DOT Introduces an NPRM for Airports …
… and causes a stir. The Wall Street Journal says that the department’s announcement on Monday to allow U.S. airports to impose congestion pricing was “a move that caught the airlines off guard.” Probably not. FAA has been nudging along in this direction for a decade and it’s been a prominent part of the discussion for the past year on how to reduce congestion at New York’s airports. What was once sacrosanct – not allowing airports to set rates & charges at will to control activity – is now out the window with the proposed policy.
DOT says the policy change, published in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), would “make it easier for airports to add capacity and reduce congestion” by allowing them the flexibility to vary charges based on time of day and volume of aircraft. The idea is to prod airlines into spreading out traffic at high-density airports, thereby reducing congestion.
A significant change will allow airports to build into their fees the costs of projects designed to expand capacity, which DOT says will bring lower overall construction costs by helping airports avoid finance fees. The shift would also allow airport sponsors that operate more than one commercial facility, ala the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ), to distribute landing fees among those airports. Thus, the Port Authority could take money collected at its Big 3 airports and divert it to improvements at Stewart to encourage more utilization there.
Airports Council International-North America immediately embraced the move as one that affords airports more control over the use of their facilities. Others, including the Port Authority, question whether this is the proper cure for the congestion disease. The PANYNJ, in particular, has been calling for better management of the Northeast airspace by FAA.
Count Jim Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association, among the skeptics. He participated in the PANYNJ Task Force this past fall that made a host of recommendations to FAA on how to alleviate the congestion at New York’s airports.
One concern, says Coyne, is that the policy change could evolve into airports being allowed to regulate which traffic uses which airports in its system, which could threaten NATA members, particularly FAR Part 135 charter operators. But to Coyne, the biggest issue is imbedded in the combative relationship which the agency now has with the controller community.
Says Coyne, “It’s important to understand that the numbers of actual aircraft at the major New York airports is virtually no higher than it was 15 years ago. You would think listening to all this rhetoric … that there was a 30 percent increase. In fact the growth has been under 1 percent over past ten years at New York’s airports; GA ops have grown less. The only thing that’s changed is the move to more regional aircraft which has accounted for the only significant increase.
“I think it could be fixed if FAA and the controllers union could work more closely together. Marion Blakey came down hard on the controllers on aircraft separation, and the result was the controllers being careful not to have any violations of policy. It seems to me the airlines are being blamed for things FAA should be blaming itself for.”
Coyne says that during his meetings with the Port Authority Task Force it became evident that the city’s airports could increase operations significantly if a more trusting relationship could be developed between the controllers and their FAA managers.
He adds, “The work rules, the safety margins were set 40 years ago. We need new rules based on more sophisticated technology. I wonder when FAA will have the courage to stand up and say we need to change the rules on separation because the technology today allows for it, without reducing safety at all. Everyone is afraid of making any changes.”
Thanks for reading. jfi
Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
217 East 86th Street, PMB 221
New York, NY 10028 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
e-mail: brightline@att.net
NEWSFLASH! - FAA’S BOBBY STURGELL QUITS!
A copy of this message complete with accompanying photographs, is posted at:
http://ejectsturgell.blogspot.com
http://removesturgell.blogspot.com
http://indictsturgell.blogspot.com
http://SouthwestAirlinesAlmostKilledYou.blogspot.com
The celebratory song by “aerononymous” entitled “Top Gun, He’s Done” is found in click-able mp3 format, at:
http://www.TheHappyHarbor.com
FAA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR “BOBBY” STURGELL EJECTS FROM HIS JOB IN DISGRACE
It’s now confirmed. According to a reliable source from a position high-up in the aviation community, one Robert Allan (“Bobby”) Sturgell recently verbally shared with at least two colleagues the following:
(1) Sturgell has ALREADY given notice that he will be leaving his FAA post as Acting Administrator, by, or in, November 2008; and
(2) Current FAA “Assistant Administrator For Regions And Center Operations” Ruth Leverenz will be “Acting” in Sturgell’s absence – (which quizzically therefore will make her the “Acting, Acting” Administrator!).
This story was scooped by Quiet Rockland, and first broke Friday, July 18, 2008. As of the date and time of this publication, virtually no other news outlets or bloggers have picked it up - but they all eventually will. (Sure – Now!).
The only media that are sure to NOT pick up the story at end of day, are the many aviation websites bought and paid-for by the airline industry, thereby inclined to further cover-up for the many failures of “Bobby” Sturgell’s awful FAA tenure and regime.
Sturgell’s shamed flight from his job, is corroborated by the 2 recent near-misses at JFK airport; FAA payment of US$100,000 bonuses to every Beavis and Butthead who is willing to say “I Was A Teen-Age Air Traffic Controller”; and most noticeably, Sturgell’s apparent recent absence at key FAA events. For example, it is reported that in a recent press conference regarding FAA-claimed safety-related changes to exploding fuel tanks, John Hickey (FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Director, AIR-1) spoke for FAA, with apparently no sign of Bobby Sturgell present. Similarly, it is reported that the July 17, 2008 NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign meeting in D.C. was headed by FAA COO Hank Krakowski, and not by Bobby Sturgell.
While we used to ask, “Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego” - we can now ask “Where in the world is Bobby Sturgell?”.
The answer? – probably pounding the pavement handing out his résumé and doing that at which he is best - being an aeromercantile sycophant.
Goodbye, Bobby.
And oh yeah – by the way. Who’s “Top Gun” now?
Postscript:
I love how a blog just went up this early morning, July 21, 2008, on the ‘charterX’ website, wherein FAA spokeswoman “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” Adams perpetuated the predictable-enough FAA lie to the media. She denied that Sturgell gave his departure notice [when in fact Sturgell DID already give notice] - and then Marcia pretended not to recognize either my name, or Quiet Rockland’s name.
That’s Big and Rich! Marcia’s the FAA’s new comedienne - just like Ruth Buzzi Leverenz. I’m going to have fun with both of them.
I have the written statements from multiple persons supporting the fact that Sturgell gave notice and identified Leverenz as his successor, physically in front of me as I type this document. The information I have came directly from the persons to whom Bobby The Sturg-Eel spoke.
Bring it on, FAA. You lying scum.
I’m a controller at ISP which (as an aside) is a NY area airport which is significantly underutilized and much more accessible than Stewart. While technology can be a wonderful thing, there are a number of issues that cannot be solved with better technology.
My first priority as a controller is of course safety. I HAVE to know that the landing aircraft can exit the runway in time to send the following aircraft on a missed approach in case of the first aircraft becoming disabled on the runway, either by blown tires, locked brakes or any of a number of other possible mishaps. A controller’s first responsibility is safety, which means being prepared for what might go wrong. If I do my job perfectly 10,000 times and then screw up once and fail to prevent two 737’s from colliding one time, I’ve failed and all of the rest of my career becomes irrelevant. It’s kind of like preventing a terrorist attack. Nobody really cares about the successes (which are taken for granted), it’s the failures that get everyone’s attention. Therefore, it becomes necessary to allow sufficient room to allow for reaction time of pilots and controllers in order to prevent a minor mishap from becoming a major one.
Additionally, the physics of wake turbulence must be accounted for. There may be technological fixes that can reduce wake turbulence but the equipment currently in use is not significantly different than the equipment of the 70’s. It doesn’t matter how precisely one knows the position of an aircraft if it is in a spin because it flew into the wake of a 757. I’m not saying it isn’t possible to remedy this issue with better technology but it is technology that must be developed and implemented by the aircraft manufacturers not by the FAA.
Where the FAA’s management has gotten it wrong is in the use of “Taxi into position and hold” procedures. They have made the procedures so onerous in terms of staffing requirements that at many medium size airports it is rarely if ever used whereas in past years it was a common tool that significantly increased traffic capacity.
For obvious reasons I would be thrilled to see a healthier relationship between the FAA and the unions. Better staffing will allow for a safer operation and more capability to operate airports at capacity. What those exact capacities might be is up for debate but I strongly suspect that the current capacities at the major airports are reasonably accurate.