In this case, the Air Carrier must
issue a ticket where the appropriate value is a City Code and the
Department proposes to accept in the O&D Survey the reporting of City
Codes in the itinerary only under this circumstance.
3. Carrier Code. Where once Carrier Code would have been described
simply as the Airline Designator of the U.S. Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that transported the passenger, the onset of code-sharing has
introduced multiple Carriers into the ticketing process. The Marketing
Carrier Code is the Carrier identifier that the passenger sees when
examining the Ticketed Itinerary. The Operating Carrier is the Carrier
that operates the aircraft that transports the passenger. Marketing
Carrier and Operating Carrier will be identified by the IATA Airline
Designator assigned to them. If the Carrier has no IATA Airline
Designator code, then the Department will assign a reporting code. When
a Carrier markets surface transportation as an extension of its air
transportation service, and the transportation is (1) provided by a
common carrier that is not an Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier, and
(2) described on the Ticketed Itinerary and included in the total fare,
then the surface carrier's IATA Airline Designator will serve as the
Operating Carrier and the Carrier's IATA Airline Designator will serve
as the Marketing Carrier.
4. Scheduled Flight Date. The Department's ability to determine
One-way Trips from the O&D Survey information is crippled by a lack of
information about Scheduled Flight Date. The lack of information about
Scheduled Flight Date makes it impossible to know which passengers pass
through a location on their itinerary to stay only long enough to
change planes, and which passengers remain multiple days at a location.
In its comments, Data Base Products, Inc. (Docket OST-1998-4043-36)
cited another inaccuracy, mentioning that the O&D Survey passengers are
counted in the quarter in which the first departure took place
regardless of the flight date scheduled in the itinerary. It pointed
out that this inaccuracy is most noticeable in the transition from
fourth quarter to first quarter where all trips are reported in the
fourth quarter despite a large number of people departing in December
who are ticketed to return in January. The scheduled air transportation
industry does not always fluctuate in orderly monthly cyclic patterns.
Holidays such as Thanksgiving and Easter have a great effect on air
travel patterns and thereby require daily data.
Monthly data are problematic in other ways. From time to time,
including times of emergency such as September 11th, the Department has
found it necessary to request flight data at the weekly or daily level.
Complying with these ad hoc data requests imposes a burden on Air
Carriers. By routinely collecting data by flight date instead of by
flight month, the Department will be able to avoid the need for special
reporting requests by flight date. The ability to analyze air travel by
day-of-week and in seven day moving averages will enable the Department
to facilitate more robust economic measurement and analysis and be
prepared to analyze the effects on air transportation when significant
economic, weather and security related shocks to the nation occur.
Because the determination of One-way Trips is critical to the
Department's assessment of the air transportation industry, the
Department proposes to collect information by Scheduled Flight Date.
5. Scheduled Departure Time. The Department's ability to determine
One-way Trips from the O&D Survey information is also crippled by a lack of information about Scheduled
Departure Time. The lack of information about Scheduled Departure Time
makes it impossible to know which passengers pass through a location on
their itinerary to stay only long enough to change planes, and which
passengers remain for an extended period at a location.
Knowledge of the scheduled time of departure helps the Department
understand the economics of the air travel industry. The FAA oversees
the development of the nation's air travel infrastructure, and
knowledge of Scheduled Departure Time allows it to calculate the costs
and benefits of safety regulations and infrastructure improvements.
Similarly, departure time will assist the TSA in meeting the needs of
airports and Air Carriers with the appropriate staff levels for airport
security. Flight-Coupon Stages where the travel plans are OPEN will be
assigned an early morning departure time to be determined later, and
the results of that determination will be published in the Passenger
Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department.
6. Master Flight Number. Master Flight Number shall consist of the
two-character Airline Designator of the Carrier that manages the
inventory and the flight number under which that Carrier manages the
flight. In flights that are not involved in a code-share and not
involved in starburst or funnel flight operations, the Master Flight
Number will be the same as the Marketing Flight Number. When code-
shares, funnel flights and starburst flights are involved, this data
element will be used to identify the Airline Designator and true flight
number under which the flight inventory is controlled. The Department
proposes to collect this data element to fill in the gap between the
data the industry uses to track flights and the data the Department
collects.
The term "code-share" is not sufficiently precise to describe
what has become two distinct concepts. For purposes of this rulemaking,
the term Alliance Code-Share will be used to describe the code-share
relationship wherein each Carrier keeps its identity and livery
distinct from one another and wherein each Carrier has the opportunity
to market the other's flights. The term Franchise Code-Share will be
used to describe the code-share relationship wherein the Franchise
Code-Share Partner never appears as the Marketing Carrier and
generally, although not necessarily, paints its aircraft in the livery
of the Mainline Partner.
At the inception of code-sharing, the scheduled air passenger
industry coined the term Marketing Carrier to distinguish it from the
Operating Air Carrier that transported the passenger. According to the
ATPCO TCN Ticket Exchange Service Specifications Guide instructions for
populating the data element "Coupon/Segment Marketing Carrier"
(glossary reference MCAR), the Marketing Carrier is:
The carrier that appears as the Carrier for a segment on the
ticket. In a code-sharing arrangement, if a CRS knows the Servicing
Carrier (CARR) and the Marketing Carrier (MCAR) both elements CARR
and MCAR should be populated. If the CRS only knows the Marketing
Carrier (MCAR), Marketing Carrier should be populated and Servicing
Carrier should be blank.
According to the ATPCO TCN Ticket Exchange Service Specifications
Guide instructions for populating data element "Coupon/Segment Carrier
Code" (glossary reference CARR), the Carrier is:
The Carrier that carried the passenger. A CRS will populate this
element with the same code as the Marketing Carrier (MCAR) unless
the CRS knows of a code-sharing arrangement. If the CRS knows of a
code-sharing arrangement, the CRS will code the Carrier that appears
on the ticket as the Marketing Carrier (MCAR) and the Carrier that
carries the passenger as the Carrier Code (CARR).
The Department, recognizing the importance of keeping track of
code-share relationships on Ticketed Itineraries, amended the O&D
Survey to provide for code-share ticketing practices. The Department
defined the term "Ticketed air carrier", which functions as the
equivalent of the industry term Marketing Carrier. The definition of
Ticketed Air Carrier in 14 CFR Part 241 Section 19-7 Appendix A, X.
Glossary of Terms is:
Under a code-share arrangement, the air carrier whose two-
character air carrier code is used for a flight segment, whether or
not it actually operates the flight segment.
However, the Department diverged from standard industry practice
when we defined Operating Air Carrier in a way that is slightly
different than the industry term Coupon/Segment Carrier Code. Operating
Air Carrier 14 CFR Part 241 Section 19-7 Appendix A, X. Glossary of
Terms is:
Under a code-share arrangement, the air carrier whose aircraft
and flight crew are used to perform a flight segment.
In an Alliance Code-Share, the industry's definition of Marketing
Carrier is the equivalent of the Department's Ticketed Air Carrier, and
the industry's definition of Coupon/Segment Carrier is the equivalent
of the Department's Operating Air Carrier. However, in a Franchise
Code-Share, the industry data is populated as if the relationship is a
wet-lease and, therefore, the Airline Designator of the Mainline
Partner serves as both the Marketing Carrier and the Coupon/Segment
Carrier. Although the Department rules require the Issuing Carrier (or
Issuing Carrier's agent) to notify the passenger of the identity of
each Operating Air Carrier in the routing, standard industry practice
does not list the Franchise Code-Share Partner's Airline Designator on
the Ticketed Itinerary. Nevertheless, the O&D Survey rules require the
Participating Carrier to report the Airline Designator of the Franchise
Code-Share Partner Carrier as the Operating Air Carrier, and report the
Airline Designator of the Mainline Partner as the Marketing Carrier.
The difference in the treatment of data between the industry and
the Department's O&D Survey is most clear when examining an itinerary
that includes both an Alliance Code Share and a Franchise Code-Share.
For example, if Lufthansa German Airlines (Lufthansa) had authority to
sell a code-share itinerary from Frankfurt (FRA) to Dulles (IAD) to
Norfolk (ORF), and the IAD to ORF portion is on an aircraft operated by
Mesa Airlines (Mesa), then the O&D Survey submission would show two
flights. The FRA to IAD portion would be reported as Ticketing Air
Carrier of Lufthansa and Operating Air Carrier of Lufthansa. The IAD to
ORF portion of the travel would be reported as Ticketing Air Carrier of
Lufthansa and the Operating Air Carrier of Mesa. The Department does
not know the identity of the Mainline Partner Air Carrier. Logically,
in this case, a user would assume Mesa is operating as United Express
but there is nothing to preclude Mesa from flying IAD to ORF as US
Airways Express, so such assumptions are not to be relied on. The
Department's data is used for time series analysis over many years and
no user of the data can logically deduce an Air Carrier's livery and
operations over many years of service.
The Department has a statutory responsibility to monitor airline
code-share relationships. As regional Carriers have increasingly taken
multiple Mainline Partner Carriers into code-share arrangements,
Franchise Code-Shares have become increasingly difficult for the
Department to monitor. When an Air Carrier takes on a Franchise Code-
Share relationship with two Mainline Partners that, in turn, have
Alliance code-share relationships with each other, the need for a new data element in the O&D Survey is
clear. When a Carrier operates as a Franchise Code-Share Partner for
both US Airways and United Air Lines (United), the O&D Survey data
records cannot distinguish between (1) flying in the livery of United,
ticketed as a US Airways flight and (2) flying in the livery of US
Airways, ticketed as a US Airways flight. In situation (1), the
identity of the Mainline Partner (United, in this case) is lost. In
situation (2), the identity of the Mainline Partner (US Airways, in
this case) is not lost, but there is no way for the user of the data to
know that. Since the user is provided no ability to distinguish between
a record reported in situation (1) and a record reported in situation
(2), the value of the data in assessing code-share travel partnerships
is greatly diminished.
To further illustrate how Carriers would report the Marketing
Carrier, Operating Carrier, and Master Flight Number data elements
under this proposed system, consider the following hypothetical
examples of itineraries involving a single US Airways Express flight
operated by Mesa. Under this scenario, US Airways contracts with Mesa
(IATA Airline Designator YV) to operate regional jet service between
Charlotte (CLT) and Charleston, SC (CHS) on a fee per departure basis.
Mesa operates the aircraft but the aircraft is painted in US Airways'
livery. US Airways is wholly responsible for managing the inventory on
the flight and bears all of the revenue risk associated with the
flight. US Airways markets this flight to its customers as US Airways
Express flight 2808. Mesa does not market this flight to the public
under its own designator code and has no responsibility for managing
the inventory. US Airways' alliance partners United and Lufthansa
market US Airways Express flight 2808 as United 7808 and Lufthansa
8808, respectively. Although United and Lufthansa sell seats on US
Airways flight 2808 under their respective designators, neither Carrier
has any responsibility for managing the inventory on this flight. The
following itinerary examples illustrate how the proposed system would
work in practice.
Itinerary 1: Lufthansa marketed Munich-Charleston One-way Trip with
connection over Charlotte to US Airways Express flight 2808. Under this
scenario, the passenger buys a ticket from Munich to Charlotte on
LH100, a Lufthansa operated flight. In Charlotte, the passenger will
connect to Charleston on LH8808, which is the Lufthansa marketing
flight number for US Airways Express flight US2808 operated by Mesa.
For the LH8808 Flight-Stage, the Participating Carrier would populate
the Marketing Carrier, Operating Carrier, and Master Flight Number data
elements as follows:
Marketing Carrier: LH.
Operating Carrier: YV.
Master Flight Number: US2808.
Itinerary 2: United marketed Chicago-Charleston One-way Trip with
connection over Charlotte to US Airways Express flight 2808. Under this
scenario, the passenger buys a ticket from Chicago to Charlotte on
UA200, a United operated flight. In Charlotte, the passenger will
connect to Charleston on UA7808, which is the United marketing flight
number for US Airways Express flight US2808 operated by Mesa. For the
UA7808 Flight-Stage, the Participating Carrier would populate the
Marketing Carrier, Operating Carrier, and Master Flight Number data
elements as follows:
Marketing Carrier: UA.
Operating Carrier: YV.
Master Flight Number: US2808.
Itinerary 3: US Airways marketed Charlotte-Charleston One-way Trip,
Non-stop on US Airways Express flight 2808. Under this scenario, the
passenger buys a ticket from Charlotte to Charleston on US2808. For the
US2808 Flight-Stage, the Participating Carrier would populate the
Marketing Carrier, Operating Carrier, and Master Flight Number data
elements as follows:
Marketing Carrier: US.
Operating Carrier: YV.
Master Flight Number: US2808.
In all three of the situations described above, if the US Airways
flight from Charlotte to Charleston were to be operated by US Airways
itself (i.e. with mainline equipment rather than by one of its regional
affiliates) as hypothetical flight US Airways 518, the Operating
Carrier field in all of the above examples would instead reflect
"US." The Master Flight Number field would reflect "US518."
It is also important to know the Master Flight Number when Carriers
use funnel flights and starburst flights to market their product to
consumers. Correlations between the T-100/T-100(f) would be very
difficult if the O&D Survey is only reported under the various flight
numbers that are assigned in funnel flights and starburst flights.
Knowing the Master Flight Number will provide the common element needed
for accurate correlation.
The Department must require this data element to fulfill its
mandate to protect consumers by monitoring code-share ticketing and
other marketing practices. Therefore, the Department proposes to
collect the Master Flight Number, which will consist of the Airline
Designator and true flight number of the Mainline Partner that manages
the inventory of the flight. The Department invites comment on this
topic and on the efficacy and difficulty of populating this data
element.
7. Scheduled Arrival Date. The Department's ability to determine
One-way Trips is dependent on knowing when a scheduled flight arrives
in an airport. Scheduled Arrival Time is meaningless without Scheduled
Arrival Date.
8. Scheduled Arrival Time. The Department's ability to determine
One-way Trips from the O&D Survey information is further crippled by a
lack of information about Scheduled Arrival Time. The lack of
information about Scheduled Arrival Time makes it impossible to know
which passengers pass through a location on their itinerary to stay
only long enough to change planes, and which passengers remain for an
extended period at a location.
Flight-Coupon Stages where the travel plans are OPEN will be
assigned an arrival time to be determined later and the results of that
determination will be published in the Passenger Origin-Destination
Survey Directives issued by the Department.
9. Fare Basis Code/Ticket Designator. The Department requires fare
basis code and ticket designator to understand the restrictions placed
on the purchase of travel and the economics of the air travel industry.
Several respondents to the ANPRM requested that the Department collect
information that will enable it to provide a classification of fares.
The Fare Basis Code is the alphanumeric code identifying the fare by
class, qualification, and restrictions associated with the travel
segment. The Ticket Designator is the code indicating that the fare
basis code is modified by rules associated with the ticket designator
code. Ticket Designator is specified in the ATPCO TCN Ticket Exchange
Service Specifications Guide instructions for populating data element
"Coupon/Segment Fare Basis/Tkt Designator" (glossary reference FBTD)
as the code that appears in the same field as the Fare Basis Code
separated by an oblique "/".
10. Ticketing Class of Service. In order to understand service
demand and to understand the quality of services to communities, the
Department proposes to continue the practice of collecting information
about class of service, also known as cabin class. In response to the
ANPRM, American Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5) and others noted that non-standard reporting of class
of service degrades the usefulness of the published data. The most
expensive class of service, generally provided in the cabin located
nearest the nose of the plane, is typically referred to as the first
class cabin. The least expensive class of service (coach/economy/main)
cabin is typically located in the aft-most section of the aircraft.
Sometimes a Carrier will avoid offering a class of service marketed as
first class, and choose to market the front cabin as business class
instead. To further complicate matters, more than one Carrier markets
the front cabin of its narrowbody aircraft flying on a domestic route
and the front cabin of its widebody aircraft flying on an international
route with the same "first class" designation. Today, certain
Carriers offer "premium coach" seating and in the future, Carriers
may offer an "ultra-premium" (i.e. more expensive than first class)
cabin. We are unaware of an objective class of service definition
maintained anywhere in the industry that distinguishes between these
classes of service. Indeed, currently there is no objective class of
service definition that would prohibit a Carrier providing only a
single class of service from calling it first class, even if that
single class of service was comparable to coach class at a Carrier that
offers multiple classes of service.
The Department desires to change the class of service designations
to make them as objective and as meaningful as possible. However, we
believe the marketplace is the best arbiter of a Carrier's claim to
offer first class service. We do not wish to codify a particular
standard of service or seat pitch as the point that differentiates a
first class accommodation from a business class accommodation. The
Department seeks consistent class of service designations but there are
no objectively defined designations in the industry. Therefore, the
Department proposes to provide a framework in which each airline will
assign a number to the service cabins in its fleet from the least
expensive to the most expensive, such that the least expensive cabin
(usually the aft-most cabin) is designated as "1" and each defined
cabin class above cabin 1 (i.e. those that the Carrier markets at
higher price points and that are generally physically located toward
the front of the aircraft) will be designated with the next highest
ordinal number. The number "2" will generally designate what has
heretofore been described as premium coach. The number "3" will
generally designate what has heretofore been described as business
class or first class of a two cabin aircraft. The number "4" will
generally designate what has been described as first class of a three
cabin aircraft. The number "5" will designate ultra-premium first
class. The Carriers would provide the Department with up to date
definitions of its 5 class of service designations and would use their
own internal class of service codes to classify their passengers. When
a Carrier operates a fleet of aircraft with a class of service that is
arguably similar to the class of service offered by competing Carriers,
and if the Department believes a compelling public interest is served
by re-designating the passengers as having been transported in a
different class of service, the Department reserves the right to re-
designate passengers on such an airline into a different class of
service. The Department seeks comment from Carriers and the public on
the efficacy of this proposal.
b. Sale Elements
1. Issuing Carrier Identifier. Every Carrier that issues Ticketed
Itineraries must have a unique three-digit numeric identifier. The
Issuing Carrier is responsible for the ticket stock on which the
itinerary is issued. The Department proposes to identify the Issuing
Carrier with the Carrier's assigned IATA three-digit code. This code
also serves as the first three digits of the 13-digit ticket number on
a standard agent ticket.
2. Ticketed Itinerary Identifier. Carriers assign a ticket number
or Passenger Name Record (PNR) identifier to every Ticketed Itinerary
that is unique when used in conjunction with an Issuing Carrier
Identifier and the Date of Issue. This data element will contain the
value of that identifier. The Department requires a unique identifier
to facilitate communication with the Participating Carriers in the
Department's effort to monitor the data and the Participating Carrier
requires a unique identifier to facilitate communication with the
Department when data must be corrected and resubmitted. The Ticketed
Itinerary Identifier is necessary for effective resolution of problems.
3. Date of Issue. The Department proposes to require Date of Issue
because it is part of the unique identifier of the Ticketed Itinerary.
In the past, the Department has often had to require Air Carriers to
provide supplemental information about travel because it lacked
information about ticket sales dates. DOJ and DOC both require
knowledge of the date of sale in the course of carrying out their
mandates. The date the Ticketed Itinerary is issued is an important
component of understanding the economics of the airline industry.
Falling passenger counts or rising passenger counts have traditionally
been the measure of the economic engine that travel provides to the
economy. However, for some purposes, the rising and falling volume of
daily ticket sales over time is a better measure of industry economics.
Another key element of air transportation economics is the measurement
of the number of days between ticket sale and first use of the Ticketed
Itinerary. Known as the booking window, or advance purchase window, the
increase or decrease of the booking window year over year is an
important measure of consumer confidence. To understand the dynamics of
rising and falling volume of itineraries sold and the size of the
booking window, the Department must collect the Date of Issue.
4. Fare Amount. The Department's ability to measure fare
information independent of taxes collected is vital to the
understanding of aviation commerce. Carriers shall convert fares paid
in currencies other than U.S. Dollars into U.S. Dollars using whatever
currency conversion methods the Carrier customarily uses in its normal
course of business. The current O&D Survey requires Participating
Carriers to truncate the cents from the reported total amount. This
practice artificially lowers the Department's estimate of total amount
collected because an unknown number of cents have been dropped from
millions of tickets. Rounding to the nearest cent will allow some
imprecision to remain, but the Department believes that losing
fractions of one half cent is an acceptable degree of imprecision. Fare
amounts have customarily not been whole dollar amounts even when they
do not require currency conversion to U.S. dollars. Therefore, the
Department proposes to collect fare information independent of tax
information, and further proposes to collect fare information accurate
to two decimal places rounded.
5. Government Imposed Taxes/Fees. The ability to identify each and
every tax, passenger facility charge, and fee that the consumer must
pay is central to the Department's understanding of the economics of
travel. Disaggregating taxes and government-imposed fees from the fare
will enable the Department to more accurately monitor changes in
airfares and separately monitor the changes in taxes and fees paid,
both of which have substantial policy considerations.
On January 9, 2003, Captain Duane Woerth, President of the Air Line
Pilots Association International, testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
that airline taxes were choking the industry.6 He testified that,
according to the Air Transport Association (ATA), taxes on a $100
domestic ticket could be as high as 44 percent of the amount collected.
Without improvements to the O&D Survey, it is impossible to use
Department data to precisely determine whether the testimony was based
on an example of a typical ticket or an extreme case, and whether it is
indicative of an industry-wide trend affecting a substantial number of
passengers.
The Department proposes to adopt the industry's standard Government
imposed tax/fee identifiers as documented in the ATPCO TCN Ticket
Exchange Service Specifications Guide instructions for populating data
element "Tax/Miscellaneous Fee Type" (glossary reference TMFT).
Carriers shall convert amounts paid in currencies other than U.S.
Dollars into U.S. Dollars using whatever currency conversion methods
the Carrier customarily uses in its normal course of business. The
Department proposes to require the reporting of taxes and fees
collected by the Carriers on behalf of government entities and further
proposes to collect tax and fee information accurate to two decimal
places rounded.
6. Ticketing Entity Outlet Type. BLS (Docket OST-1998-4043-54),
American Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5), and Northwest Airlines
(Docket OST-1998-4043-49), among others, specifically requested that
the O&D Survey include a distribution channel component. The Department
has conducted studies of airline marketing and distribution practices
and how they affect the cost structure of Carriers as well as the
associated impact on consumers. Knowledge of the distribution channel
used to deliver the ticket to the passenger has become an important
part of aviation analysis.
The Department has lacked the data to sufficiently examine such
changes precisely at a time when they have become an important part of
the Carrier's efforts to reduce costs. The Department proposes to
collect an indicator that identifies the type of location responsible
for issuing the Ticketed Itinerary. The Department seeks comment
regarding the efficacy of using codes based on those already in use in
the industry as listed in ATPCO's TCN Ticket Exchange Service
Specifications Guide instructions for populating data element
"Ticketing Entity Outlet Type" (glossary reference TIOT).
- A = Airline office
- B = Business corporate account
- C = Consolidator
- D = Direct dial in locations (Consumers, PC Users)
- E = End user access via third party (Internet, Minitel,
etc)
- G = General sales office
- I = Internal CRS locations
- M = Multi-access
- N = Non-IATA agents
- P = Pending agents
- S = Self service machine
- T = IATA travel agent
- U = Unknown
- V = Vendor (car, hotel)
- W = Wholesaler or tour operator
The codes will be listed in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey
Directives issued by the Department.
7. Customer Loyalty Program Identifier. Some users of the O&D
Survey data have requested a data element to record the program name
when a passenger has declared a membership in a loyalty program. The
need to monitor domestic and international alliances and the causes and
consequences of share shift associated with the alliance have become
critical in understanding industry trends and discerning their
competitive impact. The Department proposes to collect the name of the
program in which the passenger is earning credit. We are unaware of any
industry standard loyalty program identifiers. The ATPCO TCN Ticket
Exchange Service Specifications Guide instructions for populating data
element "Coupon/Segment Frequent Flyer Reference" (glossary reference
FFRF) indicate that the reference include the "Airline Designator of
the airline that assigned the Frequent Flyer Number" which presupposes
that loyalty programs belong to an airline rather than an alliance of
airlines.
We propose to use the industry standard loyalty program identifiers
if a consensus exists, otherwise, the Department will maintain and
publish a list of loyalty programs and appropriate identifying codes
for those programs. We are aware that not all ticket purchasers declare
their membership in a loyalty program at the time the itinerary is
ticketed. Passengers that identify themselves as members of a program
after the Ticketed Itinerary has been submitted to the O&D Survey will
remain unrecognized in the Department's statistics. The Department
seeks comment from the industry and the public regarding the ability of
the Carriers to reliably populate this element.
8. Customer Loyalty Program Award Ticket Indicator. The Department
believes that, to carry out its mandate, it must know when a passenger
has expended mileage points or award credits to obtain a Ticketed
Itinerary. The Department proposes the values of "A" when the
customer paid no fare at all, "P" when the customer pays partially
with award credits, and "U" when the passenger paid the appropriate
fare for passage, but used award credit to upgrade to a more exclusive
class of service. The Department seeks comment from the industry and
the public regarding the ability of the Carriers to reliably populate
this element.
9. Number of Passengers. The majority of Ticketed Itineraries are
issued to one passenger, but some Ticketed Itineraries describe the
travel of multiple passengers traveling together on the same itinerary.
The Department must collect the count of passengers included in the
Ticketed Itinerary. Without knowledge of this value, the data from
several of the other elements, particularly the Fare Amount, become
invalid.
10. Itinerary Copy Date. Since Ticketed Itinerary databases are
operational databases for the Carriers, and since operational systems
are by their nature constantly updating data, and since the Department
is requiring a copy of the Participating Carrier's Ticketed Itinerary
data to be taken at a given point in time, it is important to have that
point in time recorded. The copy date will also facilitate the
correction of data. Participating Carriers wishing to replace
previously submitted data can do so more easily if the Department can
identify old and new copies of records using the copy date.
We explored the possibility of omitting this data element on the
assumption that the Department could record the date that the data was
received. However, this option would record the date of successful data
transmission rather than record the date the Participating Carrier's
operational data was copied. To best facilitate communication, the Date
of Submission must be set by the Participating Carrier at the date the
data is copied, not by the Department at the date the data is received.
Knowledge of the Itinerary Copy Date will help alleviate questions and
concerns about data quality.
c. Other Suggested Elements
Various members of the air transportation community have suggested
the following as elements the Department should collect. The Department
does not propose to collect these data elements, but we seek further comment advocating the
inclusion of these suggested elements, and we will consider including
any one or all of these elements in the list of mandatory elements
collected under this rule.
1. Passenger Type. The airline industry has an established
passenger type code that is used as an indicator of the characteristics
of the passenger based on a pricing decision. ATPCO's TCN Ticket
Exchange Service Specifications Guide instructions for populating data
element "Passenger Type" (glossary reference PAST) describes this as
a three-digit code indicating the type of passenger (e.g., ADT for
adult fares, CHD for child fares, MIL for military fares and GOV for
government fares.) Several Carriers and airports that responded to the
ANPRM requested some kind of information about the type of passenger
traveling on the Ticketed Itinerary. The Department would also benefit
from having passenger data type in planning for air transportation
needs of the future. From time to time, the Department is required to
conduct reviews of government fares. For example, on at least one
occasion, the Department has been asked to supply information on the
number of children that fly on commercial Carriers.
The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that BTS
improve the quality of exposure data available for safety analysis (See
National Transportation Safety Board, Transportation Safety Databases,
Report No. SR-02-02, September 11, 2002, p. 38). Exposure data (i.e.,
the number of passengers exposed to the risk of an accident in any
particular type of transportation) are essential for measuring the
accident rate for different types of transportation and measuring the
benefits of safety improvements. Aviation safety analysts are
particularly interested in certain data that would be collected under
the proposed rule on characteristics of airline passengers (e.g.,
whether the passengers are adults, children, or infants), so that they
can estimate the likelihood that passengers would take an alternative
mode of transportation if safety regulations increased the cost of
flying. BTS believes that information about passenger type will help it
calculate a more meaningful ATPI. The Department is considering
collecting passenger type as a data element and, therefore, we seek
comment on the availability of passenger information, the consistency
with which it is populated in airline systems proposed as the source
for O&D Survey data in this rulemaking, and the reliability of the
Carriers maintaining a uniform understanding about what each value
signifies.
2. Fare Basis Category. The Department currently collects class of
service information and rudimentary fare classification information in
a dual-use field called fare basis code. The current classification has
seven possible values: C (Unrestricted Business Class), D (Restricted
Business Class), F (Unrestricted First Class), G (Restricted First
Class), X (Restricted Coach/Economy Class), and Y (Unrestricted Coach/
Economy Class), plus U (Unknown). The dual-use codes indicate (1) the
class of service (also known as cabin class) appropriate to the fare
basis the passenger purchased and (2) whether or not the passenger's
fare basis was issued under one or more restrictions, such as the
fare's minimum advance purchase requirement or the fare's eligibility
to be refunded. We continue to believe that Ticketing Class of Service
is an important element to collect, and we have proposed collecting it
as explained under section I.(2)(a)(10) of this document. In addition,
we are considering collecting information about fare basis
restrictions. We believe that policy makers and the aviation industry
as a whole would benefit from information about the purpose for which
the passenger is traveling.
Several Air Carriers requested fare categorization in their ANPRM
comments. The most often mentioned classification was a business or
leisure dichotomy classification. The Department believes that the
business--leisure dichotomy is a useful but very subjective evaluation,
which is very difficult to categorize in a standardized manner
industry-wide, given the data currently available. Our understanding of
the difficulties faced by the Air Transport Association in its attempt
to build criteria for categorizing business and leisure fares based on
existing data elements in Carrier reservations and accounting systems
tends to verify that belief.
We believe that classification based on objective and verifiable
criteria would provide a more useful classification methodology. The
current classification has only a single aspect, "restricted" or
"unrestricted." This, though verifiable, is so broad that it provides
very little understanding of passenger fares in the current aviation
environment. We are, therefore, considering and requesting comment on,
classifications based on a combination of three criteria (1) travel
eligibility date, (2) purchase eligibility restrictions, and (3)
refundability/exchangeability. We believe that knowledge of these three
aspects of a fare would enable a comparison of fares across Carriers
and provide useful "passenger type" data while relying on common
information stored in carrier accounting and reservations systems.
The Department believes that categorization of fares would be
extremely useful to the government and industry users alike, but we
recognize that there are substantial difficulties in collecting,
categorizing, and validating the data given current data in Carrier
reservation and accounting systems. First, the Department would
necessarily rely on Carriers' classification designations. The
Department cannot independently edit or validate the Carriers'
classifications beyond issuing guidelines, which would be as specific
as possible, but would necessarily be fairly general in nature. Second,
the complexity and diversity of fare basis codes is enormous. Some fare
basis codes are designated for single markets. Some are designated for
a group of markets. Some are designated for all markets, but carry
restrictions that apply only in some markets. Third, the volume of fare
basis codes on file for many Carriers is huge. It is not uncommon for
an individual carrier to have thousands of fare basis codes and
combinations of codes. The volume of fare basis codes in combination
with their complexity and diversity make classification of fares a very
challenging task. Fourth, fare basis codes do not have a universal
meaning across all Carriers in the industry. Pricing structures are
unique within each Carrier. A given set of fare basis codes reflects
the pricing structure only within the context of the given Carrier.
One approach to a classification plan would be for each carrier to
submit its list of fare hierarchies to the Department. The list or
lists would include the fare basis codes and the attendant rules for
these fare basis codes as expressed in terms of the Department's three
classification criteria or some other set of classification criteria
suggested by members of the industry. With an understanding of the
fares included in each category across multiple Carriers, the
Department could publish a map of fares that would serve as the
industry fare basis category for purposes of classifying the value of
fares across all carriers.
There appear to be two options for collecting this type of data,
(1) retain the existing system of classification of "restricted" or
"unrestricted", or (2) use the fare basis codes as a means for
establishing more accurate comparisons across carriers. Given the
inconsistency of fare basis code application from Carrier to Carrier, some method of mapping by the Department would be
required. Whenever possible, the Department prefers data elements that
can be objectively collected and consistently validated industry-wide.
The Department seeks further comment on the utility and efficacy of
collecting Fare Basis Category based on an aggregated fare basis
classifications as well as any other data element that could prove
useful to users of the O&D Survey in understanding the nature and
purpose of passenger air travel in the U.S. Comments should address (1)
the usefulness and efficacy of the continuation of collecting the
current "restricted" or "unrestricted" fare designation only, and
(2) the usefulness and efficacy of establishing a new system based on
some form of mapping fare basis codes according to similar values
assigned to different codes by various Carriers by periodically
collecting and publishing comprehensive fare hierarchies from each
Participating Carrier. We request that comments be as specific as
possible in outlining any proposed methodologies and that they address
issues involved in making industry-wide comparisons accurate and
meaningful.
3. Commission Amount. This data element represents the amount paid
by the Issuing Carrier to the travel agent for selling a Ticketed
Itinerary on its behalf. The Department recognizes that, in general,
the role of sales commissions paid to the travel agents on the issuance
of a Ticketed Itinerary have diminished in the U.S. However, commission
payments have not disappeared from the air travel industry. In light of
this, the Department seeks comment regarding the efficacy of collecting
this information.
4. Form of Payment Type. As shifts occur between payment by cash,
credit card, or one of the new forms of Internet payment, collection of
this data may provide insight into ticket purchasing behavior. The
Department seeks comment on the efficacy of collecting this
information.
5. Electronic Ticket Indicator. This element, used in conjunction
with ticketing entity outlet type, could help isolate information about
selling and distribution channels. The Department seeks comment on the
collection of an indicator to determine information about electronic
ticketing. The proposed values would be the ones used in ATPCO's TCN
Ticket Exchange Service Specifications Guide instructions for
populating data element "Electronic Ticket Indicator" (glossary
reference ETKI).
6. Passenger Citizenship Nation. BLS requested citizenship
information to determine whether a trip constitutes an export
transaction or an import transaction. DOC's International Trade
Administration (ITA) requested citizenship information to help in its
mandate to facilitate trade and tourism. DOS, which negotiates air
treaties with foreign governments, would benefit from citizenship data.
The Department seeks comment regarding the efficacy of collecting
statistical information about passenger citizenship.
7. Country Code and Area Code of the Passenger's Phone Number. US
Airways, United Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, the Sabre Group,
Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines, and American Airlines all
included in their ANPRM comments their desire that the Department
obtain information about the passenger's point of origin. BLS needs
citizenship information to determine whether a trip constitutes an
export transaction or an import transaction. The passenger's phone
number area code, in conjunction with passenger's phone number country
code, is one indication of passenger point of origin. In light of the
increasing use of cell phones and the increasing disassociation between
the area in which a passenger resides and the geographical area of the
cell phone's area code, the Department seeks comment regarding the
efficacy and the cost/benefit proposition of collecting this
information as an indication of passenger residence in general, and in
light of announced DHS requirements.
8. Passenger Zip Code/Postal Code. Sabre, US Airways, American,
Continental, Northwest, and Southwest commented in the ANPRM that they
would like to have some measure of the passenger's place of origin.
Carriers, such as US Airways and Northwest, identified this need as
generic point of sale information. Academics, consultants and Carriers
alike want to study point of origin demographics.
United, Airports Council International--North America, and airports
that supplied ANPRM comments specifically requested passenger zip code
as a point of sale identification to identify the geography of the area
served by the airport. Several comments from airports declared that
this element would be a vital component of their ability to serve their
communities. The Department believes that this element is the best
indicator of passenger point of origin, and, perhaps, the single most
important data element needed for prudent infrastructure planning and
investment. The Department's mandate to ensure that the transportation
system is healthy, efficient, and competitive cannot be fully realized
until we know where the users of the system reside. The Department's
ability to study the region in which an airport's customers reside, or
catchment area analysis, is not currently possible.
The passenger is not currently required to declare a Zip Code/
Postal Code as a precondition of purchasing a Ticketed Itinerary from a
Carrier, and, therefore, this data element is not available. DHS may
seek specific individual identification data on airline passengers that
would require the Carriers to collect and store passenger residential
Zip Code, among other elements, for a system designed to use passenger
information to increase homeland security. If it could be collected
without impinging on individual privacy rights, Zip Code/Postal Code
would make important point of origin information available for
statistical purposes for the first time.
If the Carriers develop the capability to collect and store Zip
Code/Postal Code, then the cost of collecting it for statistical
purposes will not be significant. In light of the many benefits to the
industry, the Department would consider collecting this data element.
However, since it is not a data element that is routinely collected by
the Carriers we are not proposing to collect this data element at this
time. We seek comment regarding the continued interest in collecting
this information for statistical purposes.
3. Reporting Requirements
a. Data Source Criteria
One of the most critical questions asked in the ANPRM was whether
the Department should change its source of data for the O&D Survey.
Heretofore, the Department has required the Operating Air Carrier to
use a data stream created specifically for reporting the O&D Survey.
The Department has three objectives for the data provided by Carriers.
First, the data available to the Department must meet the OMB quality
objectives of accuracy, reliability, completeness and non-bias to the
extent that it is practical. Second, the source of data must be
selected in a way that minimizes the burden of collection on the
Participating Carriers. Third, the Department must minimize the effects
of changes to itineraries over time, because changes that take place
following the reporting event are invisible to the O&D Survey. All
sources of data, including alternative data sources proposed in
responses to the ANPRM, must be evaluated on these three criteria.
b. Discussion of Interactions Between the Carriers and Their Customers
The source of data is inextricably linked to the event that
triggers the creation of that data. Each source of data suggested in
the ANPRM comments represents data captured at a point in time where an
interaction between the passenger and the Carrier, or one of its
agents, takes place. Adopting a new source of data necessarily means
that we accept the state of the data as it existed when that data
source was created or introduce a procedure to report subsequent
changes to the itinerary.
For an electronic ticket sold over the Internet at the Carrier's
website, the creation of a reservation, the creation of the ticket, the
financial payment transaction, and the recording of the itinerary by
the revenue accounting system of the Issuing Carrier all occur
simultaneously when the customer agrees to purchase the itinerary.
However, for itineraries sold through other outlets or provided gratis
by the Carrier, some of the events occur simultaneously and some occur
serially. In a handwritten ticket, all of these events are separate and
distinct. It is important to be aware of these distinctions because the
Department must establish its procedures and data sources to be equally
valid when collecting information about all passengers from all
Carriers with the least amount of procedural or statistical bias.
c. Problems in the Current Source of Data
The Department created the current source of O&D data for the
express purpose of collecting the O&D Survey. The problems that result
in designating an Operating Air Carrier as the Participating Carrier
have already been discussed. Since the Operating Air Carrier does not
always know enough about the Ticketed Itinerary to report it correctly,
unless it is also the Issuing Carrier or the Issuing Carrier provides
the necessary information, the Department has been forced to code a
large number of reporting exemptions in the current O&D Survey
methodology that we now seek to eliminate.
The current CFR grants reporting exemptions for itineraries that
are flown entirely on some Carriers. Every Participating Carrier
transporting the passenger must examine the itinerary to determine
whether it is the first Carrier in the itinerary that is listed by the
Department as a Participating Carrier. The Air Carrier is exempted from
reporting a Ticketed Itinerary if another designated Participating
Carrier precedes it in the scheduled itinerary. A Ticketed Itinerary
is, in effect, exempted from reporting when the code-share ticketing
situation makes it appear as if the itinerary has already been reported
when, in fact, the itinerary has not been reported. The current system
also grants exemptions for reporting all of the travel on reportable
Ticketed Itineraries if the Participating Carrier is unable to obtain
information about the entire itinerary from the Issuing Carrier and is
unable to obtain the information from looking at the passenger's
documents. Roberts Roach and Associates, Inc. (Docket OST-1998-4043-4)
summed up the frustration of most users of Department data when, in its
comments to the ANPRM, it advocated that the Department allow no
exceptions whatsoever.
Exemptions are not the only problems associated with the O&D
Survey's source data. Under the current rule, the Department requires
the full amount collected for the Ticketed Itinerary to be reported
even when the full itinerary was not, which causes the reported
portions of the itinerary to be overvalued. For example, conjuncted
tickets consist of more than four Flight-Stages and require multiple
ticket documents. If the first reporting Carrier is not the Issuing
Carrier, and can view a partial list of airports but a full fare
amount, the identified portion of the Ticketed Itinerary will be
overvalued.
Equally troublesome, the Department requires the full itinerary
reported, even if the full amount collected for the Ticketed Itinerary
is not known. For example, when the Ticketed Itinerary is issued as a
bulk ticket, the amount collected is either not shown or appears as
zero amount collected. Usually, a bulk ticket is reported by the
Issuing Carrier, in which case the fare amount would be known. However,
in some circumstances, a passenger who possesses a bulk ticket may be
diverted or transferred to another carrier. Under the current rule,
should this situation occur, the Participating Carrier will not know
the amount of fare collected and will report the amount collected as
zero dollars.
The Department recognizes that designating an Operating Air Carrier
as the Participating Carrier necessitates that the Department grant
reporting exemptions for conditions that exist when the Operating Air
Carrier does not and cannot know some of the data elements. Therefore,
the Department believes that the currently designated reporting entity,
the Operating Air Carrier, does not have sufficient information to
reliably produce a source of data for the Department's O&D Survey.
d. Discussion of the Sources of Data Proposed by ANPRM Respondents
In the ANPRM, the Department solicited input on alternative data
sources for the O&D Survey. The following data sources were proposed:
(1) The computer reservation systems', or GDS', marketing information
data tapes (MIDT) data triggered by the creation of a reservation, (2)
Airlines Reporting Corporation's (ARC) sales tapes triggered by the
sale of a ticket by a travel agency, (3) ATPCO's TCN records triggered
by the creation of a ticket, (4) a new data stream from Carriers that
issue electronic tickets triggered by the recording of the ticket in
the Carrier's accounting system, and (5) a new data stream of passenger
boardings triggered by the Operating Carrier's records from each flight
segment.
1. MIDT. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the
Airports Council International--North America (Docket OST-1998-4043-68)
suggested using the GDS systems' MIDT data as a source of data. The GDS
MIDT records include customers' travel schedule information and
obtaining it from these systems would impose a relatively small burden
on industry. However, MIDT data represent only those bookings made
through the reservations systems. Tickets purchased directly from the
Carriers and through other outlets not connected to the MIDT would be
excluded. This, in effect, would create an exemption for the reporting
of tickets that were not created through the GDS distribution channel,
and would deflate travel statistics. There is no reliable method of
measuring the number of Ticketed Itineraries created through non-GDS
distribution channels in order to gain a sense of the total number of
Ticketed Itineraries issued. The reliability of the O&D Survey would
suffer because the proportion of under-reported travel to actual travel
would be unmeasurable. Even if the Department made an estimation of
that proportion, the proportion of MIDT reservations as a percentage of
the universe of tickets would fluctuate over time, which would
invalidate the estimates.
As airlines encourage more bookings made directly with the Carrier,
the number of tickets captured by MIDT is declining. Moreover, some
Carriers' bookings are not represented in the MIDT data due to almost
total reliance on direct sales. These situations would cause this
source of data to under-report travel in an unmeasurable degree. Conversely, American Airlines
(Docket OST-1998-4043-5) stated that many
reservations are never ticketed. The IG estimated the number of
unticketed reservations at 15 percent of CRS-based travel
reservations.7 These unused reservations that inflate the passenger
travel statistics would cause the O&D Survey to over-report travel. The
proportion of this over-reported travel to actual travel would be as
unmeasurable as the under-reported travel. It has been argued that the
over-reporting of travel might balance out the under-reporting of
travel, but the extent to which that would happen is unmeasurable,
leaving the ratio of reservations to tickets sold in a constant state
of statistical instability. In addition, the level of over-or under-
reporting may disproportionately affect different types of markets
(e.g., predominantly leisure versus predominantly business markets)
further reducing the validity of the survey for the analytical purpose
it was intended to serve. In addition, MIDT data do not include
information about fare or about taxes charged. Therefore, MIDT data
cannot meet the content, validity, and reliability needs of the O&D
Survey.
2. ARC Travel Agent Sales Data. Some respondents to the ANPRM
suggested that the ARC sales tapes be used as a source of data. ARC is
a clearinghouse that receives ticket sales data from travel agency
sales reports, processes those sales on behalf of Carriers, and re-
combines all the agency ticket data into a comprehensive set of ticket
data for each Carrier. The ARC ticket data is limited to tickets sold
in North America. The proponents of this method suggested that ARC
sales could be supplemented with travel agent data from other countries
and regions, known as BSPs, but tickets issued through any other
outlets would, in effect, be excluded from reporting. As with the MIDT
data, even if the proper proportion of agency issued tickets to all
valid tickets could be calculated, this plan would presume that the
character of agency sold tickets would exactly mirror the character of
tickets purchased through other outlets. For the extrapolation to be
valid, tickets purchased directly from the Carriers or through direct
links via third parties such as Orbitz' Supplier Link tickets and those
purchased from other overseas outlets would have to statistically
mirror agency-sold tickets for all markets for all Carriers.
Even if a valid extrapolation could be made with extensive testing,
the proportion of agency issued tickets as a percentage of all issued
tickets has continuously fluctuated and has been steadily declining as
Carriers cut costs by providing incentives to passengers to book
directly with the Carrier. Calculating the constantly fluctuating
sample size, (i.e. the proportion of tickets issued through travel
agencies as a percentage of all tickets issued each month) when the
count of all tickets is unknown, would be impossible.
It should be noted that, in 2004, ARC and several Carriers began
testing a product called the "AIA First & Final Interline Billing
Service" based on ARC's Compass data warehouse. This product might
assist some Carriers who elect to use it to provide some O&D Survey
data to the Department. This is a fundamentally different proposition
than using ARC travel agent sales as the sole source of data for the
O&D Survey.
3. Transmission Control Number (TCN) records. Most of the Air
Carriers that responded to the ANPRM either endorsed or acknowledged
the possibility of using GDS TCN records combined with TCN records
generated by the Carriers. A TCN is a supplementary record created to
carry information about a Ticketed Itinerary between interested
parties. The information on a TCN record is a copy of the information
used to create a Ticketed Itinerary, but the presence of a TCN record
does not necessarily guarantee that a Ticketed Itinerary was issued.
This distinction is important. An issued Ticketed Itinerary is a legal
contract for carriage. Whereas each Ticketed Itinerary will generate
exactly one sale record in the Issuing Carrier's accounting system,
some Ticketed Itineraries will have generated multiple TCNs and some
Ticketed Itineraries will have generated no TCN at all.
The Carriers' passenger revenue accounting systems record the
issuance of a Ticketed Itinerary when the company itself issues a
Ticketed Itinerary or when it is notified by a travel agent that a
Ticketed Itinerary was sold on their ticket stock. The sharing of TCN
records in the industry is based on the concept that the TCN is
supplementary information about a Ticketed Itinerary, and it is not,
itself, a Ticketed Itinerary. The Carrier accounting systems are built
to anticipate that there will be missing TCN records and duplicate TCN
records in the TCN exchanges between Carriers. Accounting systems are
designed to handle these contingencies with a variety of supporting
subsystems. Using TCNs as a surrogate for actual Ticketed Itineraries
in these situations would over-report travel when duplicate TCNs are
present. Ticketed Itineraries that are issued for which there is no
corresponding TCN compound the problem. As with the unreported
reservations in the MIDT data, Ticketed Itineraries created under
circumstances in which a TCN is not generated result in under-reporting
of travel. Like the MIDT, the proportion of over-reported travel and
the proportion of under-reported travel are both unmeasurable and,
again like the MIDT, we cannot assume that the over- and under-reported
tickets are equivalent.
Proponents of this method advocate that the Department require
Carriers to manufacture TCNs for tickets for which a TCN does not
already exist. Mandating participation of all Carriers in what is now a
voluntary TCN exchange could constitute a significant cost for
Carriers, particularly those Carriers with a business model that does
not benefit them to participate in the TCN system in their usual course
of business. A less burdensome alternative for Carriers that do not now
participate in the TCN exchange system would be for these Carriers to
format an alternate simpler record structure rather than require the
Carrier to format the TCN record. The simpler record would be designed
specifically for submitting data to the O&D Survey and would be less
burdensome to create than the more complex TCN record, which supports
the needs of the Carriers' passenger revenue accounting.
TCNs contain sensitive personal identification and financial
information that, while an important component of the Carriers'
accounting needs, is unwanted by the Department. The Carriers would
have to purge the personal information from records prior to
transmission to the Department. Purging this data makes the TCN unfit
for the use it was designed to serve. Several respondents to the ANPRM
endorsed the concept of employing a third party to perform this task on
behalf of the Carriers. However, Continental Airlines (Docket OST-1998-
4043-44), supported by Wayne County Detroit Metropolitan Airport
(Docket OST-1998-4043-23), pointed out that the ultimate burden to
accurately report a ticket is on the Carrier. Proposing that a third
party cleanse TCNs does not absolve the Carrier of its ultimate
responsibility to properly report to the Department. The third party
processor would have to be the agent of the Carriers not an agent of
the Department because the Department holds the Carriers responsible
for the integrity of the data. Thus, introducing a third party to purge personal data would complicate the Carriers'
administrative burden because of the added responsibility to select and
to monitor a third party processor.
The GDSs create the TCNs for Ticketed Itineraries distributed by
travel agents, but the Department holds the Carriers responsible for
accurate O&D Survey reporting. In order to improve the accuracy of its
O&D Survey data, the Department may have to require Carriers to accept
TCNs from the GDSs and match them to their internal list of tickets to
verify that a TCN and a Ticketed Itinerary had been created before
reporting the itineraries to the Department. Introducing the additional
verification step would be an added burden. Carriers that rely on
travel agencies to distribute their Ticketed Itineraries would likely
find that it would be less burdensome to create original records for
its Ticketed Itineraries, and submit them directly to the Department,
rather than sort through the GDS generated TCNs from travel agencies to
determine whether any TCN records were missing and whether any TCN
records did not have a corresponding Ticketed Itinerary. Thus, should
the Department use TCN exchange records, Carriers even that now
participate in the TCN exchange system might find it less burdensome to
simply generate O&D reporting records from their accounting system.
A TCN record contains data that are a copy of itinerary data that
was valid as of the date the record was created. Passengers often
change plans after the ticket purchase, necessitating the passenger
initiate changes to the Ticketed Itinerary. Some changes are considered
minor and Carriers, typically, do not perform the exchange transaction
for minor changes. Conversely, some subsequent changes to the
passenger's itinerary prompt the generation of a new Ticketed Itinerary
in exchange for the existing one. Each Carrier makes that determination
based on its own needs and performs the exchange transaction according
to its own business practices. If the Department uses TCN records as
its reporting mechanism, the Department's data needs would necessitate
that the Carriers notify the Department of the intended change in
travel plans. The need for standardized reporting would, in turn,
necessitate standardization of Ticketed Itinerary exchange policies in
the industry. Carriers that exchange Ticketed Itineraries would
necessarily have to follow the same set of decision criteria in order
to standardize the collection of passenger statistics. Carriers with
business practices that do not now require the exchange of Ticketed
Itineraries when passengers make significant itinerary changes would
have to create a process to simulate such a Ticketed Itinerary
exchange.
The TCN system that the Carriers use to share data among themselves
efficiently serves its intended purpose. Imposing a requirement to mold
the Carriers' TCN data exchange system to the Department's purpose
would impose a significant cost and administrative burden to the
Carriers, and the increased volume could possibly degrade some of the
efficiency of the existing TCN system. As modified, the Carriers' TCN
exchange system would be less useful for its original intent yet be
less robust than the Department requires. The expense of forcing a
functioning system to adapt to a new use would be unwarranted when
other sources of data are available.
United (Docket OST-1998-4043-15) acknowledged the problem of over
counting passengers due to changed routings, and refunded tickets and
stated that the data inaccuracies could easily be addressed. "Air
carriers' internal use of TCN reports has shown that relatively simple
adjustment factors can be employed to obtain an accurate measure of
actual traffic lift." The Department acknowledges that individual
Carriers could and do use the information from the TCN exchange system
as a substitute for actual Ticketed Itinerary sales for decision
support functions. When a Carrier can use its other internal data for
validation and its unique experience with TCNs arriving from various
sources, it could find information from TCNs quite useful. However, the
knowledge and experience of each Carrier within its route structure and
within its operating experience is a fundamental requirement of making
TCN data a useful source of information. Furthermore, the Carriers have
the ability to use information from their accounting systems to edit,
supplement, or purge the TCN records they use as the input to their
decision support systems. The Department cannot duplicate that ability
nor can we duplicate each Carrier's experience and knowledge of the
mathematical relationship between the numbers of TCN records to the
numbers of actual passengers. If the Department does not require TCN
records to be verified by a sale record by the carrier prior to being
submitted to the O&D Survey, then using TCN records that are unverified
by an actual sale would require that the Carriers maintain a complex
set of adjustment factors. Each Carrier's experience with TCN
adjustments would have to be submitted so that it can be included in
the Departmental adjustment factor. Since the flow and composition of
TCN's changes from month to month and season to season, each
Participating Carrier would have to calculate and provide to the
Department an accurate adjustment on a monthly basis.
We believe that using unverified TCN's with adjustment factors
would be a significant burden on the Participating Carriers without
providing the accuracy the Department requires. We believe that using
TCN's verified by actual sales would cause a significant burden on the
Carrier's existing TCN exchange system, and would also necessitate
standardization of exchange ticketing practices that would enable the
Department to set up a system to remove exchanged tickets and refunded
tickets from the database. Neither of these two options is as
compelling as the simple requirement to report tickets verified by a
sale and first use of the ticket for travel, and therefore, we are not
advocating the use of TCN records as the basis of reporting the O&D
Survey.
Nevertheless, the Department recognizes the key role of the
Carrier's TCN project in standardizing data elements regarded as
important to the Ticketed Itinerary and the industry wide agreement on
the definitions of those elements. The Department seeks comment to
incorporate this standardized consensus to the extent possible in its
proposal to revise the O&D Survey in accordance with established
industry practice.
4. Electronic Tickets. Continental Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-
44) proposed that a survey consisting exclusively of electronic tickets
would be sufficient data for the O&D Survey. Electronic tickets are
widespread in the aviation industry and would include the majority of
Ticketed Itineraries sold in the U.S. and used on U.S. Air Carriers.
However, not all Ticketed Itineraries are electronic. Non-electronic
Ticketed Itineraries would, in effect, be exempt from reporting. In
addition, electronic tickets only contain information about Ticketed
Itineraries issued through a particular set of circumstances. Even if
the proper proportion of electronic tickets to all valid Ticketed
Itineraries could be calculated, this plan would presume that the
character of electronic tickets would exactly mirror the character of
Ticketed Itineraries purchased through other means. Interline
itineraries and Ticketed Itineraries issued in foreign countries would
be disproportionately represented in the non-electronic Ticketed
Itineraries. Since these populations are likely to have travel patterns that differ from the
travel patterns of electronic ticket holders, it is very unlikely that
the character of non-electronic Ticketed Itineraries would be mirrored
in electronic tickets. The level of over-reporting or under-reporting
could disproportionately affect different types of markets (e.g.,
predominantly leisure versus predominantly business markets), further
reducing the validity of the survey for the analytical purposes it was
intended to serve. Even if we could validate the extrapolation of known
electronic ticket data to unknown non-electronic Ticketed Itinerary
data, the proportion of electronic tickets as a percentage of all
issued Ticketed Itineraries would continuously fluctuate. Calculating
the constantly fluctuating proportion when the count of all Ticketed
Itineraries is unknown would be impossible.
5. Actual Passenger Transportation. Many of the airports that
responded to the ANPRM advocated that the Carrier that operates the
passenger's flight perform the O&D Survey reporting as each flight
takes place. However, the Carrier that transports the passenger does
not always have the itinerary information that would make it possible
to determine the True O&D of the One-way Trip from any given passenger
flight segment. Even if it did, operational problems, weather problems,
and an uncountable variety of human errors or situations involving
airport security or even city traffic beyond the passenger's control
can affect the way a passenger completes scheduled travel. The
supporters of this technique did not suggest a method to reassemble the
various segments of a single passenger's journey, reported at various
times by multiple Carriers, into a coherent One-way Trip. Diverted
flights, delayed flights, and lost flight envelopes would make it
impossible to decipher the intended One-way Trip without a lift/sale
match system. Carriers that have built lift/sale match database systems
have found it to be a long and expensive undertaking. United Air Lines
(Docket OST-1998-4043-15) commented that it firmly believed that
reconciling to actual lift was both difficult and unnecessary.
The Department believes that construction of a lift/sale match
system on an industry-wide basis would be a significant burden for both
the Department and the Carriers, which would not be offset by the
benefits. Moreover, for purposes of analyzing traffic flows and
understanding market size and characteristics (the primary uses of the
O&D Survey), the Department believes that it is more valuable to know
the itinerary the customer purchased than to know all of the exigencies
of air travel that have interfered with the passenger's stated travel
intention. American Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5) and US Airways
(Docket OST-1998-4043-7) commented that there would likely be an
undesirable time lag incurred in obtaining, reassembling, and
processing acceptable accurate Flight-Coupon Stage information. The
Department believes that the potential problems of gathering the data
from multiple sources, the expense of building the database for re-
assembling the itinerary data from the multiple sources, and the
potential undesirable time lag associated with such a system render the
use of this data source for the O&D Survey impractical.
e. Review of Existing Data Sources
By far the least intrusive way of obtaining aviation data from the
industry is through the use of existing sources of industry data. Each
of the existing sources of data the respondents suggested as a source
of data for the O&D Survey provides information at minimal cost to the
Carriers. However, none is a comprehensive source of information and
therefore fails the test of accuracy, reliability, and completeness. In
investigating each proposed data source, the Department has considered
the possibility of supplementing each data stream. However, the effort
required of the Carriers to supplement the data to enhance the quality
adds complexity and cost. In every case, the data still fall short of
OMB guidelines for ensuring quality of information disseminated by
Federal agencies.
Furthermore, Carrier participation in these sources of data is not
universal. The Department's use of any of those data sources would,
effectively, mandate Carrier participation in processes in which they
have chosen not to participate to date, or have participated at a very
low level. Moreover, a Carrier's level of participation in the selected
data source might result in varying levels of representation of its
passengers in the data reported to the O&D Survey. This would
disproportionately disadvantage a particular Carrier, or group of
Carriers. The Department seeks comment as to whether the O&D Survey can
be satisfactorily revised by reusing another collection of industry
data compiled for a purpose other than the O&D Survey (e.g. TCN, MIDT,
ARC, etc.). Comments should specify the extent to which the existing
industry source of data will (1) maximize accuracy, reliability,
completeness, and non-bias, (2) minimize the burden of collection on
the Participating Carriers, and (3) minimize the effects of changes to
itineraries over time, as well as the specific modifications required
of that data source. Comments should also specify the costs and
benefits of using an existing source of industry data, including the
costs and benefits of modifications to the existing data source to meet
the three criteria described above.
f. Designating the Issuing Carrier as the Participating Carrier
The Port of Portland (Docket OST-1998-4043-19) recommended that the
selling Carrier be incorporated into the O&D Survey. The Department
prefers the term "Issuing Carrier" to "selling Carrier", since some
Revenue Passengers travel on Ticketed Itineraries for which no funds
change hands. Nevertheless, we believe this suggestion has merit. This
suggestion would require creating a dedicated source of data such as
the current one the Department requires from the Operating Air Carrier.
It has several advantages, notably the simplicity of gathering
information from the Issuing Carrier. A data source created by the
Issuing Carrier easily meets two of the three criteria for selection of
an appropriate data source for the O&D Survey (See Section I.3--O&D
Survey Redesign: Reporting Requirements). The data quality concerns,
criterion number one, are minimized because the Issuing Carrier has the
most accurate and reliable knowledge of the passenger itinerary. The
burden on the Carriers, criterion number two, is less than the burden
heretofore placed on the Operating Air Carrier because it removes the
burden of requiring the Operating Air Carrier to obtain information
from the Issuing Carrier before reporting the itinerary. The changes
that take place in an itinerary over time, criterion number three,
remain a concern, depending on when the data is copied for submission
to the O&D Survey. In all sources of data, a change that takes place
after triggering the reporting event is invisible to the O&D Survey.
g. Issuing Carrier's Ticketed Itineraries at the Time of Sale
We considered an O&D Survey design that requires the Issuing
Carrier to report the Ticketed Itinerary triggered at the time when the
Ticketed Itinerary is entered into its passenger revenue accounting
system. Depending on the Carrier, from zero to five percent of Ticketed
Itineraries issued are refunded, and between five percent and 20
percent of Ticketed Itineraries are changed after the itinerary is issued. The
Department considered ignoring refunds and changes subsequent to the
issue date, but determined that doing so would introduce unacceptable
unreliability. The number of refunded tickets is small, but five
percent of issued tickets are not inconsequential. The itinerary
changes pose a more significant problem.
Carrier systems handle passenger-initiated changes to a Ticketed
Itinerary in two ways. In some cases the change will be noted in the
existing itinerary record, and in some cases the change will cause a
new Ticketed Itinerary to be issued in lieu of the previous one.
When the existing itinerary is changed after it has been reported,
then the changes will not be reported to the O&D Survey. Once the O&D
reporting criteria are encountered, the Participating Carrier copies
the information to a submission record and subsequent changes are
invisible to the O&D Survey. In some cases, however, a new Ticketed
Itinerary is issued in exchange for the previous one, and the
Department would have to formulate a policy to address these cases.
Unless the original Ticketed Itinerary is removed when the newly issued
itinerary is added, the passenger is counted twice when the reissued
Ticketed Itinerary is reported to the O&D Survey. There is inconsistent
handling of data between Carriers that issue new tickets in exchange
for the previous tickets and Carriers that alter tickets in place. If
the reissued ticket is ignored, then it becomes, in effect, an exempted
ticket.
The Department considered requiring that Carriers provide the
Department with the identifiers of refunded Ticketed Itineraries and
identifiers of Ticketed Itineraries that were replaced in an itinerary
reissue transaction so that these could be removed from the data and
the new Ticketed Itinerary entered instead. The undertaking would be
the equivalent of a nation-wide ticket database matching system, and
would involve the Department in the accounting details of the revenue
accounting peculiarities of each of the Participating Carriers. The
diversity of the Carrier business models is reflected in the diversity
of their passenger revenue accounting procedures, which would
necessitate that correspondingly complex procedures be in place at the
Department to handle the various situations that arise from each
airline passenger revenue accounting system.
The Department believes processing itinerary changes after the
reporting event would greatly compound the complexity and substantially
increase the expense of the O&D Survey reporting system to both
industry and government. Recording all of these changes would appear to
increase the accuracy of the statistics, but would require considerably
more effort and expense from the Carriers and impose dramatically more
effort, complexity, and expense on the Department. The Department must
consider the possibility that the increase in complexity may increase
the incidence of errors that would, in reality, decrease accuracy.
Finding and removing previously issued Ticketed Itinerary from the data
would be similar in complexity to matching lifted flight coupons to
Ticketed Itinerary records. The ANPRM comments by American Airlines
(Docket OST-1993-4043-5) and US Airways (Docket OST-1998-4043-7)
indicate that the attempt to match the sale and actual use would be
time consuming as well as complex. Therefore, the Department believes
that maintaining multiple reporting events for the same Ticketed
Itinerary would interfere with the Department's goal of processing and
disseminating data in a timely fashion. In light of the significant
complexity, significant cost, the risk of introducing reporting errors,
and the risk of introducing timing delays, the Department is not
proposing to undertake a nation-wide ticket database matching system to
track changed itineraries. However, we seek comment from industry and
the public on the merits of these issues.
h. Issuing Carrier's Ticketed Itineraries at the Time of First Use
An alternative to tracking multiple changes to a Ticketed Itinerary
is to delay the reporting of the itinerary until the last acceptable
point at which a reliable trigger for a reporting event can be
designated. The last unambiguous event that can reasonably be used as a
reliable trigger for reporting is the first use of the Ticketed
Itinerary. The final use of an itinerary is not acceptable as a
reporting event trigger because many months can separate the first use
of a Ticketed Itinerary from the final use. If the Department collects
data at first use, we can hold the information about subsequent flights
until the appropriate month for the Flight-Stage of travel to be
disseminated. If the Department collects data at final use, we would be
confronted with knowledge of Flight-Stages that occurred from one to 11
months earlier. It is not a reasonable alternative to hold the
reporting of all data for 11 months in order to collect data from
Ticketed Itineraries with widely spaced travel, it is not reasonable to
be constantly updating data that has already been released and it is
not reasonable to ignore all data from the outbound portions of
Ticketed Itineraries that describe travel that is spaced more than one
month apart. Therefore the first use of a Ticketed Itinerary is the
last reasonable and unambiguous event that can be used as a reporting
event.
The first use of the Ticketed Itinerary for travel is the
triggering event for reporting in the current O&D Survey. Refunds and
reissued tickets that occur subsequent to the reporting event are
currently ignored. Fortunately, the numbers of refunds and exchanges
that take place after a passenger has already begun the journey are
extremely low. Whereas we have accumulated ample evidence that naming
the Operating Carrier as the Participating Carrier is the root of many
of the reporting problems found in the O&D Survey, we have no
accumulation of evidence that indicates that the first use of the
Ticketed Itinerary for transportation is unsuitable as the trigger for
the reporting event. The Carriers have confirmed that the preponderance
of refunds and exchanges take place prior to the first flight, and the
Department deems the small number of missed itinerary changes due to
subsequent refunds and travel changes to be marginal. The Air Carriers
have indicated that the most common change request that occurs after
the commencement of travel is for a different return flight that is
within a few hours of the original. Therefore, the Department has
concluded that the designation of first use of the ticket for travel
should continue to serve as the trigger for the reporting event.
i. Proposed Source of Data for the O&D Survey
The Department agrees with the Port of Portland (Docket OST-1998-
4043-19) that the selling/issuing Carrier should be incorporated into
the O&D Survey. Standard industry accounting practices require that the
Issuing Carrier hold the passenger's funds in an unearned revenue
account until the passenger flies, or exchanges or seeks a refund, of
one or more of the Flight-Coupon Stages. The Operating Carrier notifies
the Issuing Carrier when the Operating Carrier transports the passenger
on a Flight-Stage. When the Operating Carrier is the Issuing Carrier,
the notification is an internal transaction; when the Operating Carrier
and the Issuing Carrier are different companies, the notification is an
external transaction. In either case, the Issuing Carrier is notified
that an Operating Carrier has transported a passenger on a Flight-
Coupon Stage. The Issuing Carrier will have knowledge of the triggering event--the first use of the Ticketed Itinerary for
travel--because worldwide industry accounting practices already dictate
that the Operating Carrier notify the Issuing Carrier that passenger
travel has taken place. Moreover, the Issuing Carrier is the only
Carrier that has full knowledge of the Ticketed Itinerary, fare, and
taxes. Therefore, the Department proposes that the O&D Survey (1)
continue to require a dedicated reporting file format, (2) continue to
use the Ticketed Itinerary as the source of data, (3) continue to use
the first use of the ticket to travel as the trigger for the reportable
event, but (4) designate the Issuing Carrier as the reporting entity.
The change in designated reporting entity from Operating Carrier to
Issuing Carrier, while keeping the same reporting event trigger, has
significant advantages. For Carriers that operate only as Franchise
Code-Share Partners on behalf of larger Mainline Partners and do not
issue tickets on their own ticket stock, the task of reporting the
Code-Share passengers will shift to the respective Mainline Partners.
For Carriers that do not interline passengers with other Carriers, the
Department anticipates that the change in reporting entity will require
very little change in current procedure beyond gathering the additional
data elements. This change is a significant improvement for carriers
that maintain interline agreements because tickets from re-
accommodating passengers as a result of irregular operations represent
a large portion of the most troublesome and time consuming itineraries
to report. Under this proposal, responsibility for reporting the
itineraries of those re-accommodated passengers will go to the Issuing
Carrier.
The most significant advantage of the change in reporting
responsibility for interlining Carriers is that the identification of
the Carrier with the responsibility to report data is no longer
ambiguous. The current system requires each itinerary to be scanned to
determine whether it is apparent that another Participating Carrier has
already reported the Ticketed Itinerary. This is a complex task that
requires examination of the itinerary for the presence of other
Participating Carriers scheduled earlier in the itinerary. The task
requires knowing whether the other Carriers present are Participating
Carriers and whether there are any code-share relationships to be
considered.
The current O&D System discourages early reporting because Issuing
Carriers must have sufficient time to send data to the Participating
Carrier. This proposed O&D Survey encourages early reporting because
the Participating Carrier is the Issuing Carrier. The most cost
efficient method of reporting is to enable the sale/lift match
procedure to copy the requisite data as soon as the Issuing Carrier
realizes that the lifted Flight-Stage coupon is the first use of the
Ticketed Itinerary for travel. This is a single, clearly identifiable
reporting event.
Usually, the knowledge that a Ticketed Itinerary has been issued
precedes the first evidence of use of the Ticketed Itinerary in a
Carrier's passenger revenue accounting system. However, the Department
recognizes that information about the Ticketed Itinerary's issuance
sometimes arrives after the evidence of first use. This happens most
frequently in itineraries sold in foreign countries. Although the
reporting event trigger remains the passenger's use of the ticket, the
Department's intent is to obtain the best possible data. Therefore, we
propose that the Participating Carrier match the first evidence of
flown use with the information from the Ticketed Itinerary's issuance
by whatever means the Issuing Carrier creates the match in its normal
course of business. The itinerary must be reported when the Issuing
Carrier's accounting system resolves the problem. Monitoring for first
use includes interline billing notification that a Flight-Stage coupon
was used for transportation on another Carrier, including those that
were flown on other Carriers as a re-accommodation.
The Department believes that ignoring itinerary changes after the
commencement of travel is an acceptable trade off for the simplicity
and lower cost of reporting. Continuing the practice of ignoring
itinerary changes subsequent to the commencement of travel is
consistent with the current O&D Survey. This will minimize
disarticulation that will occur in the transition from the old O&D
Survey data to the proposed O&D Survey data. The Department seeks
comment from the industry and the public as to the advantages or
disadvantages of changing the reporting source or changing the
reporting event. We request that recommendations of alternative
reporting sources or alternative reporting events discuss the explicit
and implicit reporting exemptions inherent in the recommended source of
data, and the efficacy of processing itinerary changes that may take
place after the triggering of the recommended reporting event.
4. Significant Issues Related to the Data To Be Collected
a. Proposed End to Sampling
There are several factors that support the redesign of the current
sample selection procedures. There are concerns with bias related to
the current sample. The current rule requires a Ticketed Itinerary to
be selected when the Ticketed Itinerary number ends in zero. This
methodology assumes that all Carriers use ticket numbers, and it
assumes that ticket numbers are randomly distributed (i.e., that each
passenger has an equal chance of obtaining a Ticketed Itinerary number
ending in a specific digit). When the O&D Survey was established, these
assumptions were, in all likelihood, valid. All Participating Carriers
used carefully controlled and guarded ticket stock that was pre-printed
with ticket numbers. There was little incentive to deviate from the
simplicity of taking each ticket sequentially from the box for each new
customer. Thus, drawing a sample of tickets ending in zero lent itself
to obtaining a random 10 percent sample of the passengers.
At least one Participating Carrier that uses ticket numbers on
standard agent tickets is aware that ticket numbers ending in a zero
constitute 11 percent of their total Ticketed Itineraries, but does not
know the cause of the variance from the expected 10 percent. Ticket
numbers are assigned to travel agencies and Carriers in blocks of
assigned numbers. When a ticket distributor (a ticket agency or Carrier
itself) uses preprinted ticket number stock, then the actual paper
tickets are physically delivered to the entity that distributes the
Ticketed Itineraries. In the air travel industry today, the use of
preprinted paper ticket stock is very low. The ticket distributors are
assigned a set of numbers that are applied to Automated Ticket and
Boarding Pass (ATB) ticket stock and a set of numbers that are applied
to electronic tickets. The basis of sampling every Ticketed Itinerary
with a number ending in zero assumes that ticket numbers continue to be
assigned sequentially to passengers, but there is no guarantee that
this assignment process is followed by all ticketing systems.
Members of a travel group, such as an inclusive tour group, might
be assigned ticket numbers in some systematic way, such as grouping
them according to the final digit of their ticket numbers. Such use
would invalidate the Department's assumption that each passenger has an
equal chance of being assigned a ticket number ending in zero. We are
unaware of any practice of systematic group assignment of ticket numbers to Ticketed Itineraries other than random
assignment, but we are also unaware of a prohibition on such assignment
of numbers.
However, currently, three Participating Carriers have requested
permission to use non-standard sampling under the current O&D Survey
rules because these Carriers do not assign traditional ticket numbers
to their Ticketed Itineraries. Because some Carriers do not use ticket
numbers, and because there is no longer a compelling reason to believe
that ticket numbers are assigned sequentially, or assigned randomly,
the Department proposes to discontinue the use of ticket number as a
determinant of a 10 percent sample of Ticketed Itineraries.
Even if it were possible to draw an unbiased 10 percent sample, a
10 percent sample is inadequate for fulfilling the Department's
mandates, particularly with respect to programs designed to foster air
service to small communities. The IG (AV-1998-086, page 26) stated "in
these `thin' markets, the number of passengers, and therefore sample
tickets, is relatively small. As a result, errors from a 10% sample are
likely to be significant so that the sampling results are unreliable."
The Department has calculated that using a valid, random, 10 percent
sample, the smallest market in which a 10 percent change in the market
could be detected with 95 percent confidence is a market of
approximately 29,000 passengers. The fourth quarter 2003 O&D Survey
measured 94,347,000 Directional O&D passengers accommodated on 31,385
routes in the 48 contiguous states in that quarter. Of the 31,385
routes, 754 (2.4 percent) had 29,000 or more passengers in the quarter.
This means that the Department can measure a 10 percent change in
passengers with 95 percent confidence from quarter to quarter on only
2.4 percent of the total number of routes in the 48 contiguous states.
When researching a market with multiple airlines, the minimum
number of passengers must exceed 29,000 on each airline in order for
the research to attain this level of validity. There are considerably
fewer than 754 routes wherein all the Carriers are transporting 29,000
passengers. These 754 routes accounted for more than half the total
passengers traveling between the 48 states in that quarter, but the
Department's mandate to adapt the air transportation system to the
present and future needs of commerce requires the study of many of the
remaining 97.6 percent of routes. Of the remaining 97.6 percent of
markets, those that suffer the most distortion are ones where the
passenger count is low, such as small city markets. Increasing the
sample size would enable more precise measurement of smaller markets.
However, detecting a 10 percent change with 95 percent confidence in a
study of a market with an estimated total of 10,000 passengers would
require a 24.4 percent sample.
The Essential Air Services program (EAS) and the Small Community
Air Service Development Program are the two primary examples
illustrating the Department's need for more comprehensive data. These
programs are focused on smaller markets and require evaluation of
service and fares. Under EAS, the Department determines the minimum
level of service required at each eligible community, by specifying (1)
a hub through which the community is linked to the national network and
(2) a minimum service level in terms of flights and available seats.
Where necessary, the Department pays a subsidy to a U.S. Air Carrier to
ensure that the specified level of service is provided. The Federal
government budget for EAS exceeds $100 million each year.
All but a handful of the EAS markets are less than 20,000
passengers annually, and the majority of EAS markets are less than
10,000 passengers annually. While decisions about EAS markets could be
made at confidence levels much lower than 95 percent, the Department
has long acknowledged that the 10 percent sample is not sufficiently
valid for use in monitoring the EAS program. The candidate Carriers
provide fare and destination information to the Department as part of
the application process. The O&D Survey is not generally used to
validate or refute the Carriers' assertions because the sample size of
10 percent is not sufficiently accurate. Aggregating data to an annual
basis from a quarterly basis increases the validity of the O&D Survey
data. However, even on an annual basis, for most EAS decisions,
increasing the sample size to 24.4 percent is still insufficient to
validate the Carriers' assertions with a high level of confidence.
While EAS and the Small Community Air Service Development Program
specifically focus on markets served by smaller carriers, the
Department's statutory responsibility to adapt the air transportation
system to the present and future needs of commerce is much more
extensive than the needs of the EAS program. Because these markets are
inadequately represented in the current O&D Survey, the Department's
mandate requires a disproportionately high amount of time and resources
in studying markets with lower than average traffic volume.
The Department considered the possibility of reducing the cost of
the O&D Survey by creating a sample that would collect less data
overall and still fulfill the data needs of the users of the O&D
Survey. Ideally, the Department could reduce the cost of collection by
obtaining samples of varying sizes depending on the markets to be
studied. To achieve that efficiency, a system of assigning various
sample sizes to corresponding market sizes would need to be
established. The Department could develop an algorithm where samples
larger than 10 percent could be drawn for those markets where the 10
percent sample is inadequate. The process of increasing the sampling
rates disproportionately for relatively rarer subgroups, in order to
have adequate sample sizes for estimation, is called oversampling.
In order to oversample specific itineraries based on selected
characteristics, the Carriers will have to know those characteristics
for every individual itinerary. A collection of all the eligible units
that have a known probability of sampling, along with the
characteristics that will be used to draw the sample, is known as a
sampling frame. Thus, a sampling frame of all itineraries with the
relevant sampling variables (characteristics that would determine the
oversample such as arrival and departure airports and date of travel)
must be assembled. Once this was done, each Carrier would have to apply
the different sampling rates for the different subgroups and draw the
sample.
Finding a reasonable way to oversample subgroups to obtain
estimates for all affected markets would be difficult. The Carriers
submit data in the form of Ticketed Itineraries to the O&D Survey.
Airport pairs of varying sizes and combinations appear on a single
Ticketed Itinerary. Collecting the portion of the Ticketed Itinerary
that corresponds to the specific sample size for that market is a
complicated task. In April 1986, Department regulations began allowing
a stratified sample, but continued to collect data by collecting whole
itineraries instead of portions of itineraries appropriate to the
stratified sample. The rule stated that large markets were to be
sampled at one percent when the Ticketed Itinerary consisted of travel
only within that large market, and all itineraries that included travel
to any other destination, or combination of destinations, were to be
sampled at 10 percent. All Participating Carriers decided that the
simplicity of using a single reporting selection criterion outweighed any savings that might accrue from sending the
smaller volume of data. This illustrates the Department's position that
due to the technical complexities and additional burden for the Issuing
Carriers associated with differential sampling rates, it is less
burdensome for Participating Carriers to apply a single sampling rate.
Given the need for details on all smaller markets, the only sampling
rate that will lead to the fulfillment of both the Department's and
industry's needs is a census or 100 percent sample.
Furthermore, as market sizes change over time, the designated
sample size for a market would have to be adjusted. Determining market
size is not a simple operation. In effect, Ticketed Itineraries have
multiple components. In Ticketed Itineraries that include outbound and
return travel that are scheduled to be at least 30 days apart, the
return portion of travel is reported at least 30 days in advance.
Ticketed Itineraries would be sampled at the rate that was in effect
when that Ticketed Itinerary was reported. When the designated sample
size for one component of the itinerary is adjusted based on changes in
that market, Ticketed Itineraries reported before the change would be
sampled at the rate in effect before the change, but the Ticketed
Itineraries that were reported after the change would be sampled at the
rate that was in effect after the change. The sampling at differential
rates would occur for up to 11 months, which is the number of months a
Ticketed Itinerary can be sold in advance of travel.
Users of the data in those changing markets would have to find a
way to properly account for varying sample sizes for Ticketed
Itineraries submitted before and after the market sample size was
adjusted. Therefore, even if a way could be found for the Participating
Carriers to report portions of Ticketed Itineraries appropriate to the
stratified sample, the changes in market size over time could make the
data very difficult to use. Even if the Carriers were able to implement
such a sample design, the complexities associated with weighting make a
sample less attractive for Carriers, the Department, and other
stakeholders. The Participating Carriers would have to provide data
about the entire sampling frame in order for the Department to create
correct sampling weights. These sampling weights are necessary when a
sample of itineraries is selected instead of all itineraries. Sampling
weights would be necessary to ensure that the O&D Survey provides
accurate estimates of the total number of itineraries nationally and
for each market. In comparison, we believe that sending the entire
census of itineraries will be simpler and much less burdensome than
stratified sampling for Participating Carriers.
The Department has considered conducting a census for small markets
and a sample for the remaining larger markets. Any parallel system of
differential sampling, whether it is in one single survey or multiple
related surveys, will lead to a greater burden on Carriers due to the
need for a sampling frame with all the necessary sampling variables.
However, the cost to Participating Carriers would increase considerably
because two systems would be required. Participating Carriers declined
use of multiple sample rates in 1986, citing the relatively low expense
of transmitting additional records compared to the relatively high
expense of additional computer programming work. Since the relative
cost of storage and transmission of data has continued to decline,
especially compared to the increasing cost of programmers, we believe
that the increased complexity of applying multiple sampling rates would
be far more burdensome to Participating Carriers than keeping a single
O&D reporting system.
The sampling process must be changed in order to draw an unbiased
sample. Yet, there is evidence that a 10 percent sample provides
insufficient accuracy for the needs of the Department and other users
of the O&D Survey data. Using multiple sampling rates adds undue burden
upon Participating Carriers. Because the airline ticketing and
accounting systems are all computerized, the Department feels that a
census would be the most efficient and least burdensome solution for
the Participating Carriers and the Department. We therefore propose to
end the sampling process and begin the collection of 100 percent of
Ticketed Itineraries.
The Department is willing to reconsider sampling, subject to
comments from the industry and the public regarding the suitability of
continuing to use a sample. The Department's data collection guidelines
state that data collection of 100 percent of the population of
inferences is the most accurate approach, but that the cost of
collection and other resource restrictions should be considered when
making this decision. If the cost of collection and transmission of 100
percent of Ticketed Itineraries is unacceptably high, then a sample
design based on sampling theory, making use of a methodology other than
ticket number for selection, will be needed to address the goals of
efficiency and accuracy. The sample design should ensure that there are
enough sample cases for reliable information about small markets. The
Department seeks comment regarding the continuation of a sampling
methodology, and requests that these comments make detailed proposals
on methods of revising the sampling. Proposals should suggest a
probability sample based on established sampling theory, including
methods of estimating the variance and taking into account the nature
of the missing data. The proposed methodology must give all members of
the target group a known non-zero probability of being represented in
the sample taking into consideration the tremendous variations in
relevant Carrier business models and practices, geographic markets, and
sales distribution outlets.
b. Effect of Proposed Changes on Small Entities
The development of hub-and-spoke networks increased the demand for
small- and medium-sized aircraft to feed the hubs, which, in turn, over
time fostered the growth of the Carriers specializing in the operation
of these aircraft. Regional Carriers have substantially changed their
business model to one heavily based on the "fee for departure"
service in which a larger Mainline Partner pays the regional Carrier
for operating flights under a long term contract using the Mainline
Partner branded livery. The Mainline Partner typically assumes all
responsibility for pricing, selling, marketing and inventory management
for its regional partner's flights. However, most importantly, the
Mainline Partners have assumed the role of Issuing Carrier for the
Ticketed Itineraries issued to passengers for travel on their regional
partners. The passengers on these smaller Carriers represent a
significant portion of the passengers worldwide although, historically,
most have not been obligated to report passengers to the O&D Survey.
It is common now for a regional Carrier, operating as a Franchise
Code-Share Partner, to acquire jet aircraft having 60 or more seats on
behalf of one of its Mainline Partners and thereby acquire O&D Survey
reporting status for all its flights for all its Mainline Partners.
More often than not, however, the Franchise Code-Share Partner is not
in a position to report passengers because the "fee for departure"
arrangements leave the necessary passenger data in the hands of its
Mainline Partners. Currently, the larger Mainline Partner typically
prepares the O&D Survey report on behalf of the Franchise Code-Share Partner and sends it to the Franchise Code-Share
Partner, which in turn forwards it to the Department. The Department's
designation of the Operating Air Carrier as the Participating Carrier
requires the Mainline Partner and the Franchise Code-Share Partner to
take these additional steps to get the appropriate data transmitted by
the Participating Carrier, adding cost and complexity while providing
no added value.
When a regional Carrier negotiates code-share arrangements with two
or more Mainline Partners, the Franchise Code-Share Partner may qualify
for reporting because of the acquisition of an aircraft operated on
behalf of one of its Mainline Partners. Once qualified as a
Participating Carrier, however, it must begin reporting all passengers
for all Mainline Partners. This causes added complexity to be placed on
all Mainline Partners, even if the regional Carrier does not fly 60
seat aircraft for all its Mainline Partners. Even worse, relinquishing
its aircraft of more than 60 seats returns a regional Carrier to non-
Participating status for all its Mainline Partners. In the past, the
increase and decrease in the volume of Ticketed Itineraries being
reported as a result of acquisitions and divestitures of larger or
smaller aircraft have created significant problems for users of the O&D
Survey data.
The responses to the ANPRM expressed the unanimous opinion that the
exemption for small Carriers requires significant revision. Northwest
Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-49) stated that smaller aircraft are
serving meaningful markets. The City of Chicago (Docket OST-1998-4043-
27) pointed out that the 60-seat limit is irrelevant and outmoded. Los
Angeles World Airports (Docket OST-1998-4043-28) noted that some
Carriers are important to an airport regardless of whether they meet
current reporting criteria. The Regional Airline Association (Docket
OST-1998-4043-11) in its ANPRM comments objected to the 60 seat rule
stating, "It is clear that for the U.S. regional airline industry, the
current data collection process is both inappropriate and inconsistent.
The current structure of reporting rules and regulations offer what the
Association considers to be an approach to information gathering that
is out of step with the current operating environment for regional
airlines." It further stated, "A vestige of a bygone era, the 60-seat
distinction is ill-suited to the regional airline industry of today,
but perhaps more importantly, that envisioned for the future." The
entire aviation community has noted that, to understand passenger
flows, it is crucial to include in the O&D Survey passengers traveling
on Carriers that operate aircraft with fewer than 60 seats.
The opinions provided in the responses to the ANPRM varied widely
regarding the point at which a regional Carrier's passengers are no
longer significant enough to be counted. The Regional Airline
Association (Docket OST-1998-4043-11) stated that any Carrier with
annual revenues of $20 million should report its tickets. ALPA (Docket
OST-1998-4043-18) recommended a $10 million cutoff. The Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey (Docket OST-1998-4043-25) would set the
revenue cutoff at $1 million so long as the Carrier did not operate any
aircraft with more than ten seats. The Allied Pilots Association
(Docket OST-1998-4043-16) recommended defining the threshold as any
carrier operating aircraft having at least 30 seats and transporting at
least 100,000 annual passengers. Delta Air Lines (Docket OST-1998-4043-
21) and US Airways (Docket OST-1998-4043-7) both recommended that any
passenger carried on a jet aircraft should be reported. Los Angeles
World Airports (Docket OST-1998-4043-28) recommended using a revenue
threshold or a given number of flights in lieu of the size of aircraft
the Carrier operates, but left the calculation of the specific
threshold to the Department.
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (Docket OST-1998-4043-
38) recommended reporting by Carriers that operate aircraft with 25 or
more seats or that are owned by Participating Carriers. Oakland
International Airport (Docket OST-1998-4043-14) and R.W. Mann & Company
(Docket OST-1998-4043-13) both recommended a proposal similar to the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority proposal, but both used 30
seats as the cutoff, and both believed that code-share Carriers should
report regardless of their Mainline Partner's position. Daniel Kasper
(Docket OST-1998-4043-62), an industry analyst who filed a response,
echoed the 30-seat cutoff, but recommended that operators of 30-seat
aircraft would only have to report if they transported 100,000 annual
passengers. Wayne County and Detroit Metropolitan Airport (Docket OST-
1998-4043-23) was even more stringent, recommending that Carriers
transporting 100,000 annual passengers, operating under a code-share
agreement with a Mainline Partner, or operating aircraft with 15 or
more seats should report. American Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5),
the City of Chicago (Docket OST-1998-4043-27), John Brown Company
(Docket OST-1998-4043-33), Norfolk Airport Authority (Docket OST-1998-
4043-31), Northwest Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-49), The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (Docket OST-1998-4043-25) (the
latter in conjunction with the $1,000,000 cutoff mentioned above)
endorsed 10-seat aircraft as the criterion for reporting. The National
Transportation Safety Board (Docket OST-1998-4043-48) provided the most
rigid recommendation. It recommended that every U.S. certificated Air
Carrier should report regardless of size, even air taxis.
The Department believes that moving the threshold of reporting from
operators of 60-seat aircraft to operators of 15-seat aircraft will not
be a significant reporting burden on small Carriers if the reporting
responsibility is shifted to the Issuing Carrier. Since the majority of
small Carriers are not Issuing Carriers, under the proposed system they
would not be required to report the O&D Survey. Nonetheless, small
Carriers, such as non-scheduled air taxis and other similarly small
operations, represent a significantly different transportation market.
The Department acknowledges that passengers in this market must be
measured differently than the passengers in the global scheduled air
transportation market. We do not wish to burden the truly small airline
operations serving local needs. Rather, the Department wishes to reduce
the ambiguity in the definition and classification of a Participating
Carrier. Moving into and out of the Participating Carrier
classification over time is problematic for both the Carrier concerned
and the users of the O&D Survey. Therefore, we propose that (1)
Carriers flying strictly intra-state service, (2) Carriers flying no
aircraft with 15 or more seats, (3) non-scheduled air taxi service, and
(4) non-scheduled helicopter service will continue to be exempt from
reporting the O&D Survey.
c. Timeliness of Reporting
Respondents representing all constituencies indicated that the
erratic publication schedule maintained by the Department was a
problem. The Allied Pilots Association (Docket OST-1998-4043-16), Back
Associates, Inc. (Docket OST-1998-4043-3), the City of Chicago (Docket
OST-1998-4043-27), and United Air Lines (Docket OST-1998-4043-15),
among others, noted the delays in the release of data. United Air Lines
cited the timeliness of the data release as the most important factor
the Department could address to make the data more useful. Both Carrier
and non-Carrier respondents indicated that the data should be released on a
monthly schedule instead of a quarterly schedule.
The Department is aware that each Participating Carrier must verify
its Issued Ticketed Itineraries that were first used for travel during
a reporting month. It is our understanding that the majority of
Participating Carriers will require some period of time, following the
end of a month, for this verification process. However, the erratic
receipt of data from Participating Carriers affects the Department's
release of data to all stakeholders. For example, BLS produces the all-
items CPI, an important economic indicator which includes an airfare
index. BTS has begun publishing a quarterly experimental research air
travel price index (ATPI) that uses O&D Survey data. When monthly O&D
Survey data become available, BTS intends to forward its ATPI to BLS
for possible inclusion in the CPI. Because BLS requires all index
components to be submitted no later than the fifth day of the month
following the reference month, we are considering requiring each
Participating Carrier to submit O&D Survey data for each month no later
than the 5th day of the following month so that BTS can submit its ATPI
within the time constraints of the CPI production schedule. Under this
option, we would permit daily, weekly, and/or monthly data submissions
by Participating Carriers. We are aware that weekly reporting cycle for
travel agents would cause some passengers who purchase air travel near
the end of the month and fly within the month to remain unreportable on
the fifth day of the month due to missing information about the sale of
the Ticketed Itinerary. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of
requiring Participating Carriers to submit O&D Survey data for a
particular month by the 5th day of the following month. Comments
advocating alternative reporting due dates should include information
addressing both the alternative due date's influence on the timeliness
and on the accuracy of the data.
The Department proposes that Participating Carriers will provide
the name and contact information for a Designated Carrier Liaison to
act on behalf of the Participating Carrier in operational matters
pertaining to the company's collection and submission of the O&D
Survey. In order to maintain its own data dissemination schedule, the
Department will monitor the receipt of Participating Carrier data very
closely, and contact the Designated Carrier Liaison promptly when
problems arise. Exact deadlines for reporting will be published in
Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the
Department.
d. Data Monitoring
Guidelines in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 direct agencies
to develop information resource management procedures for reviewing and
substantiating the quality of information before it is disseminated.
The IG (AV-1998-086) found that a lack of quality control by Carriers
was responsible for chronic inaccuracies in the O&D Survey. In the
responses to the ANPRM, the most common request after removal of the
60-seat Carrier exemption and reporting exemption for Foreign Air
Carriers was to improve the Department's monitoring of the data that is
received. The Port of Portland (Docket OST-1998-4043-19) stated this
succinctly: "Enforce data quality standards by filing carriers". The
Department will, therefore, initiate a rigorous process of monitoring
and enforcement to maximize the quality of the data submitted to the
Department.
It is too early in the planning process to discuss specific data
quality monitoring. However, the Department proposes to establish
mechanisms to monitor (1) the timeliness of Carrier submissions and (2)
the composition of submitted Ticketed Itineraries to ascertain the
reasonableness of a Carrier's reporting. The Department will adopt a
basic standard of quality and take appropriate steps to enforce the
quality criteria subject to an acceptable degree of imprecision. Some
late reporting of itineraries will be expected, and, therefore, the
degree of promptness and precision that is tolerated may be reduced or
increased depending on the circumstances. Established guidelines and
methods will be made publicly available and uniformly enforced. The
Department will use these guidelines to determine the expected number
of late reported itineraries and initiate an investigation when we
detect Carriers to be outside those guidelines.
e. Certification of Accuracy
In accordance with OMB guidelines, the Department proposes to
establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected stakeholders to
seek and obtain correction of information disseminated in the O&D
Survey. Since the public relies on accurate Carrier data, we propose to
maintain a mechanism of ongoing communications with Participating
Carriers through designated representatives. Therefore, each
Participating Carrier will provide the name and contact information for
its Designated Company Official, who will certify the accuracy of the
data submissions. The Participating Carrier will also supply the name
and contact information for its Designated Carrier Liaison, who will
have the responsibility for resolving day to day operational issues
with the Participating Carrier's submitted data.
The Department proposes to collect and record information from
Carriers from time to time that the Department deems necessary to
adequately monitor the Carrier's data submissions. The requirements
will be published in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives
issued by the Department, although this Carrier-provided information
will be kept confidential. The information retained in this manner
includes, but is not limited to: (1) The Carrier's IATA Issuing Carrier
numeric code, also known in the industry as the Carrier's three-digit
code; (2) The Carrier's Airline Designator, also known in the industry
as the Carrier's two character code; (3) The name and contact
information of the Designated Company Officer who certifies the
accuracy of the data; (4) The name and contact information of the
Designated Carrier Liaison who resolves operational submission issues;
(5) The means, method, and timing the Carrier has selected for data
submission; (6) The source and accuracy statement that discloses the
Participating Carrier's (a) data source, (b) data collection
methodology, and (c) measures to assure data quality; and (7) The
methodology the Carrier uses to convert foreign currencies into U.S.
Dollars.
f. Licensed Foreign Air Carrier Participation
While foreign ownership restrictions have led the world's Carriers
to share the task of transporting passengers across international
boundaries, making international aviation one of the most global of
industries, tremendous changes in both regulatory and business
practices have dramatically reconfigured the operating and competitive
structure of global aviation. Open Skies agreements, now in place
between the U.S. and growing numbers of countries, are producing
enormous benefits for consumers. Liberalization of air service
agreements has enabled Carriers around the world to deepen their
cooperative agreements with their foreign counterparts. International
operations are becoming an increasingly important component of network
Carrier operations. The distinctions between domestic and international
networks are increasingly blurred as the interline partnerships provide
seamless services through code-sharing, marketing, and strategic alliance agreements.
As a result, policy makers, international airlines, and consumers
would all benefit from the capability to better understand and map
global traffic flows that would promote sound public policy and
business decisions. Not surprisingly, the ANPRM responses from U.S. Air
Carriers advocated that their foreign-based counterparts be included in
contributing data to the O&D Survey. Similarly, comments received from
the nation's airports and airport consultants were unified in
requesting that Foreign Air Carriers' exemption from reporting be
ended. The enthusiasm with which they endorsed Foreign Air Carrier
reporting is all the more pronounced because the airports, as a group,
refrained from offering opinions on ANPRM topics on which they did not
feel that they had sufficient expertise or that did not directly affect
their needs. The Norfolk Airport Authority (Docket OST-1998-4043-31)
fully endorsed a change of policy to require Foreign Air Carriers to
report. Operators of larger international gateway airports made
commensurately stronger statements. The City of Chicago (Docket OST-
1993-4043-27) wrote, "The City strongly supports including the O&D
data of Foreign Air Carriers * * *. The lack of foreign airline O&D
data is arguably the greatest gap in our knowledge of the market".
When asked to list everything that would make the O&D Survey data more
functional, Los Angeles World Airports (Docket OST-1998-4043-28)
responded with only a single item: "collect information from all
domestic and international carriers". John Brown Company (Docket OST-
1998-4043-33), an airport management consultant, wrote, "given the
open-skies posture of the U.S. government toward international air
service, it would be appropriate and not unreasonable to require the
same standards of traffic reporting by Foreign Air Carriers operating
air service at U.S. airports as for U.S. Air Carriers. U.S. airports
need a complete picture of their existing air traffic flows in order to
identify opportunities and develop proposals for new routes".
Advocates of the collection of more international aviation data
were not limited to Air Carriers and airports. The DOC (Docket OST-
1998-4043-37) commented that, "to provide comprehensive, quality data
to DOT and the industry, both U.S. flag and foreign flag carriers
should be providing traffic data. Without the foreign flag data, DOT
cannot truly assess the market". ALPA (Docket OST-1998-4043-18) wrote,
"In ALPA's view, one of the significant gaps in DOT's data collection
system is that Foreign Air Carriers are not, as a general rule,
required to file O&D data". Comments to the ANPRM reveal that all the
users of the O&D Survey data, including unions, airports, consultants,
carriers, and other government agencies, agreed that the lack of
Foreign Air Carrier data is a significant flaw in the usefulness of the
data and that this flaw should not be underestimated. In addition to
the ANPRM comments, the IG (Office of Inspector General Audit Report
Number AV-1998-086) noted in its 1998 report on the O&D Survey that,
"the Department is at a disadvantage in reviewing and negotiating
international air route awards to ensure U.S. carriers retain
competitive parity with Foreign Air Carriers".
In the past, the Department has declined to impose the same burden
of direct reporting of the O&D Survey on Foreign Air Carriers given the
manual processes involved. The Department issues licenses to Foreign
Air Carriers to authorize them to sell Ticketed Itineraries for travel
to the U.S. as specified in 49 U.S.C. 41301, but the license does not
include a responsibility to report information about the Ticketed
Itineraries they issue. The Department decided to forgo knowledge about
the U.S citizens that Foreign Air Carriers transport from U.S. gateway
cities when the passenger does not interline on a U.S. Air Carrier.
There is a special provision for reporting O&D information imposed on
Foreign Air Carriers that operate under antitrust immunity granted
under 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308 and 41309, but the provision only
requires a Foreign Air Carrier to report the Ticketed Itineraries it
issues, thus avoiding the more complicated requirements imposed on U.S.
Air Carriers to report interline tickets. The data from those reporting
Foreign Air Carriers, in combination with the O&D Survey reports from
U.S. Air Carriers, give the Department only limited insight into the
global airline industry. Furthermore, Foreign Air Carrier data are kept
highly confidential and are restricted to internal Department analysis
related to the monitoring of these alliances.
Instead of burdening the Licensed Foreign Air Carriers, the
Department requires that U.S. Air Carriers assume the burden of
obtaining the passenger information from the Foreign Air Carrier when
the U.S. Air Carrier transports an interline passenger on Ticketed
Itineraries issued by a Licensed Foreign Air Carrier. For example, the
Department does not require Licensed Foreign Air Carriers, such as
British Airways, to report the Ticketed Itineraries of its passengers
transported from U.S. gateway airports, such as those in Washington or
New York. However, we do require U.S. Air Carriers, such as US Airways,
to report the Ticketed Itineraries of passengers that they bring from
interior airports, such as those in Knoxville or Harrisburg, to the
gateway airports where passengers connect to British Airways flights.
Since the Carrier that transports the passenger on the international
Flight-Stage is customarily the Issuing Carrier on tickets with
connecting passengers, in this example British Airways, the current
regulation burdens the U.S. Air Carriers with the task of obtaining O&D
Survey information from these Foreign Air Carriers. By requiring the
U.S. Air Carriers to report tickets issued by Foreign Air Carriers, the
current regulation has been able to fully account for domestic
passengers and international passengers that begin their journey at
interior airports. Even so, passengers that begin their travel at U.S.
gateway airports traveling on Foreign Air Carriers are missing from the
current O&D Survey.
Similarly, when Foreign Air Carriers issue Ticketed Itineraries for
travel to the U.S. to residents of other countries, the current
regulation burdens the U.S. Air Carriers with the task of reporting
those Ticketed Itineraries. For example, when SN Brussels issues
Ticketed Itineraries on its ticket stock to passengers traveling to the
U.S. on its ticket stock, it does so under its license to issue
Ticketed Itineraries granted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 41301. If
a U.S. Air Carrier, such as American Airlines, participates in the
itinerary, then the current regulation requires American Airlines to
obtain a copy of the Ticketed Itinerary from SN Brussels and report it.
If all of the transportation is on a non-reporting Foreign Air Carrier,
such as Aer Lingus, then information about that passenger will go
unreported in the O&D Survey.
Additional complexity in the current system is created because U.S.
Air Carriers report Ticketed Itineraries directly to the O&D Survey
while Foreign Air Carriers reporting Ticketed Itineraries under 49
U.S.C. Sections 41308 and 41309 participate in a similar, but
different, program. When a reporting Foreign Air Carrier issues a
Ticketed Itinerary that includes a U.S. Air Carrier in the itinerary,
the current regulation requires the Foreign Air Carrier to report the
Ticketed Itinerary to the alternative O&D Survey created for non-U.S.
Carriers. It also requires the U.S. Air Carrier to report the same
Ticketed Itinerary to the O&D Survey. Because of the dual reporting system established for the Ticketed
Itineraries flown on Foreign Air Carriers, the Department must, when
monitoring alliance activity, weed out the duplicates before compiling
combined statistics.
If a Foreign Air Carrier, such as SN Brussels in the previous
example, issues a Ticketed Itinerary to be flown on a Foreign Air
Carrier required to report by agreement under 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308
and 41309, such as KLM, the passenger would go unreported because KLM
is only required to report the Ticketed Itineraries for which it is the
Issuing Carrier. Continuing this example, if the itinerary includes a
connection to a U.S. Air Carrier, such as Northwest, at the gateway,
then the Ticketed Itinerary will be reported to the O&D Survey by
Northwest. If, however, a U.S. Air Carrier is not in the itinerary,
then the Department will not receive this itinerary in its O&D reports.
The current O&D Survey does not require SN Brussels to report the
Ticketed Itinerary because SN Brussels did not transport the passenger
to the U.S. Similarly, the current O&D Survey does not require KLM to
report the Ticketed Itinerary because KLM did not issue that itinerary.
Ticketed Itineraries are not reported with specific identifiers, and
thus the Department can only presume that Ticketed Itineraries issued
by Foreign Air Carriers are (1) reported twice when they are supposed
to be reported twice, (2) reported once when they are supposed to be
reported once, and (3) not reported when they are not supposed to be
reported. Since Ticketed Itineraries are reported in aggregate, without
unique identifiers, it is very difficult for the Department to verify
the presumption that the Carriers are properly reporting the Ticketed
Itineraries. Our presumptive dropping of duplicate itineraries on the
assumption that they were reported twice adds to the uncertainty
surrounding the statistics reported from the current system.
Licensed Foreign Air Carriers indirectly contribute itinerary data
about their passengers. While U.S. Air Carriers use the O&D Survey in
planning and marketing their services to and from the U.S., Foreign Air
Carriers are at a distinct disadvantage in not being able to use this
information. Confidentiality rules ban the sharing of data with non-
U.S. entities. If all Licensed Foreign Air Carriers contributed data to
the O&D Survey, then the confidentiality rule banning dissemination of
information to Foreign Air Carriers could be lifted. This would benefit
foreign entities, including Foreign Air Carriers. The anticipated
further liberalization of aviation markets intensifies the need of
governments and airlines for accurate traffic data as they seek to
understand commercial developments and accommodate growth in
international air travel. As alliances further develop and integrate,
understanding their impact on non-aligned Carriers and on the
industry's operating and competitive structures is increasingly more
challenging. The effect of such developments as strategic alliances
between U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers having antitrust immunity cannot
be adequately evaluated without more complete and accurate traffic data
for all Carriers. It is difficult to determine the impact of a subset
of the market without an accurate picture of the whole market.
The competitive effects of these dynamic international alliances
and their impact on competition, traffic flows, and aviation
infrastructure cannot be effectively evaluated in isolation. Monitoring
and planning both business and public policy decisions in a global
network industry requires more complete data on international traffic
flows between, behind, and beyond U.S. and foreign gateway airports.
The global air transportation marketplace represents an important
component of air transportation for U.S citizens and the U.S. economy.
Having properly imposed the burden of reporting the O&D Survey on the
Issuing Carrier, we are reluctant to re-impose an undue burden on U.S.
Air Carriers by (1) continuing the practice of requiring them to report
the O&D Survey in the current manner for Foreign Air Carrier issued
itineraries and (2) requiring to report in the new manner as Issuing
Carriers for their own Ticketed Itineraries. Imposing a dual reporting
burden on U.S. Air Carriers would be particularly onerous because it
would require continuation of all the antiquated current reporting
processes in addition to instituting the new reporting processes. This
scenario would further require the Participating Carrier to examine
each Ticketed Itinerary to identify the appropriate reporting process
for that itinerary. Even worse, it is these itineraries, issued on the
ticket stock of Foreign Air Carriers, that are responsible for most of
the reporting problems that occur in the current O&D Survey system.
However, by not imposing the dual reporting burden, the Department
would continue to miss O&D Survey information about travelers to
gateway airports as well as begin to miss O&D Survey information about
passengers traveling on domestic routes on itineraries issued by
Licensed Foreign Air Carriers.
The Department is therefore considering requiring Foreign Air
Carriers licensed under 49 U.S.C. Section 41301 to report O&D Survey
data. There does not appear to be an alternative workaround that is
more efficient than the simple requirement for all Issuing Carriers to
report the tickets they issue for travel to and from, and within, the
U.S. The Foreign Air Carriers required to report their issued Ticketed
Itineraries as a condition of immunity with a U.S. Air Carrier partner
have complied with this requirement and managed to adapt accordingly.
The new system, designed specifically to interface with the common
industry information technology infrastructure, should reduce the
reporting burden for the currently reporting Foreign Air Carriers.
In addition, recent developments in the interline settlement
processes would further assist Foreign Air Carriers in reporting the
O&D Survey data. An alliance of Carrier-owned industry organizations--
ATPCO, International Air Transport Association (IATA) and ARC--in
October 2003 launched a comprehensive, global solution for financial
settlement of interline travel to streamline inter-airline accounting.
The interline accounting settlement service offers the possibility that
Foreign Air Carriers can create a cost effective vehicle to provide the
necessary data, and thus enable Foreign Air Carriers to minimize the
cost of complying with the Department's reporting requirement. It is
possible that combining the reporting processes with interline
settlement processes will reduce the reporting burden to such a level
that the cost would be far less than the benefits derived from having
access to the information.
With full participation of the affected Carriers, the Department
could provide access to the international data to all Participating
Carriers and all stakeholders. As the largest aviation market, the U.S.
is a key component in global aviation traffic flows. Complete O&D data
to and from the U.S. would be an extremely valuable resource for global
Carriers in planning their services. This is especially true as MIDT
data, the current industry standard, decreases in utility as more
bookings circumvent the GDSs. The Department seeks comment on the
efficacy of requiring O&D Survey reports from Licensed Foreign Air
Carriers in terms of costs and benefits and we seek comment on
alternatives that would enable the Department to obtain the information
it needs from Ticketed Itineraries issued by Licensed Foreign Air Carriers.
g. Charter Flights
In their responses to the ANPRM, the airports noted that passengers
on non-scheduled flights merit inclusion in the O&D Survey. They
observe that there are extensive public charter operations that operate
on such a regular basis that differentiating a regularly scheduled
charter from regularly scheduled passenger service is difficult. Even
if they are a relatively small component of the national air
transportation system, some charter Carriers transport a significant
number of passengers to certain destinations.
Respondents have requested that these categories of passengers be
counted in the O&D Survey in order to supply a complete picture of
domestic and international aviation.
The Department believes that including charter Carriers would
represent a considerable expansion of the scope of the O&D Survey. We
further believe that doing so would most certainly impose a significant
burden on small entities since charter operations generally qualify as
small businesses. In addition, the advancing coverage of low cost
Carriers into the markets that traditionally were most attractive to
charter Carriers could potentially reduce the number of passengers
charter services transport, further reducing the impact of charter
services on the national transportation system. In light of this, we do
not propose to expand the scope of the O&D Survey to include charter
services, but we invite further comment on this issue.
h. Reporting by Flight-Stage
Several respondents to the ANPRM commented on inconsistencies that
are allowed to exist in the O&D Survey because of funnel flight and
starburst flight situations. American Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5)
noted that the root of the inconsistency is the generally accepted,
albeit little known, practice of reporting single flight segments with
multiple Flight-Stages as if they were a single flight segment with one
Flight-Stage. For example, a passenger traveling from Washington Dulles
(IAD) to Los Angeles International (LAX) might travel on a non-stop
flight, represented as IAD-LAX. However, another passenger might travel
from Washington to Los Angeles on a direct one-stop by way of St. Louis
under a single flight number and a single flight coupon. Since the
passenger in the second example does not deplane in St. Louis, both
example itineraries will be reported as IAD-LAX in the O&D Survey.
The Department believes that checking the congruency of the O&D
Survey with the T-100/T-100(f) is the best method of verifying the
accuracy of both sets of data. Since the Ticketed Itineraries that
describe nonstop travel are indistinguishable from Ticketed Itineraries
that describe one-stop or two-stop travel, checking the O&D Survey
against the statistics in the T-100/T-100(f) is very difficult. For
example, passengers can be routed from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles
International by way of any of a dozen or more airports. Each Ticketed
Itinerary will describe that one-stop travel as IAD-LAX to the O&D
Survey but as the actual route in the T-100. In this same way, one-stop
and two-stop travel is available in practically all of the airports in
the U.S. and in foreign countries. The Department must collect O&D
Survey data on a stage-by-stage basis (wheels up to wheels down) rather
than the current coupon-by-coupon basis (passenger enplanement to
passenger deplanement) in order to attain the desired congruency with
the T-100/T-100(f).
This change in reporting requirements will have minor impact on
those Carriers that store information about the intermediate stops that
exist in the passengers' Ticketed Itineraries. Carriers that do not
store information about the intermediate stops that their customers are
making will have to either retain that information from the passengers'
flight reservations or re-acquire the information from a source of
flight schedule data such as that provided by the Official Airline
Guide (OAG). In its ANPRM comments, the OAG (Docket OST-1998-4043-43)
offered its services in determining the identity of Franchise Code-
share Partner Carriers and we believe that their services or those of
other organizations could be similarly utilized to determine
information about intermediate stops.
To obtain the highest level of accuracy when knowledge of hidden
intermediate stops must be re-acquired, that process should take place
in a time frame commensurate with the creation of the Ticketed
Itinerary. Flight schedules change over time, and the shortest possible
time lag between the creation date of the Ticketed Itinerary and the
time when knowledge of intermediate stopping is re-acquired will
provide the fewest possible instances of flights not found in the
schedule data.
The missing Flight-Stage information has significant effect on the
quality and reliability of the information required and disseminated by
the Department. Therefore, we propose to collect data on a Flight-Stage
basis rather than the current Flight-Coupon Stage basis. We seek
comments from the industry and the public regarding how the Flight-
Stage Origin Airport and Flight-Stage Destination Airport should be
determined.
i. Data Retention
The Department's policy on data quality recognizes that no data
system is free of data errors. The Department must have the means of
redressing a problem found in the data quality. The data submitted
under the provisions of the proposed O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f)
will be subject to regulations under 14 CFR Part 249--Preservation of
Air Carrier Records. The Department's procedure concerning the requests
for correction of information gives stakeholders the right to request
correction of information disseminated by the Department.
5. Transition Period
The Department proposes to establish a transition period, also
known as concurrent processing, between initialization of the proposed
O&D Survey and discontinuation of the current O&D Survey. During the
transition period, the Department will begin collecting data under the
rules of the new O&D Survey. The transition period will consist of a
test phase for initial testing, sometimes called unit testing, and a
test phase for large volume testing, sometimes called system testing.
The current survey must continue to be produced during both phases of
the transition to the new system.
There are two primary objectives for the transition period. The
first is to ensure that the data being reported under the new system
are accurate, complete, and comparable across Carriers using different
internal accounting systems. The second objective is to ensure, to the
extent possible, the relative comparability between data submitted
under the current O&D Survey and data submitted under the proposed O&D
Survey. Many stakeholders rely on the Department's aviation traffic
data to discern broad trends in services, fares, and capacity. The
modernization of aviation data must therefore ensure that the ability
to use the data to perform such critical time series analyses is
preserved both in terms of the databases maintained by the Department
as well as in the traffic data products it disseminates. Time series
analyses are required for critical government and business decisions,
which are predicated on identifying and understanding trend changes. We believe we can preserve time-series
continuity by disseminating the same data in both formats, helping the
users assess the full impact of the change in the O&D Survey and,
thereby, mitigating the need for a long transition period collecting
data under dual systems. Because continued integrity in data collected
in the current system is crucial to the testing of the new system,
reduced attentiveness to reporting accuracy on the part of the current
Participating Carriers may lengthen the transition period.
The need for concurrent processing is self-evident. Statistics must
continue in the current format while the new statistical system is
being tested and validated. During the test phase of the transition
period, the Department will begin accumulating data from all
Participating Carriers and correlate that data with data from the
enhanced T-100/T-100(f). Meanwhile, data continuity will be preserved
with continued O&D Survey submissions under the current rule. The
Department will be accepting data from a variety of systems and we
anticipate that it will take some time to establish communications and
data validity checks appropriate for each Carrier.
In addition to testing the quality of the data received from each
Carrier, the Department will use the time in the test phase to
accumulate data that will be necessary for the commencement of the
large volume testing phase. Since Ticketed Itineraries are purchased in
advance of travel date, data must necessarily be collected over the
length of time each Carrier allows for advance purchase. For example,
Carriers with a four-month advance purchase availability, or booking
window, would provide full test data for the four months to accumulate
a full set of passenger data for the Department to test. Carriers with
an 11-month booking window, however, would send the appropriate data
for 11 months. The Department cannot begin conducting meaningful
overall comparisons between the data from the current O&D Survey and
the proposed system until it has accumulated data over the length of
the advance booking windows.
Once the Department is satisfied that 100 percent of the data from
each Participating Carrier has been collected and processed, the second
phase of the transition can begin. During this full-volume testing
phase, the Department will evaluate the new stream of data over time to
ensure that the methodology and technology are robust, after which the
old system can be shut down.
Users of O&D Survey data will require a period in which they can
understand the impact of the change in data and data processes by
comparing the results of the new O&D Survey with the existing O&D
Survey. This continuity is equally important for Participating Carriers
since Carriers are users as well as suppliers of data. The Department
is aware of the advantages of a long full-volume testing phase, but we
are also aware that these advantages come at the cost of running two
data collection systems in parallel. We acknowledge that requiring the
Carriers to supply data for two systems simultaneously will require
extraordinary efforts on their part. Recognizing the burden to file
data under both reporting systems, the Department wishes to minimize
the length of the second transition phase. However, we acknowledge that
data suppliers have many constraints and data users have many data
testing needs of which we are unaware. Therefore, the Department seeks
comment regarding the proposed length of the second transition phase.
J. T-100/T-100(f) Considerations
The T-100/T-100(f), consisting of Form 41, Schedule T-100--U.S. Air
Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-flight
Market and Schedule T-100(f)--Foreign Air Carrier Traffic Data by
Nonstop Segment and On-flight Market, contains monthly segment and
market traffic data (Part 217). The proposed changes to the O&D Survey
will provide the Department with information about the numbers of
passengers scheduled to use the air transportation system by flight and
by day, but the proposed NPRM does not provide any capability, except
when aggregated to the month of travel, to cross check the scheduled
passengers with the actual passengers carried on the aircraft. The
Department is considering modifying the T-100/T-100(f) to enable us to
validate the data that will be collected under the O&D Survey to ensure
the data's accuracy.
1. Background
The T-100/T-100(f) collects summarized flight stage data and on-
flight market data. The Reporting Carriers collect these traffic
statistics for each revenue Flight-Stage as actually performed and
compile them for reporting to the Department. Since the statistics are
collected by counting the people who board an aircraft, nothing can be
known about other flights the passenger may have taken prior to
boarding that aircraft and nothing can be known about flights the
passenger may be taking as part of the same itinerary subsequent to
disembarking from that aircraft. Significantly, nothing can be known
about what the passenger paid for the transportation on the current
aircraft. The Carriers collect this information on each Flight-Stage
departure each day, and at the end of the month, they summarize it by
(1) equipment type, (2) class of service, and (3) airport pair, all
without regard to individual flight number for the month.
2. T-100/T-100(f) Changes To Be Considered
The O&D Survey, in contrast to the T-100/T-100(f) report of actual
passengers boarded, collects copies of the passenger's scheduled
itinerary. O&D Survey passenger reports are copied and reported after
the passenger's initial departure on that Ticketed Itinerary. Since the
bulk of the passenger's itinerary has not yet been flown at the time of
initial departure, the O&D Survey collects information about
itineraries as they are scheduled to be performed, not as they are
actually performed. As has been previously described in this
rulemaking, two significant features of the O&D Survey are (1) the
information about the passenger's connecting flights that enable users
to obtain a sense of the passenger's true origin and true destination
and (2) the information about the fare that the passenger paid that
enable users to assign a value to air transportation. The contrasting
differences, between the narrow source of information about passengers
that are actually transported and the robust source of information
about passengers that are scheduled to be transported, make the T-100/
T-100(f) and the O&D Survey ideal companion data products that the
Department makes available to the industry and the public.
Making the changes to the O&D Survey proposed in this rulemaking
without making commensurate changes in the T-100/T-100(f) would leave
the two data collection systems focused on two different levels of
aggregation and would severely limit the advantages now enjoyed by
having companion data products. The current O&D Survey is validated by
knowledge of the established relationships between passengers scheduled
to fly between a set of airport pairs and passengers actually on board
flights between those airport pairs. The proposed revisions allow the
users of the O&D Survey to have knowledge of passengers scheduled to
fly between airports by time-of-day and day-of-week, which is a level
of detail that the T-100/T-100(f) does not possess. Without
commensurate changes in the T-100/T-100(f), the desired match between the O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f)
data will be limited to highly aggregated monthly comparisons. The
Department is concerned about its inability to validate the receipt of
flight date and flight number elements into the O&D Survey as proposed
in this rulemaking. For example, one of the most important new features
of the O&D Survey is the ability to disseminate data by One-way Trips.
The Department's ability to validate the data that goes into deriving
the One-way Trips is dependent on getting commensurate robust T-100/T-
100(f) information by flight and by date.
In addition to the need to keep the data congruent for validation
purposes, knowing the on-board count of passengers by flight and by
date on the T-100/T-100(f) would be helpful for the Department in
planning airport capacity expansion. The usefulness of knowing the
passengers flying between airports for an entire month is limited to
long range planning functions. For example, the FAA would use the T-
100/T-100(f) in long-range planning where trends measured to the
nearest month are useful. The data would be more useful if it included
details that could help with facility planning by time-of-day and by
day-of-week.
The Department has provided information about the costs and
benefits of collecting and disseminating the T-100/T-100(f) data by
flight and by day (See section L(3)). Preserving data validity and
accuracy by flight and by day by coordinating the O&D Survey with the
T-100/T-100(f) to the highest degree practicable will benefit the
Department and the public. To this end, the Department is considering
the collection of T-100/T-100(f) data by Master Flight Number and by
flight date. We seek comments on the efficacy of this possible course
of action.
K. Data Dissemination
The Department proposes to continue to disseminate O&D Survey
products from the data collected under this rulemaking to serve the
needs of various stakeholders in the aviation community. If the
significant enhancements proposed in this rulemaking were adopted,
these products would be substantially richer in content, more timely,
and more accurate than the products disseminated under the current
system. While it would be premature to identify the precise nature and
format of such products, they would certainly not be less detailed than
the data products disseminated under the current system, including
dissemination of data by itinerary, within the constraints of Vision
100 regarding flight-specific data. We have spent considerable effort
to understand the data needs of various user groups and recognize that
different users have diverse requirements in terms of the level of data
granularity most suitable to their needs. The Department therefore
seeks detailed comments and suggestions on aviation data products,
based on our proposed changes, that would satisfy the various needs of
different types of users.
We recognize that, in order to be able to comment effectively,
interested parties require further information on key methods that will
be applied to the data, particularly those which will be used to
determine a passenger's True O&D using the industry standard One-way
Trip methodology. Among these important methods are: (1) Dissemination
of data by month according to the scheduled flight date, (2) grouping
of flights by One-Way Trip instead of by Directional Passenger trip,
and (3) reporting the fare obtained by the Carrier(s) using an industry
standard proration methodology rather than relying on the current
practice of reporting the total fare amount collected with the total
itinerary. The processes by which data are collected and disseminated
affect the accuracy of those data. Since such methods define the
utility of the fundamental data elements, we outline our proposals in
each of these areas in detail. We seek comment on our proposed
methodology, the resulting aviation data products, and the composition
of these disseminated products.
1. Dissemination of Data by Month
The Department has heretofore disseminated all data about travel in
the quarter in which it was reported. Although the Department proposes
to continue to collect Ticketed Itinerary data on a ticket basis in the
month it is first used for travel, we propose to disseminate the data
on the basis of the month in which travel is scheduled to take place.
This dissemination is made possible because the proposed rule expands
the data collected for each Ticketed Itinerary. At this time, we are
considering disseminating data by month in at least two formats: (1)
The Ticketed Itinerary (similar to the DB1B Ticket file) and (2) the
One-way trip (similar to the DB1B Market file) aggregations, subject to
Vision 100 constraints on the dissemination of flight-specific data. To
create a market file, the Department proposes to separate the Ticketed
Itinerary into One-way Trips, allocate the itinerary fare to the One-
way Trips, and store the One-way Trips for dissemination at the
appropriate time. The Scheduled Flight Date of the first Flight-Stage
in a One-way Trip will serve as the flight date for that One-way Trip.
We seek comment about the construction and dissemination of these data
products.
2. Proposed Construction of One-Way Trips
As explained in the proposed data elements discussion (Section
I.2.a.--O&D Survey Redesign: Discussion of the Proposed O&D Survey) for
the One-way trip format, each Ticketed Itinerary will be divided into a
series of one or more One-way Trips according to the guidelines
published in the final rule. We anticipate basing these guidelines on
industry consensus and seek comment about methods of constructing One-
way Trips.
The Department proposes to use four hours in an airport as the
maximum amount of time to consider that airport as a connecting airport
in a domestic U.S. airport to U.S. airport itinerary, or between a U.S.
airport and an airport in either Canada or Mexico. The Department
proposes to use 24 hours in an airport as the maximum amount of time to
consider that airport as a connecting airport in a Ticketed Itinerary
for international travel.
3. Proposed Proration Method
The current O&D Survey is published on a Ticketed Itinerary basis.
The amount collected is summed for the itinerary. In the proposed One-
way trip format, the Department will divide the Ticketed Itinerary into
One-way Trips. To perform meaningful analysis, the fare amount must be
allocated to the One-way Trips in an equitable manner. The industry
term for the process of allocating the fare to the One-way Trips is
proration.
Four proration techniques are widely used in the industry: (1)
Straight rate prorate, (2) international prorate factors, (3) mileage,
and (4) square root of the miles. Each has advantages and
disadvantages. Straight rate prorate methodology compares, for each
itinerary, the Carrier's unrestricted fares, for each local Flight-
Coupon Stage, that are in effect when the Ticketed Itinerary is issued
to the total fare collected. A ratio is established between all the
Flight-Coupon Stages using the unrestricted local fares and the
resulting ratios are applied to the fare that was actually collected
for the itinerary being processed. In international prorate factors,
instead of looking up the fares to establish a ratio, the ratios are
already established and they are referenced and applied. In mileage
prorate, the ratio is obtained by using the number of miles distant between airports.
In the square root of the miles methodology,
the ratio used for dividing the fares is established by using the
square root of the number of miles distant between cities.
Unlike a Carrier that can chose a proration method that is most
advantageous to its own situation and needs, the Department is
constrained by its requirement to be able to apply one technique with
equanimity for all Carriers across all conceivable itineraries.
Further, the Department is constrained by a requirement that its
processes be repeatable (i.e., a Ticketed Itinerary processed through
the system today must provide the same result as it will if processed
again several months later). Since straight rate prorate and
international prorate factors require inputs from outside systems that
change over time, the Department would have to keep copies of all
possible permutations of those inputs by day in order to meet the
repeatable standard. This would clearly be costly, and in light of
other available proration methods, excludes these methods from further
consideration.
The mileage and square root of the miles methodologies have a
distinct advantage, because the miles between airports change very
rarely. In the previous decade, only the opening of a new airport in
Denver and the relocation of the terminal in Pittsburgh have had an
effect on the number of miles between airports in the U.S. The
Department considers this to be an acceptable level of variance
inherent in these two proration techniques. Of the two, the Department
prefers the square root of the miles methodology over a mileage
proration methodology. When there are two Flight-Stages in a trip, and
the Flight-Stages are of equal distance, both techniques will allocate
half the money to each leg. When there are two Flight-Stages of a trip,
and one stage length is significantly longer than the other, mileage
allocates the short stage length a miniscule amount of the fare while
square root of the miles allocates a bit more and tends to be more
consistent with prorate agreements between Carriers.
For example, in a hypothetical 850-mile trip with two Flight-Stages
that are 425 miles distant, both techniques will give each 425-mile
stage one half of the fare amount. In another hypothetical 850-mile
trip with one flight stage of 729 miles and one of 121 miles, the
mileage prorate gives 85.8 percent of the fare amount to the longer leg
and 14.2 percent to the shorter stage. The square root of the miles on
that same itinerary gives the longer stage 71 percent of the fare
amount while the shorter stage gets 29 percent. The square root of the
miles prorate calculation mimics typical Carrier revenue allocations
more closely than does the mileage prorate.
The Department seeks comment on the best practices in the
application of proration methodology in the scheduled air
transportation industry. Respondents that advocate a methodology other
than the one proposed by the Department, the square root of miles, must
consider in their recommendation the Department's constraints: (1) The
methodology must treat all carriers with equanimity and (2) the
methodology must be repeatable.
4. Proposed Changes to Confidentiality
One of the most critical elements of the Department's proposed
changes to the O&D Survey involves addressing data confidentiality. The
current O&D Survey data confidentiality rules (14 CFR Sec 19-7(d))
exist to preclude international data from being disclosed since Foreign
Air Carriers were excluded from reporting. Domestic data in the current
O&D Survey are released in full after a certain period of time elapses.
In its response to the ANPRM, the Allied Pilots Association (Docket
OST-1998-4043-16) pointed out that the time lags under the current O&D
Survey reduce the usefulness of the data. There was a divergence of
opinion on how long the data should remain confidential, but most
advocated a short confidentiality period for all data. No respondent
registered strong disapproval of a short confidentiality period. Short
confidentiality periods were endorsed by Airports Council
International--North America (Docket OST-1998-4043-6), American
Airlines (Docket OST-1998-4043-5), Continental Airlines (Docket OST-
1998-4043-26), and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (Docket
OST-1998-4043-38). The Air Line Pilots Association (Docket OST-1998-
4043-18) said the data should be released no later than 6 months after
the report date. Respondents that went on record to say that the
confidentiality period should not be greater than six months are Delta
Air Lines (Docket OST-1998-4043-21), Oakland International Airport
(Docket OST-1998-4043-14), BACK Associates, Inc. (Docket OST-1998-4043-
3), John Brown and Company (Docket OST-1998-4043-33), Los Angeles World
Airports (Docket OST-1998-4043-28), Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey (Docket OST-1998-4043-25), Port of Portland (Docket OST-1998-
4043-19), and Wayne County and Detroit Metropolitan Airport (Docket
OST-1998-4043-23).
Any changes to the present reporting system must satisfy the
statutory requirements of Section 805 of Vision 100--Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2490). Section
805 mandates that, if the Secretary requires Carriers to provide
flight-specific information, the Department will not: (1) Make public
the flight-specific fare information until at least nine months after
the flight date and (2) issue a rule requiring public dissemination of
flight-specific fare information without giving due consideration to
and addressing the Carriers' confidentiality concerns.
The Department recognizes that Carriers will view flight-specific
fare information as "sensitive," in that a competitor could
potentially exploit this information in the marketplace. The Department
also recognizes that, when combined with other data elements, the
combined data elements could raise certain competitive confidentiality
concerns. The Department believes there exists a wide range of opinion
about data elements that should be withheld from public dissemination
and the appropriate holding period. The Department's initial position
is that, while it may be appropriate to withhold some of the new data
elements from public dissemination for a time, all data should
eventually be released into the public domain. We seek comment
regarding the timing of the release of flight-specific fare
information.
The Department is cognizant of the sensitive nature of any data
element that could be used to identify any specific individual
passenger. No data requested in this rulemaking will include any
personal information on a specific passenger that would enable the
identification of a specific individual. We have declined to propose
collection of any of the elements that were suggested in ANPRM comments
as point of sale identifiers (these are Passenger Citizenship, Phone
Number, and Zip Code/Postal Code.) Furthermore, if the Department were
to collect the any of these elements, it would never release any data
that could be used to identify an individual passenger. The Department
will only use such data for statistical purposes. These passenger data
will be protected under the Confidential Information Protection and
Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), which appears as Title V
of the E-Government Act of 2002. We invite comment from the industry
and public on issues of confidentiality of passenger information.
The expanded amount of information that the Department proposes to
collect is required to fulfill the Department's statutory mandates.
However, the O&D Survey information to be disseminated to the public
has not yet been fully determined. We anticipate releasing data that
are of immediate economic value, but do not disclose competitive
positions, as soon as the data are received and processed for
dissemination, subject to the constraints mandated by law. The
Department seeks comment on a proposal to release aggregated data on a
monthly basis in the shortest possible time needed to process the data.
We are also requesting public comments on whether certain, and if so
which, data elements should be withheld from public dissemination and
the appropriate holding period. We invite comment from the industry
regarding public dissemination of flight-specific fare information
according to the provisions of Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act.
L. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
In order to increase efficiency and effectiveness; improve the
integrity, quality, and utility of the information available; and
reduce information collection costs to the Carriers; the Department
proposes to modernize its data collection products. The legal authority
for the proposed rule is provided by the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-443), which requires the Department, under the
authority of the Secretary (49 U.S.C. 329(b)(1)), to collect and
disseminate information on civil aeronautics and aviation
transportation in the U.S., other than that collected and disseminated
by the National Transportation Safety Board. The Department must, at
minimum, collect information on the origin and destination of
passengers and information on the number of passengers traveling by air
between any two points in air transportation. Additionally, the
Department must be responsive to the needs of the public and
disseminate information to make it easier to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of commerce of
the U.S. (49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(7)). In meeting this responsibility, the
Department collects data submitted under 14 CFR Part 217 (Reporting
Traffic Statistics by Foreign Air Carriers in Civilian Scheduled,
Charter, and Nonscheduled Services), 14 CFR Part 241 (Uniform System of
Accounts and Reports for Large Certificated Air Carriers) and 14 CFR
Part 298 (Exemptions for Air Taxi and Commuter Air Carriers).
The purpose of the proposed rule is to improve the accuracy and
utility of reported traffic data while reducing the burden on the
Carriers. For the O&D Survey, this objective is achieved by replacing
14 CFR Part 241 Section 19-7 with Section 26, which modifies the set of
existing data elements, revises reporting time frames, and redefines
the set of Carriers that report the O&D Survey in accordance with
industry standards and practice. We are considering changes to the T-
100/T-100(f) to enhance congruency between the O&D Survey and the T-
100. The changes we are considering would amend 14 CFR Part 241 Section
25, thus modifying the set of existing data elements reported on the T-
100 and amend 14 CFR Part 217 Section 5, thus modifying the set of
existing data elements reported on the T-100(f).
The proposed modernization of the Department's aviation data will
bring the data gathering process into alignment with current airline
industry accounting practices. It will provide more accurate, more
timely, and more complete data for all stakeholders. Furthermore, it is
the least intrusive informational alternative sufficient to accomplish
the statutory objective of gathering accurate information about air
travel. The proposed rule has been evaluated under the following Acts,
Executive Orders, and Departmental Policies. We seek comment from
interested parties about the rulemaking analyses contained in this
section.
1. Affected Carriers
The Carriers that would, under the proposed changes to the O&D
Survey, be required to report the O&D Survey are those defined in
Section I.3. (O&D Survey Redesign: Reporting Requirements) as
Participating Carriers. These Participating Carriers are (1) U.S. Air
Carriers that issue tickets for travel on scheduled interstate
passenger services to or from, or within, the U.S. and operate aircraft
with 15 seats or more for scheduled service and (2) Foreign Air
Carriers that operate under 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308 and 41309 and are
required, under the grant of antitrust immunity, to report itineraries
involving a U.S. point. The group of Participating Carriers consists of
Currently Participating Carriers and Newly Participating Carriers.
Because the proposed rule changes the criteria defining which Carriers
shall report the O&D Survey, there will be 38 Participating Carriers
(25 U.S. Air Carriers, versus the 34 U.S. Air Carriers that submitted
the O&D Survey in Third Quarter 2003, and 13 Foreign Air Carriers)
under the proposed rule, compared to 47 Carriers under the current
rule.
Currently Participating Carriers are those U.S. Air Carriers and
Foreign Air Carriers that report the O&D Survey under the current rule
and would continue to report the O&D Survey under the proposed rule.
Newly Participating Carriers are (1) those U.S. Air Carriers that do
not currently report the O&D Survey but would begin to report under the
proposed rule and (2) those Foreign Air Carriers that would report the
O&D Survey if they operate under antitrust immunity pursuant to 49
U.S.C. Sections 41308 and 41309 for alliance(s) with U.S. Air
Carrier(s). In addition, under the proposed rule, 13 U.S. Air Carriers
that currently report the O&D Survey would no longer be required to
report. These carriers are identified as Formerly Participating
Carriers.
The Department is considering modifying the data elements reported
by U.S. Air Carriers on the T-100 and by Foreign Air Carriers on the T-
100(f). The additional data elements being considered would, in
combination with the proposed changes to the O&D Survey, enhance the
validity and reliability of the Department's aviation data and benefit
all stakeholders. We have included the regulatory impact of the
potential changes to the T-100/T-100(f) in this section, although we
note that these changes have not been specifically proposed within this
NPRM.
The Department is also considering requiring Foreign Air Carriers
that: (1) Are licensed to hold out service to the U.S. under 49 U.S.C.
Section 41301; (2) do not have antitrust immunity for an alliance with
a U.S. Air Carrier; and (3) operate aircraft with 15 seats or more for
scheduled service to or from, or within, the U.S. to report all
itineraries involving a U.S. point to the O&D Survey. At this time, we
have not included these Foreign Air Carriers in the Regulatory Analyses
contained in Section L. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of
including in, or excluding from, the O&D Survey data from these Foreign
Air Carriers.
Table 1.--Carriers Affected by Proposed Changes to the O&D Survey
U.S. Air Carriers |
21 |
4 |
13 |
Foreign Air Carriers |
13 |
0 |
0 |
Total Carriers |
34 |
4 |
13 |
The Carriers that would, under the changes we are considering to
the T-100/T-100(f), be required to report the T-100/T-100(f) are those
defined in Section J.1. (T-100/T-100(f):--Background) as Reporting
Carriers. Because the proposed rule does not alter the definition of
Reporting Carrier, no Carriers would be added as Reporting Carriers
based solely on the possible changes to the T-100/T-100(f). There were
282 Reporting Carriers in Third Quarter 2003. However, 52 of those
Carriers are all-cargo Carriers. Because the additional data elements
being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) are flight-specific and would
be used, in part, to match the O&D Survey to the T-100/T-100(f), all-
cargo Carriers would not have to report these elements. The changes
that we are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) would, therefore,
affect the remaining 230 Reporting Carriers (121 U.S. Air Carriers and
109 Foreign Air Carriers) that are not all-cargo Carriers.
Table 2.--Carriers That Would Be Affected by Changes Being Considered for T-100/T-100(f)
U.S. Air Carriers |
121 |
0 |
0 |
Foreign Air Carriers |
109 |
0 |
0 |
Total Carriers |
230 |
0 |
0 |
2. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million annually.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes we are
considering making to the T-100 would not result in expenditures by
State, local, or tribal governments because no such government operates
a Carrier subject to the proposed regulation. While the proposed
changes to the O&D Survey and the changes we are considering making to
the T-100(f) will affect Foreign Air Carriers, some of which are
operated (in whole or in part) by foreign governments, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 does not apply to foreign governments.
3. Regulatory Evaluation
a. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735;
September 30, 1993) defines a significant regulatory action as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way,
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. Regulatory actions are also considered
significant if they are likely to create a serious inconsistency or
interfere with the actions taken or planned by another agency or if
they materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the
recipients of such programs.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey are estimated to
collectively cost U.S. Air Carriers approximately $1.3 million in the
first year, including initial costs and annual reporting costs, and
approximately $281,000 each year thereafter. If these changes are not
made, the collective reporting costs to U.S. Air Carriers are estimated
to be approximately $509,000 each year. When Foreign Air Carriers that
operate under 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308 and 41309 and are required,
under grant of antitrust immunity, to report itineraries involving a
U.S. point are included, the proposed changes to the O&D Survey are
estimated to collectively cost the world airline industry approximately
$1.9 million in the first year, including initial costs and annual
reporting costs, and approximately $427,000 each year thereafter. If
these changes are not made, the collective reporting costs to the world
airline industry are estimated to be approximately $704,000. Thus, if
we make no changes to the current O&D Survey, we will continue to
collect data under that rule. The collective annual costs to U.S.
carriers will continue to be approximately $509,000 per year and the
collective annual costs to the world airline industry will continue to
be approximately $704,000. Table 3 compares the annual costs of the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey to the annual costs of continuing
the current O&D Survey collection. These costs are further detailed in
Tables 8 and 9.
Table 3.--Collective Costs for U.S. Air Carriers and World Airline
Industry Proposed Changes Versus Current Rule O&D Survey
Proposed O&D: |
|
|
U.S. Air Carriers |
$1,273,110 |
$280,800 |
World Airline Industry |
1,915,336 |
426,816 |
Current O&D: |
|
|
U.S. Air Carriers |
509,184 |
509,184 |
World Airline Industry |
703,872 |
703,872 |
The changes that we are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f)
are estimated to collectively cost U.S. Air Carriers approximately $1
million in the first year, including initial costs and annual reporting
costs, and approximately $204,000 each year thereafter. If these
changes are not made, the collective reporting costs to U.S. Air
Carriers are estimated to be approximately $159,000 each year. When
Foreign Air Carriers are included, the changes that we are considering
making to the T-100/T-100(f) are estimated to collectively cost the
world airline industry approximately $1.9 million in the first year,
including initial costs and annual reporting costs, and approximately
$387,000 each year thereafter. If these changes are not made, the
collective reporting costs to the world airline industry are estimated
to be approximately $301,000. Thus, if we do not make the changes to
the T-100/T-100(f) that we are considering, we will continue to collect
data under the existing rule. The collective annual costs to U.S.
carriers will continue to be approximately $159,000 per year and the
collective annual costs to the world airline industry will continue to
be approximately $301,000. Table 4 compares the annual costs of the
changes to the T-100/T-100(f) that we are considering making to the
annual costs of continuing the current T-100/T-100(f) collection. These
costs are further detailed in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 4.--Collective Costs for U.S. Air Carriers and World Airline
Industry Considered Changes versus Current Rule T-100/T-100(f)
Proposed: |
|
|
U.S. Air Carriers |
$1,002,460 |
$203,860 |
World Airline Industry |
1,905,503 |
387,503 |
Current: |
|
|
U.S. Air Carriers |
158,559 |
158,559 |
World Airline Industry |
301,392 |
301,392 |
Because the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes we
are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) will not collectively cost
members of the private sector more than $100 million in the first year
of effectiveness under the proposed rule, the Department finds that the
changes would not, collectively or separately, place a significant
burden on the world-wide airline industry. The Department also finds
that the benefits of the proposed changes outweigh the potential costs.
Therefore, the proposed rule should not be considered an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. However,
regulatory actions that raise novel legal or policy issues can be
considered significant. Because the proposed changes to the O&D Survey,
as well as the changes we are considering for the T-100/T-100(f),
change the collection procedures of influential aviation data, this
NPRM is considered a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Net Present Value Analysis. The current rule is expected to cost
approximately $1 million each year. The cost of the current O&D Survey
is estimated by multiplying the average annual reporting burden of 960
hours per reporting Carrier by an estimated hourly wage of $15.60. The
total burden, for the 47 Carriers that report the O&D Survey under the
current rule, is $703,872. The cost of the current T-100/T-100(f) is
estimated by multiplying the average annual reporting burden of 84
hours per reporting Carrier by an estimated hourly wage of $15.60. The
total burden for the 230 Carriers that report the T-100/T-100(f) under
the current rule is $301,392.
As shown in Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11, the proposed changes to the
O&D Survey and the changes we are considering making to the T-100/T-
100(f) are expected to cost the affected Carriers approximately $3.82
million in the first year and $814,320 in each subsequent year. That
is, while the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes we are
considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) will require a one-time
investment of about $3.82 million, annual reporting costs for the
initial and subsequent years would decrease, collectively by about
$71,000 per year and individually by about 240 hours per Carrier.
Table 5, below, shows the present value costs, using a 7 percent
discount rate, under (1) the current rule, (2) the proposed rule, and
(3) the proposed rule if Carriers engage in one year of concurrent
processing. As discussed in Section I.5. (O&D Survey Redesign: Transition Period), a transition period may be required. During that
time, both Formerly Participating Carriers and Currently Participating
Carriers would report under the current rule, while Currently
Participating Carriers and Newly Participating Carriers would also
report under the proposed rule. For the purposes of present value cost
analyses, we estimate a concurrent test period of one year.
Table 5.--Estimated Present Value Costs [Including changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f).]
5 Years: |
|
|
|
Total Present Value Cost |
$4,121,781 |
$6,148,705 |
$7,088,204 |
(incremental cost over current rules) |
|
+ 2,026,924 |
+2,966,423 |
10 Years: |
|
|
|
Total Present Value Cost |
7,060,544 |
8,529,275 |
9,468,774 |
(incremental cost over current rules) |
|
+ 1,468,731 |
+ 2,408,230 |
15 Years: |
|
|
|
Total Present Value Cost |
9,155,858 |
10,226,588 |
11,116,087 |
(incremental cost over current rules) |
|
+ 1,070,730 |
+ 1,960,229 |
20 Years: |
|
|
|
Total Present Value Cost |
10,649,781 |
11,436,749 |
12,376,249 |
(incremental cost over current rules) |
|
+ 786,968 |
+ 1,726,468 |
The initial reporting burden associated with the proposed changes
to the O&D Survey and the changes considered for the T-100/T-100(f)
results in higher present value costs. However, the benefits to
Participating Carriers and Reporting Carriers, as well as to the
Department, Federal agencies, airports, consultants, academics, State
and local transportation planners, other State and local agencies,
consumers, and other stakeholders, are significant and immediately
available (See Sections L.3.d.2. and L.3.e.2.). Because these benefits
are less readily quantifiable, Table 6 contains the present value
benefits, using a 7% discount rate, under three possible scenarios, for
the proposed rule.
The first scenario assumes a total annual benefit, as a result of
the proposed and considered changes, of $250,000 per year. If the
Participating Carriers were assumed to be the sole beneficiaries, each
would, under this very conservative scenario, receive annual benefits
of about $6,600 a year. We believe that information about 100 percent
of Ticketed Itineraries issued for travel to or from, or within, the
U.S. by U.S. Air Carriers operating aircraft with 15 seats or more is
likely worth much more than approximately $7,000 per year. In fact, we
are certain that the cost to purchase this degree of information, for a
12-month period and from a GDS or other source not based on the O&D
Survey, would be considerably more expensive. Again, if we assume the
only beneficiaries to be the Participating Carriers, the second
scenario would attribute annual benefits to those 38 Participating
Carriers of about $13,200 per year. Based on our knowledge of non-
Departmental data sources, we find this estimated benefit to be
conservative.
We find the third scenario, total annual benefits of $1,000,000 for
all stakeholders, to be more realistic. This estimate is the equivalent
of about $27,000 of annual benefits per stakeholder if only the 38
Participating Carriers are considered. Furthermore, submission of 100
percent of Ticketed Itineraries by Participating Carriers significantly
reduces the likelihood that the Department will need to request
supplemental data about markets not represented in the O&D Survey.
Participating Carriers will be able to apply resources previously
dedicated to supplemental data request to other internal priorities.
Assigning an estimated total annual benefit of $1,000,000 per year only
to Participating Carriers, however, ignores the benefits to the
Department's regular analyses of competition in the aviation industry
and its EAS and Small Community Air Service Development Program. In
addition, we have not enumerated the annual benefit, to the FAA, DOJ,
DOS, DOC, DHS, BLS, and other Federal agencies and programs, of having
100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries issued by Participating Carriers.
Therefore, we base our assessment of the costs and benefits of the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being considered for
the T-100/T-100(f) on the moderate estimate of $1,000,000 of total
annual benefits for all stakeholders. We seek comment about the
estimated benefits, for individual stakeholders as well as
collectively, used in this regulatory evaluation.
Table 6.--Estimated Present Value Benefits Under Proposed O&D Survey
[Including changes being considered for T-100/T-100(f).]
5 Years Total Present Value Benefits |
1,025,049 |
2,050,099 |
4,100,197 |
10 Years Total Present Value Benefits |
1,755,895 |
3,511,791 |
7,023,582 |
15 Years Total Present Value Benefits |
2,276,979 |
4,553,957 |
9,107,914 |
20 Years Total Present Value Benefits |
2,648,504 |
5,297,007 |
10,594,014 |
As shown in Table 7, the net present value of the proposed rule is
positive in the majority of estimated scenarios. For example, the
proposed rule alone yields a positive net present value within five
years for two of the three benefit estimates and under all benefit
estimates within 10 years. Using the moderate estimate of $1,000,000
total annual benefits for all stakeholders, the net present value of
the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and changes being considered for
the T-100/T-100(f) is positive within five years--even when including
one year of concurrent processing.
Table 7.--Net Present Value Proposed Changes to the O&D Survey and Estimated Benefits
[Including changes being considered for T-100/T-100(f).]
5 Years |
-1,001,874 |
-1,941,373 |
23,175 |
-916,324 |
2,073,274 |
1,133,775 |
10 Years |
287,174 |
-652,325 |
2,043,070 |
1,103,571 |
5,554,861 |
4,615,361 |
15 Years |
1,206,248 |
266,749 |
3,484,227 |
2,543,728 |
8,037,184 |
7,097,685 |
20 Years |
1,861,535 |
922,036 |
4,510,039 |
3,570,540 |
9,807,046 |
8,867,547 |
It is our conclusion that the benefits of the proposed rule will
significantly outweigh the costs. We also conclude that, because the
present value costs for the proposed rule clearly do not exceed $100
million, for total or incremental costs and even when including one
year of concurrent processing, the proposed rule should not be
considered an economically significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
b. Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act
Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-
176) recognizes the need for the U.S. to increase its investment in
research and development to revitalize the aviation industry as well as
to improve aviation information collection. Section 805(a) states that,
if the Secretary requires Carriers to provide flight-specific
information, the Department will not: (1) Make public the flight-
specific fare information until at least nine months after the flight
date and (2) issue a rule requiring public dissemination of flight-
specific fare information without giving due consideration to and
addressing the Carriers' confidentiality concerns. Moreover, Section
805(b)--Effective Date stipulates that the amendment to 49 U.S.C.
Section 329(b)(1), stated in Section 805(a), shall become effective on
the date of the issuance of a final rule to modernize the O&D Survey.
The final rule, pursuant to the ANPRM (RIN 2105-AC71; 63 FR 28128, July
15, 1998), must propose change that "reduces the reporting burden for
air carriers through electronic filing of the survey data collected
under Section 329(b)(1) of Title 49, U.S.C." The calculations for
burden reduction are shown in Sections L.3.d.1. (Regulatory Analysis--
O&D Survey: Regulatory Assessment--Costs) and L.3.e.1. (Regulatory
Analysis--T-100/T-100(f): Regulatory Assessment--Costs), below.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey support electronic filing
and reduce manual activity and paperwork. The Issuing Carrier
possesses, within its internal systems, the data elements required by
the proposed rule. By designating the Issuing Carrier as the
Participating Carrier, the proposed rule eliminates the need for the
Participating Carrier to manually examine, and obtain information from
other carriers about Ticketed Itineraries that were not issued by the
Participating Carrier.
We find that the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) meet the requirements of Vision 100,
specifically Section 805(b), in that the changes "reduce the reporting
burden for air carriers through electronic filing of the survey data
collected under Section 329(b)(1) of Title 49, U.S.C." There are three
tests of "reduction of reporting burden for air carriers through
electronic filing of the survey data": (1) Net present costs, (2) net
present value, and (3) change in annual reporting burden. We base our
conclusion on the third test--the change in annual reporting burden for
affected carriers. We seek comment about our definition of "reduction
of reporting burden for air carriers through electronic filing of the
survey data" and our conclusion that the proposed changes to the O&D
Survey and the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) meet the
requirement of Vision 100, Section 805(b).
i. Annual Collective Industry Reporting Burden. We believe that the
proposed rule reduces the collective reporting burden for the airline
industry, for both U.S. Air Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers, even if
we include the reporting burden associated with the T-100/T-100(f)
changes we are considering. Under the current rule, 47 Carriers (U.S.
Air Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers) report the O&D Survey and 230
Carriers report the T-100/T-100(f). Collectively, the industry faces a
total annual reporting burden under the current rule of 64,440 hours.
Under the proposed changes to the O&D Survey, 38 Carriers would report
the O&D Survey. Under the changes to the T-100/T-100(f) that we are
considering, 230 Carriers would report the T-100/T-100(f). Under both
the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being considered
for the T-100/T-100(f), the industry would face a total annual
reporting burden of 52,200 hours. The proposed rule, including the
changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) decreases the
industry's collective annual reporting burden by 12,240 hours, or about
18 percent.
The collective annual reporting burden for affected U.S. Air
Carriers alone also decreases. Under the current rule, the total annual
reporting burden for 34 Carriers reporting the O&D Survey and 121
Carriers reporting the T-100 is 42,804 hours. Under the proposed rule,
including the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f), the
total annual reporting burden for the 25 Carriers reporting the O&D
Survey and the 121 Carriers reporting the T-100 would 31,068 hours.
This is a collective decrease of 11,736 hours, or about 27 percent.
ii. Annual Individual Carrier Reporting Burden. The proposed
changes to the O&D Survey result in substantial decreases for U.S. Air
Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers that will continue to report, or
cease to report, the O&D Survey. First, the total number of
Participating Carriers is reduced from 47 to 38. Second, by designating
the Issuing Carrier as the Participating Carrier, the proposed rule
reduces the manual processing and intervention inherent in the current
rule, thereby simplifying electronic filing.
For informational purposes, we have calculated the annual reporting
burden for the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f). While
these changes would, if adopted, increase the annual reporting burden
for each U.S. Air Carrier and each Foreign Air Carrier that will report
only the T-100/T-100(f) from 84 hours to 108 hours, they would maximize
congruence with the proposed O&D Survey.
The average annual reporting burden of each U.S. Air Carrier or
Foreign Air Carrier that currently reports both the O&D Survey and the
T-100/T-100(f) will decrease by 216 hours, or about 20 percent, (from
1,044 hours under the current rule to 828 hours under the proposed
rule, even when the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) are
included. Similarly, under the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and
the changes being considered for the T-100, the average annual
reporting burden of each of the 13 U.S. Air Carriers that will cease to
report the O&D Survey, but continue to report the T-100, will decrease
from 1,044 hours to 108 hours, or about 89 percent. Excluding the
changes being considered for the T-100, these 13 U.S. Air Carriers
would see their annual reporting burden decrease by 91 percent.
c. Departmental Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (initially
issued February 26, 1979, 44 FR 11034; restated May 22, 1980, DOT Order
2100.5) establish objectives to be pursued in reviewing existing
regulations and in issuing new regulations. The objectives include the
identification of a regulation as a (1) significant regulation, (2)
emergency regulation, or (3) non-significant regulation. One key issue
in the determination of a significant rulemaking is the extent to which
the affected information is influential. Influential information will
have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public
policies or important private sector decisions. The aviation data
collected by the O&D Survey and the T-100/T-100(f) are critical for
policy makers, Carriers, airports, and other stakeholders (See Section
D--O&D Survey Data Usage and Section J--T-100/T-100(f)). Because the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey, as well as the changes we are
considering for the T-100/T-100(f), change the collection procedures of
influential aviation data, this NPRM is considered a significant
regulatory action under the Department's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.
d. Regulatory Analysis--O&D Survey
The proposed rule defines a Participating Carrier for the O&D
Survey as (1) a U.S. Air Carrier that issues Ticketed Itineraries for
travel on scheduled interstate passenger services to or from, or
within, the U.S. and operates aircraft with 15 seats or more for
scheduled service and (2) a Foreign Air Carrier that has an alliance
with a U.S. Air Carrier (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309) and is
required to report itineraries involving a U.S. point. Under the
proposed rule, the total number of Participating Carriers would
decrease by about 19 percent, from 47 to 38. The specific costs and
benefits of the proposed changes to the O&D Survey are discussed in the
following sections.
i. Regulatory Assessment--Costs. For Currently Participating
Carriers, we estimated (1) the initial costs of revising the reporting
systems to include the proposed new data items and enable monthly
reporting of the full universe of issued tickets and (2) the annual
costs of monthly submissions of the proposed O&D Survey for 100 percent
of Ticketed Itineraries for travel to or from, or within, the U.S. For
Newly Participating Carriers, we estimated (1) the initial costs of
obtaining systems to include all data elements and enable monthly
reporting of the full universe of issued tickets containing a U.S.
point and (2) the annual costs of monthly submissions of the proposed
O&D Survey for 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries for travel to or
from, or within, the U.S. The initial and annual reporting costs for
Formerly Participating Carriers are, of course, zero.
We estimate the total initial reporting costs for the O&D Survey
for all Participating Carriers to be approximately $1.49 million, of
which approximately $993,000 would be expended by Participating U.S.
Air Carriers. We estimate the annual reporting costs for the proposed
O&D Survey for all Participating Carriers to be approximately $427,000,
of which approximately $281,000 would be expended by Participating U.S.
Air Carriers.
We recognize that the initial and annual reporting costs of
individual Participating Carriers are likely to differ and, for some
Participating Carriers, may be smaller than our estimates.
Nevertheless, we have applied a single cost estimate in our regulatory
assessment. We recognize that some Participating Carriers may choose to
utilize third-party providers, for the initial systems development and/
or for monthly data submission, but we do not include estimates of
third-party provider costs in this regulatory assessment. However, we
are aware that third-party providers already serve the airline industry
with systems that collect, bundle, process, and transfer data between
Carriers and between Carriers and the Department. Thus, third-party
providers may choose to customize or adjust existing data systems,
already used by Participating Carriers, to meet the submission
requirements of the proposed rule. We assume Participating Carriers
would select this option only if its costs were lower; as such, it is
possible that Participating Carriers that decide to use third parties
would incur lower costs than those we have estimated. We seek comment
about the costs and benefits of the use of third-party providers under
the proposed O&D Survey.
Initial Reporting Burden. Currently Participating Carriers would
incur an initial reporting burden, based on the systems changes
required to expand one and add seven ticketed itinerary-level data
elements and to expand three and add six Flight Stage-level data
elements (See Section I.2.--O&D Survey: Discussion of the Proposed O&D
Survey). The proposed data elements are available within the Currently
Participating Carriers' internal systems and, therefore, we anticipate
that Currently Participating Carriers will be able to access the data
elements.
We anticipate that the Currently Participating Carriers will create
new automated processes to produce the proposed O&D Survey rather than
simply modify the current processes. This is because the proposed
procedures will no longer require continual information updates from
sources outside the Participating Carrier's control, such as ticketing
information from Issuing Carriers, and because the proposed procedures
are simpler. In its response to the ANPRM, United Air Lines (Docket
OST-1998-4043-15) estimated that "there would be a moderate one time
development effort to create and implement the software which would create a TCN-like file
each day containing internal [carrier] * * * sales and non-automated
agency sales". We agree, and estimate a "moderate effort" to be the
equivalent of two and one-half work months 8 of internal development
and testing and one and one-half work months 9 of external testing
and coordination with the Department, for a total of four work months,
or 694 staff-hours. We do not estimate the costs of materials or other
resources.
Newly Participating Carriers will incur an initial reporting burden
based on the O&D Survey data collection and reporting requirements. As
with Currently Participating Carriers, Newly Participating Carriers are
expected to have the majority of this data present within their
internal sales-based systems and TCN records. Furthermore, in 1997, as
part of the Rural Airfare Study (Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act of 1996, Section 1213; Pub. L. 104-264), the
Department began to collect 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries for
domestic passengers from all certificated and commuter carriers
providing scheduled passenger service to communities in the continental
U.S. (Docket OST-1997-2767; Order 97-7-27, July 28, 1997). We note that
two of the four Newly Participating Carriers were affected by this
order and, therefore, are familiar with data submission requirements
that are similar to those requested in the proposed rule.
In its response to the ANPRM, United Air Lines (Docket OST-1998-
4043-15) stated that a non-CRS participating Carrier could create
similar files from its own revenue accounting-type data, "which should
not be a major difficulty. Indeed, it should be no more difficult than
complying with the present O&D Sampling requirements." We also note
that, when conducting its Rural Airfare Study, the Department solicited
comments about the costs of compliance--that is, the cost to submit 100
percent of domestic continental U.S. Ticketed Itineraries. No comments
about the costs of complying with this data request were received
(Collectively, Docket OST-97-2767).
We agree that Newly Participating Carriers should not find the task
of obtaining systems to report the proposed O&D Survey more onerous
than obtaining systems for the current O&D Survey. However, we
recognize that Newly Participating Carriers will face some development
and testing challenges that Currently Participating Carriers will not.
We therefore estimate the equivalent of three work months 10 of
internal development and testing and two work months of external
testing and coordination with the Department, for a total of five work
months, or 867 staff-hours. We do not estimate the costs of materials
or other resources.
Under the Service Contract Act of 1965 (as amended), the U.S.
Department of Labor sets the minimum hourly rate, excluding benefits,
for Federal Contracts. In 2004, DOL estimated an hourly rate of $27.62
per hour for the positions of Computer Programmer IV and Computer
Systems Analyst III.11 We recognize that the carriers' hourly costs
are likely to be higher, particularly for skilled employees with
specialized knowledge of aviation data and reporting. Thus, we estimate
an industry hourly cost for a computer programmer/analyst of $55.00 per
hour.
Given these assumptions, we estimate the initial reporting costs
for the proposed O&D Survey to be $38,170, or 694 hours, per Currently
Participating Carrier. For Newly Participating Carriers, we estimate
the initial reporting costs to be $47,685, or 867 hours, per Newly
Participating Carrier. These estimated costs are based on staff hours
only and do not include estimates for materials or other resources. We
seek comment about the methods used to determine these initial
reporting costs under the proposed rule.
Annual Reporting Burden. The proposed changes to the O&D Survey
would require Participating Carriers to report additional data elements
for each reported Ticketed Itinerary. The proposed rule would also
require Participating Carriers to report 100 percent of all Ticketed
Itineraries for travel involving a U.S. point, compared to the 10
percent sample required by the current rule, and to report those
itineraries monthly rather than quarterly. However, even though the
reporting frequency and total volume of reported data for a
Participating Carrier would increase under the proposed rule, we
believe that the total annual reporting burden for individual Carriers
will decrease.
For example, in 1997, as part of the Rural Airfare Study (Federal
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996, Section 1213; Pub.
L. 104-264), the Department estimated the average annual cost to
carriers to comply with data submissions of the Rural Airfare Study
12 at approximately 113 hours per carrier (Docket OST-1997-2767-1;
Order 97-7027, July 28, 1997). We recognize that the costs of
submitting 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries and incorporating the
proposed additional data items would be higher than the costs of
submitting monthly Rural Airfare study itineraries. However, we also
believe that costs to Participating Carriers under the proposed rule
would be lower than those costs under the current rule.
We estimate that the total annual reporting burden for individual
Participating Carriers would decrease from 960 hours (current rule) to
720 hours (proposed rule), a total decrease of 240 hours per year per
Participating Carrier compared to our 2003 OMB estimate. While this
estimation seems counter-intuitive, we believe that such savings are
possible. We attribute the 240 hour per year reduction in annual
reporting burden for an individual Participating Carrier to (1) the
designation of Issuing Carrier, rather than Operating Carrier, as
Participating Carrier (192 hours) and (2) the more efficient process by
which Issuing Carriers will report 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries
in monthly, rather than quarterly, submissions (48 hours).
As discussed in Section C.1. (Need for Data Modernization:
Background), under the current rule, the level of effort required by an
Operating Air Carrier to identify whether it is the first Participating
Carrier in the itinerary is complex and time-consuming. If the first
Participating Carrier is not the Issuing Carrier and did not receive
that sale information, then the Participating Carrier is required to
employ staff to locate that lifted flight coupon. This is an intensely
manual process, and it is a significant burden on limited human and
financial resources of the Operating Carrier. Employees with the skills
needed to extract information from visual examination of a lifted
flight coupon have become increasingly scarce.
On any given day, tens of thousands of passengers fly on commuter
carriers and foreign air carriers operating under code-share agreements. As a result of code-share ticketing procedures,
the identity of the Operating Air Carrier is often hidden from an
outside observer. When the Issuing Carrier does not provide the
itinerary details to the Operating Air Carrier, via a TCN record or
other means, then it is difficult for the Operating Air Carrier to
determine whether any of the other Carriers whose Airline Designator
appears on the ticket as the Marketing Carrier is scheduled to operate
the flight. The industry has evolved into Code-Share agreements between
Franchise Code-Share Partners and Mainline Partners, wherein the
Mainline Partner holds the itinerary information yet the current rule
holds the Franchise Code-Share Partner responsible for reporting the
Ticketed Itinerary. The current rule, in effect, requires a Mainline
Partner to prepare multiple O&D Survey reports because it must prepare
one for itself and one for each Franchise Code-Share Partner.
We believe that the proposed designation of the Issuing Carrier as
the Participating Carrier will result in significantly less manual
intervention, matching, and processing than is required under the
current rule. Participating Carriers will report those Ticketed
Itineraries that they themselves issued and for which they have full
information present in their internal systems. Removing the need for
Mainline Partners to prepare O&D Survey reports for their Franchise
Code-Share Partners is the reason why data can be gathered from 13
fewer Carriers without loss of information from missing Ticketed
Itineraries. We therefore estimate that each Currently Participating
Carrier will see a reduction in its annual reporting burden of 192
hours per year. Under the proposed reporting frequency, this equates to
a reduction of 16 hours per month. Similarly, we estimate a Newly
Participating Carrier's annual reporting burden to be equal to that of
a Currently Participating Carrier.
We further anticipate that the costs of incorporating the proposed
additional data elements are included in the initial reporting costs
associated with the configuration of the reporting system. In addition,
under the current rule, Participating Carriers are required to submit a
10 percent sample of Ticketed Itineraries using specific sampling
methods (49 U.S.C. Part 241 Section 19-7, Appendix A). We believe that
the burden to a Carrier of extracting the prescribed 10 percent sample,
particularly for Carriers that do not use ticket numbers, is greater
than that of generating a dataset containing the full universe of
tickets. We therefore expect that the incremental costs of reporting
100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries, rather than a specified 10 percent
sample of Ticketed Itineraries, will be extremely small and that the
total costs of electronically submitting 12 monthly reports should be
very similar to the total costs of electronically submitting 4
quarterly reports.
Identifying the specific cost savings or cost increases associated
with each of these issues is complex. However, we note that changes
within the industry itself, as well as changes in Carriers' internal
data processing systems, often yield considerable savings in the annual
reporting burden. In its 2000 submission to OMB (65 FR 19961; April 13,
2000), the Department estimated a 200-hour per year per carrier, or 17
percent, reduction in annual reporting burden, from 1,152 hours to 952
hours. This estimated burden reduction was based on conversations with
several large U.S. Air Carriers.
As part of our outreach activities, we spoke with the majority of
U.S. Air Carriers about their current internal sales, accounting, and
reservations systems and about their system requirements. These
discussions were based, in part, on the comments we received in
response to the ANPRM. As a result of these conversations, we estimate
that these proposed changes--more data elements reported more
frequently for all Ticketed Itineraries--to the O&D Survey, when
combined with the processing changes inherent in the new reporting
systems, are unlikely to result in cost increases and are more likely
to yield relatively small savings. We estimate these savings to be 48
hours per year, or 4 hours per month, per Participating Carrier.
In its most recent submission to OMB (68 FR 49543; August 13,
2003), the Department estimated an average annual hourly burden of 960
hours per Participating Carrier. This is an increase of 8 hours per
year over the estimate submitted to OMB in 2000 and was based on the
changed mix of reporting carriers (several smaller Carriers ceased
reporting, thus increasing the average reporting burden for all
Carriers). We make no adjustments to the average burden based on the
mix of Participating Carriers because, although four small carriers are
Newly Participating Carriers under the proposed rule, four of the
Formerly Participating Carriers are also small Carriers. We define a
small Carrier as a entity employing 1,500 or fewer employees (Air
Passenger Carriers, Scheduled; NAICS Code 481111; SAIC Code 4512), as
specified by the Small Business Administration's Table of Small
Business Size Standards.
We therefore anticipate that the annual reporting burden for
Participating Carriers, under the proposed rule, of preparing and
submitting monthly O&D Survey data sets containing the proposed data
elements and 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries would not exceed 720
hours on an annual basis for each Participating Carrier. The resulting
annual reporting cost per Participating Carrier would be approximately
$11,232 (based on an estimated industry salary rate of about $15.60 per
hour 13). These estimated costs are based on staff hours only and do
not include estimates for materials or other resources. We seek comment
about the methods used to determine these annual reporting costs under
the proposed rule.
Reporting Burdens for Participating Carriers. Under the proposed
O&D Survey, we estimate a total initial reporting burden for all 38
Participating Carriers of $1,488,520, or 27,064 hours. We estimate a
total annual reporting burden for all 38 Participating Carriers of
$426,016, or 27,360 hours. Tables 8 and 9 (below) break out the
reporting costs for Participating U.S. Air Carriers and Participating
Foreign Air Carriers.
Table 8.--Estimated Reporting Costs for Proposed O&D Survey U.S. Air Carriers
21 Currently Participating U.S. Air Carriers |
694 |
14,574 |
$801,570 |
720 |
15,120 |
$235,872 |
4 Newly Participating U.S Air Carriers |
867 |
3,468 |
190,740 |
720 |
2,880 |
44,928 |
25 Participating U.S. Air Carriers |
|
18,042 |
992,310 |
720 |
18,000 |
280,800 |
Table 9.--Estimated Reporting Costs for Proposed O&D Survey Foreign Air Carriers
13 Currently Participating Foreign Air Carriers |
694 |
9,022 |
$496,210 |
720 |
9,360 |
$146,016 |
0 Newly Participating Foreign Air Carriers |
867 |
0 |
0 |
720 |
0 |
0 |
13 Participating Foreign Air Carriers |
|
9,022 |
$496,210 |
720 |
9,260 |
146,016 |
ii. Regulatory Assessment--Benefits. The proposed rule (1) Expands
the number of data elements reported on the O&D Survey, (2) expands the
number of annual data submissions of the O&D Survey from four
(quarterly) to twelve (monthly), and (3) expands the number of O&D
Survey records reported by an individual carrier from a ten percent
sample to the full universe of Ticketed Itineraries involving a U.S.
point. Our initial regulatory assessment indicates that the benefits of
the expanded information that would be collected under the proposed
rule would accrue to the Department, other Federal government agencies
and offices, Carriers, airports, and other stakeholders. These benefits
substantially outweigh the additional costs associated with the initial
reporting burden of reconfiguring existing, or obtaining new, systems
to report the proposed O&D Survey.
The first benefit is associated with a reduction in annual hourly
reporting burden. Under the proposed rule, a Currently Participating
Carrier will see a 240-hour per year reduction in its annual hourly
reporting burden, from 960 hours to 720 hours (See Section L.3.d.1.).
The second benefit is the reduction in the set of Participating
Carriers. Because the proposed rule designates the Carrier that issued
the Ticketed Itinerary as the Participating Carrier, nine, or
approximately 19 percent, fewer Carriers will submit the O&D Survey
under the proposed rule. That is, under the proposed rule, fewer
Participating Carriers with reduced annual burdens would provide more
detailed information than is available under the current rule. Other
benefits are likely as well.
The change in reporting time frame will benefit reporting carriers
by providing key industry data in a more timely fashion. We are
proposing that data be disseminated as discussed in Section K.--Data
Dissemination. Furthermore, data will be available by month of travel,
rather than quarter of first travel, enabling a more fine-grained
assessment of travel demand.
As discussed in Sections D.1. and D.2., a number of agencies within
the Department, other Federal agencies, and other stakeholders rely on
timely and accurate aviation data when making a variety of policy and
business decisions. Monthly data releases will enhance both the
usefulness and quality of the O&D Survey. That is, users will be able
to assess travel at the monthly level, facilitating more precise
analyses. Monthly data further clarify the changes in traffic flows due
to seasonality, Carrier route changes, and preferred Carrier. O&D
Survey data used in international negotiations would be more timely
(i.e., at most three months old) and aid the U.S.' position in these
sensitive negotiations.
Monthly O&D submissions will enable the Department to respond more
quickly to errors, late submissions, and other data quality concerns.
In addition, because of the changes that are being considered for the
T-100/T-100(f), monthly O&D submissions could be validated against
monthly T-100/T-100(f) submissions. Carriers utilize these data to plan
their businesses, accurately forecast potential new services, and, for
new entrants, devise more accurate business plans based on real
industry demand data. Moving to monthly O&D Survey reporting and
dissemination enhances the air carriers' access to this critical
information. Furthermore, in their responses to the ANPRM, a number of
Carriers recommended more timely reporting and more frequent
availability of the data.
Carriers rely not only on timely data but also on detailed
information to create more efficient and competitive markets, as well
as to estimate the impact of new services at alternative airports. We
believe that the proposed new data elements will provide valuable
additional data for Carriers as they evaluate market entry and exit.
Other stakeholders, discussed in Section D.3., also rely on these data.
The Department has been reporting Directional Passenger trips in
the O&D Survey as the best substitute for True O&D since the inception
of the O&D Survey. The additional data elements will enable the
department to report True O&D according to the One-way Trip methodology
widely used in the industry. This provides a much closer approximation
to the True O&D than did the Directional Passenger trip methodology.
Flight arrival and departure times will provide a more accurate and
useful view of passenger air travel. Similarly, the proposed change
from a Directional Passenger to a One-way Passenger (See Section K.2.--
Data Dissemination: Proposed Construction of One-way Trips) will enable
the FAA and TSA to more effectively plan airport staffing requirements.
The identification of passengers as traveling through an airport versus
deplaning and remaining will support airport facility planning. State and local transportation planners could also use this information for planning purposes.
Periodically, the Department has requested special data submissions
from Carriers because national economic interests are at stake, but the
O&D Survey and T-100/T-100(f) do not provide the requisite information.
The 2003 SARS outbreak was one such instance. The war in Iraq is
another example of a time when the Department has requested more
detailed data. Responses to special requests for data, such as the
previous examples, are costly in terms of time and other resources. The
more robust data gathered by the O&D Survey and the T-100 under the
proposed rule would largely eliminate the need for such requests.
The increase in the volume of data to be reported under the
proposed rule will result in substantial benefits to Carriers as well
as other stakeholders. Carriers currently must generate samples meeting
the specific requirements of 14 CFR Section 19-7, Appendix A. The
complex sampling methodology introduces the likelihood of sample
errors. Furthermore, Carriers themselves have chosen more simplistic
reporting processes when available. For example, although the
Department permitted alternative sampling methodologies beginning in
April 1986, such as sampling at least one percent of Ticketed
Itineraries in major domestic markets, all Carriers reporting the O&D
Survey have decided that the simplicity of using a single reporting
selection criterion outweighs any savings that might accrue from
sending the smaller volume of data. Similarly, we expect the process of
submitting 100 percent of Ticketed Itineraries will be simpler and more
efficient than the creation of more complex sampling techniques, such
as stratified sampling or oversampling, intended to capture more
representative samples of all markets, despite the larger volume of
data.
The proposed changes will also reduce the burden of reporting for
Participating Carriers by bringing the responsibility to report a
Ticketed Itinerary into alignment with standard global Carrier
accounting practices. These practices are based on the presumption that
the Issuing Carrier has all the necessary information to report a
Ticketed Itinerary; therefore, the Participating Carriers will
generally be self-sufficient and able to report the itinerary.
Many Carriers can appear as Operating Carriers on a Ticketed
Itinerary, but only one Carrier is the Issuing Carrier. When there are
multiple Operating Carriers in an itinerary, the second and subsequent
Operating Carriers cannot know with certainty whether the first
Operating Carrier reported the itinerary. There is a considerable
burden placed on Operating Carriers in the current methodology to
determine whether or not they have a responsibility to report any given
multiple-Carrier itinerary. The proposed change in Participating
Carrier dramatically lowers the burden to report by shifting the
reporting responsibility to the Carrier that issued the Ticketed
Itinerary and away from the Carrier that transported the passenger.
This change will reduce the burden of reporting for Participating
Carriers because it eliminates ambiguity.
Currently, if Carriers operate no aircraft with more than 60 seats,
they are exempt from reporting. Since 1993, at least one carrier has
gone from non-reporting (operating no aircraft with more than 60 seats)
to reporting (operating some aircraft with more than 60 seats) to non-
reporting (ceasing operation of all aircraft with more than 60 seats).
As Carriers reconfigure existing equipment or increase their use of
smaller aircraft, the threshold of 60 seats excludes Ticketed
Itineraries that provide critical information about passenger air
travel and fares. For example, the commencement of operations by
Independence Air in June 2004 caused a profound adjustment of fares in
small, medium and large markets in the Eastern half of the U.S.
However, because Independence Air does not currently operate aircraft
with more than 60 seats, it does not have to report O&D Survey data,
thereby resulting in an incomplete picture of the effects of this
Carrier's start of operations. When a major realignment of fares can
result from the actions of a Carrier that qualifies for the small
aircraft size exemption, then the small aircraft size exemption must be
reevaluated.
When passengers fly their entire itineraries on smaller Carriers
that are not required to report the O&D Survey, their travel will not
be included under the existing system. Yet, their participation in the
air transportation system is significant. By requiring all U.S. Air
Carriers issuing tickets for travel to or from, or within, the U.S.
operating aircraft with 15 or more seats to report O&D Survey data, the
resulting passenger traffic database will contain the majority of
Ticketed Itineraries issued by U.S. Air Carriers. The resulting data
will capture the increasing role played by regional jets and regional
Carriers in the domestic air transportation system.
EAS and the Small Community Air Service Development Program are
directed towards smaller markets and require evaluation of service and
fares. The Department's statutory responsibility to adapt the air
transportation system to the present and future needs of commerce is
much more extensive than the needs of the EAS program. Because these
markets are inadequately represented in the current O&D Survey, the
Department's mandate requires a disproportionately high amount of time
and interest in studying markets with lower than average traffic. By
requiring Participating Carriers to submit 100 percent of Ticketed
Itineraries, the Department will have more accurate and reliable data
for small markets impacted by Federal programs. The Department will
also be able to compare data for small markets served by EAS or the
Small Community Air Service Development Program with similar small
markets that are not direct beneficiaries of these programs.
We seek to capture the complex interrelationships between Operating
Carrier, Marketing Carrier, and Issuing Carrier. The reduced ambiguity
obtained by requiring the Issuing Carrier to report the Ticketed
Itinerary should eliminate the possibility that an itinerary will not
be reported. In addition, the Issuing Carrier will have all of the
necessary data present in its internal systems, maximizing the
efficiency and accuracy of data reporting. The increasing role played
by code-share agreements will be represented in the O&D Survey.
The benefits to all Carriers and all other stakeholders accrue from
the first dissemination of data. Participating Carriers will have
access to aggregated monthly data (See Section K--Data Dissemination)
for the full universe of Ticketed Itineraries issued by Participating
Carriers. Other stakeholders would also have access to more timely and
more complete data.
The overall annual reporting burden for the 34 currently
Participating Carriers decreases by 8,160 hours and $127,296. Although
we are asking four U.S. Air Carriers to begin reporting the O&D Survey,
the proposed rule will no longer require 13 U.S. carriers to report.
The annual savings for those 13 carriers are estimated to be 12,480
hours and $194,688. These savings are 433 percent greater than the
total estimated annual reporting cost for the four newly Participating
U.S. Air Carriers.
Although the initial reporting burden for the 38 Participating
Carriers is approximately $1.49 million, the number of Participating
Carriers will decrease. Under the current rule, 47 Participating
Carriers have a collective annual reporting burden of 45,120 hours. The 38 Participating Carriers
would, under the proposed rule, have a collective annual reporting
burden of 27,360 hours. The proposed rule, therefore, decreases the
annual reporting burden by approximately 39%. That is, collectively,
the 38 Participating Carriers would expend 17,760 hours per year less
under the proposed rule. In the first year, these Participating
Carriers face a one-time initial reporting burden of 27,260 hours.
We seek comment about these, and other, benefits that would accrue
to any or all stakeholders as a result of the proposed rule.
e. Regulatory Analysis--T-100/T-100(f)
We are considering changes to the set of data elements reported
under the T-100/T-100(f). These changes would not affect the definition
of Reporting Carrier in 14 CFR Part 217 Section 217.3 and 14 CFR Part
241 Section 19-1. However, because the data elements being considered
are flight-specific and are associated with scheduled passenger air
transportation, all-cargo Carriers would not be affected by the
proposed rule. Should we adopt the changes to the T-100/T-100(f)
discussed in this NPRM, the remaining 230 Currently Reporting Carriers
would be affected. Accordingly, although we are only considering, and
not proposing, the additional data items for the T-100/T-100(f), we
include estimates of the cost to Reporting Carriers (U.S. Air Carriers
and Foreign Air Carriers) of including the data elements in their T-
100/T-100(f) submissions.
i. Regulatory Assessment--Costs. For the 230 Currently Reporting
Carriers, we estimated (1) the initial costs of revising the reporting
systems to include the new data items being considered and (2) the
annual costs of submitting the additional data elements that are being
considered. The changes being considered do not change the reporting
requirements and do not expand the set of Reporting Carriers;
therefore, no estimates are made for Newly Reporting Carriers.
We estimate the total initial reporting costs for the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) for all Currently Reporting Carriers
to be approximately $1.52 million, of which approximately $799,000
would be expended by Currently Reporting U.S. Air Carriers. We estimate
the annual reporting costs for the changes being considered for the T-
100/T-100(f) for all Currently Reporting Carriers to be approximately
$387,504, of which approximately $203,861 would be expended by
Currently Reporting U.S. Air Carriers. The incremental cost of the
changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) is approximately
$86,000 for all Currently Reporting Carriers.
We recognize that the initial and annual reporting costs of
individual Reporting Carriers are likely to differ and, for some
Reporting Carriers, may be smaller than our estimates. Nevertheless, we
have applied a single cost estimate in our regulatory assessment. In
the past, the Department has provided to Reporting Carriers software to
enable reporting of the T-100/T-100(f). Because the Department has not
yet determined whether the modifications necessary under the proposed
rule would be made to Department-provided T-100/T-100(f) reporting
software, we do not assume that modified software would be made
available to Reporting Carriers.
We recognize that some Reporting Carriers may choose to utilize
third-party providers, for the initial system reconfiguration or for
monthly data submission but we do not include estimates of third-party
provider costs in this regulatory assessment. We are aware that third-
party providers already serve the airline industry with systems that
collect, bundle, process, and transfer data between Carriers and
between Carriers and the Department. Thus, third-party providers may
choose to customize or adjust existing data systems, already used by
Reporting Carriers, to meet T-100/T-100(f) submission requirements if
the changes being considered are adopted. We assume Reporting Carriers
would select this option only if its costs were lower; as such, it is
possible that Reporting Carriers that decide to use third parties would
incur lower costs than those we have estimated. We seek comment about
the costs and benefits of the use of third-party providers for
submission of the T-100/T-100(f) should the changes we are considering
be adopted.
Initial Reporting Burden. Currently Reporting Carriers will incur
an initial reporting burden, based on the system changes that would be
required to add the two data elements we are considering adding to the
current T-100/T-100(f). However, should we adopt the changes being
considered, Currently Reporting Carriers are expected to have these
data elements within their internal systems and, therefore, we
anticipate that Reporting Carriers would be able to access the data
elements.
We anticipate that, if the changes we are considering are adopted,
the Currently Reporting Carriers would create supplemental automated
processes to produce the expanded T-100/T-100(f) to access the
additional data elements. The Department had previously (Docket OST-
1996-1049-2) estimated that the addition of two capacity data items,
available seats and available payload capacity, would not be an
unreasonable burden because the data elements were not difficult to
calculate or determine and were readily available to all air carriers
through computer access. We believe the data elements that we are
considering, Master Flight Number and flight date, should also be
readily available to Carriers.
The cost to link the sources of Master Flight Number and flight
date to Currently Reporting Carriers' existing T-100/T-100(f) reporting
systems will be based on a number of factors, including the current
level of integration of individual Carriers' systems. We believe that
this cost would be significantly less than the cost estimated for the
one-time changes to the O&D Survey reporting systems. We therefore
estimate that Reporting Carriers would require, should the changes we
are considering be adopted, the equivalent of two work weeks 14 of
internal development and testing and one work week of external testing
and coordination with the Department, for a total of three work weeks,
or 120 staff hours, to incorporate the changes into their systems.
Under the Service Contract Act of 1965 (as amended), the U.S.
Department of Labor establishes the minimum hourly rate, excluding
benefits, for Federal Contracts. In 2004, DOL estimated an hourly rate
of $27.62 per hour for the positions of Computer Programmer IV and
Computer Systems Analyst III. 15 We recognize that the carriers'
hourly costs are likely to be higher, particularly for skilled
employees with specialized knowledge of aviation data and reporting.
Thus, we estimate an industry hourly cost for a computer programmer/
analyst of $55.00 per hour.
Given these assumptions, we estimate that, should the changes we
are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) be adopted, the initial
reporting cost for the revised T-100/T-100(f) would be $6,600, or 120
hours, per Currently Reporting Carrier. This estimated cost is based on staff
hours only, and does not include estimates for materials or other
resources. We seek comment about the methods used to determine the
initial reporting cost under the changes being considered for the T-
100/T-100(f).
Annual Reporting Burden. The current structure of the T-100/T-
100(f) Market file groups traffic data by carrier, entity, Origin,
Destination, and service class. The current structure of the T-100/T-
100(f) Segment file further groups traffic data by aircraft type. The
total number of records reported for each file type is dependent upon
the extent to which traffic data can be grouped during the reporting
period.
Hypothetically, in a given 31-day month, a Carrier operates one
daily flight with one service class between a particular Origin Airport
and Destination Airport. Under the current T-100/T-100(f) it would
report one Market record summarizing the traffic data for that Carrier,
entity, Origin, Destination, and service class for the entire month. It
would report the number of Segment records corresponding to the
different numbers of aircraft types used to service that route in that
month. If the Carrier used only one aircraft type, it would report one
Segment record. If it used two different aircraft types, it would
report two Segment records, and so forth, for a maximum of 31 Segment
records.
In the final rule adopting the T-100/T-100(f) reporting system (53
FR 46294, November 16, 1988; Referenced in Docket OST-96-1049-13), the
Department estimated that the reporting burden for the entire T-100/T-
100(f) system would vary between one hour and 20 hours per month per
Reporting Carrier, with an average of seven hours per monthly response.
Therefore, submitting Segment records and Market records, grouped as
described above, takes an average of seven hours per month, or 84 hours
per year, per Reporting Carrier.
The changes that we are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f)
would group Market records and Segment records by Master Flight Number
and flight date, expanding the total number of records reported. As in
the previous example, for a 31-day month, a hypothetical Carrier
operates one daily flight, with a single Master Flight Number, with one
service class, between a particular Origin Airport and Destination
Airport. For that month, because there are 31 flight dates for that
Master Flight Number, the Carrier would report 31 Market records
(grouped by carrier, entity, Origin, Destination, service class, Master
Flight Number, and flight date). It would report 31 Segment records
(grouped by carrier, entity, Origin, Destination, service class,
aircraft type, Master Flight Number, and flight date).
The estimated increase in annual reporting costs, for Currently
Reporting Carriers, associated with the changes we are considering
making to the T-100/T-100(f) is based on the increased costs to
identify, store, and transmit records that are specific by Master
Flight Number and flight date. We anticipate that these costs would be
reduced through efficient reporting systems. We incorporate that
assumption into our estimates of the initial reporting costs that
Currently Reporting Carriers would incur if the changes we are
considering are adopted. We therefore estimate that the monthly
reporting would increase by 2 hours per month, or 24 hours per year,
for a total of 9 hours per month, or 108 hours per year.
Given these assumptions, we estimate the annual reporting cost for
the T-100/T-100(f) would increase by $375, or 24 hours, per Currently
Reporting Carrier if the changes we are considering are adopted. This
estimated cost is based on staff hours only and does not include
estimates for materials or other resources. We therefore anticipate
that the annual reporting burden for Reporting Carriers, should the
changes we are considering be adopted, of preparing and submitting
monthly T-100/T-100(f) data sets containing the additional data
elements would average 108 hours, or approximately $1,685 (based on an
estimated industry salary rate of about $15.60 per hour 16), per
Currently Reporting Carrier. These estimated costs are based on staff
hours only and do not include estimates for materials or other
resources. We seek comment about the methods used to determine these
annual reporting costs given the changes we are considering making to
the T-100/T-100(f).
Reporting Burden for Reporting Carriers. We are considering the
addition of two data elements to the T-100/T-100(f). Should those
changes be adopted, we estimate a total initial reporting burden for
the 230 Currently Reporting Carriers of $1,518,000, or 27,600 hours. We
further estimate that adoption of the changes being considered would
result in an annual reporting burden for all 230 Reporting Carriers of
24,840 hours, or $387,504. This is an increase of 5,520 hours, or
approximately $86,000. In Tables 10 and 11, below, we break out the
initial reporting costs and annual reporting costs for U.S. Air
Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers.
TABLE 10.--Estimated Reporting Costs for Changes Being Considered for the T-100
[U.S. Air Carriers]
121 Currently Reporting U.S. Air Carriers |
120 |
14,520 |
$798,600 |
108 |
13,068 |
$203,860 |
TABLE 11.--Estimated Reporting Costs for Changes Being Considered for the T-100(f)
[Foreign Air Carriers]
109 Currently Reporting Foreign Air Carriers |
120 |
13,080 |
$719,400 |
108 |
11,772 |
$183,643 |
iii. Regulatory Assessment--Benefits. We recognize that, by
considering the collection of T-100/T-100(f) data by Master Flight
Number and flight date, we would increase the total number of records
to be submitted by Current Reporting Carriers. However, the addition of
Master Flight Number and flight date would enable the T-100/T-100(f) to
continue to be used to verify the O&D Survey. The proposed data
elements will improve the quality and use of traffic data in decision
making by enabling a maximum congruence between the T-100/T-100(f) and
the O&D Survey. As such, it supports the benefits associated with the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey (Section L.3.d.2). The changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) would, through data specific to
Master Flight Number and flight date, provide additional information
for airport and air traffic control planning. Stakeholders would have
information about aircraft size, number of passengers, and flow of
passengers and aircraft by time of day.
4. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94
Stat. 1164; codified at 5 U.S.C. 601) requires agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities, analyze
effective alternatives that minimize the impact on small entities, and
make their analyses available for public comment. It does not, however,
seek preferential treatment for small entities, require agencies to
adopt regulations that impose the least burden on small entities, or
mandate exemptions for small entities.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The Department has
established a Guidance Manual on SBREFA.
Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 52462, August 16, 2002) requires each
agency to establish written procedures and policies to promote
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and to ensure that
potential impacts of draft rules on small entities will be properly
considered. The Department has established Policies and Procedures for
Implementing Executive Order 13272. We define a small Carrier as an
entity employing 1,500 or fewer employees (Air Passenger Carriers,
Scheduled; NAICS Code 481111; SAIC Code 4512), as specified by the
Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards.
a. Affected Businesses
The changes we are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) would
affect all Air Carriers that are required to report the T-100/T-100(f)
under the current rule. The definition of Reporting Carrier is not
affected by the possible changes. Previous changes to the T-100/T-
100(f) were expected to affect approximately 100 small entities, and
were certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (Docket OST-1998-4043; 67 FR
49217, July 30, 2002). Therefore, we believe that, if the changes we
are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f) are adopted, there will
likely be no significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey would affect all Carriers
operating aircraft with 15 or more seats and issuing tickets for travel
on scheduled interstate passenger services to or from, or within, the
U.S. Four small entities would cease to report the O&D Survey, while
four different small entities would begin to report the O&D Survey.
Small entities represent 9.5 percent of Participating Carriers under
the proposed rule, and 100 percent of Newly Participating Carriers
under the proposed rule. Our proposed rules do contain direct
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that would
affect small entities. However, the Department cannot exempt all small
carriers from reporting the passengers they carry without jeopardizing
the completeness and accuracy of the traffic statistics. Small entities
are integrated into the fabric of the global aviation industry. Many
passengers carried by large U.S. Air Carriers begin their journeys on
small Carriers. Exemption of that category of Ticketed Itineraries from
reporting affects the integrity of the statistical data and would
affect some markets disproportionately, thereby introducing bias into
the data. The Department believes that the best way to minimize the
negative effects of regulation on small entities is to correct the
Department's reliance on Directional Passengers, change the reporting
responsibility to the Issuing Carrier, and obtain information about 100
percent of Ticketed Itineraries.
Small entities benefit from cost-effective access to better
information that is critical to making sound business decisions. Small
entities are more dependent on the Department's data than are larger
competitors which can afford alternative data sources. However, all
Carriers must be confident that the statistical and financial data
disseminated by the Department measure the industry accurately. The
Department must use the correct metrics to reflect the global airline
industry and must disseminate industry statistics in ways that are
useful and understandable for all stakeholders. The proposed changes to
the O&D Survey and the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f)
will increase the efficiency of all Carriers. More complete data reduce
the need for supplemental reports and specialized data processing,
which are a greater burden to smaller Carriers. Our new rules would
also benefit most Carriers because, within confidentiality constraints,
all Carriers will have access to data that accurately and completely
reflect the state of the airline industry, including traffic and
operating data. More timely data submission (by carriers) and data
dissemination (by the Department) will enhance the usefulness of the
collected data. Furthermore, small entities will benefit from complete
(e.g., 100 percent) data for the markets they themselves serve.
Section 213(a) of SBREFA requires the Department to assist small
entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects of them and participate in the rulemaking process.
We encourage small entities to contact Richard Pittaway at the address listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT with any questions about the proposed rule, its
provisions, or options for compliance.
b. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Statement
We do not anticipate that the changes we are considering making to
the T-100/T-100(f) will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses. Although we anticipate that the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey, and therefore the proposed rule,
may have a significant economic impact on the four small entities that
will become Newly Participating Carriers, we believe that the benefits
gained by all small entities, including these four Carriers, offset the
additional costs. Because four small entities will become Participating
Carriers while four other small entities will no longer be required to
report the O&D Survey, we believe that the net impact of the proposed
rule is relatively small. Accordingly, I certify that the proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Interested persons may address our conclusions under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act in their comments submitted in response
to this notice of proposed rulemaking.
c. O&D Survey
Inherent in the RFA is a desire to remove barriers to competition.
New entrant competitors are the lifeblood of the airline industry,
bringing innovations and new business concepts to the marketplace.
Within the aviation sector, small entities are disadvantaged relative
to larger entities. Large carriers have the resources and longevity to
research and develop markets using costly information independent of
the statistical data disseminated by the Federal government.
Small and new entrant Carriers depend on the Department's traffic
data to a greater degree in planning their businesses than do larger
and incumbent Carriers. Inaccurate and incomplete data disseminated by
the Department disproportionately hinders small and new entrant
Carriers. The Regional Airline Association (Docket OST-1998-4043-11),
an association of small and medium-sized Carriers, stated in its ANPRM
comments that "it is clear that for the U.S. regional airline
industry, the current data collection process is both inappropriate and
inconsistent. The current structure of reporting rules and regulations
offer what the Association considers to be an approach to information
gathering that is out of step with the current operating environment
for regional airlines."
Smaller airports are also disadvantaged under the current reporting
requirements. These airports are often predominantly served by smaller,
non-reporting Franchise Code-Share Partners; trips taken on non-
reporting Carriers are missing from the O&D Survey data. Small airports
that are served from only one hub are more vulnerable to circuity
factors inappropriately identifying a break in the direction of travel.
Even if every part of a Ticketed Itinerary were reported correctly,
small airports would still be disadvantaged because the 10 percent
sample is less accurate and reliable for the small number of passengers
traveling there. Without accurate and complete scheduled passenger
traffic data, smaller airports are less able to schedule services,
assess facilities demand, and identify growth opportunities.
As shown in Table 1, 38 U.S. Air Carriers will be affected by the
proposed changes to the O&D Survey. Of the 13 formerly Participating
Carriers (i.e., those Carriers that would no longer submit the O&D
Survey under the proposed rule), four are considered small business
entities under the Small Business Administration's Table of Small
Business Size Standards. The remaining nine have more than 1,500
employees and/or are subsidiaries of parent companies where the total
employees are more than 1,500 employees.
All four of the newly Participating Carriers are considered small
business entities under the Small Business Administration's Table of
Small Business Size Standards. Because four small entities will no
longer be required to report, and four different small entities will
become Participating Carriers, there is a net addition of zero small
business entities as Participating Carriers for the O&D Survey.
We anticipate that the proposed changes to the O&D Survey may have
a significant economic impact on the small businesses affected. Small
entities represent 100 percent of the newly Participating Carriers and
9.5 percent of Participating Carriers under the proposed rule. We
believe that the annual reporting burden will be less for smaller
entities because they generate, process, store, and submit fewer
Ticketed Itineraries than larger entities. However, we recognize that
the initial reporting burden will be proportionately greater for both
the currently participating small entities and newly participating
small entities.
The Department believes that the most significant reporting burden
on small Carriers will be removed by shifting the reporting
responsibility to the Issuing Carrier. The vast majority of small
carriers, under the proposed system, would not be required to report
the O&D Survey at all. Nonetheless, Carriers that issue Ticketed
Itineraries on their own ticket stock remain a concern under SBREFA.
The Department recognizes that the markets served by Air Taxis and
other similarly small operations represent a significantly different
transportation market. The Department acknowledges that passengers in
this market must be measured differently than the passengers in the
global air transportation market. We do not wish to burden these truly
small carriers serving local needs and have therefore not proposed to
require them to report data. The Department wishes to reduce the
ambiguity in a Carrier's classification as a Participating Carrier.
Moving into and out of the Participating Carrier classification from
time to time is problematic for both the Carrier concerned and for the
community of users of the O&D Survey. This ambiguity in the current
system has had a disproportionately negative impact on smaller entities
since they are more likely to be affected by the current reporting
threshold. Therefore, we propose that (1) carriers only flying planes
within a single state, (2) carriers flying no aircraft with 15 or more
seats, (3) non-scheduled air taxi services, and (4) non-scheduled
helicopter carriers will continue to be exempt from reporting the O&D
Survey.
Because small Carriers provide service to smaller markets, they
will benefit from the additional traffic data that will be available
under the proposed rule. EAS and the Small Community Air Service
Development Program are directed towards smaller markets and require
evaluation of service and fares. Under EAS, the Department determines
the minimum level of service required at each eligible community by
specifying a hub through which the community is linked to the global
air transportation system, and specifying a minimum service level in
terms of flights and available seats. Where necessary, the Department
pays a subsidy to a Carrier to ensure that the specified level of
service is provided. More detailed data will assist the Department in
its allocation of funds to these programs and to eligible Carriers
participating in them.
d. T-100/T-100(f)
As shown in Table 2, 121 U.S. Air Carriers would be affected by the
changes we are considering making to the T-100. Because the proposed
rule makes no change in the criteria for Reporting Carrier, we conclude
that the number of small entities that would be impacted if the changes
we are considering making are adopted is not affected by the content of
those potential changes. Eighty-nine of the 121 U.S. Air Carriers that
would be affected if the changes were adopted are small entities under
the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size
Standards. Nine of the 121 entities are subsidiaries of larger airlines
and the total employee base is greater than 1,500. Twenty-nine of the
121 entities have 1,500 or more employees. Of the remaining 89, 24 have
been confirmed as having fewer than 1,500 employees and 59 are presumed
to have fewer than 1,500 employees based on the total number of
aircraft operated by the individual Carrier. Sources include internal
departmental counts of Carriers' employees, the Regional Airline
Association (
http://www.raa.org/members/AirlineDirectory.htm) and Reference USA
(
http://www.referenceusa.com).
As with the proposed O&D Survey, we believe that the annual
reporting burden associated with the changes we are considering making
for the T-100/T-100(f) will be less for smaller entities because they
operate fewer flights and, therefore, generate, process, store, and
submit fewer records than larger entities. The estimated initial
reporting burden, assuming adoption of the changes being considered,
would be approximately 120 hours, or $6,600 per carrier. However, we
note that BTS has, in the past, provided T-100 reporting software to
Carriers upon request. Small entities that have, in the past, relied
upon BTS software to reduce or even eliminate the initial reporting
burden associated with past changes to the T-100/T-100(f) may be able
to continue to do so.
Furthermore, we note that when approximately 100 small entities
first began to report the T-100, in place of Form 298-C, Schedule T-1,
we found that change would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (67 FR 49217, July 30, 2002).
Therefore, we conclude that the changes we are considering making to
the T-100/T-100(f) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic
impact on the small businesses affected.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 5 CFR 1320.0;
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to (1) Establish a
process, independent of program responsibility, to evaluate proposed
collections of information; (2) manage information resources to reduce
information collection burdens on the public; and (3) ensure that the
public has timely and equitable access to information products and
services. Its purposes include (1) The minimization of the paperwork
burden resulting from the collection of information by or for the
Federal government; (2) ensuring the greatest possible public benefit
from and maximization of the utility of information created, collected,
maintained, used, shared and disseminated for or by the Federal
government; (3) improving the quality and use of Federal information to
strengthen decision making, accountability, and openness in government
and society; (4) minimization of the cost to the Federal government of
the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and
disposition of information; and (5) providing for the dissemination of
public information on a timely basis, on equitable terms, and in a
manner that promotes the utility of the information to the public and
makes effective use of information technology.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) contain collection-of-information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. The reporting and recordkeeping
requirement associated with this proposed rule is being sent to OMB for
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, under OMB NO:
2139-0001 (for the O&D Survey) and OMB NO. 2138-0040 (for the T-100/T-
100(f)).
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey are estimated to reduce the
annual reporting for U.S. Air Carriers from 960 hours per year (240
hours per submission, with data reported quarterly) to 720 hours per
year (60 hours per submission, with data reported monthly). In
addition, by designating the Issuing Carrier as the Participating
Carrier, the proposed changes to the O&D Survey are estimated to reduce
the number of Participating U.S. Air Carriers by nine (13 U.S. Air
Carriers would cease to report while four U.S. Air Carriers would begin
to report). In sum, under the proposed changes to the O&D Survey, the
collective annual reporting burden for U.S. Air Carriers is estimated
at 18,000 hours. When Foreign Air Carriers that operate under 49 U.S.C.
41308 and 41309 and are required, under grant of antitrust immunity, to
report itineraries involving a U.S. point are included, the proposed
changes to the O&D Survey are estimated to result in a collective
annual reporting burden for the world airline industry of 27,360 hours.
These data are detailed in Tables 8 and 9. If these changes are not
made, the collective annual reporting burden for U.S. Air Carriers is
estimated to be 32,640 hours and the collective annual reporting burden
for the world airline industry is estimated to be 45,120.
The changes that we are considering making to the T-100/T-100(f)
are estimated to increase the annual reporting burden for Reporting
Carriers by 2 hours per month, or a total of 24 hours per year. If we
were to make the changes to the T-100/T-100(f) that we are considering,
the collective annual reporting burden for U.S. Air Carriers would be
13,068 hours and the collective annual reporting burden for the world
airline industry would be 24,840. These data are detailed in Tables 10
and 11. If we do not make the changes we are considering, the
collective annual reporting burden under the T-100/T-100(f) would be
10,164 hours for U.S. Air Carriers and 19,320 for the world airline
industry.
Table 12, below, compares the collective annual reporting burden
for the proposed O&D Survey changes to the collective annual reporting
burden under the current rule. Table 13, below, compares the collective
annual reporting burden for the changes we are considering making to
the T-100/T-100(f) to the collective annual reporting burden under the
current rule.
Table 12.--Collective Annual Reporting Burden for U.S. Air Carriers and World Airline Industry Proposed Changes
Versus Current Rule O&D Survey
U.S. Air Carriers |
18,000 |
32,640 |
World Airline Industry |
27,360 |
45,120 |
Table 13.--Collective Annual Reporting Burden for U.S. Air Carriers and World Airline Industry Considered
Changes Versus Current Rule T-100/T-100(f)
U.S. Air Carriers |
13,068 |
10,164 |
World Airline Industry |
24,840 |
19,320 |
a. O&D Survey
Agency: Office of the Secretary.
Title: Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Report.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses.
OMB Clearance Number (Current): 2139-0001 (expires 12/31/06).
OMB Clearance Number (Proposed): To be determined.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Proposed Use of Information: Electronic Dissemination to
Transportation Planners and Analysts.
Frequency: Monthly.
Summary of the Collection of Information: We are proposing that
Issuing Carriers operating aircraft with at least 15 seats report 100
percent of the ticketed itineraries that they issue involving at least
one Origin and/or Destination in the U.S. and to do so monthly. Data
from the O&D Survey are used by the Department to fulfill its aviation
mission.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: To capture the proliferation of code-sharing and increased
use of regional carriers, we will collect information on the Issuing
Carrier, Marketing Carrier, and Operating Carrier as well as flight-
specific data and information about passenger catchment areas.
Description of the Likely Respondents: Respondents are U.S. Air
Carriers issuing tickets for service to, from, or within the U.S. and
operating aircraft with 15 or more seats and Foreign Air Carriers that
operate service involving a U.S. Point under 49 U.S.C. Sections 41308
and 41309.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: We estimate the total
annual burden to 25 U.S. Air Carriers and 13 Foreign Air Carriers
resulting from the proposed rule to be 27,260 hours and $426,816. For
Carriers reporting under the current rule, the proposed rule results in
a net decrease of 240 hours per year per Carrier.
b. T-100/T-100(f)
Agency: Office of the Secretary.
Title: Passenger Report of Traffic and Capacity Statistics--The T-
100/T-100(f) System.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses.
OMB Clearance Number (Current): 2138-0040 (expires 7/31/05).
OMB Clearance Number (Proposed): To be determined.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Proposed Use of Information: Electronic Dissemination to
Transportation Planners and Analysts.
Frequency: Monthly.
Summary of the Collection of Information: We are considering
requiring Carriers subject to T-100/T-100(f) reporting submit expanded
T-100/T-100(f) reports containing two additional data elements. Data
from the T-100/T-100(f) are used by the Department to fulfill its
aviation mission.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The T-100/T-100(f) provides information about the movement
of aircraft and passengers through the national air space system. The
additional data elements will allow a more detailed view of this
traffic and enable the continuation of validating the enhanced O&D
Survey with the T-100/T-100(f) reports.
Description of the Likely Respondents: Respondents are those U.S.
Air Carriers subject to reporting under 14 CFR Part 241 and Foreign Air
Carriers subject to reporting under 14 CFR Part 217.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: We estimate that, should
the changes we are considering to the T-100/T-100(f) be adopted, the
total annual burden would increase by 5,520 hours and $86,112.
6. The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969
The Department has analyzed the proposed changes to the O&D Survey
and the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) for the purpose
of the National Environmental Protection Act (Pub. L. 91-190 as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The proposed amendments will not have
any impact on the quality of the human environment.
7. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
requires Federal agencies to adhere to the fundamental federalism
principles set out in Section 2 as well as to adhere to the criteria
specified in Section 3.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) have been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. We have
determined that the proposed rule will have no substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we
have determined that it does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment or
to warrant consultations with State and local governments.
8. Executive Order 12630
Executive Order 12630, Government Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998;
3 CFR 1988 Comp., p.554), specifies that Federal Agencies should be
sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed the
Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and
carrying out governmental actions, among other purposes.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) would not effect a taking of private
property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order
12630.
9. Executive Order 12988
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), seeks to improve legislative and regulatory drafting to enact
legislation and promulgate regulations that do not unduly burden the
Federal Court System, among other purposes.
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) meet applicable standards in Sections
3(a) and Section 3(b)(2), of Executive Order 12988, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
10. Executive Order 13045
We have analyzed the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the
changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19883, April 23, 1997). The proposed changes to the
O&D Survey and the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) do
not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
11. Executive Order 13175
The proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes being
considered for the T-100/T-100(f) will not have tribal implications,
will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, they are
exempt from the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). If tribal implications are identified during
the comment period, we will undertake appropriate consultations with
the affected Indian tribal officials.
12. Executive Order 13211
We analyzed the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes
being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that the proposed changes to
the O&D Survey and the changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f)
are not classified as a "significant energy action" under that order
and would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
13. OMB Circular No. A-76 (Revised)
We have analyzed the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the
changes being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) under Circular No. A-76
(revised), Performance of Commercial Activities. It is the policy of
the Federal government to ensure that the American people receive
maximum value for their tax dollars by subjecting certain activities of
the government to competition. We find that the activity of collection
of data under the proposed changes to the O&D Survey and the changes
being considered for the T-100/T-100(f) may be deemed a commercial
activity.
14. Regulation Identifier Number
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number 2105-AC71 contained in
the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
M. Glossary
1. Air Carrier. Any citizen of the United States who undertakes,
whether directly or indirectly or by lease or any other arrangement to
engage in air transportation.
2. Airline Designator. The two character airline identifier as
listed in the IATA Airline Coding Directory.
3. ARC. Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC) is a clearinghouse
owned collectively by Carriers to collect ticket information and funds
from individual travel agencies and distribute the information and
funds to the appropriate Carriers.
4. ARNK. Arrival unknown.
5. Carrier. A U.S. Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier.
6. City Code. The IATA location identifier assigned to a city
associated with multiple airports.
7. Currently Participating Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is required to report the O&D Survey under the current
rule and would be required to report the O&D Survey proposed in this
rulemaking.
8. Currently Reporting Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the current
rule and would be required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the rule
proposed in this rulemaking.
9. Designated Carrier Liaison. An individual authorized to act on
behalf of the Participating Carrier in operational matters pertaining
to the Carrier's collection of data and subsequent submission of the
data to the Department.
10. Directional Passenger. A passenger's continuous trip in the
same direction regardless of the number of days the journey takes, but
subject to certain circuity rules designed to approximate the
passenger's True O&D.
11. Fare Category. A summary category of fare basis codes.
12. Franchise Code-Share. A code-share relationship wherein one
Carrier markets air travel as a wet-lease on another Carrier's flights
whether or not a wet-lease agreement per se actually exists, and
wherein one of the Carrier's partners will never appear as the
Marketing Carrier for the other.
13. Franchise Code-Share Partner. In a Franchise Code-Share, the
Carrier that is reported in the O&D Survey as the Operating Carrier but
not as the Marketing Carrier.
14. Flight-Coupon Stage. The portion of a Ticketed Itinerary that
lies between two sequential points of a Ticketed Itinerary. A
passenger's Flight-Coupon Stage may involve multiple takeoffs and
landings. A Flight-Coupon Stage may be on any scheduled transportation
held out and ticketed by the Issuing Carrier.
15. Flight-Stage. The operation of an aircraft from takeoff to
landing. Technical stops are disregarded.
16. Flight-Stage Origin Airport. The airport identifier of the
airport from which a Flight-Stage departs. For intermodal ticketed
ground stations, such as a bus station or a train station,
that station should be treated as an airport.
17. Flight-Stage Destination Airport. The airport identifier of the
airport in which a Flight-Stage arrives. For intermodal ticketed ground
stations, such as a bus station or a train station, that station should
be treated as an airport.
18. Foreign Air Carrier. An airline that is not a U.S. Air Carrier.
19. Formerly Participating Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is required to report the O&D Survey under the current
rule but would not be required to report the O&D Survey under the rule
proposed in this rulemaking.
20. Formerly Reporting Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the current
rule but would not be required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the
rule proposed in this rulemaking.
21. Issuing Carrier. The Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier that is
responsible for the ticket stock on which the Ticketed Itinerary is
issued and that is responsible for collecting the remuneration for the
fare and the taxes and fees. Also known as plating carrier.
22. Issuing Carrier Identifier. The IATA assigned code that
identifies the Carrier that issued a Ticketed Itinerary.
23. Licensed Foreign Air Carrier. A Foreign Air Carrier with a
permit issued under the requirement described in 49 U.S.C. 41301.
24. Mainline Partner. In a Franchise Code-Share, the Mainline
Partner is the Carrier that appears as the marketing carrier.
25. Marketing Carrier. The Carrier that appears as the Carrier for
a Flight-Coupon Stage on a Ticketed Itinerary, whether or not it
actually operates the flight.
26. MIDT. The Marketing Information Data Tape is information, sold
by a GDS, about air travel reservations made through travel agents.
27. Newly Participating Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is not required to report the O&D Survey under the current
rule but would be required to report the O&D Survey under the rule
proposed in this rulemaking.
28. Newly Reporting Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier
that is not required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the current
rule but would be required to report the T-100/T-100(f) under the rule
proposed in this rulemaking.
29. One-way Trip. A collection of information about a journey of
one or more Flight-Stages of a Ticketed Itinerary, which are associated
with one another using a standard methodology that is designed to
approximate the passenger's True O&D.
30. One-way Trip Origin. The first airport of a One-way Trip.
31. One-way Trip Destination. The final airport of a One-way Trip.
32. Operating Carrier. The Carrier whose aircraft and flight crew
are used to perform a Flight-Coupon Stage.
33. Participating Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier
that is required to report the O&D Survey.
34. Passenger, Nonrevenue. A person traveling free or under token
charges, except those expressly named in the definition of Revenue
Passenger; a person traveling at a fare or discount available only to
employees or authorized persons of air carriers or their agents or only
for travel on the business of the carriers; and an infant who does not
occupy a seat. The definition includes, but is not limited to following
examples of passengers when traveling free or pursuant to token
charges:
a. Directors, officers, employees, and others authorized by the air
carrier operating the aircraft;
b. Directors, officers, employees, and others authorized by the air
carrier or another carrier traveling pursuant to a pass interchange
agreement;
c. Travel agents being transported for the purpose of familiarizing
themselves with the carrier's services;
d. Witnesses and attorneys attending any legal investigation in
which such carrier is involved;
e. Persons injured in aircraft accidents, and physicians, nurses,
and others attending such persons;
f. Any persons transported with the object of providing relief in
cases of general epidemic, natural disaster, or other catastrophe;
g. Any law enforcement official, including any person who has the
duty of guarding government officials who are traveling on official
business or traveling to or from such duty;
h. Guests of an air carrier on an inaugural flight or delivery
flights of newly-acquired or renovated aircraft;
i. Security guards who have been assigned the duty to guard such
aircraft against unlawful seizure, sabotage, or other unlawful
interference;
j. Safety inspectors of the National Transportation Safety Board or
the FAA in their official duties or traveling to or from such duty;
k. Postal employees on duty in charge of the mails or traveling to
or from such duty;
l. Technical representatives of companies that have been engaged in
the manufacture, development or testing of a particular type of
aircraft or aircraft equipment, when the transportation is provided for
the purpose of in-flight observation and subject to applicable FAA
regulations;
m. Persons engaged in promoting air transportation;
n. Air marshals and other Transportation Security officials acting
in their official capacities and while traveling to and from their
official duties; and
o. Other authorized persons, when such transportation is undertaken
for promotional purpose.
35. Passenger, Revenue. A passenger for whose transportation an air
carrier receives commercial remuneration. This includes, but is not
limited to, the following examples:
a. Passengers traveling under publicly available tickets including
promotional offers (for example two-for-one) or loyalty programs (for
example, redemption of frequent flyer points);
b. Passengers traveling on vouchers or tickets issued as
compensation for denied boarding or in response to consumer complaints
or claims;
c. Passengers traveling at corporate discounts;
d. Passengers traveling on preferential fares (Government, seamen,
military, youth, student, etc.);
e. Passengers traveling on barter tickets; and
f. Infants traveling on confirmed-space tickets.
36. Reporting event. The event that signals the Participating
Carrier to report a Ticketed Itinerary.
37. Reporting Carrier. An Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier that
is required to report the T-100/T-100(f).
38. TCN. The Transmission Control Number record is a record used to
share information about a Ticketed Itinerary between a GDS and multiple
Carriers or between one Carrier and multiple Carriers.
39. Ticketed Itinerary. The collection of information from an Air
Travel Ticket, issued by an Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier to a
Revenue Passenger. The collection of information about a journey shall
be unique for the Issuing Carrier for the Date of Issue.
40. True O&D. A passenger's view of a purposeful trip of one or
more Flight-Stages, one or more of which include travel by scheduled
air transportation, measured from the beginning of the trip (origin)
until the end of the trip (destination), where the individual intends
to conduct business or engage in leisure activity.
41. United States. The States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States, including the
territorial sea and the overlying airspace.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 241
Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform
System of Accounts.
14 CFR Part 249
Air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in
lending, Uniform System of Accounts.
N. Proposed Rule
Accordingly, the Department proposes to amend 14 CFR chapter II as
follows:
PART 241--UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS FOR AIR CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401, 411, 417.
2. Sections 26-1 through 26-5 and an undesignated center heading
are added to read as follows:
Passenger Origin--Destination Survey
Section 26-1 Applicability
(a) Participating Carriers shall provide data for the Passenger
Origin-Destination Survey (O&D Survey). Participating Carriers shall
prepare information from Ticketed Itineraries for submission as
described in Appendix A to this section and as described in the
Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department
of Transportation.
(b) Participating Carriers with special operating characteristics
may request a waiver and propose an alternative O&D Survey collection
and reporting procedure to the Department. Such departures from the
prescribed O&D Survey practices shall not be authorized unless approved
in writing by the Department.
(c) A Participating Carrier in the O&D Survey shall include:
(1) All Air Carriers issuing Ticketed Itineraries for interstate or
international scheduled passenger services and that operate aircraft
with 15 or more seats, and
(2) Foreign air carriers licensed to hold out service to the U.S.
under 49 U.S.C. 41301 and that have been granted antitrust immunity for
an alliance with a U.S. Air Carrier partner under 49 U.S.C. 41308 and
41309 and operate aircraft with 15 or more seats when issuing Ticketed
Itineraries that include an airport within the U.S.
(d) Carriers that qualify as a Participating Carrier after the
effective date of this regulation will be required to:
(1) File O&D Survey data for testing purposes no more than 30 days
after qualifying as a Participating Carrier and
(2) File O&D Survey data as of the first day of the month that
begins more than 60 days and no more than 91 days after the month the
carrier qualifies as a Participating Carrier.
Section 26-2 Submission of Reports to the O&D Survey
(a) Each Participating Carrier shall submit to the Department, in
the manner specified in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey
Directives, information about Ticketed Itineraries it issues. The
information about Ticketed Itineraries to be reported is found in
Appendix A of this section.
Section 26-3 Certification and Authentication
(a) Certification. (1) Each Participating Carrier shall designate
an elective officer, an executive or a director or such other person as
may be authorized by the carrier to serve as the Designated Company
Official. The Participating Carrier shall disclose the individual's
name, title and such contact information as the Department specifies in
the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives.
(2) The Participating Carrier's Designated Company Official shall:
(a) Certify the authenticity and accuracy of the Participating
Carrier's submission of O&D Survey data to the Department,
(b) Maintain the accuracy of the Participating Carrier's
information on file with the Department,
(c) Provide the Department with a source and accuracy statement,
and
(d) Authorize a Designated Carrier Liaison to act on behalf of the
Participating Carrier in operational matters pertaining to the
company's collection and submission of the O&D Survey.
(3) The certification of the reports, embodied in Schedule A
thereof, shall read as follows: I, the undersigned (Title of certifying
official) of the (Full name of the Participating Carrier) do certify
that reports and supporting documents which are submitted for the O&D
Survey are prepared under my direction: that I carefully examined them
and that they correctly reflect the accounts and records of the
company, and to the best of my knowledge and belief are a complete and
accurate statement of the Ticketed Itineraries to be reported in the
periods reported; that the various items herein reported were
determined in accordance with the standard accounting practices of the
company; and that the data contained herein are reported on a basis
consistent with that of the preceding report except as specifically
noted in explanations that preceded the submission of the Ticketed
Itineraries.
(b) Source and Accuracy Statement. The Participating Carrier's
Source and Accuracy Statement shall disclose the Participating
Carrier's data source, data collection methodology, and measures to
assure data quality.
(c) Designated Company Official. A Participating Carrier's
Designated Company Official may authorize an agent to prepare and to
file the O&D Survey information on behalf of the Participating Carrier.
Such an arrangement does not alter the obligation of the Participating
Carrier to deliver the information properly, deliver the information
promptly, and certify the completeness and accuracy of the information.
(d) Designated Carrier Liaison. The Participating Carrier's
Designated Carrier Liaison will serve as the point of contact between
the Department and the Participating Carrier for the resolution of
reporting issues.
Section 26-4 Retention and Accessibility of Data
Each Participating Carrier shall maintain its prescribed operating
statistics in a manner and at such locations as will permit ready
accessibility for examination by representatives of the Department. The
record retention requirements are prescribed in part 249 of this
chapter.
Section 26-5 Confidentiality of Data.
Data covering the operations of Air Carriers and Foreign Air
Carriers will not be available to the public when the data would cause
damaging competitive impact on the Air Carriers or Foreign Air Carriers
and when adverse effects upon the public interest would result from
disclosure of the data.
3. Appendix A to section 26 is added to read as follows:
Appendix A to Section 26--Instructions to Participating Carriers for
Collecting and Reporting Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Statistics
I. Participating Carriers shall provide data for the O&D Survey.
The authority for these instructions is found in 14 CFR part 241,
section 26, and in the CAB Sunset Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 94-443).
(a) Submission of reportable itineraries.
(1) All Ticketed Itineraries issued by the Participating Carrier
shall be submitted to the Department as described in the Passenger
Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department of
Transportation.
(2) The source of information for the O&D Survey data shall be
the information recorded about a Ticketed Itinerary issued to a
Revenue Passenger by a Participating Carrier. The Participating
Carrier shall record the information about the complete routing of
the Ticketed Itinerary by Flight-Stage the first time the
Participating Carrier receives evidence that the passenger has used
the Ticketed Itinerary for transportation. Evidence that the
passenger has used the Ticketed Itinerary for transportation shall
include notification from the Participating Carrier's own accounting
function or flight boarding control function that the passenger has
been transported or notification from another Air Carrier or Foreign
Air Carrier that the Ticketed Itinerary has been used for
transportation.
(b) Information about Ticketed Itineraries to be reported.
(1) The data to be recorded and reported from Participating
Carriers shall include the following data elements for each Ticketed
Itinerary:
a. Issuing Carrier Identifier: The Issuing Carrier's assigned
IATA recognized three-character identification code.
b. Ticketed Itinerary Identifier: The alphanumeric identifier
for the Ticketed Itinerary.
c. Date of Issue: The local date on which the Ticketed Itinerary
was issued.
d. Fare Amount: The monetary amount the Issuing Carrier receives
from the ticket purchaser, excluding government imposed taxes and
fees, and including the carrier-imposed fees and surcharges, such as
fuel surcharges, for the carriage of a passenger and allowable free
baggage on the passenger's complete itinerary, denominated in U.S.
dollars, and accurate to two decimal places, rounded.
e. Ticketing Entity Outlet Type: The location type code for the
distribution channel that issued the Ticketed Itinerary. The
Department's codes for use in this data element will be listed in
the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the
Department and will be consistent with standard industry practice.
f. Customer Loyalty Program Identifier: The Carrier or alliance
customer loyalty program identifying code under which the passenger
accrues benefits. The Department's codes for use in this data
element will be listed in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey
Directives issued by the Department.
g. Customer Loyalty Program Award Indicator: The one character
identifying code to indicate that customer loyalty program credits
were expended in obtaining the Ticketed Itinerary.
h. Number of Passengers: The count of passengers traveling on
the Ticketed Itinerary.
i. Itinerary Copy Date: 02-14-05 the date that the Participating
Carrier copied O&D Survey information from the Ticketed Itinerary.
(2) The data to be recorded and reported, as many times as
necessary, from Participating Carriers shall include the following
data elements repeated for each tax or fee imposed by local, state,
and national government authorities in all countries that are
applicable to the Ticketed Itinerary:
a. Government-imposed tax/fee identifier: The identification
code of each government-imposed tax and government-imposed fee. The
Department's codes for use in this data element will be listed in
the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the
Department.
b. Government-imposed tax/fee amount: This field will contain
the value of the tax or fee specified by the identifier that
precedes it, denominated in U.S. dollars and accurate to two decimal
places, rounded.
(3) The data to be recorded and reported, as many times as
necessary, from Participating Carriers shall include the following
data elements for each Flight-Stage in the order that they appear in
the Ticketed Itinerary:
a. Flight-Stage Sequence Number: The two character ordinal
sequence number beginning with 01 that uniquely identifies the
Flight-Stage of a Ticketed Itinerary.
b. Flight-Stage Origin Airport: The IATA location identifier of
the airport from which a Flight-Stage departs. For intermodal
ticketed ground stations, such as a bus station or a train station,
that station should be treated as an airport.
c. Flight-Stage Destination Airport: The IATA location
identifier of the airport in which a Flight-Stage arrives. For
intermodal ticketed ground stations, such as a bus station or a
train station, that station should be treated as an airport.
d. Marketing Carrier Code: The IATA Airline Designator of the
Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier marketing the Flight-Stage.
e. Operating Carrier Code: The IATA Airline Designator of the
Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier operating the equipment used on
the Flight-Stage.
f. Scheduled Flight Date: The date on which the Flight-Stage is
scheduled to depart.
g. Master Flight Number: The scheduled Carrier Code and true
flight number under which the flight inventory is managed.
h. Scheduled Departure Time: The local time the flight is
scheduled to depart from the Flight-Stage Origin Airport.
i. Scheduled Arrival Time: The local time the flight is
scheduled to arrive at the Flight-Stage Destination Airport.
j. Scheduled Arrival Date: The local date on which the flight is
scheduled to arrive at the Flight-Stage Destination Airport.
k. Fare Basis Code/Ticket Designator: The carrier-assigned
alphanumeric code identifying the fare by class, qualification, and
restriction associated with the Flight-Stage.
l. Ticketing Class of Service: a one-character code indicating
the service cabin within the aircraft in which the passenger is
scheduled to be seated under the fare rules stated for each Flight-
Stage of the Ticketed Itinerary.
(c) Means of reporting.
(1) Participating Carriers shall report data in an electronic
Report Transmission according to the instructions in the Passenger
Origin-Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department of
Transportation.
(d) Corrections to reported information.
(1) When Participating Carriers discover that data have been
incorrectly reported or improperly reported, the Participating
Carrier shall immediately notify the Department of Transportation
according to the instructions found in the Passenger Origin-
Destination Survey Directives issued by the Department. The
Participating Carrier shall correct the problem and resend the
complete record of information about the incorrectly or improperly
reported Ticketed Itineraries according to the procedures found in
the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives.
II. Glossary
Airline Designator means an airline's IATA identifier for the
purpose of marketing flights and listing them in standard
publications such as the OAG.
Air Travel Ticket means one or more paper or electronic
documents or other evidence of contract issued by an Air Carrier or
Foreign Air Carrier to record information about a passenger's
complete itinerary of travel when air travel comprises at least one
part of the journey.
Customer Loyalty Program Identifier means the identifying code
of the Carrier or alliance customer loyalty program under which the
passenger accrues benefits.
Date of Issue means the date an Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier issued the Ticketed Itinerary to a passenger.
Designated Carrier Liaison means the individual that will serve
as the point of contact between the Department and the Participating
Carrier for the resolution of operational submission issues.
Designated Company Official means an elective officer, an
executive or a director or such other person as may be authorized by
the carrier to certify the accuracy of information supplied to the
Department and to specify a Designated Carrier Liaison.
Fare Amount means the monetary amount the Issuing Carrier
receives from the ticket purchaser, excluding government-imposed
taxes and fees, and including the Carrier-imposed fees and
surcharges, such as fuel surcharges, for the carriage of a passenger
and allowable free baggage on the passenger's complete itinerary
denominated in U.S. dollars and accurate to two decimal places,
rounded.
Fare Basis Code/Ticket Designator means the alphanumeric code
identifying the fare by class, qualification, and restriction
associated with the Flight-Stage.
Fare Category means a summary category of fare basis codes.
Flight-Coupon Stage means the portion of an itinerary that lies
between two sequential points of a Ticketed Itinerary. A passenger's
Flight-Coupon Stage may involve multiple takeoffs and landings. A
Flight-Coupon Stage may be on any scheduled transportation held out
and ticketed by the Issuing Carrier.
Flight-Stage Destination Airport means the airport identifier of
the airport in which a Flight-Stage arrives. For intermodal ticketed
ground stations, such as a bus station or a train station, that station should be treated as an airport.
Flight-Stage Origin Airport means the airport identifier of the
airport from which a Flight-Stage departs. For intermodal ticketed
ground stations, such as a bus station or a train station, that
station should be treated as an airport.
Flight-Stage Sequence Number means the two character ordinal
sequence number beginning with 01, followed by 02 etc. that uniquely
identifies each Flight-Stage of a Ticketed Itinerary in the sequence
to be traveled by the passenger. Government-Imposed Tax/Fee Amount
means the monetary amount of the tax or fee associated with the
corresponding Government-Imposed Tax/Fee Identifier, denominated in
U.S. Dollars and accurate to two decimal places, rounded.
Government-Imposed Tax/Fee Identifier means the identification
code of a tax or fee.
Issuing Carrier means the plating Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is responsible for the ticket stock on which the
itinerary is issued. Also, the Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier
that is responsible for collecting the remuneration for the fare and
the taxes and fees from the purchaser of a Ticketed Itinerary.
Issuing Carrier Identifier means the IATA recognized
identification code on file at the Department that uniquely
identifies the carrier that issued the Ticketed Itinerary.
Itinerary Copy Date means the date that the Participating
Carrier copied O&D Survey information from the Ticketed Itinerary.
Marketing Carrier Code means the IATA Airline Designator of the
Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier that appears on a Ticketed
Itinerary as if it will operate the Flight-Stage, whether or not it
actually operates the Flight-Stage.
Marketing Flight Number means the number assigned by the
Marketing Carrier to the Flight-Stage that appears in the Ticketed
Itinerary.
Master Flight Number means the scheduled Carrier Code and true
flight number under which the flight inventory is managed.
Number of Passengers means the count of passengers traveling on
a Ticketed Itinerary.
One-way Trip means a journey taken by a Passenger, described on
Ticketed Itinerary, from the One-way Trip Origin to the One-way Trip
Destination.
One-way Trip Origin means the first airport of a One-way Trip.
One-way Trip Destination means the final airport of a One-way
Trip.
Operating Carrier Code means the carrier code of the Air Carrier
or Foreign Air Carrier operating the equipment used on the Flight-
Stage.
Participating Carrier means an Air Carrier or Foreign Air
Carrier that is required to report the O&D Survey.
Report Transmission means a regularly scheduled electronic
transmission of information about a collection of Ticketed
Itineraries including the transmission identification information
specified in the Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Directives
issued by the Department.
Scheduled Arrival Time means the local time at which the Flight-
Stage is scheduled to arrive at the Flight-Stage Destination
Airport.
Scheduled Departure Time means the local time at which the
Flight-Stage is scheduled to depart from the Flight-Stage Origin
Airport.
Scheduled Flight Date means the local date on which the Flight-
Stage is scheduled to depart.
Source and Accuracy Statement means a disclosure of the
Participating Carrier's data source, data collection methodology,
and measures taken to assure the quality of the data submitted to
the Department.
Ticketed Itinerary means the collection of information from an
Air Travel Ticket, issued by an Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier
to a Revenue Passenger.
Ticketed Itinerary Identifier means the primary identifier of a
Ticketed Itinerary. The Ticketed Itinerary Identifier must be unique
for the Air Carrier or Foreign Air Carrier for the Date of Issue.
The Ticketed Itinerary Identifier may a combination of alphanumeric
characters and blanks.
Ticketing Class of Service means a one-character code indicating
the service cabin within the aircraft in which the passenger is
scheduled to be seated for each Flight-Stage of the Ticketed
Itinerary.
Ticketing Entity Outlet Type means the identifier of the
distribution channel through which the Ticketed Itinerary was
issued.
PART 249--PRESERVATION OF AIR CARRIER RECORDS
4. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401, 411, 413, 417.
§249.20 [Amended]
5. Amend the table in Sec. 249.20 by adding a new entry 11 to read
as follows:
§249.20 Preservation of records by certificated air carriers.
Schedule of Records
11. All books, records, and other source and summary documentation that support the carrier's T-100 reports filed under
Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-206). |
7 years |
Issued in Washington, DC on: January 31, 2005.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-2861 Filed 2-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
1 This was true at some carriers until the advent of
electronic ticketing in the mid-1990s.
2 Office of Inspector General Audit Report Number AV-1998-086
Feb. 24, 1998 p. iii.
3 For example, Airline Industry Metrics, Trends on Demand and
Capacity, Aviation System Performance, Airline Finances, and Service
to Small Airports Number: CC-2004-006
(
http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_pdf.php?id=1237).
4 Summary may be found at
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/rural/scexec.pdf).
5 Information may be obtained from
http://apo.faa.gov/2001ConferenceProc/proc2001/procdoc.htm.
6 Source:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/woerth010903.pdf.
7 Passenger Origin-Destination Data Submitted by Carriers.
AV-1998-086 issued Feb. 24, 1998 pp. 33.
8 One work month = 173.3 staff hours = ((40 hours per week *
52 weeks) divided by 12 months).
9 One work month = 173.3 staff hours = ((40 hours per week *
52 weeks) divided by 12 months).
10 One work month = 173.3 staff hours = ((40 hours per week *
52 weeks) divided by 12 months).
11 Source:
http://www.procurement.irs.treas.gov/tirno04r00005/amend04/wage_determination.txt.
Although these rates are for West Virginia, they are the most recent wages established by the
government and are comparable, in the past, to rates assigned to
other states and districts. We believe that they represent an
accurate estimate of wages for this set of positions, effective in
2004. Furthermore, we do adjust the wages for this employment
category to reflect the specialized requirements of the airline
industry.
12 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996, Section 1213 (Pub. L. 104-264).
13 The average hourly wage for the industry was estimated to
be $10.40 in 1997 (See 62 FR 6718, February 13, 1997). While wages
have, in general, increased over the past seven years, many
employees in the airline industry have experienced wage reductions
and concessions. We therefore estimate the average hourly wage for
the airline industry today to be $15.60 (a 50% increase over the
1997 average hourly wage).
14 One work week = 40 hours.
15 Source: http://www.procurement.irs.treas.gov/tirno04r00005/amend04/wage_determination.txt.
Although these rates are for West Virginia, they are the most recent wages established by the
government and are comparable, in the past, to rates assigned to
other states and districts. We believe that they represent an
accurate estimate of wages for this set of positions, effective in
2004. Furthermore, we do adjust the wages for this employment
category to reflect the specialized requirements of the airline
industry.
16The average hourly wage for the industry was estimated to
be $10.40 in 1997 (See 62 FR 6718, February 13, 1997). While wages
have, in general, increased over the past seven years, many
employees in the airline industry have experienced wage reductions
and concessions. We therefore estimate the average hourly wage for
the airline industry today to be $15.60 (a 50% increase over the
1997 average hourly wage).
|