> At the end of it all, it thus seems like we need a major > national investment in our air transit infrastructure. .
> . . Am I wrong? How else do you see breaking the
> capacity problem?

Well, that’s a broad question. If you’re talking specifically about air traffic control infrastructure then yes, that’s certainly a federal job because it’s interstate in scope. That’s what they keep arguing about in the FAA reauthorization right now because they want to fund the new system.

But if you’re talking about airports, it’s a big jumble of responsibility split between the feds, the state, and local governments. There are only a handful of airports in the US that truly need additional infrastructure. If you can get SFO to spread their runways out and JFK and ORD to add some more runways, you’re in much better shape on that front.

In fact, ORD is doing just that. It’s part of the mammoth ORD expansion program and yes, there is quite a bit of federal funding in there. Though I don’t have the FAA budget in front of me, I’d imagine that you could funnel enough money into those three airports to make big changes without having to add a new tax.

> For the layman, what actual controls (direct power,
> indirect power — eg funding, etc) does the DOT/ FAA
> have over airports and airport operations?

Oh man, you’re really going to test me on some of these. Most large airport projects end up needing federal funding so the FAA has a direct impact in those areas even if the decision to complete the projects isn’t necessarily their own. As far as airport operations go, that’s an FAA decision. So when JFK recently starting using their runways more efficiently, that came from the FAA.

> Is a lack of adequate snow clearing/ de-icing equipment
> really an issue at most large, at risk markets? Who is
> responsible for making those investment decisions? Who
> is responsible for paying for them? Does it come from
> landing fees?

This is not my area of expertise so maybe others would know better. But, my understanding is that the airport managers are in charge of snow removal while the individual airlines are in charge of deicing their aircraft. Some airports have massive deicing pads that make traffic flow much better, but that requires a lot of space and money to make it happen. Snow removal is probably a lot trickier than I would imagine. In a huge blizzard, no amount of equipment is going to clear runways fast enough, but I would assume there are other times where better equipment could make things happen.

> How can the federal government help with local airports
> violating local air traffic noise? Can the FAA/ DOT
> override local ordinances?

If there are specific agreements about noise, then I would think it would require renegotiation. Though the government can probably override if it’s absolutely necessary. But I was speaking more about areas that don’t have noise regulation but will raise hell if the government tries to move airplanes over their heads. They can push that through if they want because there are no regulations at that point.

> Is the system for taxiing at airports a national one or
> is their independent decision making by the local port
> authorities/ airports?

I believe that taxiing is under airfield operations and is handled by the FAA. You have to have standardization globally to avoid causing major accidents, so the ICAO is probably involved as well. There are changes that are being discussed on the national level including improved signaling and on-ground computer simulations that would show positions of every aircraft even in dense fog. Testing may happen at individual airfields, but the FAA is responsible.

These are some really good, really tough questions, and I tried to answer to the best of my knowledge. If other readers know more, please comment/correct me.

Good post and good that you took the time to try and spell out a bit of your thinking on solutions. However, from reading your post, I’m not really certain what you are expecting from the government. Your indicate that main issues in the winter are the airports themselves and trying to do everything possible to keep existing capacity running.

At the end of it all, it thus seems like we need a major national investment in our air transit infrastructure. I say National as I imagine it would have to be funded by the federal government (via some national flight tax), rather than the individual localities. Localities won’t be able to put the right level of investment in this because, what it seems you really need to is to build emergency capacity that would likely be uneconomic for the locality during the bulk of the year, but the absence of which is extremely costly to the national sysetem (not to mention national psyche – missed holidays, etc) during key periods.

Am I wrong? How else do you see breaking the capacity problem?

Random Qs:
A few other random Q’s to follow up on from your post:
- For the layman, what actual controls (direct power, indirect power — eg funding, etc) does the DOT/ FAA have over airports and airport operations?
- Is a lack of adequate snow clearing/ de-icing equipment really an issue at most large, at risk markets? Who is responsible for making those investment decisions? Who is responsible for paying for them? Does it come from landing fees?
- How can the federal government help with local airports violating local air traffic noise? Can the FAA/ DOT override local ordinances?
- Is the system for taxiing at airports a national one or is their independent decision making by the local port authorities/ airports?

And, as I sit here in a city brought to a halt by yet another transit strike, may I remind you, in the spirit of the season, to remember to give thanks this week to Ronald Reagon for breaking the air traffic controllers…

- Frog Man

I wonder who our next Secretary of Transportation will be? Hopefully we will get someone who understands the industry — along with a President, Representatives and Senators who will also stand up for adequate FAA funding as well.

We must do something
This is something
Therefore we must do this

or

We must look like we are doing something
Here’s a bunch of crap that sounds like something
Therefore let’s say we are doing this

This usually avoids that whole northeast ATC mess.

It seems to me that Peters is looking for low hanging fruit here. She makes a call to the military, asks if they can use a little airspace and it’s done. It makes it look like she’s doing something when it probably won’t help right now.

During the summer? Yeah, if she could get that implemented more often during the summer then it will help when t-storms are blocking the regular routes. But I would imagine the military isn’t doing as many exercises during Thanksgiving or Christmas as they will be during the rest of the year, so that’ll be tougher.

During the winter, the focus needs to be on airports. You really run into trouble when snow moves in, because a heavy snow can shut down an airport if the plows can’t keep up. So, make sure the major airports have adequate snow removal and deicing equipment to keep things moving as best they can.

Then, make sure you are efficiently using the runways you have so that you can launch as many aircraft as possible in quick succession. Also make sure you’re using as many departure routes as possible to make traffic flow as efficient as possible. I know they are not doing this right now, and they’re slow to make changes due to all the politics of aircraft noise.

If a snow storm does hit, you need to have a contingency plan to help keep people comfortable. I would like to see a redesign of the system for taxiing that wouldn’t require planes to sit in line for hours on end.

In the long run, we need more and better-spaced runways and more terminals to handle passenger growth. And yes, we should have free flight so that airplanes are not required to stay on airways. But those are long term projects.

I can confidentally state, even though I’m only a small time private pilot, that this will have absolutely NO bearing on airport congestion whatsoever. The problem isn’t lack of space in the sky or the availability of routes. It all comes down to the airport environment being TOO crowded, and having TOO MANY flights scheduled.

The stupily titled “express lane” isn’t doing ANYTHING! It’s NOT redesigning complex approach and departure procedures. It’s not spacing or rebuilding runways at tight airports to facilitate simoutaneous poor weather landings. It’s NOT improving ground radar and comms to reduce near misses or incurrences. These these only got a passing mention by saying the FAA “would take other steps”. What does that mean:?

If airlines and airports still have 25 planes scheduled to arrive at 5pm, cramming them in and stacking them up over the hub won’t LAND them any faster.

This “solution” is no different than building eight lanes on the rural interstates, but keeping all but one lane open through heavy construction approaching the big cities at rush hour.

Even those without knowledge of aviation and ATC systems can see the problem ISN’T in the sky – it’s at the airport. As a commenter on the CNN story stated: This is just window dressing.

I’m certainly not the highest expert in aviation, but I recognize BS, and to have a press conference and sell a “express lane through the east coast” is simply ridiculous.

James…

I love your blog. I read it daily, and find everything that you write to be very informative and well-written. While I don’t disagree with anything you wrote in this posting, I was curious, what specific, measurable steps would you take if someone were to make you Secretary of Transportation?