NPRM Limits Bizav Access in New York Area

Industry leaders are warning that an FAA proposal to limit unscheduled operations at the three major New York-area airports threatens business aviation’s access there.

The FAA on January 8 released a proposal that would impose new limits on unscheduled flights at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) and make permanent current limits at La Guardia Airport (LGA). The proposal also addresses slots at the airports for scheduled carriers.

The proposal would limit unscheduled operations at JFK to two per hour, at EWR to one per hour and at LGA to three per hour. Operations other than declared emergencies would require reservations.

The FAA said the proposed limits at LGA match those already in place. The limits also mirror those that the FAA had previously proposed for JFK and EWR, the agency added.

“Although unscheduled operations [including general aviation, passenger and cargo charter, ferry and other ad hoc operations] are typically a small percentage of overall traffic, the FAA has determined these limits are necessary because any airport operation affects congestion and delays,” the FAA said. “Even a few additional operations during peak hours could result in significant additional delay, thus eroding the effectiveness of the slot limits.”

Limits on unscheduled operations should be part of any congestion-management plan to ensure effectiveness of the limits on scheduled operations, the agency contended. This plan should balance access needs of all types of operations while managing congestion.

The FAA adds that the proposal would enable the accommodation of most unscheduled operations, if the operators remain flexible about their arrival and departure times. Furthermore, the agency added, general aviation demand can be accommodated by other airports in the region, including Westchester County Airport, Islip MacArthur Airport, Republic Airport, Stewart International Airport, Morristown Municipal Airport and Teterboro Airport.

Comments on the proposal were originally due April 8, but the FAA agreed to slide the deadline until May 8 at the request of airline and airports organizations. But the agency gave only 30 additional days, instead of the 60 requested by the organizations, and it denied a request by the National Air Transportation Association for a public meeting to examine the ramifications of the proposal.

Industry Concerns

Doug Carr, vice president of safety, security, operations and regulation, said the extra time is welcomed given the potential “significant change to operations” and the scope of the proposal. But Carr believes the proposal raises a number of serious questions, including those involving business aviation access to public-use airports.

He noted that public-use airports benefit from taxpayer investment and must meet grant assurances that they don’t discriminate against types of operations. At initial glance of the proposed limits at the three airports, Carr said, “I’m not sure this would pass the sniff test” for those grant assurances. He added that particularly at JFK, but also at EWR, the limits have the potential to significantly curb business aircraft operations. “It sounds extremely discriminatory,” he said.

Adding to the concern, Carr said, the FAA would set blanket limits on all non-scheduled operations, he said. While business aviation operators could use them, they would compete for those landing rights with other types of operations, including an occasional foreign airline.

He also questioned if the limits per hour were used right away, what would happen if an operation such as an organ transport mission needed access.

The proposed limits correlate with hourly unscheduled operations at the airports in 2008, FAA said. Citing data from the FAA’s Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) for the year ended May 31, 2008, the agency said, “Most unscheduled flights can be accommodated in the actual requested hour or through capacity in an adjacent hour (one hour on either side of the actual hour of operation in the data), or through additional reservations available in visual meteorological conditions.”

The agency also suggested the possibility of a “secondary market alternative” where slot holders could exchange unused slots. The FAA requested comments on such an alternative.

Carr said NBAA would evaluate the data closely, given it is from more than six years ago. He, however, questioned the FAA’s regulatory evaluation, since it did not factor in the ramifications on the small businesses at the airport, including the fixed-base operations. The FBOs have invested substantially in their operations at the airports, he said, and limited operations could hurt their businesses.

“It’s a pretty substantial proposal. It absolutely threatens access,” Carr said.

NATA had asked for the public meeting to hash out these issues. “Our members are eager to work with the FAA to ensure that general aviation and on-demand carrier operations are provided access to these important facilities on an equitable basis while not contributing to overall arrival and departure delays,” the association had told the FAA.

NATA expressed concerns of the FBOs about the direct economic consequences, as well as worries of the charter and fractional ownership operators that use the airport. “Their operations are not a significant contributor to congestion or delays, but the NPRM would reduce their airport access nonetheless,” NATA said.

The association further believes the reservation system used to manage slot usage at the airports needs improvements.

The FAA and the Department of Transportation both “carefully considered” NATA’s request for a public meeting, the agency said. However, the FAA believed the meeting was not necessary since the agency provided the extension in the comment period. Also, the agency pointed out, it added more airport usage data into the docket at the request of airlines and airport groups.