AirportBusiness Blogs

… well, that might be one interpretation of a Government Accountability Office (www.gao.gov)  report issued Friday on the good and bad for airports related to the oncoming Airbus A-380. The questions related to the A-380 are many – separation with other aircraft due to wake vortices, still under study; taxi times on the ground; passenger throughput at the gates; ground handling turn times; and, aircraft rescue and firefighting response capabilities; among others.
 

The A-380 will be able to accommodate more than 800 passengers, which the manufacturer likes to point to as a capacity enhancer. GAO isn’t so sure, cautioning that more passengers may be offset by longer times for ground operations and for moving passengers loading and unloading. It may at best be a wash. At a time when the U.S. airport system is again concerned about available capacity to meet projected demand, a clearer handle on the impact of the aircraft on operations could prove helpful. Meanwhile, industry is awaiting an FAA study to determine whether or not it will be safe to allow the aircraft to utilize 150-foot wide runways; ICAO calls for 200-foot wide runways for this new category of heavy aircraft.
 

GAO says that its research shows “all 18 U.S. airports [planning to accommodate the A-380] we visited anticipated imposing some type of operating restrictions on the A380 or on other aircraft that operate around the A380. The anticipated operating restrictions would generally affect runway and taxiway use.”
 

Many of the operating questions related to the A-380, like the Boeing 747 before it, will be answered when the aircraft actually enters commercial service, expected later this year. Ironically, the prime beneficiary of all these ‘lessons learned’ will be Airbus’s number one competitor. The next-generation 747-8, expected to be in service by 2010, has nearly identical airfield operating specs.
 

Thanks for reading. jfi

We are losing one of aviation’s good guys. Long-time Cessna Regional Manager Jim Hackman is retiring.

But that’s not why I’m astounded.

Jim has been a good friend for years, and I’ve certainly benefited from the friendship more than he has. Jim probably doesn’t know it, but he has long been one of my heroes. He has handled tough things so well, and life in general so enthusiastically, that I just sat back in admiration.

Jim is one of those guys who truly believes in aviation, and sold it well. He was convinced that general aviation is a good thing, and should be marketed as such. He recognized, as he said, that, “We change people’s lives by teaching them to fly.”

But that’s still not why I’m astounded.

Jim sent his last newsletter this week, announcing his retirement and introducing the man who will try to replace him. Then—and this is why I’m so astounded—he spent much of the remaining letter saying nice things about me. I can’t believe it. It is one of the greatest compliments I ever received and I appreciate it more than Jim will ever know. At the same time I feel guilty, because I am so undeserving of the honor.

Thanks, Jim, and may your retirement be long and happy. We’d love to post your comments. Please click the comment tab at the top.

By golly, I finally—and for the first time—believe the “green” movement is gonna amount to something.

This revelation came a couple of weeks ago, at the city library, where one couldn’t help but notice that the business mags—Forbes, Fortune, and even The Economist—had articles about corporations trying to make green profitable.

Then, this week, came an e-mail from Delta urging me to “Support Delta’s Force for Global Good.” Delta, it seems, plans to plant trees around the world. If I buy tickets, Delta will plant more trees.

Seems to me that this is now a movement that can’t be easily stopped. Evidently, companies do things like this once they feel that most of the population wants green, and will reward profit-seeking firms that participate. Remember, we saw this happen with smoking. Once it was evident that much of the population was antismoking, we saw the growth of nonsmoking areas, smoke-free flights and other restrictions on the habit.

One thing about this country—when any movement is seen as a source of profit, we’re gonna see more of that movement. I have little faith in flaming liberals, but a lot of faith in profit seekers.

We’d love to post your comments. Please click the comment tab at the top. 

… should include a serious discussion about funding – in the general media, that is. On Sunday, Yahoo! was pushing an Associated Press article with a San Francisco dateline entitled, “Traveler taxes awarded to small airports.” In sum, the article was offering as a foregone conclusion that airline passengers had been bilked for billions via the feds to underwrite “small airports used mainly by private pilots and globe-trotting corporate executives.” 

The article quotes Robert Poole, president of the respected think-tank, Reason Foundation, who indeed sides more with the airlines’ funding argument that business aviation needs to pay more for its use of the system. And, it is true that FAA through the years has made millions in infrastructure investments at general aviation airports. Some of those investments may be questionable; in fact, FAA’s funding proposal calls for rethinking how GA airports are funded, or prioritized. Needless to say, projecting where infrastructure investment is best made in a system of airports is not an exact science. (Community follow-through plays large in long-term success.) 

Yet it is a system. Airports and user groups seem to best appreciate this fact, living day to day the relief that GA facilities provide to the commercial airline system of airports. In an AP article that attempts to represent the voices of various industry groups, there is never any mention of the system and how it interrelates. Little mention is made of the economic development created or facilitated in many communities because of many of these “small” airport investments. (The one instance: How an AIP grant helped a former Air Force base, now Plattsburg (NY) International Airport, succeed in attracting tenants. This angle, however, is downplayed.) 

Congressional leaders are considering whether or not the way aviation is funded needs to be changed. It would be helpful if their constituents were hearing a couple of the key elements of the story.  Thanks for reading. jfi     

During the last few weeks I have received several e-mails from Alabama’s Betty Meyer. She is lobbying for a bill that would bring some logic to taxes in Alabama. Right now, ad valorem taxes on aircraft in Alabama are a full third higher than on cars of equal value. That never seemed right to me, but you know how nobody feels sorry for the “rich fools” who fly these dangerous little airplanes.

Betty and others are backing a bill that would bring this obviously unjust taxation more in line.

Betty’s e-mails have urged me to contact my state representatives on behalf of this bill. She made it easy by including names and contact info. Course it didn’t work in my case, as I no longer live in Alabama. (Betty also publishes an online aviation e-zine and participates in other areas of aviation, usually at her own expense and effort.)

Betty tells me that the most rewarding part of this effort has been the response from her fellow pilots, which has been, she says, terrific. It is widely believed that pilots are not prone to get involved in politics, but Betty says they will indeed stand up to be counted when properly informed.

This whole thing reminds me of a story that is more than three decades old, but still fascinating. During the first oil crisis in the 1970s, Ted Kennedy actually tried to get all—repeat, all—general aviation aircraft grounded in order to save fuel. Mr. Dave Kratz, who at the time more or less owned aviation insurance carrier National Aviation Underwriters (NAU), took exception to Mr. Kennedy on this matter. Kratz and NAU sent mailgrams to every licensed pilot in the country at a tremendous cost in dollars and labor. Mr. Kennedy’s great idea was defeated. All I can say is thank goodness for people like Dave Kratz and Betty Meyer.

… D. Kirk Shaffer is hot on the idea of rethinking how we allocate funds to general aviation airports. During a phone interview this week with AIRPORT BUSINESS, Shaffer talked about the need to prioritize and to allocate resources accordingly. At the wrap-up, he addressed it one more time. 

“Let me finish up on the GA tiers,” he says, referring to the FAA’s proposal that a four-tier system for evaluating GA airports be established. Airports with 10-49 based aircraft would get an annual entitlement of $100,000; airports with 50-99 based aircraft, $200,000; and, airports with more than 100 based aircraft, $400,000. “You can see from that spread that what we’re trying to do throughout the legislative proposal is to focus our money on the airports that need it most, particularly the non-primes that have the least ability to pay for their capital needs.” 

FAA is also proposing it be allowed to grant funds for hangar maintenance and fuel farm upgrades – like funding a credit card reader to increase revenue – which it hasn’t been allowed to do. It’s akin to the discussion around pavement maintenance in the 1990s, says Shaffer, when FAA could help fund a runway but not its repair. In the long run, it cost more money. Shaffer calls such rules “silly.” 

While the FAA’s proposal now being discussed in the halls of Congress has many opponents (one key legislator called it dead on arrival), airport groups are finding a lot to like – PFC increases, etc. The call for reducing Airport Improvement Program funding levels sits as the biggest negative, but Congress once again doesn’t seem to have an appetite for that discussion. (Congress has balked at Administration calls for reductions in AIP before.) 

Look for more of the one-on-one interview with Kirk Shaffer in our upcoming April AIRPORT BUSINESS magazine. 

Thanks for reading. jfi       

The VLJ trade show in Charlotte last month was fascinating—not for its size, but for how well it covered one market.

This show was small. The whole thing took place in one hangar at Wilson Jet Center. It didn’t begin to compare with NATA, NBAA, or any other mega aviation groups. But, by golly it covered the VLJ market.

Sponsored by aviation manager and sales center Jetpool, LLC, of Charlotte, and Bank of America, the show took full advantage of the fact that the VLJ market is small in numbers but potentially big in bucks. I think they originally planned to attract about 100 attendees—they got more than 600 “gawkers and tire kickers.” And I can vouch for the fact that some of those were real buyers.

Exhibitors were there, too. Name a VLJ manufacturer and chances are they were there—Eclipse, Cessna, Honda, Embraer, Adams Aircraft, Spectrum, and Diamond. I wonder if a tradeshow has ever before had on exhibit such a high percentage of the total market.

Then there were the workshops—all were designed to help VLJ owners purchase, manage, finance, insure, and/or fly a new VLJ. The workshops were well attended and—judging from comments/questions—the subjects covered were right on target.

The attendees weren’t the only happy folks there. I questioned each of the exhibitors, and they all told me it was a good show for them, they were glad they came, and they will come back if it becomes an annual event. Jetpool CEO Ryan Stone was delighted, and justifiably so—a show can’t get much better than that. (I gotta confess—I left my wife’s digital camera at the show, and didn’t even know until days afterwards. I thought it was in my computer case. You can bet your last dollar that I was in the doghouse bigtime. A panicky call to Ryan Stone confirmed that they had found it, they still had it, and they would (and did) mail it. I like those people.)