ATTACHMENT A by liwenting

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 6

									                                                           June 8, 2007



TO:        Regional Airport Planning Committee
FROM:      Staff of the Regional Airport Planning Committee

SUBJECT: Draft Minutes of April 27, 2007 Regional Airport Planning Committee


    1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Committee Member Jim Spering at
9:35 A.M.
    2. Roll Call. Present were: Armao (CalTrans), Bates (BCDC) Gioa (Contra Costa County)
Green (SJC), Hauri (General Aviation), Minner, (OAK), Mossar (BCDC), Novak (FAA), Peskin
(City and County of San Francisco), Rinsler (SFO) and Spering (MTC).
    3. Staff Announcements. Mr. Kimsey announced that Joe LaClair will cover BCDC’s staff
responsibilities on RAPC.
   4. Public Comment Period. Chair Spering asked if any member of the public would like to
speak on any issue that is not on the agenda. No one wished to speak.
   6. Minutes, Meeting Of February 23, 2007. Action to approve the minutes of the February 23,
2007 meeting was postponed to the June 22, 2007 meeting.
    7. Demand Management Panel. The first item on the agenda was a panel to provide the
Committee with a review of demand management mechanisms that could improve the future
safety and operational efficiency of the Bay Area’s airports and airspace. Andy Richards of the
FAA served as the panel moderator.
        Mr. LaClair introduced the item by saying that it was the third of four panels that RAPC
approved as part of the first phase of its work plan to update the Regional Airport Systems Plan
Analysis. He stated that the panelists would cover demand management strategies as outlined
in the staff report. Mr. LaClair introduced Andy Richards, the moderator for the aviation trends
panel.
       Mr. Richards introduced the demand management topic by noting that while most
people don’t think of SFO as a demand managed airport , the FAA and the airlines collaborate
on how to pare down flights on bad weather days to get the most efficiency out of the airspace
on these days. Mr. Richards then introduced Steve Martin, Senior Vice President of Policy and
                                                    2


Planning and Chief Financial Officer of the Airports Council International (ACI). He stated that
Mr. Martin has more than 20 years of experience in a wide variety of airport financing, business
development, industry relations and airport master planning.
      Steve Martin presented the discussion “Overview, Airport Congestion Management
Concepts” which can be found at both www.mtc.ca.gov and www.bcdc.ca.gov.
        Mr. Huari noted that Congress is considering instituting Air Traffic Control fees for
users in the FAA reauthorization bill, which would be a type of demand management for small
aircraft. He said other airport demand management strategies focus on airline costs of flying a
seat and that these are two different approaches. He opined that the proposed ATC fee proposal
may not make it given the level of opposition to the proposal.
        Mr. Richard’s replied that the FAA seems to have problems when a strategy limits
access or changes existing conditions. A basic question is whether increased fees for small
aircraft are fair, if the rate of increase is comparatively larger than for other types of aircraft. .
        Mr. Richards introduced Frank Berardino, economist and the President of GRA with
thirty years of professional consulting experience. Mr. Richards noted he has expertise in
strategic and market planning for airlines, airports, air traffic control systems and railroads.
       Frank Berardino made a presentation entitled “Congestion Pricing for Airports.” This
presentation can be found at www.mtc.ca.gov and www.bcdc.ca.gov.
        Mr. Spering suggested that varying congestion prices monthly is too frequent to
successfully affect schedules. If airports are resetting prices frequently, how does that affect an
airline’s operations? Mr. Berardino responded that prices would probably be based on
schedules looking 3 months out.
        Ms. Rinsler noted that SFO has lots of commuter flights that feed United’s SFO hub. She
worried about the impact of high fees on these aircraft. How would an airport set a minimal
landing fee that was not discriminatory, especially against smaller aircraft when SFO’s problem
is seasonal fog and low clouds? Mr. Berardino replied that he is not as concerned about impacts
on flights to and from small communities, e.g., Sacramento, because these markets have
reasonable ground-based alternatives. No one will value slots at SFO more than United, and
United will not be leaving SFO. It is possible to let go of some of the short haul flights, since
International flights pay more in airport fees. British Airways pays $20 million per slot at
Heathrow to protect their position. Mr. Berardino stated that he was not sure what SFO can do
about summer fog, except that any fee that encourages airlines to up-gauge aircraft size would
be helpful. Since the fog condition is seasonal, there would be some predictability in setting
fees. Mr Richards added, however, that fog is not predictable year-to-year. Mr. Berardino
suggested that if you want to do something with fees, it is better to start now rather than when
you are in the middle of a problem.
       Mr. Richards introduced Mark Hansen, a Professor in the department Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-Director of the
National Center of Excellence in Aviation Operations Research. Dr. Hansen’s presentation
“Real-Time Inter-Modal Substitution as an Aiport Congestion Management Strategy” is
available at www.mtc.ca.gov and www.bcdc.ca.gov.


RAPC MINUTES
April 27, 2007
                                                 3


        Mr. Gioia noted that during the last RASPA update, the Committee considered the
feasibility of surface transportation options, even a tunnel between SFO and OAK, but
determined these were not practicable. He asked whether slots could be established at the
regional level and combined with ground transportation links so that airports would need to
work together to apportion their individual slots? Dr. Hansen said the real problem is that the
Bay Area’s delay problem is concentrated on 20 percent of the days at SFO with bad weather,
and there is no real need for airports to collaborate. Airlines can divert now, but what airlines
need to focus on is working with surface transport providers to facilitate diversion of short
trips. Mr. Minner said Oakland Airport’s gates are already heavily used and general demand




RAPC MINUTES
April 27, 2007
                                                4


will use up runway capacity. Oakland Airport cannot accommodate additional ad hoc service,
and it would be hard to make an economic case to provide more gate/terminal capacity at OAK
to handle diverted flights for the 20 percent of days when there is bad weather.
        Dr. Hansen suggested that perhaps airports or airlines could use remote aircraft parking
and intermittent ferry connecting service when needed to lower costs. Ms. Rinsler noted that
airlines would have to serve both airports to consider diverting. Ferries between OAK and SFO
have been studied by the WTA, and they cost a lot to operate. Mr. Goia said, perhaps ferries
could use an existing terminal rather than create new terminals at the airports. Mr. Martin
suggested another perspective—perhaps congestion pricing surcharges could fund additional
spillover gates at OAK or fund standby ferry service or other infrastructure associated with the
strategy to keep airport fees revenue neutral. On the East Coast, AMTRAK is a well known
alternative to air travel on bad weather days and people can solve their own travel problems,
rather than the airports (it is also government subsidized which removes any costs from the
airports).
      Mr. Spering left the meeting at 11:00 am, and Ms. Mossar chaired the remainder of the
meeting.
    8. Public Comment. Walt Gillfillan said it is important to assess the environmental capacity
of a region when considering solutions to airport congestion. He said that congestion
management strategies need to address noise and other environmental considerations.
Remember that many demand management concepts started out as environmental solutions
rather than capacity solutions.
        In response, Mr. Martin said what is missing is a public policy supporting aircraft up-
gauging. Up-gauging is good for environmental reasons as well (same number of passengers
carried on fewer operations). Mr. Berardino added that carbon taxes on jet fuel, which are used
in Europe, are also an environmental strategy as are certain technological tools, such as
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast and Continuous Descent Approaches and more
precise area navigation routes into and out of airports. The only up-gauging initiative he knows
about is at LaGuardia. He said if you implement these strategies, people will adjust.
        In response to a question from Mr. Gioia about the impact of general aviation on delay
at SFO, Ms. Rinsler reported that only 15,000 of the 360,000 operations at SFO are general
aviation. She said SFO has a minimum landing fee that diverts most general aviation traffic to
other destinations, and the primary customers are corporate aircraft. She said it is unclear how
much general aviation traffic contributes to delay, but anti-discrimination requirements in
federal law prevent pricing mechanisms that target this group. Mr. Richards reported that
general aviation contributes to about 10 percent of the delay, and on bad weather days general
aviation traffic tends to avoid SFO because pilots do not want to get involved in all the Air
Traffic Control vectoring that goes on to sequence traffic.
       During public comment, David Lewis from Save the Bay said he has three “takeaways”
from the meeting:
       a. This discussion is being driven in part by environmental considerations and
          economic changes. Lots of interesting solutions can be discussed when it becomes
          hard to build new runways.

RAPC MINUTES
April 27, 2007
                                             5


      b. Strategies that once seemed expensive, like new technology, don’t seem that
         expensive when it costs $10 billion to build new runways. In the long term, pricing
         is much more flexible and less expensive than new concrete.




RAPC MINUTES
April 27, 2007
                                                   6


       c. There is still a problem with how delays are measured and assigned. It is important
          to distinguish propagated delay generated at airports elsewhere, but experienced by
          travelers here from SFO bad weather delay. Most delay is experienced by a few
          people, and the people that don’t experience it should not have to pay.
        Finally, it is clear that airplanes are not buses or cars. Real time pricing (like the Route 91
toll road in Orange County) doesn’t work that well because there is less flexibility in the air
transportation system. It is difficult to plan for the future in such a dynamic industry. RAPC
should figure out what the future airport system configuration will be, and then let passengers
and the market adjust to the capacity available. If a trip is not worth the cost, passengers won’t
fly.
   8. Scheduling of Next Meeting, Adjournment. The next monthly meeting of RAPC will be
held on June 22, 2007 at the MetroCenter Auditorium in Oakland.
       The meeting was adjourned at noon.




RAPC MINUTES
April 27, 2007

								
To top