| by |
Carl Marbach |
| AVweb Publisher
|
Last summer, I flew 43 cross-country flights, traveling over
20,000 miles. I didn't have one cancelled flight, I experienced no delays and
my wife's baggage never got lost. My Aerostar and the air traffic control
(ATC) system performed flawlessly. The airlines and their passengers weren't
so lucky.
True, I never got closer to Chicago's O'Hare than Oshkosh during EAA
AirVenture, I flew over Denver but never landed there and my only visit to New
York was by car while I was having new avionics installed nearby in
Pennsylvania. About half of my flying was in the IFR system with only a very
small part of that in actual IFR. I flew around a number of thunderstorms and
descended through a number of cloud decks but saw mostly good, normal summer
weather throughout the U.S. As a rule, I found the ATC system to be "kinder"
and more cooperative than ever.
On one flight, an electrical connector came out of my
altitude encoder while en route to Maine. This caused my transponder to report
that I was over 18,000 feet and in class A airspace (where you have to be IFR)
although I was really at 17,500 feet and legally in class E airspace enjoying
the VFR weather. When I arrived at Lewiston, Maine, (LEW) the FBO gave me a
message requesting that I call Boston ARTCC. When I reached the watch desk,
the person there told me of the problem. In response, I said that I was really
at 17,500 feet. "Better get that fixed," was all he said. I thanked him, went
out and pulled open the avionics panel on the airplane, and discovered the
partially disconnected connector on the encoder. I tightened and tie-wrapped
it for security and have had no problems since.
Later in the summer, as I climbed 100 feet past my assigned altitude, a
controller asked me to confirm the altitude to which I was climbing. This
alerted me to my laxness and I leveled off before busting the altitude —
thank you Denver Center.
I also found controllers willing to work for me. When I asked for direct
clearances that were hundreds of miles into the next sector or center, they
researched whether such a route was possible or allowed by calling ahead when
it would have been much easier for them to simply say, "make that request of
the next controller" or "I don't control that airspace." My requests for
deviations around weather were routinely approved. In sum, the professional
men and women on the scopes and in the towers made my 111.5 flight hours much
more pleasant this summer with their help and cooperation. Ladies and
gentlemen: Thanks.
Looking back on my experiences last summer and at AVweb's news
coverage at the time, it seems to me that most — if not all — of the
complaining about the ATC system came not from airline passengers but from the
airlines themselves. Among the organizations that registered complaints about
the ATC system was the Air Transport Association (ATA), which is the oldest
and largest airline trade association in the U.S. and claims to represent 23
domestic and five foreign carriers. The ATA says that the summer's massive
(their word, not mine) airline delays were "caused mostly by weather and the
government's outdated air traffic control system." Really? No mention of
United Airlines' labor troubles and the resulting massive (my word) flight
cancellations? According to DOT statistics, United was on time only 49% of the
time this summer. In July, its on-time rate was 42 percent when the industry
average was 70 percent.
No mention of the airlines' practice of
scheduling more flights in and out of most major airports during certain hours
of the day than the airports can handle? Airport capacity is a major factor
when considering the causes of delays. According to the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Aviation, "An insufficient number of runways
and outdated air traffic control equipment are often cited as a prime cause of
the delays. Only five new runways were added at the 29 largest airports
between 1991 and 1999." When industry groups blame their problems on the
hardworking men and women staffing the ATC system in the U.S. and ignore other
problems of their own making, I believe it's time for all of us in general
aviation to step up and take them to task.
Frankly, that an unsuspecting public was forced to bear the brunt of
United's labor problems should be abhorrent to the industry, to the FAA and to
Congress. "Soft" strikes by airline labor unions — such as those predicted by
some mechanics during this Thanksgiving Day weekend — are too unfair for too
many unsuspecting travelers. (Of course, if airline passengers would use
general aviation more, the employee unions wouldn't have as much of a
stranglehold on the carriers.) If passengers had been treated only a fraction
as well by the airlines as I was treated by the "outdated air traffic control
system" and the controllers themselves, the summer could have been a lot more
pleasant than it was for airline passengers.
Once you cut through the fog and mist
of this problem, both the problem and the solution seem incredibly simple. We
COULD upgrade ATC and squeeze a few more planes onto the existing runways. We
might be able to squeeze more flights into EWR, for example, by maybe ten more
airplanes an hour — perhaps a 20-percent increase. But these relatively
small, incremental increases, particularly those that eventually can't go any
higher (does anyone seriously think EWR can handle 100 an hour?) don't solve
the problems being faced by passengers and their airline. What we need is more
places to put the airplanes. In other words, the U.S. air transportation
system is hurting for more runways.
Yet, for years the airlines fought the idea of allowing Midway to become a
second air-carrier airport serving Chicago. Similarly, Dallas' Love Field was
the subject of lengthy court battles waged by the airlines and only now is
seeing its activity levels rise to the point that it can contribute to the
nation's system capacity. Sadly, there are too few examples of cities building
new airports or opening up underutilized ones in recent years. To be sure,
there are many reasons for this national failure to add new airports. Among
them is local opposition for reasons of noise or other issues. Many, however,
have been blocked by the airlines themselves.
Why do the airlines fight against more airports? Well, they require
additional staff and facilities, both of which cost more money. Also, the
current airline "management" mentality is that everyone connects to somewhere
and the logistics of having connections at more than one airport in one city
is too mind-boggling for the airlines to work through.
Assuming that ATC is both the problem and the solution to airline delays is
short-sighted and flawed. Sure, the ATC system needs new and better equipment
and more people working the boards, but airport capacity continues to be the
single factor that is most responsible for delays.
If you want to see where the problems
are with air traffic today, AVweb has a wonderful tool that is easy and
fun to use: Flight Explorer
Personal Edition. With it, anyone can see the huge number of flights
streaming to just a handful of airports and their few runways.
Asking the airlines to solve this problem isn't the answer either. The
airlines just USE the airports, they don't build them — that is the
responsibility of the local community. Does this mean that our air
transportation system is dependent on local communities building and
maintaining our airports? Yes and no. The federal government often pays a
large portion of airport development costs through the Airport and Airways
Trust Fund, which is supported by the revenues from the airline ticket tax,
fuel taxes on general aviation and other resources.
But money isn't the only problem. Currently Boston's Logan airport has a
problem when the wind blows in certain directions and only one runway is
available for landing aircraft. This severely degrades the airport's
acceptance rate and can screw up traffic up and down the east coast. The
airport would like to build a second runway, but that would affect the
neighborhoods to the north and they are protesting the expansion. Denver was
able to replace Stapleton only because there was so much empty land east of
the city — very few people were affected by the new facility. Try to find
room to build new runways at any of the New York airports, in Chicago, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis or many other cities and you'll find that
one definition of a major city is a place where land is at a premium and often
filled with communities that can't be displaced. When O'Hare airport was built
it was far out in the sticks — now the suburbs surround it.
Attempts to expand the airport system
in New York to include Stewart airport up the Hudson River have met with the
usual lack of interest from the airlines. Long Island's Islip field is finally
being used but is a long way from your Manhattan destination. Did you ever
notice that New York has an airport already built in Brooklyn called Floyd
Bennett Field? It is a closed military base, and we wonder why New York can't
have a fourth airport.
Is there a move about to increase our airport capacity? In fact, it is just
the opposite. For general aviation, we are losing airports with a regularity
that does not bode well for the future. The military has closed many of its
facilities around the nation and there are many under- or non-utilized runways
just waiting for some community to develop them. Outside Philadelphia is the
Johnsville Naval Air Development center which has mostly moved elsewhere and
is now just "Closed." So, even when there is pavement available, we don't take
advantage of it.
The cartoon character Pogo once said, "I have found the enemy and he is
us." The real enemy to fixing our problem with delays is the fact that we
(most of the citizenry of the U.S.) don't want a new or an expanded airport
near us. What we DO want is fast, economical and reliable air service. To get
that, we're going to need more airports and more runways. Nothing short of
this is going to have any real impact on capacity and delays.
When Jane Garvey became FAA administrator, I had many reservations. In her
first few years she has brought to the job vigor, honesty, intelligence and a
genuine desire to make things better for the entire aviation community. To a
large extent she has done that and more. More can and should be done, of
course. Yet, she and the thousands of FAA employees — and controllers — who
do a great job day in and day out don't deserve to be the target of the
airlines, local airport managers or anyone else with an axe to grind. The
traveling public deserves to know what the real problem is and what the real
solutions are.
Email this article
