Issues 2000
User demands, infrastructure concerns, noise, and regional jet service top the list, says ACI-NA chair
BY Bailis F. Bell, Chairman, ACI-NA
June 2000
As we hold our breath a bit while working through Y2K concerns, we all look forward to the next millenium — now just six months away. Airports have been working to ensure a smooth transition to December 31, 1999, and I feel confident we are well prepared. That said, what should we remember about 1999 as we forge ahead — and what needs do our airports have as we enter the next millennium?
In the matter of airport priorities, there are three prominent issues: capacity and funding needs; environmental issues; and the smart use of regional jets.
ACI-NA president David Plavin, at the FAA forecast conference in March, provided a picture of how today's aviation industry is growing into more of everything — more passengers, more planes, more seats, more cargo, more baggage, and more flights. As part of this aviation system, airports are growing businesses. Like other businesses, we are very concerned about being able to serve customers well.
Impact of customer service expectations
The nature of airports is such that everything we do is driven by passenger
needs, and passengers are demanding more and better of the air travel
experience. The passenger Bill of Rights, now under consideration by Congress,
is one clear reflection of this. Airports understand that (in contrast
to airlines) it is the airport manager that is accountable to the community
and the travelers who use their facilities.
In response, airports are going beyond traditional roles to improve the travel experience: creating customer service programs to humanize the travel experience and working to put in place conveniences passengers want. For example, while winter weather cannot be avoided, in most cases it is the airports that step up to the plate and take care of inconvenienced travelers. Some airports have Passenger Assistance Programs in place and are able to work with concessionaires to ensure service during unusual conditions.
Capacity, Capacity, Capacity
Air travel has boomed incredibly in the last 20 years. And, as we all
know, FAA predicts passenger and cargo activity to climb, forecasting
almost 1 billion passenger enplanements for U.S. passenger traffic by
the year 2010. This represents more than a 60 percent overall increase
in passenger activity in little more than a decade. In that same time
period, U.S. commercial air cargo is expected to grow a projected average
annual growth of 6.0 percent. While that generates tremendous economic
benefits, it also means that, with an ever-growing customer base, capacity
is now a major issue for airports.
Airports must have the ability to efficiently handle the people and freight that will move through them. Does the world at-large understand our needs? What does capacity really mean? It is like that proverbial three-legged stool — one leg is the aircraft and airlines that fly; the second leg is the air traffic system to guide the planes and pilots, and the third leg (or the first, depending upon how you look at it) represents the runways, terminals, and facilities needed on the ground to handle the people and the freight. All three legs must be strong enough and balanced to handle the weight.
Having more planes
or more advanced ATC will do us little good if there is no place to land
the planes and unload them. For airports, two keys can unlock future capacity
needs:
1) allocating the dollars to fund the infrastructure; and,
2) obtaining local community and political buy-in to support necessary
projects.
This year in Washington, we have a great opportunity to push forward funding proposals that will help guarantee that airport capacity keeps up with demand — by providing an adequate and steady funding stream upon which airports can rely. The reauthorization of FAA's programs (through AIR-21) provides a level of funding that airports have never known. Through the increase in the passenger facility charge, the House bill makes it possible for airports to control our destinies more directly, allowing us to raise more funds to build the infrastructure we need. If these proposals can pass through Congress, we'll all well remember 1999 as the turning point that allowed us to move forward to meet capacity demands.
Interestingly enough, this issue brings to the forefront another element critical to operating airports while being responsive to our customers and communities. That is, balancing the inherent benefits of airport development with environmental protection.
The no. 1 environmental concern: noise
Airports must offer a safe operating environment to customers, to neighbors.
Environmental management from the top down is necessary to address some
key issues:
• capital expenditures on stormwater protection systems;
• investment in alternative fuel supporting infrastructure; and,
• the use of sustainable design and development plans for new facilities.
We are improving these areas daily and will continue to address a multitude of environmental concerns, though our most aggressive activity has been, and probably always will be, in addressing the impact of aircraft noise.
The Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 included a federally mandated policy on the phaseout of older, noisier aircraft. As this passed, airport operators around the country gave a collective sign of relief: finally, we had a national policy that we could explain to our communities, and give them some guarantee of a quieter future. But now, as that phaseout deadline approaches next year, new concerns have very recently come on to the horizon.
By way of background, since the original passage of the Noise Act of 1990, a strong economy and low fuel prices have encouraged some air carriers to explore ways to extend the lives of certain noisy Stage 2 airplanes by developing "hush-kits" or by applying limitations in takeoff weight, settings for flaps, or use of engine thrust power. While these airplanes are technically compliant with limits, they are significantly noisier than an airplane originally built to Stage 3 limits — producing little or no reduction in the actual noise experience around airports. Certainly this is not something that our communities bargained for when we promised them a phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft nor was it what airports were anticipating.
Recently, ACI-NA applauded the U.S. government for persuading the European Union Council of Ministers to delay until next year the implementation of a discriminatory and ineffective "anti-noise" regulation. The EU ban would eliminate the ability of U.S. carriers to operate certain aircraft in Europe, regardless of the fact that some noisier, older aircraft would still continue to be permitted in Europe. We urged, instead, that the U.S. government use the postponement to take a more aggressive position toward resolving critical noise concerns facing U.S. airport communities, and to work with the EU for a joint proposal to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
We've expressed our concerns in a recent letter to the FAA and have talked with Administrator Garvey, suggesting the formation of an industry working group to resolve this issue. Our goal is new operating deadlines that would prohibit the long-term operation of marginally compliant ’Stage 3' aircraft. We also advocate a global agreement on a new Chapter 4, requiring newly manufactured aircraft to make full use of new generation aircraft and engine technology.
If we don't act quickly we could ignite a new noise controversy when communities realize that the Year 2000 final Stage II phaseout leaves many marginally compliant and extremely noisy airplanes still operating in the airline fleet.
Emerging Regional Jets
The final issue, of concern to me, particularly as director of airports
at Wichita, is the impact and evolution of regional jets on airports.
Regional jet traffic is growing, and airports will need to design facilities
to accommodate these aircraft. It's estimated that in the year 2003, between
500 and 800 regional jets will be operating in the US. Airports need to
take a look at runway lengths, ground services, loading bridges, baggage
handling, and other airport systems to ensure a "seamless" travel
experience for the passengers traveling by regional jet. Regional jet
service will increase hub activity while, at the same time, offer more
service to longer distance, point-to-point, "thin" markets.
Regional jet service will continue to feed into larger aircraft, have longer hauls, and provide more work for air carrier pilots. This means that regional jets will add to the increased flight activity mentioned earlier.
Another result of regional jet service will be increased competition and, therefore, we hope, lower fares. In other words, regional jets are encompassing all the qualities that business travelers are demanding. As an operator in a market that needs this type of service, I'm very excited about the air service possibilities that these jets are capable of introducing to smaller communities. To passengers, a higher quality of service means jet service.
