Caps aren't the answer

Nearly 40 years ago, the federal government limited hourly operations at five "high density" airports in New York, Washington and Chicago to address growing air traffic congestion and traveler frustration. At a time when commercial aviation was still heavily regulated, and the cost of air travel was still relatively expensive, it made sense for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to implement what became known as the high-density rule to help manage demand in those three markets.

Today, record aviation delays are costing the U.S. economy $15.3 billion a year. Serving the financial capital of the world, New York area's three airports are suffering the most. Some are suggesting that we take the same heavy-handed, government-mandate approach today that we took in 1969, even though there could be far more effective, fair and sustainable approaches.

Imposing caps on flights eliminates congestion in the air in the same way that banning some drivers would ease congestion on the roads. Both would reduce congestion, but neither would improve the quality of life of the average American.

The FAA is implementing a number of changes to reduce delays in highly congested regions, including expanding airspace capacity and modernizing operations. We are also exploring the use of market-based mechanisms, such as congestion pricing or auctions. In New York specifically, we are moving forward with airspace redesign that will cut delays by 20%. We also have proposed congestion pricing options as part of a bill to reform the FAA's financing structure.

Congress and the flying public have made it clear that they want to encourage competition in the airline industry, but won't tolerate delays. The answer is not just a return to regulated flights and expensive airfares. The answer is finding the right mix of solutions that preserves travelers' options, keeps aviation competitive and reduces delays.

Robert Sturgell is acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.