Changes Would Save Time, Fuel

The Air Transport Association, the lobbying group for the major United States Part 121 airlines (passenger and cargo), has long been the authoritative voice of the airline industry. In the ATA's latest briefing on the contentious fuel issue, the organization mentions several potential ATC changes that might lead to time and fuel savings.

The slide begins by praising the 2005 introduction of RVSM as an example of the sort of procedural improvement that can save gas and increase system capacity while maintaining an equivalent level of safety. RVSM, Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums reduces mandatory vertical separation between flight levels 290-410 (inclusive) from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet, providing a theoretical doubling of traffic throughput.

Are there more potential gains to be found in the system? The ATA thinks so.

Here's ATA's list -- with a little of ATA's expanding text, and our comments. Due to the amount of information involved, we've split this into two parts. Yesterday, we examined the ATA's intent to expand the deployment of RNAV at major airports... as well as its request the FAA reconsider the current 250-knot "speed limit" below 10,000 feet MSL.

Today, we look at some of the ways ATA proposes to reduce delays and holding times -- as well as offering our summary of the situation.

The Wish List

• Provide more timely information to flight crews to increase opportunity to avoid operating engines when departure delays are in effect.

ANN Take: The biggest cause of departure delays, of course, is the unrealistic scheduling of ATA member airlines. If you have six airlines flying to six destinations every day at six AM, you have to have either 36 runways, or delays. While we're all in favor of information to all pilots, why shouldn't the ATA member have to pay for the delays that they impose on other aircraft -- not to mention, the costs that their peaky preferred operating mode impose on the system.

We'd rather see takeoff slots at Part 139 airports auctioned. You want to take off at 0600 on the jot? Better outbid the other guy. The next slot is 0603.. 0606... 0609. And both the slots and the payment should be forfeit if the line doesn't fly, to prevent the anti-competitive practice of buying resources to strangle competitors. And passengers might well pay more for flights at the more attractive times, less in off-hours -- just like the good ol' days.

Still, there's nothing wrong with warning a flight that they're better off sitting in the gate, plugged into mains power and ground-based AC, than cranking and sitting on a taxiway polluting the atmosphere. A turbine burns prodigious quantities of fuel at sea level, even idling, and we ought to work together to prevent this waste.

• Allow flights to maintain climb-and-descent profiles and "level-offs" prior to filed altitude; decreased controller issuances of direct aka "DCT" clearances to enroute flights.

ANN Take: this may work in a sky in which all aircraft are operating on regularly scheduled flights. Increased ability to flight-plan and fly great circle routes, for instance, would benefit all long-range flights, but require ATC to be able to project that route of flight and deconflict it. Our take on this is that ATA does not want its members' airliners taken off centrally planned minimum-fuel routes for a direct clearance -- something that most GA operators would just as soon accept, as they're more likely to value reduced flight time than reduced fuel burn in most cases. Perhaps we're misunderstanding ATA here. (One ATP's take was "they WANT to fly less efficient altitudes?").

• Coordinate "HOLDING" alerts to operational degree possible and increase controller awareness of aircraft fuel consumption when holding at low altitudes

ANN Take: This is a reasonable request. In our experience, however, approach and center controllers do seem to be quite attuned to the fine details of aircraft performance. That's impressive when you consider the wide range of machinery they encounter daily.

Once again, a principal cause of holding is scheduling. If companies had to buy arrival slots -- and pay a penalty for missing them -- holding could be greatly reduced. The ultimate problem is that there are not enough runways in peak destinations at peak hours.

• Allow short ground delays or user-preferred trajectories in lieu of circuitous re-routes

ANN Take: Again, this needs to be staffed up and worked out on the controller side, but this would benefit all users of the ATC system. Nobody likes being routed all over East Overshoe whether he's driving an Airbus, a Citation, or a Skyhawk.

• Offer re-route options whenever multi-route options are available

ANN Take: This would be great for all users, again, including all of GA that flies in the system, but is it practical for controllers? The controllers are limited by human bandwidth and the problems the FAA has had rolling out upgraded computer systems -- the computer you're reading this on is a lot newer and arguably more powerful than the ones keeping you separated.

ANN Summary

Many of the ATA's desires deserve broad support in the aviation community because they benefit all users of the ATC system -- a system that was, factually, designed for the benefit of the airlines that ATA now represents. But others represent corporate welfare, that would benefit the ATA's 19 US airline members and four North American associate members, at the expense of other users, and the public.

To be sure, we'd be much more sympathetic to the airlines' plight if their various senior executives hadn't taken such extreme measures to benefit themselves, at the expense of their workers, customers and most especially stockholders. As long as that kind of backroom dealing is de rigeur at the airlines, it's hard to have any sympathy, beyond that we have for the ill-treated air, ground, and office workers. (Stockholders take a risk consciously. You could have done very well on some airlines in the last year, with luck -- AMR for instance. You could still lose your shirt before 2006 is out if you play in this market).

It's good to get this discussion started, because there's certainly room for reasonable people to agree on measures that save the airlines money, benefit the environment, help or at least don't seriously harm the other users or the ATC system, and are feasible and practical for ATC to implement.

To get to that point, this needs to be a four-cornered (at least) discussion with all interests represented: not just ATA, but NBAA, AOPA, and FAA. ATA has done its homework and made its proposals; who's next?

(The ATA slides for the briefing by VP and Chief Economist John Heimlich, "Energy Matters: Combating the Fuel-Related Challenges Facing U.S. Airlines," are available on the ATA website in the FMI link. There's a lot of fuel-related information in the well-organized brief, including an interesting overview of fuel-conservation measures in use in the industry).

FMI: www.airlines.org