Comments to the Committee on Small Business



Statement of

James K. Coyne, President

National Air Transportation Association

4226 King Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22302

(703) 845-9000

on the

Federal Aviation Administration’s

Capacity Benchmarks

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Aviation

April 25, 2001

Washington, DC

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member Lipinski, and other members of the Subcommittee, my name is James K. Coyne, and I am the president of the National Air Transportation Association (NATA). NATA represents nearly 2,000 aviation businesses that own, operate and service aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, aircraft parts sales, airline servicing, aircraft storage, flight training, Part 135 non-scheduled air charter, aircraft rental, and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are the vital link in the aviation industry that provides services to the general public, airlines, general aviation, and the military.

I appear before the Subcommittee today to address the growing concern from the general aviation community about capacity benchmarks and the new buzzword of the day, “demand management.” There has been considerable discussion recently about congestion at U.S. airports and what can be done to eliminate these delays and improve efficiency. Individuals have even suggested that general aviation should be excluded from some of the biggest and most important airports in the country. I suggest that the advocates of capacity benchmarks concentrate less on ways of defining the limits on airports and, instead, focus their efforts on inventing new ways to accommodate their needs for all airport users.

Capacity Benchmarks

Attempts to quantify the congestion problem at our nation’s busiest airports in the form of capacity benchmarks are a well-meaning but fundamentally flawed initiative. The term “benchmark” suggests that room exists in the algorithms designed to produce these magical numbers, but we all know that within a few weeks these benchmarks will become hard and fast ceilings in the minds of airport opponents and others who want to misuse these unsuspecting little numerals.

These numbers are not only dangerous, they are incorrect. They are based on current airport use methodology and existing FAA culture that has not promoted procedures to increase airport capacity in over a decade. In fact, recent changes in our airspace structure and separation standards have actually reduced capacity at many airports – and despite prodding from Congress and various user groups, FAA employees still have no direct incentives to increase the utilization of existing concrete. Publishing official capacity benchmarks at a time when congestion and delays are so prominent will only enshrine the system’s current mediocrity as a new standard of acceptable performance.

The official government position appears to be that it’s too hard to increase the capacity of existing runways, and many bureaucrats bristle at the idea that improving runway utilization should even be considered. Yet during the recent FAA Forecast Conference here in Washington, D.C., it was predicted that over the next decade airline enplanements will increase by 45%, cargo ton-miles by 64%, regional/commuter enplanements by 72%, and general aviation turbojet activity by 89%. With less than a dozen major runways being built in the foreseeable future, it is essential that we find ways to increase capacity on the runways that we already have at our airports.

Demand Management

In almost any other industry faced with explosive and predictable growth, there would be scores of initiatives to meet rising demand, and research labs from coast to coast would be working overtime to find how to safely get more takeoffs and landings from every mile of concrete currently in place at airports. Yet, we now hear a call for something very different, “demand management.”

Spend an afternoon, as I have, at the end of a runway at one of our congested airports and time the takeoffs and landings with a stopwatch to see how much “concrete time” is truly being wasted. You will quickly calculate that even our busiest runways are underutilized by at least 30%. At many high-activity airports, you’ll also find an unused cross runway that most general aviation pilots could easily accept without interfering with the traffic on the main runways.

But rather than being seen as part of the solution, general aviation is perceived as part of the problem. I find it ironic that airport authorities and the airlines, the very segments of aviation that got us in this congested mess in the first place, point their fingers at general aviation as the easiest way to eliminate their congestion.

Recognition of National Air Transportation System

NATA recently released a report titled “American Aviation Access Initiative – Providing All Americans With Access to Air Transportation” that demonstrates how access to our nation’s air transportation network for a community translates directly to good jobs, affordable housing, quality modern medical care, and a clean environment. The individuals who live in towns and cities where the value of the airport is recognized clearly benefit in a better quality of life. For many communities, general aviation airports are the only readily accessible link to the national and international air transportation system and are a valuable economic resource. Shutting general aviation out at America’s busiest airports eliminates the opportunity for these communities to be connected to this vital system.

Technology Utilization

If we want to maximize the use of existing runway infrastructure, we must modernize our understanding of who or what should control or manage the airspace of the future. Simply stated, there are three choices: the controller, the pilot, or a computer. The controller dominates our current system, the pilot is the icon of free-flight dreamers, and the computer is almost certainly the choice of destiny. Only computers can perform the millions of calculations per second that are needed to safely and accurately evaluate all the potential courses for thousands of aircraft across millions of miles of airspace.

NATA believes that an advanced traffic management system could provide dramatic benefits to all users including reducing delays and the need for capacity benchmarks. Clearly, airspace capacity would be increased exponentially, and runway utilization could be increased by fifty percent or more.

Another technology for which we must expand utilization is satellite-based systems to allow the aviation industry and the FAA capabilities to reach far beyond the current status quo. Direct routing for aircraft, increasing air traffic, conserving fuel, and safer precision landing capabilities at hundreds of airports currently without precision landing systems are possible with satellite technology.

Technology can and should be used to increase human productivity, and systems can and should be designed to maximize the utilization of capital investments. Progress means figuring how to get around the limits of yesterday. I believe it is time to use technology to create a more efficient air transportation system and reduce airport congestion and delays.

The Future

Try as we might, there are some incontrovertible facts that we all must accept and accordingly learn to overcome. First, demand is going to increase significantly. Second, we simply will not be able to add new runways quickly enough to meet this demand at our nation’s busiest airports. Third, the public’s patience with delays will quickly vanish. Fourth, the current FAA culture provides very little incentive to increase the utilization of existing runways. Fifth, we have only scratched the surface in using technology to increase the capacity at our airports.

As I stated earlier in my testimony, we must stop thinking of ways to define the limits at our airports and, instead, think about inventing new ways of managing the flow of aircraft on and off our runways. I am completely supportive of pouring new concrete to create new runways, but we all must recognize that between now and then time simply will not stand still. If benchmarks are to be established, let’s set them for where we should be at the end of the 21st century, not here and now, mired in the mediocrity of an uninspired status quo. Otherwise, the numbers will only tell us how much we disappoint the people who really count: a new generation of Americans who want to move up in the world and fly even more.

NATA appreciates the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download