AIRLINE
PASSENGER
PROTECTIONS
Observationson
FlightDelaysand
Cancellations,and
DOT’sEffortsto
AddressThem
Accessible Version
ReporttoCongressionalRequesters
April 2023
GAO-23-105524
United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office
GAOHighlights
Highlights of GAO-23-105524, a report to
congressional requesters
April 2023
AIRLINE PASSENGER PROTECTIONS
Observations on Flight Delays and Cancellations, and
DOT’s Efforts to Address Them
What GAO Found
Flight cancellation rates in the last 6 months of 2021 outpaced 2018 and 2019
rates despite 14 percent fewer scheduled flights, according to GAO’s analysis of
data from the Department of Transportation (DOT). Increased cancellation rates
continued through April 2022, the most recent data at the time of GAO’s analysis.
In contrast, flight delays in the last 6 months of 2021 remained at similar rates
compared to 2018 and 2019. According to DOT data, factors within the airlines’
control (e.g., aircraft maintenance or lack of crew) were the leading cause of
cancellations from October through December 2021 as well as in April 2022 and
airline-caused delays increased for nearly all airlines in the last half of 2021.
Percentage of Airline-Caused Cancelled Flights, January 2018 through April 2022
Stakeholders said that operational challenges, including a need for additional
pilots and crew, have made it harder for airlines to manage flight disruptions. In
response, airlines added new staff, opened new training facilities, and reduced
the number of scheduled flights, among other things. Airline representatives GAO
interviewed said they attempt to accommodate affected passengers, offering
meal and hotel vouchers. However, consumer advocate representatives were
generally not satisfied with airlines’ responses, noting the significant
inconvenience passengers experienced, such as missing important events.
DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are taking several actions to
address flight disruptions. For example, DOT and FAA met with airlines to
discuss disruptions and airlines’ customer service obligations. In early September
2022, DOT released its Airline Customer Service Dashboard, which shows the
services and amenities U.S. airlines provide if the airline causes a delayed or
cancelled flight. Additionally, DOT monitors chronically delayed flights—a long
standing practice. Over the course of GAO’s review, DOT enhanced its oversight
of airline-scheduling practices. Specifically, DOT began analyzing system-wide
cancellation and on-time performance data and routinely meeting with airlines to
review their scheduling and operational performance. DOT plans to continue
these actions.
View GAO-23-105524. For more information,
contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or
Why GAO Did This Study
As air travel in the U.S. began to
recover from the pandemic in mid-
2021, U.S. passenger airlines
experienced frequent flight disruptions.
These flight disruptions, including
delays and cancellations, continued
into 2022 and affected millions of
passengers. Industry observers raised
questions about airline-scheduling
practices, as well as the role of DOT in
enforcing consumer protections.
GAO was asked to determine key
changes in the U.S. passenger airline
industry resulting from the pandemic.
This report examines (1) trends in and
causes of flight disruptions before and
after the pandemic; (2) challenges
airlines faced managing and
responding to flight disruptions; and (3)
FAA and DOT actions to help address
them.
GAO analyzed DOT data on U.S.
airline operations from January 2018
through April 2022. GAO reviewed
relevant federal statutes and
regulations. GAO interviewed DOT and
FAA officials, as well as
representatives from U.S. passenger
airlines, unions, and consumer
organizations selected based on
background research and prior GAO
work, among other things.
GAO’s draft report recommended that
DOT use network-level (i.e., system-
wide) data to identify instances of
potential unrealistic scheduling. In
response, DOT provided additional
information about its recent analysis of
airlines’ scheduling practices. As a
result, GAO removed the
recommendation and modified the
report accordingly.
Page i GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Contents
GAO Highlights ii
Why GAO Did This Study ii
What GAO Found ii
Letter 1
Background 3
Flight Cancellations Rose Substantially in Late 2021, with Airline-
Caused Cancellations and Delays Outpacing Pre-Pandemic
Levels 10
Airlines Attempted to Respond to Operational Challenges and
Persistent Flight Disruptions with a Range of Actions 18
DOT and FAA Are Taking Actions to Address Flight Disruptions,
Including Analyzing Airlines’ Scheduling Practices 23
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption Snapshots 42
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60
Tables
Table 1: Annual Refund and Flight Problem Complaints Submitted
to the Department of Transportation, 2018 to 2022 24
Table 2: 95th Percentile Thresholds for GAO’s Analyses of
Sustained Cancellation Events 37
Table 3: List of Entities and Individuals Interviewed 40
Figures
Figure 1: Percentage Change from March 2020 to October 2022
in Full-Time Employees at Major U.S. Passenger Airlines,
Compared to February 2020 7
Figure 2: Transportation Security Administration (TSA)-Screened
Passengers and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)-Reported COVID-19 Cases, January
2020 through August 2022 8
Figure 3: Percentage of Total Flights Cancelled from July through
December, 2018, 2019, and 2021 11
Page ii GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 4: Percentage of Total Flights Cancelled from January
through April, 2018, 2019, and 2022 12
Figure 5: Percentage of Flights Delayed from January 2018
through April 2022 14
Figure 6: Percentage of Cancelled Flights Caused by Airlines,
January 2018 through April 2022 15
Figure 7: Percentage of Total Cancelled Flights Attributed to
Airlines, July through December 2019, 2021 16
Figure 8: Percentage of Delay-Minutes Attributed to Airlines, July
through December 2019, 2021 17
Figure 9 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 8, 2021 through
October 11, 2021 43
Figure 10 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 8,
2021 through October 11, 2021 43
Figure 11 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United
States (Origin City), October 8, 2021 through October 11,
2021 43
Accessible Data for Figure 9 Cancelled and Delayed Flights,
October 8, 2021 through October 11, 2021 44
Accessible Data for Figure 10 Reported Causes of Flight
Cancellations, October 8, 2021 through October 11, 2021 44
Accessible Data for Figure 11 Cancelled Flight Locations in the
Contiguous United States (Origin City), October 8, 2021
through October 11, 2021 44
Figure 12 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 28, 2021
through November 1, 2021 48
Figure 13 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 28,
2021 through November 1, 2021 48
Figure 14 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United
States (Origin City), October 28, 2021 through November
1, 2021 48
Accessible Data for Figure 12 Cancelled and Delayed Flights,
October 28, 2021 through November 1, 2021 49
Accessible Data for Figure 13 Reported Causes of Flight
Cancellations, October 28, 2021 through November 1,
2021 49
Accessible Data for Figure 14 Cancelled Flight Locations in the
Contiguous United States (Origin City), October 28, 2021
through November 1, 2021 49
Figure 15 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, July 29, 2021 through
August 9, 2021 56
Page iii GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 16 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, July 29, 2021
through August 9, 2021 56
Figure 17 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United
States (Origin City), July 29, 2021 through August 9,
2021 56
Accessible Data for Figure 15 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, July
29, 2021 through August 9, 2021 57
Accessible Data for Figure 16 Reported Causes of Flight
Cancellations, July 29, 2021 through August 9, 2021 57
Accessible Data for Figure 17 Cancelled Flight Locations in the
Contiguous United States (Origin City), July 29, 2021
through August 9, 2021 58
Abbreviations
ASQP Airline Service Quality Performance System
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking
PSP Payroll Support Program
TSA Transportation Security Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Letter
April 13, 2023
The Honorable Sam Graves
Chairman
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Garret Graves
Chairman
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe and profound effect on the U.S.
aviation industry. Domestic passenger airlines experienced an
unprecedented drop in passenger traffic in 2020, and since then their
recovery has been uneven. Congress provided about $54 billion to
passenger airlines through the Payroll Support Program (PSP).
1
Despite
this support, which barred recipient airlines from conducting involuntarily
furloughs or terminations during certain time periods, many airlines
reduced their workforce, including pilots and flight attendants, through
early retirements or other incentives to help manage costs.
2
Due to these workforce reductions, airlines faced challenges resuming
operations when travel demand began to rapidly recover in the spring and
summer of 2021. Several severe, high-profile flight disruptions—involving
flight cancellations and delays—affected thousands of passengers in the
summer and fall of 2021. For example, Spirit Airlines cancelled more than
2,000 flights in late July and August 2021, according to media outlets and
the airline’s financial filings. As flight disruptions have persisted
1
Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 4112, 134 Stat. 281, 498 (2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 9072);
Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IV, § 402, 134 Stat. 1182, 2053 (2020) (codified at 15
U.S.C. § 9092); Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 7301, 135 Stat. 4, 104-107. Including these funds,
COVID-19 relief laws have provided more than $100 billion in assistance for aviation
businesses and airports since March 2020, in response to the public health and economic
crises.
2
For information about the effects of the pandemic on the aviation industry, among other
things, see GAO, COVID-19 Pandemic: Observations on the Ongoing Recovery of the
Aviation Industry, GAO-22-104429 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2021).
Letter
Page 2 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
throughout 2022, affecting millions of passengers, industry observers
have raised questions about the extent to which the pandemic has
permanently affected the passenger airline industry—and whether the
Department of Transportation (DOT) is fulfilling its mission to protect
passengers, especially those who have been affected by the ongoing
flight disruptions.
3
You asked us to review key changes in the U.S. passenger airline
industry resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This report addresses
three objectives:
1. how flight disruptions in 2021 and 2022 and their underlying causes
compare to the 2 years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic;
2. the operational challenges airlines faced in managing flight
disruptions, and actions airlines have taken to address them; and
3. the actions taken by DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in 2021 and 2022 to help address flight disruptions.
To address these objectives, we analyzed data collected by DOT’s
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) from January 2018 through
April 2022, the most recently available data at the time of our analysis, on
U.S. domestic flight delays and cancellations and airline operations.
4
Because there is a several month lag before BTS publishes each month’s
airline performance data, our data analysis is limited to the first 4 months
of 2022. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes by reviewing documentation and electronic testing of data.
Further, we conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives
from a non-generalizable sample of 15 stakeholders, including four
airlines; three unions representing pilots and flight attendants; three
industry associations; two consumer organizations; one trade association;
and two academics. We also interviewed DOT and FAA officials. For
additional information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2021 to April 2023
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
3
More recently, during the 2022-2023 holiday season, Southwest Airlines delayed and
cancelled thousands of flights over multiple days.
4
For the purposes of our analysis, we excluded 2020 data in certain instances. Given the
effects of the pandemic on the industry, 2020 airline operational data are not comparable
to other years.
Letter
Page 3 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
AirlineOperationsandFlightDisruptions
The U.S. passenger airline industry, composed primarily of network,
regional, and low-cost airlines, is a vital contributor to the domestic
economy. In 2019, the U.S. aviation industry supported $852.3 billion in
direct economic activity, and contributed 2 percent of U.S. gross domestic
product, according to a report issued by FAA.
5
The aviation industry also
plays a critical role in supporting tourism and other travel-related
industries. Network airlines operate complex hub-and-spoke operations
with thousands of employees and hundreds of aircraft. Regional airlines
operate smaller aircraft, typically under contract to network airlines, and
generally provide service to smaller communities. Low-cost airlines tend
to operate more affordable point-to-point service mostly within the U.S.
Airline operations are complex, and many factors may affect airlines’
operational and on-time performance. Tens of thousands of flights on
average operate in the National Airspace System each day. As part of
these operations, airlines have always experienced some amount of flight
disruptions, which can include prolonged flight cancellations and delays.
6
Some of the factors that cause flight disruptions, such as mechanical
5
FAA, The Economic Impact of U.S. Civil Aviation: 2020. These values represent the
direct aviation sector, which includes airline and airport operations, and aircraft
manufacturing, among other things. This report also includes information about the
economic impact of civil aviation in 2020.
6
For the purposes of reporting airline performance data to DOT, a cancellation is a flight
operation that was not operated, but that was listed in a carrier’s computer reservation
system within 7 calendar days of the scheduled departure. 14 C.F.R. § 234.2. Delays can
range in severity. For the purposes of reporting an arrival delayed flight to BTS, airlines
must report a flight as delayed if it arrives at the gate 15 minutes or more after its
published arrival time. “Diversions,” defined as a flight that is operated from the origin to a
point other than the scheduled destination point, are another type of flight disruption. We
excluded diversions for the purposes of this report. Although in law, U.S. airlines are
generally referred to as “air carriers” we will refer to them as “airlines” for the purpose of
this report.
Letter
Page 4 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
issues or crew staffing, are within the airline’s control, while other factors,
such as weather, are not.
Federal regulations require that U.S. passenger airlines report monthly
data to BTS on airline operations and on-time performance, including
data on cancellations, delays, and their causal factors.
7
BTS requires that
airlines report the primary cause of cancellations in one of the following
categories:
8
· Air carrier (Airline): This category includes factors that are within the
airline’s control, such as aircraft maintenance or a lack of crew.
· Extreme weather: This category includes actual or forecasted
weather conditions that prevent the operation of the flight or
subsequent flights due to the aircraft being out of position because of
weather conditions.
· National Aviation System: This category includes factors that are
within the National Aviation System, including, for example, non-
extreme weather, heavy traffic volume, and air traffic control issues.
· Security: This category includes factors resulting from the
malfunctioning screening or security equipment, or certain breaches
of security.
9
These same four categories apply when airlines report arrival delays. For
arrival delays, however, airlines can attribute a delay to a fifth category:
late arriving aircraft, which are delays that are the result of a late incoming
aircraft from a previous flight. Unlike for cancellations, airlines must report
each cause of delay that contributes 5 minutes or more to the delay.
7
Airlines whose domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues exceeds 0.5 percent are
required to report on-time performance to DOT. 14 C.F.R. § 234.2. Reporting airlines
include network airlines, regional airlines, low-cost airlines, and ultra-low cost airlines. In
2022, 17 airlines were required to report data to BTS. These airlines represent
approximately 96 percent of passenger traffic in the U.S., according to DOT officials.
8
Although airlines typically track specific reasons for flight delays and cancellations
internally, they only report a single cause for a cancelled flight to BTS.
9
Pursuant to DOT guidance, this category also includes compliance with federal directives
and notices to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, closure of National Aviation System
facilities to protect people from the spread of COVID-19, and airline management of
system capacity because of actions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. See Reporting
the Causes of Flight Delays and Cancellations Given the Unprecedented Impact of the
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency on Air Travel, United States Department of
Transportation Office of the Secretary (April 17, 2020).
Letter
Page 5 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Airlines must also report the total minutes the cause contributed to the
delay. Therefore, airlines may report multiple causes to BTS for a single
flight delay.
When airline operations are disrupted, airlines attempt to minimize the
effects of disruptions on their network and passengers. As we have
previously reported, flight delays and cancellations that occur in one
location of an airline’s network can cause subsequent disruptions
elsewhere in the airline’s network.
10
This ripple effect often occurs
because key resources, such as aircraft and airline’s staff, do not get to
their next destination in time to operate the subsequent flight. As a result,
flight disruptions can persist for days after the event that triggered the
disruption if the airline does not have sufficient capacity to clear the
backlog.
PassengerAirlinesandthePandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered an unprecedented
reduction in demand for air travel in 2020, Congress established multiple
federal relief programs for the aviation industry totaling more than $100
billion.
11
One of these programs, PSP, provided up to $54 billion in
financial assistance for passenger airlines to use exclusively for employee
wages, salaries, and benefits. This assistance contained provisions to
keep employees on airlines’ payroll.
12
According to an aviation industry
association, maintaining a stable workforce helped airlines be better
positioned to restart operations when demand for air travel recovered.
10
GAO, National Airspace System: DOT and FAA Actions Will Likely Have a Limited Effect
on Reducing Delays during Summer 2008 Travel Season, GAO-08-934T (Washington,
D.C.: July 15, 2008).
11
For a summary of these programs, see GAO-22-104429.
12
In total, PSP provided up to $63 billion for passenger airlines, cargo airlines, and
aviation contractors. According to data available in March 2022, passenger airlines
received about $53.4 billion in payments, aviation contractors received about $4.6 billion,
and cargo airlines received about $827.4 million. Most of the remaining funds were
appropriated but not awarded to cargo airlines, because total demand by cargo airlines
was far below available funds. For more information about the program, see GAO,
COVID-19: Current and Future Federal Preparedness Requires Fixes to Improve Health
Data and Address Improper Payments, GAO-22-105397 (Washington, D.C.: April 27,
2022).
Letter
Page 6 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
PSP was implemented through three COVID-19 relief laws.
13
Each of the
three rounds of PSP prohibited airlines from conducting involuntary
furloughs and terminations and required airlines to maintain minimum
service obligations, among other things. These requirements generally
only applied during timeframes specified in each COVID-19 relief law. For
the most recent round of PSP, prohibitions on involuntary furloughs and
terminations expired the later of September 30, 2021, or when the
recipient had expended all of its payroll support.
While recipients receiving payments from PSP were prohibited from
conducting involuntary terminations and furloughs during specified time
periods, they could—and did—offer voluntary incentives to reduce their
workforce. Those incentives included voluntary unpaid leave or
separation or early retirement. For example, at one airline about 18,000
employees participated in early retirement and voluntary separation
programs in 2020, according to the airline’s financial filings. Airlines also
halted non-essential hiring.
These actions resulted in significant reductions in the airlines’ workforces
in 2020, as shown in figure 1. For example, the number of full-time
employees for major U.S. passenger airlines decreased by about 9.5
percent between February 2020 and May 2020.
14
As passenger demand
for air travel returned in the spring of 2021, airlines began hiring new
employees, including pilots. In October 2022, the number of full-time
employees at major U.S. passenger airlines was 2.8 percent above pre-
pandemic levels (February 2020).
13
These laws were the CARES Act (Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 4112, 134 Stat. 281, 498
(2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 9072), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L.
No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IV, § 402, 134 Stat. 1182, 2053 (2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §
9092), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 7301, 135 Stat. 4,
104-107)(codified at 15 U.S.C. § 9141).
14
We analyzed data on full-time employees for the major airlines, defined by BTS as
airlines with over $1 billion annual operating revenue. We only analyzed data for
passenger airlines, and we excluded five cargo airlines that are considered major airlines.
Letter
Page 7 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 1: Percentage Change from March 2020 to October 2022 in Full-Time Employees at Major U.S. Passenger Airlines,
Compared to February 2020
Note: We analyzed data on full-time employees for the major airlines, defined by BTS as airlines with
over $1 billion annual operating revenue. We only analyzed data for passenger airlines, and we
excluded five cargo airlines that are considered major airlines.
According to an aviation industry association, by summer 2021, after
COVID-19 vaccines became more widely available to the public,
passenger demand for domestic leisure air travel was returning to near
pre-pandemic levels. For example, the number of passengers on
scheduled passenger domestic flights in the second half of 2021 was
about 13.6 percent below the number during the same period in 2019.
15
TSA screening data, a proxy for passenger demand, shows that demand
for air travel continued to increase in 2022.
16
For example, from January
through June 2022 screening levels were about 3.5 percent higher than
the previous 6 months. See figure 2 for key trends during the COVID-19
pandemic.
15
Our scope was limited to data from 10 airlines that sell passengers’ tickets that report
monthly data to BTS. The airlines we included in this calculation were Alaska Airlines,
Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines,
JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and United Airlines.
16
TSA screened passenger data include TSA, airport, and airline employees transiting
checkpoints and therefore represents slightly more than actual passenger traffic.
Letter
Page 8 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 2: Transportation Security Administration (TSA)-Screened Passengers and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)-Reported COVID-19 Cases, January 2020 through August 2022
a
TSA screened passenger data include TSA, airport, and airline employees transiting checkpoints
and therefore represents slightly more than actual passenger traffic. The 7-day moving averages
were calculated as the (current day + 6 preceding days)/7, where data were reported. The TSA data
were accessed on August 16 and August 18, 2022. TSA data are subject to change.
b
Reported COVID-19 cases include confirmed and probable cases. The 7-day moving averages were
calculated as the (current day + 6 preceding days)/7, where data were reported. The CDC data were
accessed on August 17, 2022.
c
The TSA screened passenger data on February 29, 2020 were not reported and therefore not
included in the 7-day moving average.
DOT’sRegulatoryEfforts
While U.S. airlines’ business practices are largely deregulated, a number
of consumer protections are in place at the federal level.
17
DOT, which is
17
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 largely deregulated U.S. airlines’ business
practices, including removing federal control over airline pricing and routes, and state and
local governments are generally preempted by federal law from regulating airlines’ prices,
routes, or service. See 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). As such, state governments and
individuals are prevented from bringing lawsuits against airlines on prices, services, and
routes. However, airline passengers may still bring lawsuits against airlines concerning
contractual obligations undertaken by an airline, including for an airline’s failure to honor
its contract of carriage, a legal document that includes rights, liabilities, and duties of the
airline and passenger.
Letter
Page 9 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
responsible for ensuring airlines comply with federal consumer protection
laws and regulations, has authority to investigate and order airlines to
stop engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and may promulgate
consumer protection regulations under this authority.
18
DOT’s Office of
Aviation Consumer Protection is responsible for investigating potentially
unfair and deceptive airline practices, such as unrealistic scheduling of
flights. The office also provides compliance assistance to airlines. If DOT
finds that an airline has violated consumer protection requirements, it has
the authority to take enforcement action, including assessing civil
penalties. DOT also provides information to educate passengers about
their rights and services provided by airlines.
In addition, DOT requires airlines to provide cash refunds to passengers
whose flights are cancelled or significantly changed, and DOT issued a
proposed rule in August 2022 to define these terms.
19
Beyond DOT’s
requirement for airlines to provide cash refunds to passengers for
cancelled or significantly changed flights, airline compensation to
passengers is generally limited. Airlines are not required to provide
accommodations for flight disruptions unless specified in an airline’s
contract of carriage or customer service plan, although airlines may
provide additional accommodations in certain circumstances. As we have
previously reported, airline assistance to affected passengers can vary
significantly.
20
Flight disruptions, particularly if they are long lasting, can
significantly inconvenience passengers.
18
See 49 U.S.C. § 41712, 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(4),(9).
19
Current regulations do not define cancelled or significantly changed flights in the context
of an airline’s legal obligation to provide refunds. However, DOT’s August 2022 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections, proposes to
define a significant change of flight itinerary. 87 Fed. Reg. 51550 (Aug. 22, 2022). The
proposed definition would include, among other things, changes to a flight itinerary for a
domestic flight when a passenger departs from the origination airport 3 or more hours
earlier than the scheduled departure, or arrives at the destination airport 3 hours or more
later than the scheduled arrival time. DOT also proposes to define a cancelled flight as a
flight that was published in the airline’s Computer Reservation System at the time the
ticket was sold, but was not operated. This rulemaking closed for public comment on
December 16, 2022.
20
GAO, Commercial Aviation: Information on Airline IT Outages, GAO-19-514
(Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2019).
Letter
Page 10 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
FlightCancellationsRoseSubstantiallyinLate
2021,withAirlineCausedCancellationsand
DelaysOutpacingPrePandemicLevels
Our analysis found that flight cancellations increased in the second half of
2021 and the first 4 months of 2022, outpacing cancellation rates in both
2018 and 2019 despite fewer flights overall. In addition, BTS data show
that factors within the airlines’ control were the leading causes of flight
cancellations and delays in the last 3 months of 2021, as well as in April
2022.
FlightCancellationsIncreasedintheSecondHalfof
2021,OutpacingPrePandemicRates,butDelayRates
WereRoughlytheSame
Based on our analysis, flight cancellation rates increased from July
through December 2021, despite around 14 percent fewer scheduled
flights during that time period.
21
In early 2021, air traffic remained low. As
travel demand rose in the second half of the year, cancellation rates
increased in several months compared to the same time period in 2018
and 2019 (see fig. 3). Specifically, flight cancellations in the last 6 months
of 2021—when passenger demand was approaching near pre-pandemic
levels—were up approximately 16 percent compared to the last half of
2019. The majority of U.S airlines reporting data to BTS (7 of 10)
cancelled a larger percentage of their flights in the last half of 2021
compared to both 2018 and 2019.
21
Cancellation rates are calculated by dividing the total number of cancelled flights by the
number of scheduled flights.
Letter
Page 11 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 3: Percentage of Total Flights Cancelled from July through December, 2018, 2019, and 2021
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded 2020 data. Given the effects of the pandemic on
the industry, 2020 airline operational data are not comparable to other years.
Flight cancellations increased in early 2022. Compared to 2018 and 2019,
airlines continued to cancel flights at higher rates through February 2022,
with substantial improvement in March and April (see fig. 4). Many of
these winter cancellations were primarily caused by weather events. We
found that the total number of flight cancellations in the first 4 months of
2022 (81,593) exceeded the flights cancelled during the same time period
in 2018 (56,356) and 2019 (67,190).
Letter
Page 12 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 4: Percentage of Total Flights Cancelled from January through April, 2018,
2019, and 2022
Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded 2020 data. Given the effects of the pandemic on
the industry, 2020 airline operational data are not comparable to other years.
Airlines continued to experience flight cancellations throughout 2022,
beyond the timeframe of our analysis.
22
According to data separately
reported by BTS, cancellations over Memorial Day weekend (Friday May
27, 2022, through Monday May 30, 2022) increased to 3.1 percent of
flights compared to 1.1 percent during the 2019 Memorial Day holiday.
23
Flight cancellations continued over the July Fourth 2022 holiday
weekend. More broadly, BTS data indicate that the cancellation rate in
2022 was the highest in the past decade, with the exception of 2020. Air
travel demand continued to rise despite the disruptions. From January
through June 2022, passenger throughput was about 3.5 percent higher
than the previous 6 months, according to TSA data.
24
Additionally, in
December 2022 Southwest cancelled 16,700 flights during the holiday
travel period, according to the airline’s financial filings. Media reports at
22
Due to lags in reporting BTS airline performance data, we were only able to analyze
flight disruptions between July 2021 and April 2022.
23
BTS reports data about delays and cancellations during holiday travel seasons by
reporting airline for 10 major airlines from 1987 to present.
24
TSA-screened passenger data include TSA, airport, and airline employees’ transiting
checkpoints, and therefore represents slightly more than actual passenger traffic.
Letter
Page 13 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
the time of the event estimated that these cancellations represented over
70 percent of the airline’s scheduled flights on certain days. The
disruption resulted in DOT initiating an investigation into Southwest to
determine whether the airline set an unrealistic schedule and provided
timely refunds and reimbursements to passengers.
Sustained cancellation events, or a series of days where an airline
cancelled a large percentage of daily flights, lasted longer and became
more common as travel demand increased. Specifically, while some flight
cancellations are inevitable due to weather and other events, BTS data
indicate that both in the second half of 2021 and in early 2022 airlines
experienced longer, more frequent sustained cancellation events as
compared to the 2 years before the pandemic.
25
Our analysis showed:
· From July to December 2021, on average, it took 1.9 days for an
airline to recover from a sustained cancellation event. In comparison,
in both the second halves of 2018 and 2019, it took airlines around
1.5 days on average to recover. In the first 4 months of 2022, it took
airlines even longer to recover from these events, averaging nearly 3
days per event compared to 1.6 days and 1.3 days in the first 4
months of 2019 and 2018, respectively.
· In the last half of 2021, there were 6.3 percent more sustained
cancellation events than during the same time period in 2018, and
12.2 percent more than in 2019, despite 14 percent fewer scheduled
flights compared to 2019.
26
In the first 4 months of 2022, the number
of sustained cancellation events increased even more substantially,
with 56.9 percent more events in this time period compared to the
same 4-month time period in 2018, and 42.9 percent more than in the
first 4 months of 2019.
27
There were 12.6 percent fewer scheduled
flights during the relevant 2022 time period as compared to the same
time period in 2019.
25
We defined sustained cancellation events as an ongoing series of days where an airline
cancelled flights at a higher rate than 95 percent of the days in 2018 and 2019. When an
airline’s daily cancellation rate dropped below this threshold, we considered it “recovered”
from the event. To account for seasonal trends in airline operations, we adjusted the daily
cancellation threshold each quarter.
26
From July through December of each year, we identified 95 sustained cancellation
events in 2018, 90 in 2019, and 101 in 2021.
27
From January through April of each year, we identified 51 sustained cancellation events
in 2018, 56 in 2019, and 80 in 2022.
Letter
Page 14 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Although flight delays have steadily increased with the return of air travel
demand in the summer of 2021, they remained similar to pre-pandemic
levels through April 2022 (see fig. 5). In the second half of 2021,
approximately 19 percent of domestic flights were delayed at least 15
minutes compared to 18 percent of flights in 2019 and 19 percent of
flights in 2018. Flight delays were also similar to pre-pandemic levels for
both shorter delays under 45 minutes, and longer delays over 75 minutes.
While there may be other contributing factors, fewer flights in the last half
of 2021 compared to 2018 and 2019 may have helped mitigate the
number of flight delays and congestion in the national airspace.
Figure 5: Percentage of Flights Delayed from January 2018 through April 2022
Note: Flights are considered delayed by BTS if they arrive at least 15 minutes late.
AirlineCausedCancellationsandDelaysHaveIncreased
SincethePandemicBegan,withaSubstantialIncreasein
CancellationsinLate2021
Unlike in 2018 and 2019, our analysis of BTS data showed that factors
within the airlines’ control were the leading causes of flight cancellations
Letter
Page 15 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
in the last 3 months of 2021.
28
In 2018 and 2019, weather was the leading
cause of flight cancellations. However, the proportion of airline-caused
cancellations began to increase after February 2021 (see fig. 6). From
October through December 2021, airlines caused 60 percent or more of
flight cancellations each month, exceeding any point reached in 2018 and
2019.
29
Airlines were again the leading cause of flight cancellations in
April 2022.
Figure 6: Percentage of Cancelled Flights Caused by Airlines, January 2018 through April 2022
Note: Airlines attribute cancellations in BTS data to one of four causes: Extreme weather events; Air
Carrier (the airline or factors within an airline’s control); the National Aviation System, such as Federal
28
According to BTS, air carrier delays and cancellations can represent issues like staffing,
mechanical issues with a plane, or IT outages; however, these specific causes are not
captured in BTS’ data. Airlines are required to report data about delays, cancellations, and
causal factors to DOT, and airlines certify the accuracy of the data. DOT officials said that
DOT does not take any steps to verify the attributed cause of cancellations or delays.
However, DOT does perform some checks to validate the data, including cross checking
the data with another database. DOT officials said that the data in the two databases
generally correspond.
29
Aligning with our data analysis, we found that factors within an airline’s control extended
three selected flight disruptions that occurred in late 2021. In each case, airline
representatives told us that airline staffing and other operational challenges contributed to
each incident, and extended the amount of time it took the airlines to recover from an
initial disruptive event, such as severe weather. Appendix 2 provides additional details
about each of the flight disruptions we examined and their reported causes, and we
discuss airlines’ operational challenges more broadly later in the report.
Letter
Page 16 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Aviation Administration ground delays and airspace congestion; or security, such as airport security
breaches.
From July through December 2021, the percentage of airline-caused
cancellations increased for every airline reporting BTS data compared to
2019 (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Percentage of Total Cancelled Flights Attributed to Airlines, July through December 2019, 2021
Note: Cancelled flights attributed to airlines represents the percentage of airline-caused cancelled
flights out of the total number of flight cancellations during that time period.
Although flights were delayed at similar rates in 2021 overall compared to
2018 and 2019, the reported causes of flight delays changed during the
pandemic. In 2018 and 2019, late-arriving aircraft were generally the
leading cause of flight delays, shifting to airline-caused delays when the
pandemic began in March 2020.
30
Airlines continued to be the leading
cause of delays throughout 2021, as air traffic returned to near pre-
pandemic levels. For all but one airline reporting BTS data, the
percentage of airline-caused delays they reported increased in the last
half of 2021 compared to the same time period in 2019 (see fig. 8). These
30
Late arriving aircraft can cause a delayed flight, but that previous flight is delayed for
another cause. Flights flying connected routes are not linked in the BTS dataset, and
therefore, the initial cause of the delay is unknown.
Letter
Page 17 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
patterns generally continued through April 2022. Because airlines can
report multiple causes for a flight’s delay and BTS data on delays are
reported in minutes, a single flight may have delay-minutes attributed to
more than one cause.
Figure 8: Percentage of Delay-Minutes Attributed to Airlines, July through December 2019, 2021
While BTS data on flight disruptions (including flight cancellations and/or
delays) do not include the number of passengers on each scheduled
flight, the 2021 and 2022 flight disruptions affected large numbers of
travelers during the pandemic. Our own estimate suggests that flight
cancellations from July 2021 through April 2022 potentially affected over
15 million passengers, and flight delays during that time period potentially
affected over 116 million passengers.
31
31
Our estimate is based on an average of 102 passengers per flight from DOT onboarding
data from July 2021 through April 2022. We multiplied this number by the number of
cancelled and delayed flights during that same time period, to estimate the number of
passengers who were affected by flight disruptions.
Letter
Page 18 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
AirlinesAttemptedtoRespondtoOperational
ChallengesandPersistentFlightDisruptions
withaRangeofActions
StakeholdersSaidStaffingandSchedulingChallenges
MadeItHarderforAirlinestoManageFlightDisruptions
While BTS data do not provide additional detail on cancellations and
delays beyond the broad causal categories, airline and union
representatives told us that operational challenges made managing
disruptive events more difficult when air travel began to rebound in 2021.
For example, representatives from all four airlines and three unions we
spoke with said it was more difficult than before the pandemic for airlines
to ensure they had enough crew to staff aircraft and to set reliable airline
schedules.
The airline and union representatives we spoke with cited a number of
different staffing challenges that affected their operations, including:
· A need for additional pilots and crew. Representatives from three
of the four airlines we spoke with said they faced challenges hiring
pilots to operate flights due to increased competition for workers. For
example, representatives from one airline told us that because all
airlines were trying to hire pilots at the same time, each pilot was
receiving multiple job offers to pick from. Representatives from one
union said that low staffing levels affected a member airline’s
operations and contributed to a flight disruption in June 2021.
Specifically, the airline did not have enough employees available to
operate the number of flights needed to match travel demand.
· Training capacity. Representatives from three of the four airlines we
talked to reported challenges operating training facilities and
onboarding new employees as flight operations rapidly increased in
2021. Representatives from one airline told us that they had stopped
conducting training during the first year of the pandemic.
32
Consequently, the airline had to handle a large number of staff
certifications when operations increased. In addition, one union’s
representatives said that an airline’s choice to retire certain aircraft
32
Due to the pandemic, FAA issued regulatory exemptions providing airlines grace periods
for certain personnel to complete some training requirements.
Letter
Page 19 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
added to the backlog, as pilots needed to then be retrained on other
aircraft types.
· Performance of pre-pandemic staffing models. Representatives
from all three unions we interviewed and one industry association
acknowledged that some airlines relied on scheduling practices, such
as pre-pandemic staffing models, that proved to be too optimistic in
light of staffing levels. Representatives from one union said some
airlines made poor business decisions by overscheduling flights.
These decisions, along with a backlog in training and staff availability
issues, complicated airlines’ ability to meet their schedules.
Representatives from all four airlines also described changes in
staffing models, including employees’ reluctance to pick up shifts, as a
challenge for their operations in 2021. According to representatives
from one union, airlines will not be able to plan for as high a sign-up
rate for extra shifts as before the pandemic, despite their hiring efforts.
Representatives from one airline told us that a reluctance to pick up
shifts in 2021 had contributed to flight disruptions.
33
Representatives
from two unions told us that pilots and flight crews were more
reluctant to pick up shifts for a number of reasons, including disruptive
and unruly passengers and increased scheduling uncertainty.
AirlinesHaveOngoingEffortstoAddressStaffingand
OtherOperationalChallenges
To reduce flight disruptions, airline representatives we interviewed in
spring 2022 said they were taking a variety of actions to rebuild their
workforces following the pandemic and improve the resilience of their
airline networks. Based on these interviews, as well as our review of
airlines’ publicly available financial documents and press releases, these
actions remained a work in progress throughout the summer of 2022.
Many of the actions airline representatives pointed to focused on staffing
and training issues:
· Hiring new employees and increasing incentives. Since 2021,
airlines have worked to hire employees in a range of positions,
including pilots, flight attendants, training staff, and staff that are
33
Representatives from one airline said COVID-19 infections among employees were a
major contributor to flight disruptions throughout late 2021, but representatives from two
airlines said that Omicron-variant infections among their employees contributed
specifically to flight disruptions during the 2021 end-of-year holiday period.
Letter
Page 20 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
responsible for developing crew schedules (i.e., crew schedulers).
One airline eventually exceeded the number of employees it had
before the pandemic, according to a July 2022 press release.
34
Another airline told us it had 75 percent more crew-schedulers in April
2022 than it did during its summer 2021 flight disruption.
Representatives from all four airlines we interviewed said that they
offered increased pay and other incentives to attract and retain
employees. According to three union representatives and two industry
associations, airlines were also offering increased pay and other
incentives. One industry association representative stated that airlines
were offering pilots 200 or 300 percent more pay to fly on certain
days.
35
· Increasing training capacity. To increase training capacity, airlines
focused on recruiting new training staff and in some cases, opening
new training facilities. Representatives from one airline said that they
needed to hire twice the number of training staff to support their hiring
efforts. In another instance, airline representatives told us they
focused on increasing workforce flexibilities for training staff after
experiencing a shortage of flight instructors. Specifically, the airline
improved recruitment by allowing flight instructors to work part-time.
36
Representatives from another airline said that in response to the
employee attrition it experienced, it opened another training facility for
flight attendants.
· Improving staffing models. Representatives from two airlines told us
they had refined their approach to staffing, with the aim of minimizing
the number of employees who need to be rescheduled during a flight
disruption. For example, representatives from one airline said that
they began pairing pilots with flight attendants so that they travel as a
group to a hub and then on to the next flight. If a flight is cancelled,
34
The airline measured employment levels in terms of full-time equivalent employees,
according to the airline’s press release.
35
For regional airlines, incentives were not always successful at attracting and retaining
employees. For instance, a representative from a regional airline we interviewed said that
offering increased pay, such as signing and retention bonuses ranging from $20,000 to
$40,000, was not enough to compete with higher-paying cargo and network airlines. Other
regional airlines have signed new contracts that include additional financial incentives, but
it is not clear yet how these will affect retention. For example, in September 2022, pilots at
Horizon Airlines ratified an amendment to their contract that included pay rate increases of
74 percent for captains and 85 percent for first officers.
36
We have previously reported on challenges regarding flight instructor hiring and
retention. See GAO, Collegiate Aviation Schools: Stakeholders’ Views on Challenges for
Initial Pilot Training Programs, GAO-18-403 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2018).
Letter
Page 21 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
the airline keeps the pilot and flight attendants together, and
reschedules them on another flight. Before adopting this approach,
the airline had to reschedule each employee separately.
Airlines also took actions to improve operational performance system-
wide and during flight disruptions:
· Reducing flights and airline schedules. Airlines attempted to
increase the reliability and resilience of their networks—including their
ability to manage and recover from flight disruptions—by reducing
flight schedules. In 2021, airlines reduced the number of scheduled
flights to respond to flight disruptions, and made additional reductions
in 2022. Representatives from three airlines said that after their flight
disruptions in 2021, they reduced capacity by decreasing the number
of scheduled flights.
37
Some of these airlines continued capacity
reductions into 2022. For example, in 2022, American Airlines
reported in its second quarter public financial report that its domestic
capacity during that time period was down 6.6 percent compared to
the second quarter of 2019.
· Developing technology improvements. Representatives from two
airlines we interviewed described technology improvements their
airline developed to address flight disruptions more quickly and
decrease reliance on manual processes. For example, one airline
compiled information about flight disruptions so it could apply lessons
learned from past flight disruptions to improve the outcomes of future
flight disruptions. To help improve outcomes during a major
disruption, the airline also rolled out new technology that it had been
working on for several years that identifies flights to delay, rather than
cancel, and reschedules those flights. This tool, according to the
airline representative, helps achieve better outcomes during a flight
disruption because it forces the scheduling system to build the
delayed flights later into the schedule, so that the airline can ultimately
complete the flight.
· Providing some accommodations for affected passengers. During
a flight disruption, airlines told us they try to provide compensation for
affected passengers. An airline representative said that the airline
managed its October 2021 flight disruption by accommodating many
37
The fourth airline we interviewed, a regional airline, notified DOT in early 2022 that it did
not have staff available to continue providing “Essential Air Service” to 31 small
communities and plans to exit these markets. DOT’s Essential Air Service program helps
ensure that eligible small communities will be served by a certain minimum level of
scheduled air service.
Effect of Capacity Cuts on Small
Communities Access to the National
Airspace System
According to the Transportation Research
Board, airlines may reduce flights on routes
that they view as least profitable or
uneconomical to serve, such as smaller
communities. According to a 2020 DOT
Inspector General report, from 2005 through
2017, small communities lost about one-third
of their departures. This report found that
when communities that received subsidies
through the Essential Air Service Program
were excluded, small communities lost about
40 percent of departures on average. As we
have previously reported, the pandemic may
also exacerbate the loss of service to small
communities.
Sources: GAO-22-104429; DOT Office of the Inspector
General, Changes in Airline Service Differ Significantly
for Smaller Communities, but Limited Data on Ancillary
Fees Hinders Further Analysis, EC 2020036
(May 2020). | GAO-23-105524
Letter
Page 22 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
passengers on different flights the same day; automatically emailing
hotel, meal and transportation vouchers to some passengers;
reimbursing hotel, meal, and transportation costs for other
passengers; and providing compensation to all passengers affected
by delays that were within the airline’s control and all cancellations.
While airline representatives said they generally attempt to accommodate
passengers who are disrupted by a delay or cancellation, passengers
sometimes still experience extensive delays in reaching their final
destination. According to a consumer representative, last minute
cancellations are especially disruptive to passengers because their other
reservations, such as for hotels or cruises, can also be affected.
Passengers stranded during trips can also miss important events like
weddings or business meetings. Some academic researchers have
estimated that the delay a passenger actually experiences can be
significantly greater than the amount of time an individual flight or set of
flights is delayed.
38
Their research suggests that passengers experience
significant delays when flights are cancelled, or when a flight delay
causes them to miss a connecting flight. If flights that are still operating
during a disruption have few empty seats, there will be fewer
opportunities to rebook passengers whose flights were cancelled earlier
that day, or who missed a connection due to a delay.
38
Lance Sherry, “A Model for Estimating Airline Passenger Trip Reliability Metrics from
System-wide Flight Simulation,” Journal of Transport Literature (April 2013); Cynthia
Barnhart, Douglas Fearing, and Vikrant Vaze, Modeling Passenger Travel and Delays in
the National Air Transportation System (2014), Operations Research 62 (3): 580-601.
Consumer Advocate and Trade
Association Perspective on Airline
Accommodations
Two consumer representatives and one trade
association we interviewed were generally
not satisfied with airlines’ responses to flight
disruptions and said that more could be done
to help passengers. They also characterized
airlines’ customer service as inadequate. For
example, representatives from one consumer
advocate and one trade association
consumer said that airlines should be held to
higher standards, including reducing wait
times for passengers who need to be
rescheduled on another flight, and providing
more advanced notice when flights are
disrupted.
The same two consumer representatives and
one trade association also identified ticket
refunds as a significant issue. Early in the
pandemic, airlines offered passengers time-
limited travel vouchers for significant delays
and cancellations instead of refunds to which
consumers were entitled. Two consumer
representatives said that strengthening DOT
rules around refunds, and increased
enforcement action if airlines do not provide
timely refunds to passengers would help
protect passengers during air travel. We
discuss DOT actions relating to refunds later
in the report.
Source: GAO analysis of interviews. | GAO-23-105524
Letter
Page 23 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
DOTandFAAAreTakingActionstoAddress
FlightDisruptions,IncludingAnalyzingAirlines’
SchedulingPractices
DOTandFAAAreTakingSeveralActionstoAddress
FlightDisruptions
DOT’s Office of Aviation Consumer Protection applies its existing
enforcement approach to promote regulatory compliance with consumer
protections.
39
According to DOT officials, this approach reflects DOT’s
preference to use all available tools, including working with industry to
ensure they understand their obligations and taking enforcement action
for violations of consumer protection regulations, to achieve compliance.
DOT used a range of methods in response to flight disruptions during the
pandemic. These methods included processing passenger complaints,
issuing guidance, including guidance about airlines’ obligations to provide
refunds for cancelled or significantly delayed flights, conducting
investigations, and conducting outreach to airlines. In addition, DOT also
took enforcement actions related to airlines’ failure to provide refunds for
cancelled or significantly delayed flights.
However, given the deregulated nature of the airline industry, DOT has
limited authority to regulate airline delays and cancellations. Under its
authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices, DOT requires that
airlines provide refunds for flights that are cancelled or significantly
changed. Beyond these requirements, an airline is not required to provide
compensation to passengers for scheduling changes unless the airline
voluntarily promises to provide compensation such as in its contract of
carriage or customer service plan.
In 2020, at the start of the pandemic, DOT received an unprecedented
number of complaints about airline practices. In total, DOT received
39
In January 2023, DOT issued a notice of its sanction and enforcement practices, titled
Notice Regarding Investigatory and Enforcement Policies and Procedures. The notice,
issued in response to a prior recommendation we made, describes, among other things,
methods that DOT uses to ensure compliance and DOT’s intention to take enforcement
action when it sees a pattern or practice of violations. Specifically, in October 2020, we
recommended that DOT provide additional information on the process it uses to
investigate potential consumer protection violations, assess risk, and pursue enforcement
action. See GAO-21-109 for additional information.
Letter
Page 24 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
102,560 complaints in 2020, and although complaints decreased in 2021
(49,958), they are expected to be higher in 2022, significantly above pre-
pandemic levels.
40
In 2020, most complaints submitted to DOT were
about ticket refunds (e.g., delays in refunding the cost of a cancelled flight
or a passenger being offered a travel credit rather than a cash refund),
and refund complaints continued to be the highest ranking complaint
category into 2022. Complaints about flight problems, which include
delays and cancellations, were the highest-ranking category pre-
pandemic, and were ranked fourth in 2020 (see table 1).
Table 1: Annual Refund and Flight Problem Complaints Submitted to the Department of Transportation, 2018 to 2022
Year
Number of
Complaints
about
Refunds
a
Refund
Complaints
as a Percentage
of Total Complaints
Ranking
b
Number of
Complaints about
Flight Problems
c
Flight Problems
Complaints as a
Percentage of Total
Complaints
Ranking
2018
1,329
8.5
6
4,517
29.1
1
2019
1,574
10.3
5
4,757
31
1
2020
89,511
87.3
1
1,498
1.5
4
2021
29,507
59.1
1
6,311
12.6
2
January through
September
2022
14,239
29.2
1
12,607
25.9
2
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Transportation data. | GAO-23-105524.
a
These numbers include complaints against U.S. airlines, foreign airlines, travel agents, tour
operators, and miscellaneous entities.
b
DOT has multiple complaint categories, of which refunds and flight problems are two of the
categories.
c
The flight problems complaint category includes complaints about cancellations, delays, or other
deviations from the schedule, whether planned or unplanned. These numbers include complaints
against U.S. airlines, foreign airlines, travel agents, tour operators, and miscellaneous entities.
DOT officials stated that they review submitted complaints to determine
whether a violation of airline consumer protection laws has occurred.
Given the increased volume of complaints received during the pandemic,
beginning in 2020 and continuing into 2022, the Office of Aviation
Consumer Protection increased the number of staff processing consumer
complaints. Specifically, DOT hired 6 temporary employees to help its
40
These numbers include complaints against U.S. airlines, foreign airlines, travel agents,
tour operators, and miscellaneous entities. In 2020, DOT received 35,914 complaints
against U.S. airlines, and in 2021, DOT received 20,350 complaints against U.S. airlines.
Complaints to airlines are generally much higher than to DOT. DOT estimates that for
every complaint the agency receives, airlines receive 50 such complaints. See
GAO-19-76. Full year 2022 was not available at the time of our analysis.
Letter
Page 25 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
existing 15 full-time employees, increasing its staffing level by 40 percent.
For fiscal year 2023, DOT received $1 million above its request to
increase efforts to protect consumers from deceptive practices.
41
The
fiscal year 2024 budget request includes a request for funding for an
aviation consumer complaint system and an approximately $2 million
request to bolster aviation consumer protection activities, including hiring
eight additional staff, which will build on staff increases expected to start
in 2023.
42
In 2020, DOT issued guidance that addresses, among other things,
airlines’ obligations to provide refunds for cancelled or significantly
delayed flights. We have previously reported on these guidance
documents, specifically:
43
· In April 2020, DOT issued guidance that addresses airlines’ legal
obligations to provide refunds; that guidance stated that given the
challenges facing the industry, DOT would provide airlines an
opportunity to become compliant before taking enforcement action
against airlines that provided travel vouchers to passengers instead of
refunds they were entitled to. Airlines would have to take certain
corrective actions to avoid enforcement action.
44
· In May 2020, DOT issued additional guidance about refunds, which
answers common questions to help ensure that passengers
understand when they are entitled to a refund, and that airlines are
complying with aviation consumer protection requirements. The
guidance also stated that airlines could not retroactively apply
changed refund policies to passengers and clarified that passengers
with non-refundable tickets who changed or cancelled their
reservation are generally not entitled to a refund or voucher, even if
41
Joint Explanatory Statement, December 20, 2022.
42
DOT, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2024.
43
GAO-21-109.
44
DOT, Enforcement Notice Regarding Refunds by Carriers Given the Unprecedented
Impact of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency on Air Travel (Apr. 3, 2020). These
actions included contacting passengers who received a voucher when they were entitled
to a refund to notify them of the option for a refund and ensuring that airlines personnel
understand the circumstances under which refunds are made.
Letter
Page 26 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
the changes were because of health or safety concerns related to
COVID-19.
45
DOT has applied this guidance during investigations it conducts. For
example:
· In November 2021, DOT settled its investigation with Air Canada for
$4.5 million for its failure to provide timely refunds to passengers
during the pandemic for flights it cancelled or significantly changed.
· In January 2021, DOT found that United Airlines had changed its
refund policy to restrict the circumstances under which passengers
whose flights were changed would be eligible for a refund, and
applied the policy retroactively to passengers. DOT advised United
Airlines that it considered this action a violation of DOT’s prohibition
on unfair and deceptive practices. In response to DOT’s investigation,
in June 2020, United changed its policy and agreed to take other
corrective actions. Consistent with its April 2020 and May 2020
guidance, DOT later dismissed complaints related to this issue in
January 2021.
In November 2022, DOT took enforcement action against six airlines and
assessed more than $7.25 million in fines for the airlines’ extreme delays
in providing refunds to passengers whose flights were cancelled or
significantly changed by the airline.
46
While most of these airlines are
foreign airlines, DOT fined one domestic airline, Frontier Airlines, due to
changes the airline made to its refund policy in March 2020.
47
Specifically,
until March 25, 2020, Frontier defined a significant change that would
entitle passengers to a refund as a “schedule change of more than 3
hours.” On March 25, 2020, Frontier changed its definition to a schedule
change that could not be accommodated on the same calendar day or a
misconnection. Frontier applied this policy retroactively and provided
credits instead of refunds to tens of thousands of customers who
purchased tickets under the earlier more generous policy. The airline also
instructed passengers to redeem travel credits through an online system
that did not function for 15 days. Due to these actions, DOT fined Frontier
45
DOT, Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Airline Ticket Refunds Given the
Unprecedented Impact of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency on Air Travel (May 12,
2020).
46
According to DOT officials, these enforcement actions contributed to airlines refunding
more than $600 million to passengers whose flights were cancelled or significantly
changed.
47
Other domestic airlines received more passenger complaints about refunds in 2020 than
Frontier Airlines.
Letter
Page 27 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
$2.2 million. In late October 2020, Frontier changed its definition of a
significant change back to its original definition.
In addition to the investigations and enforcement actions that DOT
conducts, officials from the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
monitor airlines that have experienced flight disruptions to discuss the
flight disruption and its causes. As part of this monitoring, DOT officials
remind airlines of their obligation to comply with their customer service
commitments, inquire about the timeliness of refunds provided to affected
passengers, and warn airlines about their obligation to set realistic
schedules, among other things. For example, after disruptions in Spirit
Airline’s flights in July-August 2021, DOT officials told us they contacted
the airline to discuss the flight disruption, the underlying cause, and to
obtain assurance from the airline that it was providing timely refunds to
passengers.
DOT also requires that airlines develop and adhere to a customer service
plan, which describes the accommodations the airline provides to
passengers for flight cancellations or misconnections, as well as airlines’
commitments to providing refunds to passengers. According to DOT
officials, DOT enforces airlines’ adherence to airlines’ customer service
plans because it would be an unfair and deceptive practice for an airline
to promise a service and not provide it. As mentioned previously, DOT
requires airlines to provide requested refunds for flights that the airline
significantly delays or cancels. However, DOT regulations do not currently
define what constitutes a significant delay or cancellation. Airlines instead
may set their own threshold for a significant delay, resulting in
inconsistent policies across airlines regarding when a passenger is
entitled to a refund.
DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to
define some of the terms, such as cancellations and significant changes,
which are included in airlines’ customer service plans.
48
Specifically, in
August 2022, in part due to the significant increase in passenger
complaints about refunds, DOT issued an NPRM entitled, Airline Ticket
Refunds and Consumer Protections.
49
In this NPRM, DOT proposes to
codify its interpretation that an airline’s failure to provide a refund for
48
Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections, 87 Fed. Reg. 51550, 51550 (Aug. 22,
2022).
49
87 Fed. Reg. at 51557.
Letter
Page 28 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
cancelled or significantly changed flights is an unfair practice. Among
other things, the NPRM also proposed to define for the first time the terms
“significant change” and “cancellations” for the purposes of consumer
refunds.
50
The comment period on this rulemaking closed on December
16, 2022. A public hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2023.
In August 2022, the Secretary of Transportation sent a letter to airlines
urging them to provide essential services to passengers, and in early
September, DOT released the Airline Customer Service Dashboard on its
aviation consumer protection webpage. The dashboard helped to
increase transparency about the services each airline provides if a flight is
delayed or cancelled for reasons within the airlines’ control.
51
The
information in the dashboard is based on information in customer service
plans for each of the 10 largest U.S. airlines that sell tickets. According to
DOT officials, all 10 airlines included in the dashboard made changes to
their customer service plans as a result of the Secretary of
Transportation’s August 2022 letter. For example, DOT officials said that
prior to the release of the dashboard, none of the airlines guaranteed
meals and hotels for passengers affected by flight disruptions. After the
dashboard’s release, 9 out of 10 airlines included on the dashboard
guaranteed providing hotels when passengers have to wait overnight and
10 airlines guaranteed meals or vouchers for meals for passengers on
flights that are delayed 3 hours or more. According to DOT officials, the
dashboard has benefitted passengers by helping them understand their
rights when flights are delayed and cancelled, and providing transparency
about what service and amenities each airline offers.
The Secretary of Transportation has also conducted additional outreach
to airlines to ensure operational reliability after persistent flight disruptions
in 2022. For example, in June 2022, after thousands of flights were
cancelled, the Secretary of Transportation held a roundtable with airline
chief executives to discuss how to ease flight disruptions. According to
50
DOT has proposed to define a cancelled flight as a flight that was published in a carrier’s
Computer Reservation System at the time of the ticket sale, but was not operated by the
carrier. The proposed definition for a significant change would include, among other
things, changes to a flight itinerary for a domestic flight when a passenger departs from
the origination airport 3 or more hours earlier than the scheduled departure, or arrives at
the destination airport 3 hours or more later than the scheduled arrival time.
51
DOT’s Airline Customer Service Dashboard can be found at:
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
Department of Transportation, “Airline Customer Service Dashboard” (Washington, D.C.),
accessed February 2, 2023.
Letter
Page 29 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
DOT officials, the Secretary also urged airlines to take steps to improve
the air travel experience for affected passengers, including ensuring that
passengers can quickly contact an airline customer service representative
during flight disruptions. The Secretary also warned airlines at this
meeting that DOT would take enforcement action if airlines did not abide
by consumer protection regulations, or if airlines were not responsive to
passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled, according to media
reports.
The agency has also taken action to address flight disruptions stemming
from air traffic control issues.
52
For example, FAA officials said that
Florida’s airspace has become increasingly congested because of growth
in air traffic demand during the pandemic and closures of airspace for
military and commercial space operations. In May 2022, FAA, airline, and
industry representatives met to discuss how congestion was contributing
to flight disruptions in the area, and these meetings continued periodically
throughout the summer of 2022. In response, FAA planned to increase
the number of air traffic controllers from 241 to 275 at the Jacksonville Air
Traffic Control Center, as of May 2022. As of December 2022, FAA
officials said that there are 254 air traffic controllers, including trainees, at
the Jacksonville Air Traffic Control Center. FAA officials said that
increasing air traffic control staffing, along with frequent communication
with the industry, may help FAA manage Florida’s airspace.
53
DOTIncreaseditsMonitoringofAirlines’Scheduling
Practices
Recent flight disruptions, such as the Southwest Airlines flight disruptions
over the 2022–2023 holiday travel season, have prompted DOT to
increase its oversight of airlines’ scheduling practices. DOT’s current
actions to monitor airlines’ scheduling practices include analyses of
airport-pairs (a flight between two airports), chronically delayed flights,
and an airline’s network; reviewing monthly passenger complaint data;
52
FAA is responsible for managing air traffic flow in the national airspace system, and
monitors the system’s efficiency.
53
In summer 2022, some airlines asserted that air traffic controller staffing shortages were
contributing to flight disruptions nationwide. FAA officials did not identify air traffic
controller shortages as contributing to flight disruptions. Our analysis of BTS data found
that between the start of the pandemic and April 2022, circumstances within the National
Aviation System did not cause the majority of flight disruptions nationwide.
Letter
Page 30 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
and routinely meeting with airlines. Some of DOT’s actions to monitor
airlines’ scheduling practices are long standing, while others are more
recent, reflecting increased DOT oversight. DOT monitors airlines’
scheduling practices under its statutory authority to prohibit unfair and
deceptive practices in the aviation industry, described in more detail
below.
DOT has broad authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices of
airlines, which includes unrealistic scheduling practices.
54
In a rule issued
in 2020, DOT defined the terms “unfair” and “deceptive”.
55
The rule also
states that proof of intent is not necessary to establish unfairness or
deception.
DOT regulations prohibit unrealistic scheduling, which is one type of
unfair and deceptive practice.
56
In rulemakings DOT has defined
unrealistic scheduling as the scheduling of flights that airlines cannot
generally and reasonably be expected to fulfill.
57
Apart from this definition,
DOT officials confirmed to us that unrealistic scheduling can take different
forms, as discussed below.
Some stakeholders, including unions and others, have raised concerns
about airlines’ scheduling practices in light of the increase in flight
cancellations in 2021 and 2022. Some of these stakeholders we
54
The Secretary may investigate and decide whether an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or
ticket agent has been or is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method
of competition in air transportation or the sale of air transportation. If the Secretary, after
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, finds that an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket
agent is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition, the
Secretary shall order the air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to stop the practice
or method. See 49 U.S.C. §41712(a). The Secretary may also assess civil penalties when
an airline engages in unfair and deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition. 49
U.S.C § 46301.
55
14 C.F.R. § 399.79(b). A practice is “unfair” if it causes or is likely to cause substantial
injury, which is not reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition. The rule defines a practice as being “deceptive” if it is likely to
mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, with respect to a
material matter.
56
14 C.F.R. § 399.81.
57
DOT adopted this definition in its first rule prohibiting unrealistic scheduling in 1984. See
49 Fed. Reg. 40566 (Oct. 17, 1984).
Letter
Page 31 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
interviewed said that airlines were publishing unrealistic flight schedules
given their staffing levels.
To determine whether airlines are potentially setting unrealistic
schedules, DOT now conducts analyses at three levels, described in
more detail below:
· Chronically delayed flight analysis: According to documents
provided by DOT, DOT has monitored chronically delayed flights for
many years. According to DOT documentation, DOT regularly
analyzes BTS data to identify flights that are chronically delayed for 2
or more months. DOT regulations have defined “chronically delayed”
flights as any domestic flight that is operated at least 10 times a
month and arrives more than 30 minutes late (including cancelled
flights) more than 50 percent of the time during that month.
58
Holding
out a flight that is chronically delayed for more than 4 consecutive
months is one form of unrealistic scheduling.
59
· Airport-pair analysis: In summer 2022, DOT developed its airport-
pair analysis as an internal means of monitoring potential unrealistic
scheduling. DOT’s airport-pair analysis establishes a threshold for
non-weather related cancellations that could indicate that an airline is
setting an unrealistic schedule. DOT has developed internal guidance
describing how it conducts this analysis. As of March 2023, this
guidance is in draft form. According to DOT officials, they expect that
DOT’s analysis may change as it learns from its current investigations
of airline scheduling. DOT plans to review its draft guidance
concurrently with its investigations, and will formalize its draft
guidance in 2023.
· System-wide analysis: According to documents provided by DOT,
DOT has been regularly monitoring commercial and BTS system-wide
delay and cancellation data, media reports, and analyzing monthly
passenger complaint data as part of its oversight of airlines’
scheduling practices. However, more routine and systematic
evaluation of passenger airlines began in early 2022 when DOT met
with the largest U.S. airlines that sell tickets, and continued in summer
2022, and more recently, following the Southwest 2022-2023 holiday
disruptions. At these meetings, DOT discusses network scheduling
58
14 C.F.R. § 399.81(c). DOT considers all of the airline’s flights that are operated
between two given cities whose departure times are within 30 minutes of the most
frequently scheduled departure time to be one single flight.
59
14 C.F.R. § 399.81(c)(4).
Letter
Page 32 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
and operational performance during periods of significant disruptions
and high demand, as well as customer care, including asking for
assurances that airlines are meeting consumer protection
requirements. According to documents provided by DOT, DOT used
system-wide cancellation and on-time performance rates to engage
with airlines about their scheduling practices. DOT considers these
meetings to be part of its routine monitoring, and plans to continue
them. However, unlike its airport-pair analysis, DOT has not yet
developed internal guidance for its system-wide analysis. DOT plans
to develop internal written guidance for its system-wide analysis in
2023.
According to DOT officials, since the summer of 2022, DOT has used its
analyses to help determine whether any airline cancelled a high
percentage of flights at the airport-pair level, over a sustained period.
60
To
conduct its analysis of domestic routes, DOT starts with BTS system-wide
data. DOT also uses FAA data to analyze cancellations for international
airport-pairs that involve one U.S. point, and to understand whether FAA
operations may have contributed to the cancellation. As of March 2023,
DOT officials said that they are working with FAA officials to establish
regular data transmissions for DOT’s analysis.
If DOT identifies an airline-specific airport-pair or flight, it analyzes
additional data, such as the causes of the cancellations. Based on that
analysis, if the evidence suggests a practice of unrealistic scheduling,
DOT will initiate an investigation of the airline. When DOT pursues an
enforcement action against an airline, it first initiates an informal
proceeding which could result in a consensus agreement with the
airline.
61
If DOT has reasonable grounds to believe an airline has
engaged in unrealistic scheduling and efforts to settle with the airline have
failed, DOT may issue a notice instituting an enforcement proceeding
before an administrative law judge.
62
According to DOT officials, its last
enforcement order against an airline for engaging in unrealistic
60
If an airline violates a consumer protection requirement, including the requirement
prohibiting unrealistic scheduling, the airline could be subject to civil penalties of up to
$40,272 per violation. The maximum civil penalty amount is periodically adjusted for
inflation.
61
14 C.F.R. § 399.79(e). During the informal proceeding, DOT provides the alleged
violator an opportunity to be heard and present relevant evidence.
62
14 C.F.R § 399.79 (f), 14 C.F.R. § 302.407.
Letter
Page 33 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
scheduling was in 1992, when an airline failed to operate a substantial
portion of scheduled flights between Florida and the Bahamas.
63
As of March 2023, DOT is investigating four U.S. airlines for potential
unrealistic scheduling. According to DOT officials, DOT has open
investigations based on its airport pair, system-wide, and chronically
delayed flights analyses.
Although DOT has had a practice of regularly monitoring airlines’
scheduling practices, we found that its oversight efforts have increased in
light of recent notable airline flight disruptions, including those affecting
millions of Southwest Airlines passengers during the winter 2022–2023
holiday season. In response to these events, Congress has conducted
hearings on airline operations and performance, and DOT has initiated
investigations on unrealistic scheduling, including an investigation to
determine whether Southwest was providing timely refunds and whether it
engaged in unrealistic scheduling.
64
More broadly, the persistence of flight
disruptions affecting millions of passengers have prompted DOT to focus
more attention on airline scheduling practices. According to DOT officials,
DOT’s fiscal year 2024 budget request includes a commitment to monitor
airlines’ scheduling practices using all available data and tools. Sustaining
this oversight and analysis—including DOT’s analyses of airline
scheduling practices at the airport-pair, flight, and system-wide level—will
be important to ensuring that airlines maintain realistic schedules and
minimize the impact of flight disruptions on passengers.
AgencyCommentsandOurEvaluation
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. When
we initially provided the draft to DOT, we recommended that the Assistant
General Counsel for the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection use
network-level (i.e., system-wide) data to identity instances of potential
unrealistic scheduling for investigation. We believed that this
recommendation was warranted because it could allow DOT to be better
positioned to understand whether airlines were setting realistic schedules
that flight and airport-pair analyses would not reveal and could strengthen
63
The orders that DOT publishes on its website only go back to 2002.
64
See, for example, Executive Session and Hearing: Strengthening Airline Operations and
Consumer Protections, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, 118
th
Cong., 1
st
Sess., February 9, 2023.
Letter
Page 34 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
DOT’s ability to protect passengers against unfair and deceptive
practices.
After reviewing our report, DOT provided substantive and technical
comments, including new documentation, which we incorporated as
appropriate. This documentation contained information further clarifying
DOT’s recently adopted systematic approach to analyzing airlines
schedules system-wide. It also contained internal draft guidance about
DOT’s airport-pair analysis and information about DOT’s meetings with
airlines. We reviewed the additional information that DOT provided, which
demonstrated that the agency is using system-wide data to identify
instances of potential unrealistic scheduling. Accordingly, we revised our
report to withdraw our recommendation.
We also revised the report to reflect the additional information that DOT
provided. Specifically:
· We incorporated information about how DOT conducts analysis of
airlines’ scheduling practices system-wide, specifically by analyzing
BTS system-wide delay and cancellation data and reviewing monthly
passenger complaint data. We also emphasized the importance of
DOT sustaining its oversight and analysis of airlines’ scheduling
practices, including system-wide.
· We incorporated information about DOT’s past meetings with airlines
to reflect that DOT now considers this a routine part of its monitoring.
· We incorporated information about how DOT has developed draft
internal guidance describing how it conducts its airport-pair analysis.
As discussed in this report, DOT’s oversight of airlines’ scheduling
practices has increased over the course of our review leveraging multiple
tools. In light of ongoing flight disruptions that have affected millions of
passengers and staffing challenges, which affect an airline’s entire
network, it is important that DOT sustain these efforts to analyze airlines’
scheduling practices. These efforts will be an important component of
DOT’s oversight of the aviation industry and will help ensure that DOT is
meeting its consumer protection mission.
Letter
Page 35 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 15 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate
congressional committees and other interested parties. In addition, the
report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Heather Krause
Director, Physical Infrastructure
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 36 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
This report examines: (1) how flight disruptions in 2021 and 2022 and
their underlying causes compare to the 2 years preceding the COVID-19
pandemic; (2) the operational challenges airlines faced in managing flight
disruptions, and actions airlines have taken to address them; and (3) the
actions taken by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2021 and 2022 to help address flight
disruptions.
FlightDelaysandCancellationsAnalyses
To examine how flight disruptions in 2021 and 2022 compare to the 2
years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data from DOT’s
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) from January 2018 through
April 2022, the most recently available data at the time of our analysis, on
U.S. domestic flight delays and cancellations, airline employment, and
passenger enplanements.
1
BTS flight delay and cancellation data are
reported within the agency’s Airline Service Quality Performance System
(ASQP) database. Our scope was limited to the 17 airlines that are
required by statute to report monthly data to ASQP on flight delays and
cancellations, representing approximately 96 percent of domestic
passenger traffic in the United States.
2
For our arrival-delay analyses, we
used the BTS definition of a delayed flight—that is, we considered a flight
1
For the purposes of our analysis, we excluded 2020 data in certain instances because
given the effects of the pandemic on the industry, 2020 airline operational data are not
comparable to other years. Because there is a several month lag before BTS publishes
each month’s airline performance data, we were limited to analyzing data through April
2022.
2
Airlines whose share of the industry’s total domestic passenger revenues is at least 0.5
percent must submit flight performance data to DOT, including data on flight delays and
cancellations. Because the reporting of domestic-scheduled passenger revenue is
determined on an annual basis, the number of reporting airlines changes on an annual
basis. From 2018–2022, the number of airlines required to report this data has varied from
18 airlines in 2018 to 17 in 2022, with the mix of airlines changing minimally over 5 years.
The 17 airlines required to report flight performance data to DOT in 2021 and 2022 are
Alaska Airlines, Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Endeavor Air, Envoy Air,
Frontier Air Lines, Hawaiian Airlines, Horizon Air, JetBlue Airways, Mesa Airlines, PSA
Airlines, Republic Airways, SkyWest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Air Lines, and
United Air Lines.
AppendixI:Objectives,Scope,
andMethodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 37 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
delayed if it arrived at least 15 minutes later than its scheduled arrival
time. We also reported our results by marketing airline. This approach
allowed us to report flight cancellations and delays by the airline that
would sell a passenger’s ticket, rather than the airline that operated the
flight. This meant that certain small and regional airlines, such as Horizon
and SkyWest, were not explicitly shown in our analysis.
To define and analyze sustained cancellation events, we analyzed daily
flight cancellation rates in 2018 and 2019 for each marketing airline in the
ASQP database. We defined a sustained cancellation event as a series of
days where an airline’s daily cancellation rate was high enough to exceed
95 percent of pre-pandemic daily cancellation rates. We initially looked at
the distribution of daily flight cancellation rates across both years and
found that the data were positively skewed, with many days where
airlines reported no cancellations or low percentages of cancellations. As
a result, we decided to proceed with a 95th percentile threshold that could
account for this, rather than a standard deviation threshold that assumes
a normal bell-curve data distribution. Because flight disruptions are
affected by seasonal weather events (for example, winter storms), we
adjusted the 95th percentile threshold each quarter (see table 2).
Table 2: 95th Percentile Thresholds for GAO’s Analyses of Sustained Cancellation
Events
Quarter
95th Percentile Threshold
Airlines that exceed this percentage of daily
cancellations are counted in GAO’s analysis
1
9
2
5
3
6
4
3
Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics data. | GAO-23-105524.
We assessed the reliability of ASQP data by reviewing documents,
interviewing relevant BTS officials, and conducting electronic data tests to
identify any errors in the data. When conducting these tests, we identified
77 flights where the reported causes of delay (in minutes) did not add up
to the total reported minutes of delay, as required by BTS. We followed
up with BTS about these flights, and BTS agreed to follow up with the
affected airlines and correct the data errors. Because the 77 records
represented a small proportion of the data used in our analysis, we
decided to drop these records, as well as any duplicates in the data, from
our analysis results.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 38 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
While noting these limitations, we determined the data were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes of describing flight delays and cancellations over
this time period and the length and reported causes of those delays and
cancellations.
SelectedFlightDisruptions
We also used ASQP data to select three flight disruptions in 2021 to use
as illustrative examples. Our selection criteria included reviewing ASQP
data to identify periods of high cancellation rates in 2021 and ensuring a
range of airline business models (e.g., major, low-cost, and ultra-low cost
airlines). After we identified five flight disruptions that met these criteria,
we also reviewed media reports discussing those disruptions to
understand the reported causes at the time of the disruption. We
ultimately chose to analyze three disruptions, representing each airline
business model: a network airline, a low-cost airline, and an ultra-low-
cost-airline. Our review of these data was subject to the same ASQP data
limitations described above.
ReviewofLiteratureonFlightDisruptionsandAirline
Actions
To understand more about the broad causes of flight disruptions and
actions airlines have taken to address them, we conducted a literature
review of academic and trade articles. Specifically, we conducted
searches that spanned a range of literature published from January 2018
through March 2022—including academic studies, including dissertations
and empirical analysis, as well as government reports, conference
papers, and trade/industry articles. To identify relevant sources, we
conducted searches in various databases, such as Scopus, ProQuest,
EBSCO, and Dialog. The search terms used to locate relevant sources
included “air carrier,” “aviation,” “cancel,” “delay,” and “service disruption.”
We then reviewed the 189 results and excluded results that were not (1)
specific to the U.S. airline industry and discussed the causes of flight
disruptions and airlines’ ability to recover from them; (2) did not describe
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; or (3) did not describe how
passengers were affected by flight disruptions. We reviewed the abstracts
of the remaining results to select the most relevant full-text articles for in-
depth review, and ultimately identified seven results that were relevant.
We primarily used these results as contextual sources and incorporated
them as needed into the final report.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 39 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
ExaminingAirline,DOT,andFAAActions
To determine the actions that airlines have taken to address flight
disruptions, we reviewed publicly available financial reports submitted to
the Securities and Exchange Commission for each of the airlines we
interviewed that sell tickets to passengers. We analyzed annual financial
reports for fiscal year 2020 and 2021 and quarterly reports for the first
quarter of 2021 through the second quarter of 2022. We analyzed these
reports to obtain information on the effects of the pandemic on airlines
and actions they took in response. We also reviewed press releases that
airlines issued that discussed their flight disruptions, and actions to
address these disruptions, in the summer and fall of 2021. As discussed
below, we conducted semi-structured interviews with airlines. In addition,
to obtain the passenger perspective on flight disruptions and additional
actions that airlines could be taking, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with consumer organizations.
To examine the actions that DOT and FAA have taken to help address
flight disruptions, we reviewed federal statutes and regulations that
describe DOT’s authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices and
ensure that airlines are setting realistic schedules, among other things.
We also reviewed DOT documentation, such as reports and rulemakings,
guidance, and enforcement orders to understand the actions DOT has
taken to help address flight disruptions. In addition, to understand the
trends in airline service, we reviewed data on passenger complaints
submitted to DOT from January 2018 to September 2022. We also
conducted multiple interviews with DOT’s Office of Aviation Consumer
Protection and FAA, as described below.
To report the number of full-time employees working at major passenger
airlines over time, we analyzed airline employment data from BTS’
TranStats database from February 2020 to October 2022. We analyzed
data for 13 major airlines, defined as airlines with over $1 billion annual
operating revenue. However, given the scope of our review, we excluded
the five airlines that were cargo airlines. In addition, we analyzed
Transportation Security Administration passenger throughput data and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-reported COVID-19 cases
between January 2020 and August 2022 to understand passenger air
traffic and the number of reported COVID-19 cases.
To inform our second and third objectives, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with representatives from a non-generalizable sample of 15
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 40 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
stakeholders, including four airlines; three unions representing pilots and
flight attendants; three industry associations; two consumer
organizations; one trade association; and two academics. We also
interviewed DOT officials and FAA officials. We interviewed three airlines
that met our selection criteria for our selected flight disruptions (that is,
had a high period of cancellations and a range of airline business models)
and interviewed an additional airline to represent the regional airline
perspective. We selected our other stakeholders based on both
background research and prior GAO work. See table 3 for a complete list
of individuals and entities we interviewed. Because we selected a sample
of stakeholders, findings from these interviews are not generalizable to all
airlines and organizations.
Table 3: List of Entities and Individuals Interviewed
Category
Category member
Agencies
Department of Transportation
Agencies
Federal Aviation Administration
Airlines
American Airlines
Airlines
SkyWest Airlines
Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Airlines
Spirit Airlines
Unions
Air Line Pilots Association
Unions
Allied Pilots Association
Unions
Association of Flight Attendants
Industry Associations
Airlines for America
Industry Associations
Coalition of Airline Pilots Association
Industry Associations
Regional Airline Association
Consumer Organizations
American Economic Liberties Project
Consumer Organizations
National Consumers League
Trade Associations
American Society of Travel Advisors
Academic Researchers
Dr. Lance Sherry, Associate Professor, George
Mason University
Academic Researchers
Dr. Vikrant Vaze, Associate Professor,
Dartmouth College
Source: GAO. | GAO-23-105524
We conducted this performance audit from November 2021 to April 2023
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 41 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 42 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
We created snapshots for selected flight disruptions—prolonged periods of flight
delays or cancellations, or both—at three airlines in 2021. We selected these three
flight disruptions based on the selection criteria outlined in appendix I. Every airline
reporting to DOT experienced flight disruptions in the form of sustained cancellation
events from July 2021 through April 2022.
1
As illustrative examples, these selected
snapshots show how various internal and external factors can compound and extend
flight disruptions when they occur. These factors may not initially be clear to
passengers who experience a flight disruption. As part of our analysis of the
Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
data, we compiled data on flight cancellations, delays, and flight cancellation
locations for each day of the three disruptions. We also analyzed and summarized
data on the reported causes of those flight cancellations. To provide more detailed
information about the specific causes of each disruption, we interviewed
representatives from the affected airline as well as union representatives, if available.
We used these data to create a snapshot profiling each disruption from a variety of
sources and included a map showing how flight cancellations were distributed across
affected airline’s network in the contiguous United States.
1
For more information on how we identified and analyzed sustained cancellation events, see appendix I.
AppendixII:SelectedFlightDisruption
Snapshots
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 43 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 9 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 8, 2021 through October 11, 2021
Figure 10 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 8, 2021 through October 11, 2021
Figure 11 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States (Origin City), October 8,
2021 through October 11, 2021
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 44 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Accessible Data for Figure 9 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 8, 2021 through October
11, 2021
Day-Month
Flight Arrival Delayed
Flight Cancelled
8-Oct
1261
176
9-Oct
1100
831
10-Oct
1189
1137
11-Oct
1680
472
Accessible Data for Figure 10 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 8, 2021 through
October 11, 2021
Day-Month
Percent
Cancellations
by Carrier
Percent
Cancellations
by Weather
Percent
Cancellations
by NAS
Percent
Cancellations
by Security
8-Oct
9.65909090
30.11363640
60.22727270
0.00000000
9-Oct
95.78820700
0.00000000
4.21179300
0.00000000
10-Oct
97.71328060
2.28671940
0.00000000
0.00000000
11-Oct
91.94915250
6.99152540
1.05932200
0.00000000
Accessible Data for Figure 11 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States
(Origin City), October 8, 2021 through October 11, 2021
Low-Cost Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled flights
Albuquerque, NM
13
Albany, NY
7
Amarillo, TX
2
Atlanta, GA
65
Austin, TX
53
Hartford, CT
5
Birmingham, AL
10
Nashville, TN
77
Boise, ID
7
Boston, MA
13
Buffalo, NY
17
Burbank, CA
47
Baltimore, MD
121
Bozeman, MT
5
Charleston, SC
9
Cleveland, OH
11
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 45 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Low-Cost Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled flights
Charlotte, NC
5
Columbus, OH
16
Colorado Springs, CO
11
Corpus Christi, TX
4
Cincinnati, OH
9
Dallas, TX
131
Washington, DC
24
Denver, CO
160
Des Moines, IA
3
Detroit, MI
9
Panama City, FL
8
El Paso, TX
16
Eugene, OR
1
Fresno, CA
3
Fort Lauderdale, FL
55
Spokane, WA
4
Grand Rapids, MI
2
Greer, SC
3
Hayden, CO
0
Houston, TX
91
Harlingen/San Benito, TX
0
Washington, DC
4
Houston, TX
10
Wichita, KS
4
Indianapolis, IN
25
Islip, NY
8
Jackson/Vicksburg, MS
3
Jacksonville, FL
12
Las Vegas, NV
164
Los Angeles, CA
30
Lubbock, TX
7
New York, NY
19
Long Beach, CA
23
Little Rock, AR
8
Midland/Odessa, TX
6
Kansas City, MO
35
Orlando, FL
127
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 46 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Low-Cost Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled flights
Chicago, IL
127
Memphis, TN
10
Manchester, NH
7
Miami, FL
27
Milwaukee, WI
27
Minneapolis, MN
16
New Orleans, LA
30
Montrose/Delta, CO
1
Myrtle Beach, SC
8
Oakland, CA
53
Oklahoma City, OK
18
Omaha, NE
11
Ontario, CA
18
Chicago, IL
29
Norfolk, VA
7
West Palm Beach/Palm
Beach, FL
6
Portland, OR
14
Philadelphia, PA
10
Phoenix, AZ
100
Pittsburgh, PA
18
Pensacola, FL
1
Palm Springs, CA
6
Providence, RI
18
Portland, ME
5
Raleigh/Durham, NC
21
Richmond, VA
0
Reno, NV
17
Rochester, NY
3
Fort Myers, FL
30
San Diego, CA
28
San Antonio, TX
24
Savannah, GA
3
Santa Barbara, CA
6
Louisville, KY
12
Seattle, WA
23
San Francisco, CA
18
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 47 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Low-Cost Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled flights
San Jose, CA
41
Salt Lake City, UT
28
Sacramento, CA
44
Santa Ana, CA
30
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL
10
St. Louis, MO
77
Tampa, FL
77
Tulsa, OK
10
Tucson, AZ
7
Valparaiso, FL
6
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 48 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 12 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 28, 2021 through November 1, 2021
Figure 13 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 28, 2021 through November 1, 2021
Figure 14 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States (Origin City), October 28,
2021 through November 1, 2021
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 49 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Accessible Data for Figure 12 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, October 28, 2021 through
November 1, 2021
Day-Month
Flight Arrival Delayed
Flight Cancelled
28-Oct
1640
418
29-Oct
1361
317
30-Oct
589
481
31-Oct
591
962
1-Nov
1052
467
Accessible Data for Figure 13 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, October 28, 2021
through November 1, 2021
Day-Month
Percent
cancellation by
Carrier
Percent
cancellation by
Weather
Percent
cancellation by
NAS
Percent
cancellation by
Security
28-Oct
9.80861240
11.72248800
78.22966510
0.23923440
28-Oct
84.22712930
8.88888889
6.62460570
0.31545740
28-Oct
100.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
28-Oct
100.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
1-Nov
99.78586720
0.21413280
0.00000000
0.00000000
Accessible Data for Figure 14 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States
(Origin City), October 28, 2021 through November 1, 2021
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton,
PA
0
Abilene, TX
3
Albuquerque, NM
13
Waco, TX
3
Arcata/Eureka, CA
0
Alexandria, LA
1
Augusta, GA
0
Albany, NY
5
Waterloo, IA
0
Amarillo, TX
3
Watertown, NY
0
Aspen, CO
0
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 50 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Atlanta, GA
20
Appleton, WI
0
Austin, TX
38
Asheville, NC
1
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA
0
Kalamazoo, MI
0
Hartford, CT
16
Bakersfield, CA
0
Bangor, ME
3
Birmingham, AL
4
Billings, MT
0
Bismarck/Mandan, ND
0
Bloomington/Normal, IL
1
Nashville, TN
32
Boise, ID
2
Boston, MA
24
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
1
Brownsville, TX
1
Baton Rouge, LA
3
Burlington, VT
0
Buffalo, NY
5
Burbank, CA
2
Baltimore, MD
16
Bozeman, MT
2
Columbia, SC
3
Akron, OH
0
Chattanooga, TN
2
Charlottesville, VA
0
Charleston, SC
7
Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, IA
2
Cleveland, OH
10
College Station/Bryan, TX
1
Charlotte, NC
317
Columbus, OH
13
Champaign/Urbana, IL
2
Colorado Springs, CO
5
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 51 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Columbia, MO
4
Corpus Christi, TX
2
Charleston/Dunbar, WV
0
Columbus, GA
0
Cincinnati, OH
8
Mosinee, WI
0
Daytona Beach, FL
0
Dayton, OH
0
Dubuque, IA
1
Washington, DC
56
Denver, CO
32
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
605
Durango, CO
0
Del Rio, TX
2
Des Moines, IA
4
Detroit, MI
15
Panama City, FL
0
Eagle, CO
0
El Paso, TX
15
Erie, PA
0
Eugene, OR
0
Evansville, IN
1
New Bern/Morehead/Beaufort,
NC
0
Newark, NJ
22
Key West, FL
2
Fargo, ND
1
Fresno, CA
3
Fayetteville, NC
0
Flagstaff, AZ
1
Fort Lauderdale, FL
12
Florence, SC
0
Flint, MI
0
Sioux Falls, SD
1
Fort Smith, AR
2
Fort Wayne, IN
0
Garden City, KS
1
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 52 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Spokane, WA
4
Longview, TX
2
Grand Junction, CO
0
Gainesville, FL
0
Gulfport/Biloxi, MS
1
Green Bay, WI
0
Grand Island, NE
1
Killeen, TX
2
Grand Rapids, MI
6
Greensboro/High Point, NC
2
Greer, SC
3
Hilton Head, SC
0
Houston, TX
1
White Plains, NY
0
Harlingen/San Benito, TX
1
Huntsville, AL
3
Ashland, WV
0
Washington, DC
9
Houston, TX
25
Wichita, KS
2
Idaho Falls, ID
1
Wilmington, NC
5
Indianapolis, IN
18
Islip, NY
0
Ithaca/Cortland, NY
0
Jackson, WY
0
Jackson/Vicksburg, MS
2
Jacksonville, FL
15
New York, NY
21
Lansing, MI
0
Las Vegas, NV
40
Lawton/Fort Sill, OK
2
Los Angeles, CA
60
Lubbock, TX
3
Lake Charles, LA
1
Lexington, KY
1
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 53 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Lafayette, LA
0
New York, NY
35
Long Beach, CA
0
Little Rock, AR
4
Laredo, TX
2
La Crosse, WI
0
Lynchburg, VA
0
Midland/Odessa, TX
2
Kansas City, MO
12
Orlando, FL
41
Harrisburg, PA
2
Memphis, TN
16
Mission/McAllen/Edinburg, TX
5
Medford, OR
0
Montgomery, AL
1
Manhattan/Ft. Riley, KS
2
Manchester, NH
0
Miami, FL
135
Milwaukee, WI
8
Melbourne, FL
0
Moline, IL
0
Monroe, LA
1
Mobile, AL
2
Marquette, MI
0
Monterey, CA
2
Madison, WI
4
Missoula, MT
0
Minneapolis, MN
14
New Orleans, LA
21
Montrose/Delta, CO
1
Myrtle Beach, SC
6
Jacksonville/Camp Lejeune,
NC
0
Oklahoma City, OK
11
Omaha, NE
13
Ontario, CA
10
Chicago, IL
138
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 54 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Norfolk, VA
12
West Palm Beach/Palm Beach,
FL
11
Portland, OR
17
Greenville, NC
0
Newport News/Williamsburg,
VA
0
Philadelphia, PA
43
Phoenix, AZ
123
Peoria, IL
0
Pittsburgh, PA
11
Pensacola, FL
1
Palm Springs, CA
5
Providence, RI
1
Portland, ME
6
Rapid City, SD
0
Bend/Redmond, OR
0
Raleigh/Durham, NC
21
Richmond, VA
12
Reno, NV
10
Roanoke, VA
0
Rochester, NY
2
Roswell, NM
1
Rochester, MN
0
Fort Myers, FL
17
Santa Fe, NM
1
San Diego, CA
27
San Antonio, TX
21
Savannah, GA
3
Santa Barbara, CA
0
South Bend, IN
0
San Luis Obispo, CA
1
Salisbury, MD
0
State College, PA
0
Louisville, KY
5
Seattle, WA
23
San Francisco, CA
24
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 55 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Network Disruption Origin City Name
Total number of cancelled
flights
Springfield, MO
1
St. George, UT
1
Shreveport, LA
3
San Jose, CA
6
San Angelo, TX
3
Salt Lake City, UT
18
Sacramento, CA
8
Santa Ana, CA
13
Springfield, IL
1
Wichita Falls, TX
1
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL
1
St. Louis, MO
20
Santa Rosa, CA
0
Charlotte Amalie, VI
3
Christiansted, VI
2
Stillwater, OK
0
Syracuse, NY
2
Tallahassee, FL
3
Toledo, OH
0
Tampa, FL
35
Bristol/Johnson City/Kingsport,
TN
2
Tulsa, OK
8
Tucson, AZ
16
Traverse City, MI
0
Texarkana, AR
1
Tyler, TX
2
Knoxville, TN
1
Valparaiso, FL
7
Fayetteville, AR
5
Yuma, AZ
1
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 56 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Figure 15 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, July 29, 2021 through August 9, 2021
Figure 16 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, July 29, 2021 through August 9, 2021
Figure 17 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States (Origin City), July 29, 2021
through August 9, 2021
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 57 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Accessible Data for Figure 15 Cancelled and Delayed Flights, July 29, 2021 through August 9,
2021
Day-Month
Flight Arrival Delayed
Flight Cancelled
29-Jul
259
17
30-Jul
277
44
31-Jul
237
101
1-Aug
259
208
2-Aug
171
372
3-Aug
110
403
4-Aug
87
400
5-Aug
94
421
6-Aug
128
327
7-Aug
154
184
8-Aug
149
105
9-Aug
155
63
Accessible Data for Figure 16 Reported Causes of Flight Cancellations, July 29, 2021 through
August 9, 2021
Day-Month
Percent
cancellation by
Carrier
Percent
cancellation by
Weather
Percent
cancellation by
NAS
Percent
cancellation by
Security
29-Jul
11.76470600
76.47058800
11.76470600
0.00000000
30-Jul
68.18181800
31.81818200
0.00000000
0.00000000
31-Jul
100.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
1-Aug
94.71153800
3.36538500
1.92307700
0.00000000
2-Aug
96.23655900
2.41935500
1.07526900
0.26881700
3-Aug
93.54838700
2.72952900
3.72208400
0.00000000
4-Aug
95.00000000
2.00000000
3.00000000
0.00000000
5-Aug
98.81235200
0.23753000
0.95011900
0.00000000
6-Aug
99.38837900
0.00000000
0.61162100
0.00000000
7-Aug
98.91304300
1.08695700
0.00000000
0.00000000
8-Aug
98.09523800
1.90476200
0.00000000
0.00000000
9-Aug
100.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
0.00000000
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 58 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Accessible Data for Figure 17 Cancelled Flight Locations in the Contiguous United States
(Origin City), July 29, 2021 through August 9, 2021
Ultra-Low-Cost Carrier Disruption Origin City
Name
Total number of cancelled flights
Atlantic City, NJ
41
Atlanta, GA
126
Austin, TX
27
Hartford, CT
29
Nashville, TN
29
Boston, MA
61
Burbank, CA
2
Baltimore, MD
83
Akron, OH
4
Cleveland, OH
55
Charlotte, NC
9
Columbus, OH
36
Charleston/Dunbar, WV
4
Denver, CO
47
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
59
Detroit, MI
84
Newark, NJ
98
Fort Lauderdale, FL
247
Greensboro/High Point,
NC
9
Houston, TX
92
Indianapolis, IN
41
Las Vegas, NV
164
Los Angeles, CA
139
Latrobe, PA
27
New York, NY
33
Kansas City, MO
48
Orlando, FL
274
Milwaukee, WI
13
Minneapolis, MN
28
New Orleans, LA
47
Myrtle Beach, SC
128
Oakland, CA
17
Chicago, IL
69
Appendix II: Selected Flight Disruption
Snapshots
Page 59 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
Ultra-Low-Cost Carrier Disruption Origin City
Name
Total number of cancelled flights
West Palm Beach/Palm
Beach, FL
3
Portland, OR
9
Philadelphia, PA
58
Phoenix, AZ
8
Pittsburgh, PA
43
Pensacola, FL
26
Raleigh/Durham, NC
4
Richmond, VA
8
Fort Myers, FL
33
San Diego, CA
15
Louisville, KY
23
Seattle, WA
4
Sacramento, CA
13
Santa Ana, CA
15
St. Louis, MO
26
Charlotte Amalie, VI
4
Christiansted, VI
2
Tampa, FL
86
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Page 60 GAO-23-105524 Airline Passenger Protections
GAOContact
Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or Kr[email protected].
StaffAcknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Jonathan Carver (Assistant
Director); Amy Suntoke (Analyst in Charge); Amy Abramowitz; Paul
Aussendorf; Melanie Maralit Diemel; Melissa Greenaway; Delwen Jones;
Frances Tirado; Alicia Wilson; and Elizabeth Wood made key
contributions to this report.
AppendixIII:GAOContactand
StaffAcknowledgments
GAO’sMission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
ObtainingCopiesofGAOReportsandTestimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
OrderbyPhone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
ConnectwithGAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
ToReportFraud,Waste,andAbuseinFederal
Programs
Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
CongressionalRelations
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, Clower[email protected], (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
DC 20548
PublicAffairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
StrategicPlanningandExternalLiaison
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548
