- Responses to GAO report on aging FAA systems
- Questions about Delta’s wheelchair seat
- Space launch companies should pay for airspace use
- AAM infrastructure needs and opportunities
- Denied a merger, Spirit faces bankruptcy
- Why blended wide body is the airliner of the future
- News Notes
- Quotable Quote
Responses to GAO Report on Aging FAA Systems
Last month’s article on the Government Accountability Office report, FAA Actions Are Urgently Needed to Modernize Aging Systems,” GAO-24-107001, resulted in the largest volume of emails in the 20-year history of this newsletter. Most of the responses came from former Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) engineers and some from people at contractors who have worked on FAA projects, and I thought it would be valuable to share them here. These are all people I have known for many years, mostly having met them in person and, in a few cases having met only via email. Because some of them either do business with FAA or have sources within FAA, I have omitted their names from the material below, excerpted from this array of emails.
To begin, here is a basic point about FAA’s system acquisition process.
“The first step in the process is to establish system requirements. Having been intimately involved in a few of these efforts, this process is very much in need of improvement. FAA has designated random FAA controllers to establish requirements, without extensive knowledge of the system they are replacing and with no training on how to develop requirements to hand off to engineering teams. This process lacks value engineering as an essential part of the process. The result is gold-plating ATC [air traffic control] requirements, and sometimes demanding capabilities that are not cost-effective or technologically feasible.”
A recently retired FAA engineer wrote:
“Political overseers have made over FAA in their own image, putting people in charge of things for which they are not qualified: engineering programs run by non-engineers, operations run by non-operational people, logistics run by non-logisticians. The systems engineering that FAA once had has been destroyed… . I hope the GAO report elicits some positive action, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s an accident waiting to happen, but until it does, the current ‘leadership’ is just making sure they don’t get blamed for it.”
A consultant who has worked within and external to FAA sent several very disturbing emails about the systems, including:
“Mode-S (secondary surveillance radar) is in such poor condition that it is operated in violation of FAA’s own commissioning orders for technician certification of its operational performance. As many as half of current Mode-S systems are operated in ‘IBI,’ meaning they have zero Mode-S accuracy and capability. Accuracy of these radar systems drives the separation criteria of three and five miles near airports and in en-route airspace. The lack of this radar input makes the surveillance fusion with ADS-B less accurate and reliable. This data is what feeds the automation inputs of both en-route and terminal airspace.”
“The ASR-9 radars continue to fail at historic rates. Their antennas, pedestals, and rotary joints have been falling apart for 15 years. And the new Mode-S replacement system, MSBRS, is already four years late and over budget. The ASR-9 systems in the field today at airports have as many as 25 out of 140 operating on a single channel due to a huge parts shortage…When an ASR-9 has its backup channel out of service, it is legally operating below the safety level it is commissioned at: an operational availability of 0.99999—but now at .0999, reflecting single-channel availability.”
“The last failed attempt by FAA to solve the surveillance conundrum was named SENSR. Now there is a new program called ANSR (Aircraft Non-cooperative Surveillance Radar), which has little chance of being deployed in the next 15 years, even if it is fully funded by Congress. This makes the current surveillance shortcomings even more critical.”
“Also, since the FAA radar infrastructure feeds the national defense program office, which provides surveillance data to DHS and NORAD (even though NORAD has some of their own long-range radars), and they rely on 400-odd radars owned by FAA, both primary and beacons, national security of U.S. airspace and borders is compromised. It was this infrastructure that failed during 9-11. This is most likely why GAO did not reveal the names of these systems. The FAA surveillance office is run by staff that don’t understand microwave energy, complex radar equipment, or even basic surveillance technology.”
“Many elements, including both replacement subsystems and individual components used in both Mode-S and ASR-9 have been in short supply for 20 years or more. Further, elements like the ASR-9 transmitter high-voltage parts are obsolete, having been designed in 1986, and there isn’t anyone in FAA that apparently understands the technology of generating a megawatt pulse of 1 microsecond required for the transmitter to meet its operational performance requirement. The team working on this since 2006 is no closer to a solution. . . . It’s pathetic, and the team within FAA got rid of the MIT/Lincoln Lab engineers who actually understood it.”
I could go on, but here are excerpts from an engineering manager at a European aviation technology company, comparing FAA with an organization that does it right:
“Look at NavCanada. How many primary radar types do they have for terminal surveillance? One. How many does FAA have? Three, dating back to the 1980s. The manufacturers of two of them are out of business. FAA has four types of secondary/beacon radars. NavCanada does a wholesale replacement, launching a project at the end of life to replace them all at once. NavCanada has one primary switch for all systems: tower, approach, and en-route. One backup switch for all. They just did a replacement tender for them all…FAA is never a single buy. All are indefinite quantity contracts. So suppliers deliver 10 to 20 systems a year. It is the IDQ type of contract process, related to funding, that does not allow for a realistic replacement.”
I’m grateful to these friends and colleagues for shedding some light on this critically important subject.
Questions About Delta’s Proposed Wheelchair Seats
People who travel with wheelchairs face unique difficulties when they travel by air. Conventional (non-powered) wheelchairs are not allowed on board because of their size, and there is no place to stow them if they were. And unfortunately, airlines don’t do a good job of safely stowing wheelchairs in the cargo compartment. USA Today recently cited Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics finding that U.S. airlines “damage or destroy 10,000-15,000 wheelchairs and other mobility devices each year.”
So I’m not surprised that disabled-Americans organizations are cheering ongoing research and development of potential safe ways for people to board with and sit in their own wheelchairs on commercial flights, in both coach and first-class cabins.
What has seemed like an impossible dream appears closer today due to research and development of new airline seats to which a customer’s own wheelchair could be affixed and used for the entire flight. Recent news articles have focused on the work being carried out by Delta Flight Products (DFP) and United Kingdom-based AirforAll. Their prototype aircraft seats were displayed at the 2024 Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg, Germany. Their prototypes are replacement first-class and coach seats whose seat cushions and arms fold up, allowing the wheelchair to be backed into the seatback and securely fastened to it. You may have seen photos in aviation media, such as the Nov. 6 edition of the online JDA Journal.
It’s an intriguing idea, but one that requires answers to a long list of questions. The most obvious are FAA air safety requirements. The combination of the new seat that can accommodate a wheelchair, and the means of securing it to meet crashworthiness standards is only the first of these hurdles. Here are some other points that need thinking through.
- Aisle space requirements: Since the plan calls for wheelchair seats in both coach and first class, this may require significant cabin modifications. On narrow-body planes, the rear-cabin aisle is too narrow for my small overnight bag, so to accommodate all sizes of personal wheelchairs, the coach aisle would need to be much wider, which might require only five seats across instead of six.
- Maneuvering room: The photos show what appears to be a first-class front row, which has enough space between the raised seat cushion and the bulkhead to turn the wheelchair around and back it against the folded-up seat. That maneuver would appear to be not possible in the first row of coach, unless the first row of seats were to be removed.
- Access to lavatories: Aircraft cabin designers are currently developing revised lav designs that would enable wheelchair users to be able to use lavs in both cabins. But their working assumption appears to be access via current narrow airline wheelchairs. Lavs large enough to accommodate full-size personal wheelchairs would require significantly larger lavs.
A separate question is how many wheelchair-compatible seats would be required on an airliner. DOT data reveal that the average number of wheelchair passengers on U.S. domestic flights is two. But as a fairly frequent flyer, I’ve sometimes counted a dozen or more wheelchair passengers being rolled off a just-arrived flight. How would either DOT or the airlines decide how many wheelchair seats to install? And if an airline installed four wheelchair seats and eight wheelchair passengers bought tickets for the flight, which of them would get the adaptable seats?
I’m sure that if all these problems could be worked out, it would be a blessing for wheelchair travelers. But the above, as far as I know, are all unanswered questions. If there are not good solutions for them, perhaps an alternative research project could devote serious attention to safely packaging and handling passenger wheelchairs to reduce or eliminate the terrible toll that baggage handling of wheelchairs levies on those who depend on their wheelchairs.
Space Launches Should Pay for Their Airspace Use
Several previous articles in this newsletter have pointed out the impact on air travel of the increased amount of space launches, especially those from Cape Canaveral, Florida. When a launch (or a booter landing) is scheduled, air traffic control closes a large swath of airspace, requiring aircraft to detour, leading to delayed arrivals and additional fuel consumption.
This was a small problem back in 2012, with a mere nine launches from the Cape. But with 124 launches in 2023, and likely several hundred a year in the next few years, this problem clearly needs attention. In a 2023 report to Congress, FAA reported that in 2022, 143 aircraft were delayed an average of 32 minutes. In Florida, FAA rerouted 40 flights, which had to fly a total of 1,500 miles out of their way.
Fortunately, several organizations came together this year to address this problem, including the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Airlines for America, the Flight Safety Foundation, Aerospace Industry Association, and several others. Its report, released earlier this month, underscores the growing problem as launch and recovery operations keep growing, especially at the Cape. Fortunately, this group recognizes that launch companies are—like airlines—airspace users. As such, launch companies should be paying for their use of airspace.
This new stakeholder report focused attention on FAA’s still-prototype Space Data Integrator (SDI), based at the FAA Command Center in Virginia. In the July 2023 issue of this newsletter, I summarized a DOT Inspector General report (AV2023035) on SDI’s many shortcomings:
- It receives data from only one of several launch companies (SpaceX);
- It is not installed at any of FAA’s high-altitude centers (such as Jacksonville and Miami);
- Air traffic control (ATC) facilities get updates from SDI by telephone (called the “hotline”);
- Airlines must depend on non-real-time information from centers (they don’t rate “hotline” calls); and
- ATC centers won’t get direct data feeds until the successor to SDI (called NSIC) is rolled out, estimated as Sept. 2027.
FAA attributes this glacial progress to, you guessed it, lack of funding. So the industry coalition used that problem as a reason to call for some kind of air traffic control user fee to be paid by launch companies. That’s a reasonable proposal, and determining the basis for such a fee is a worthwhile topic for brainstorming. Worldwide nearly all users of airspace pay ATC user fees based on the International Civil Aviation Organization principle of charging based on aircraft weight and distance flown in the airspace. Economists might suggest a fee based on the cost imposed on aviation users by a launch or recovery operation.
AAM Infrastructure Needs and Opportunities
By Marc Scribner
On Oct. 29, I was invited to present at a webinar on advanced air mobility (AAM) infrastructure put together by the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO). NASAO’s members are tasked with developing state aviation system plans, which deal with the role of aviation facilities and uses within their states. With electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft approaching FAA certification, officials are increasingly seeking to understand this nascent market—including the vertiport infrastructure needed to support future eVTOL operations. This article summarizes key points from that presentation.
Much like the eVTOL industry itself, policy development around AAM infrastructure remains in the early stages. As part of the 2024 FAA reauthorization, Congress included several AAM provisions, such as: encouraging FAA action on the powered-lift special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) on pilot certification and operating requirements, a performance-based vertiport design advisory circular, and vertiport “categorical exclusions” from environmental review. The FAA reauthorization also extended the AAM Infrastructure Pilot Program, which authorizes $12 million per year in planning grants for state and local governments.
At FAA, progress is being made on Congress’s AAM directives. The agency announced the final powered-lift SFAR at the National Business Aviation Association’s annual Business Aviation Convention in October. The final SFAR addresses a number of concerns that had been raised by industry in response to FAA’s proposed SFAR last year, a topic covered in the Aug. 2023 issue of this newsletter.
With respect to vertiport design, FAA published an interim Engineering Brief #105 in 2022, which is largely based on its existing heliport design advisory circular. In September of this year, FAA released a draft update of Engineering Brief #105, which should be finalized in the next few months. FAA has indicated that it plans to release a more formal proposed performance-based vertiport design advisory circular sometime in 2025.
While AAM is too novel for stakeholders to answer many important outstanding questions, it is possible to make some educated guesses. Because of their similar operating profiles, the real-world experiences with helicopters and heliports may offer some insights for the deployment of eVTOLs and vertiport needs.
According to FAA’s Airport Data and Information Portal, there were 6,104 operational heliports in the United States as of Oct. 2024. Ownership and use of the facilities can be either public or private. As these data show, 99.1% of heliports are private-use facilities, meaning they require prior permission from the facility operator for helicopters to use them. Even for the small share of civilian heliports that are owned by the government (10.5%), 95% are private-use facilities. These publicly owned, private-use facilities are often for emergency services and law enforcement purposes.
While federal airport grant funding is potentially available for heliports, these must be public-use facilities—meaning they are open to the general flying public—and meet several other requirements, such as being included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). According to FAA, just eight heliports (0.1%) are currently included in the NPIAS. State and local governments may also opt to fund public-use facilities for economic development purposes, but heliports meeting these characteristics number just 29 (0.5%).
If the experience with heliports in the United States—where 99.1% are private-use facilities—is remotely similar to the emerging vertiport market, we can expect the vast majority of commercial vertiports to be privately owned, financed, operated, and to require prior permission from the operator to use. In addition, the novelty of AAM tends to support private vertiport financing to avoid the public perception of undue risk transfer to taxpayers.
Based on AAM industry announcements, initial vertiport development is expected to be concentrated at existing aviation facilities, such as heliport conversions and new construction at airports. This approach offers cost savings, time savings, the ability to examine technical issues in more predictable environments, and the potential to leverage existing airport and fixed-based operator (FBO) knowledge and relationships. Examples include planned electrification of the East 34th Street Heliport in New York City by FBO Atlantic Aviation and the inclusion of a vertiport on top of a new parking garage and consolidated rental car center as part of the master plan update for Philadelphia International Airport.
One selling point of eVTOLs is they are designed to be much quieter than helicopters, which should greatly reduce traditional public opposition to urban aviation that is most often due to legitimate noise concerns. Once initial AAM services are operating, vertiport development is expected to pivot to greenfield expansions in major urban areas. Faced with high land prices, prime vertiport siting in dense urban areas will often be on top of existing structures.
The demand for rooftop and other elevated urban vertiports in the coming years coincides with the decline of central business districts in many large U.S. cities. Working from home remains several multiples above pre-pandemic levels, which has reduced travel to urban cores and is driving down commercial real estate values and municipal tax revenue. This has been pessimistically termed the “urban doom loop.” It has also resulted in the underutilization of public assets designed to support daytime office workers, such as parking facilities.
Underutilized public assets and a constrained fiscal environment post-pandemic present win-win opportunities relevant for vertiport development. These dynamics show special promise for procuring new-build urban vertiports under a design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) public-private partnership (P3) model. For example, private concessionaires could enter into long-term lease agreements with cities to develop vertiports on top of underutilized public parking garages.
These vertiport P3s could generate welcome direct revenue for ailing city coffers while also increasing activity in urban cores—and thereby enhancing conditions for broader revitalization. Existing parking decks have already been sited to maximize surface transportation connectivity, which addresses a key challenge faced by those seeking to develop new urban vertiports.
I concluded my NASAO presentation with several suggested next steps for state and local governments. State aviation departments should incorporate vertiports into their state aviation system plans, as some have already begun doing. The AAM Infrastructure Pilot Program that was extended in the 2024 FAA reauthorization could be leveraged to fund system plan updates as part of multi-agency collaborative comprehensive vertiport planning. Existing zoning, building, and procurement codes may also present barriers. Early research to identify these potential conflicts will likely prove critical to successful vertiport developments. Given the high amount of uncertainty around AAM, maximum flexibility is needed, so state and local governments should focus on relaxing constraints rather than imposing rigid requirements.
Denied a Life-Saving Merger, Spirit Faces Bankruptcy
I only flew Spirit Airlines once, on a trip to Atlantic City, for an FAA conference. Spirit had the only nonstop from Ft. Lauderdale, and the fare was inexpensive, so I booked the flight. And I decided never again: it was packed with families, had meager leg-room for 6-foot me, and it charged for any kind of food or beverage.
Yet, Spirit’s low prices and charges for extras set the model for what came to be called ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) segment. Spirit was joined by Allegiant, Frontier, and others that emulated its model, and they offered competition to Southwest and JetBlue, opening up more of air travel to non-affluent customers, especially families.
Spirit’s transformation from a beleaguered start-up airline to a big success story was due to Ben Baldanza, who died this month at age 62 (from ALS). As Chris Kornelis wrote in a Wall Street Journal obituary (Nov. 16), Baldanza, after joining Spirit in 2005, turned it into a highly successful ultra-low-cost carrier, and, by 2012, it was “pound for pound, the most profitable airline in the U.S.”
But as the ULCC sector kept expanding, Spirit’s profits failed to keep up. Frontier Airlines attempted to merge with Spirit in 2022, but it was outbid by JetBlue—not a ULCC but a more conventional low-cost carrier. That merger could have saved Spirit, but it also would have changed the company, as Spirit aircraft would likely have been converted to JetBlue’s more generous seat spacing, and other aspects of the ULCC carrier would probably not have been carried over.
That was too much for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which vetoed the merger in Jan. 2024 in order to prevent the shrinkage of the ULCC sector. That decision took place just as two new low-cost airlines, Avelo Airlines and Breeze Airways, were opening up dozens of new markets, many between city pairs that had lacked nonstop airline service. DOJ’s static view of the dynamic aviation market failed to consider the broader expansion of airline competition.
So now it looks unlikely that Spirit Airlines will survive at all. Its Chapter 11 filing is not a liquidation, but it will almost certainly downsize the airline to far less of a competitive force. I hope this sorry episode will serve as an object lesson to U.S. antitrust authorities—DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. In recent years, both have defined markets far too narrowly, as DOJ did in this case.
Why Blended Wide Body Is the Airliner of the Future
Airbus and Boeing are the only remaining producers of large passenger aircraft certified by FAA and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), yet neither has a next-generation large aircraft under development. For air travel to have a robust future, what airlines need is what Aviation Week’s Guy Norris refers to as “another non-traditional Space-X approach to the problem.”
A next-generation airliner needs to be much “greener” than current aircraft, but batteries are not feasible, and hydrogen at this point may be far too costly. But what if new wide-body and narrow-body airliners could use 50% less fuel (especially if sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) turns out to be cost-effective)? That is the promise of airliners based on the blended wide body (BWB) design concept.
Both Airbus and Boeing have done basic research on the concept, which offers a unique aerodynamic shape that can significantly reduce drag and, via the use of composite rather than metallic construction, be lighter in weight. Wind tunnel tests of BWB models show very significant drag reduction, which helps support estimates of 50% less fuel consumption.
As of now, three start-up companies are planning BWB airliners. Farthest along is JetZero, whose BWB Z4 airliner is aimed at 170 to 290 passengers or operating as an Air Force cargo aircraft/tanker. Also in the running is San Diego-based Natilus, which is aiming to develop a 200-seat BWB airliner called Horizon, after first producing a small BWB twin turboprop called Kona for regional cargo operations. Less is known about Seattle-based Outbound Aerospace, which is still in “stealth mode.”
JetZero is currently far ahead of the other two. It has a $235 million cost-sharing contract with the Air Force for a proof-of-concept BWB aircraft, due to fly in 2027. That is intended to be the prototype from which both a cargo aircraft and the planned mid-market airliner will be developed. The project is far enough along that JetZero recently awarded contracts for subsystems to BAE Systems, Moog, Safran, Thales, and Woodward. JetZero is partnering with Northrop Grumman on the Air Force project. The Z4 airliner is planned to be half the weight of the Boeing 767. As I’ve previously reported, JetZero is building an airline advisory group, whose initial members are Alaska Airlines and EasyJet. Alaska has also made an investment in the company.
My MIT degrees are in mechanical engineering, not aeronautics and astronautics. But I’ve learned enough about the latter field over the years to see a lot of value in the BWB concept. I’m in no position to judge which, if any, of these three startups will succeed. But one of these three (or another in the future) could turn out to be the Space-X equivalent for airliners.
Podcast on Potential for U.S. Airport Privatization
I had no idea I could spend nearly 90 minutes discussing the prospects for long-term leases of U.S. airports, but when Jim Barry contacted me about doing an in-depth podcast on the subject, I agreed. I discussed the pros and cons of this idea with Jim and two colleagues at The Vertical Space. If you wonder why the United States is an outlier on airport privatization, you might want to listen in. As of this writing, it’s the most recent podcast on their site.
Newark Airport in Line for P3 Terminal B
Infralogic reported (Oct. 24) that the board of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey passed a resolution on proceeding with a replacement Terminal B at Newark. A long-term design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) public-private partnership (P3) similar to those used for new terminals at both LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy International is under serious consideration for this project, with strong interest from infrastructure investment funds.
Canadian Airports Getting CT Scanning Sooner than U.S. Airports
Passengers at both Montreal Trudeau International and Ottawa International Airport will soon be able to go through passenger screening without having to remove laptops or liquids from their carry-on bags. Unlike our Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is changing the laptop/liquids rule as each airport gets the new CT scanning equipment. By contrast, TSA policy continues to require those items to be removed (except at PreCheck lanes) until all eligible airports are equipped.
AviAlliance Buys AGS Airports
PSP-owned AviAlliance won out over AENA in the bidding for the three airports (Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Southampton) comprising AGS Airports, which were owned by Ferrovial and Macquarie. The price was £1.54 billion. That amounts to 23 times AGS’s earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), slightly higher than 20 times EBITDA in Vinci’s recent acquisition of Edinburgh Airport from Global Infrastructure Partners. AviAlliance owns stakes in the airports of Athens, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Polish Government Launches CPK Airport
The long-planned but controversial new airport (plus rail terminal and public transport interchange) 25 miles south of Warsaw moved into the next stage in October, with architect Foster + Partners delivering the design to the government’s CPK Company. The airport was conceived by the previous Polish government, and the current government was initially skeptical of the project’s viability. The revised plan calls for the first stage to accommodate up to 34 million annual passengers, a significant increase from the Warsaw airport’s 18.5 million passengers in 2023. Construction is expected to begin in 2026.
Argentina Government Deregulates Ground Handling and Commercializes Slots
The reform government in Argentina, after having negotiated open skies agreements with a number of countries, has announced two further changes. First, ground handling at Argentina’s airports will no longer be the monopoly of state-owned Intercargo. Second, airlines will be allowed to buy and sell slots with one another. While not as big a reform as shifting from slots to runway pricing, this change will likely increase airline competition in Argentina.
Sydney’s Second Airport Gets Its First Non-Australian Airline
Singapore Airlines has announced its plan to begin service at the new Western Sydney International Airport (WSI) when the airport opens in 2026. Australia carriers Qantas and its Jetstar subsidiary have already announced plans to serve WSI. The new airport will operate 24/7, unlike Sydney (SYD) which has an overnight curfew.
U.K. Plans Overhaul of Airspace
Aviation Daily (Oct. 29) reported that the U.K. Transport Department and the Civil Aviation Authority have requested input on creating a U.K. Airspace Design Service (UKADS) to design a future-oriented airspace, beginning with the congested London-area airspace. Aviation Minister Mike Kane noted that “In many cases today’s aircraft still use the same outdated routes flying further than necessary at suboptimal altitudes and speeds, because the routes rely on the location of ground-based navigation beacons, instead of following shorter, more-efficient flight paths.”
Brussels Airport Deploys Remote/Digital Tower Equipment
Air Traffic Management (Oct. 24) reported that South Charleroi Airport has deployed its remote/digital tower camera mast. At 37 meters high, it exceeds the height of the airport’s conventional tower and allows better views of all aircraft movements on the ground and during arrivals and departures. By the time you read this, all of that imagery will be displayed on screens at Belgium’s new remote tower center near Brussels Airport in Steenokkerzeel, where imagery from both airports will be viewable when the remote tower center becomes operational
Wellington Fails to Follow Auckland Airport Share Sales
In September, the Auckland Council sold 7% of its 18% stake in Auckland International Airport, using the proceeds to reduce the city’s debt. A similar plan in Wellington, that would have sold 34% of the city’s stake in Wellington International Airport was terminated at the last minute via a 9-to-7 vote by the Wellington City Council. The city had planned to use the proceeds to help with planned infrastructure projects. Infratil owns 66% of Wellington airport’s shares.
Wide Area Multilateration System Now Operational in Western Poland
Air Traffic Management (Oct. 11) reported that ERA has completed installation and testing of a wide-area multilateration (WAM) system covering the airspace in western Poland, including the terminal maneuvering area of the Poznan Airport. The system will be operated by Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA). WAM is a wide-area air surveillance system that is more accurate than radar. In this case, the WAM installation will enable two secondary radars to be decommissioned.
India and the Philippines Plan More Airport Privatizations
As reported in Infralogic (Nov. 8), the Indian government has announced plans to award an unspecified number of airport concessions in 2025. And in October, the Philippines government announced plans to privatize four more airports in 2025. The Philippine transport minister identified the airports as Davao International, Puerto Princesa, Iloilo International, and Kalibo International.
Denver Plans Consolidated Rental Car Center
Infralogic (Oct. 22) reported that Denver International Airport (DEN) is beginning a procurement process for a consolidated rental car center (CONRAC). It appears likely to be privately financed, with a customer facility charge (CFC) as the revenue stream. This would be similar to the approach used for Newark Airport’s CONRAC project. Denver Internationals’ first step is to hire a program management team for the project.
Ryanair Fights Summer 2025 Dublin Capacity Cap
Aviation Daily reported (Oct. 10) that Ryanair would seek an injunction in the Irish High Court to overturn a proposed reduction of one million flights at Dublin Airport (DUB) for the summer 2025 season. And on Nov. 7, the High Court stayed the cap. The Irish Aviation Authority had imposed the cap to ensure that Dublin remained below an annual cap of 32 million annual passengers, enacted in 2007 prior to the addition of a second runway at the airport.
London Stansted Plans Expanded Passenger Terminal
As part of a £1.1 billion expansion plan, London Stansted Airport (STN) will begin a £600 million extension of its terminal building, adding 54,100 square feet. The project is aimed at increasing Stansted’s capacity to 43 million annual passengers (compared with the 29.4 million served in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30, 2024). The expansion is aimed at “securing new routes to key business and holiday destinations,” according to Transport Secretary Louise Haigh.
Skyports Gets OK to Build Vertiport Testbed
Aviation Week (Sept. 2-15) reported that Skyports International received permission to build a permanent vertiport testbed at a former Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire. The testbed is being developed as part of an Advanced Mobility Ecosystem Consortium led by AtkinsRealis and funded by the U.K. Research and Innovation Agency. The vertiport will test flights to and from London Heathrow and Bristol airports, using Vertical Airspace’s VX4 eVTOL aircraft.
“If this [housing[ development moves forward, the addition of new residents is likely to exacerbate the challenges of expanding the airport. This includes exposing more residents to the flight path, which will increase adverse environmental impacts including noise. In fact, we shouldn’t repeat bad history. We all know that property near land-uses such as an airport tends to be cheaper because, frankly, it’s harder to sell land that is in a flight path with the sound and air emissions nearby. That can lead to a concentration of people with less resources living in undesirable conditions. So when we opened AUS, we purposefully created an overlay to avoid it happening in the future. We were attempting to prevent relegating lower-income people to living in flight paths, and we were attempting to not create situations that might restrict our multi-billion-dollar investment in the airport. I see this [proposed housing development] as an unintentional back door to recreating a policy that is an environmental injustice. We should not put such a policy into practice, and we should fix the policy.”
—Austin Mayor Kirk Watson quoted in “Austin, TX Sets a Standard, Deserves an Award,” JDA Journal, Oct. 27, 2024
“Thanks for highlighting the GAO report. Reading this with a bit of distance from here in Europe, I was thinking, is the situation really as bad as described? I don’t think that any ANSP chief technology officer here in Europe would be able to sleep well having such a situation. The issue of maintaining legacy systems is also draining funds and thus hampering innovation here in Europe, but the situation is not as bad as what you could get from this report.”
—A leader involved in air traffic management and international affairs at a European aviation technology provider (name withheld by request), in an email to Robert Poole, Oct. 29, 2024
Sign up for the Aviation Policy Newsletter