by Don Brown
Five years and one Great Recession ago, the Atlanta airport opened its fifth runway. Keep in mind that Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL) was already the busiest airport in the world. An article in USA Today had this to say at the time (2006):
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the new runway, opening May 27, will increase by about 30% the number of arrivals the airport can handle at any time, reducing passengers' average waits as they taxi or circle in the air.
In the same article, we learn the new runway cost $1.1 billion, ATL ranked 20th in on-time performance and only 78% of its arrivals were on time. Now, let's jump forward to June 2010 -- this time in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
More departure delays at the nation's major airports were attributed to Hartsfield-Jackson than to any other airport, according to a study completed last month by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Hartsfield-Jackson is the world's busiest airport.
Hartsfield-Jackson ranked 29th out of 31 major airports for on-time performance in 2009, ahead of only New York's LaGuardia Airport and Newark Liberty International. While overall airline on-time performance across the country improved, it declined in Atlanta. At Hartsfield-Jackson, 72.6 percent of flights arrived on time in 2009, down from 75.5 percent in 2008. That meant passengers had more than a 1 in 4 chance of being delayed.
At first glance, that may sound like it's disproving the point I'm trying to make -- that runways add capacity. We've gone from 78% on time in 2006 to 75.5% in 2008 to 72.6% in 2009. Yet we know for a fact that ATL has more capacity than it did in 2006. ATL now has five runways instead of four -- but on-time performance is decreasing. How can this be? First, let me prove to you that ATL does indeed have more capacity.
For those that actually click on the links, don't let the FAA confuse you. VAPS means "visual approaches." In other words, the weather is good and pilots fly to the airport visually instead of having to fly an approach on instruments. The current version of the AAR (Airport Arrival Rate) page lists the same flying conditions as "VMC" -- Visual Meteorological Conditions. I've only quoted the "best rate." In other words, the maximum number of airplanes the airport can handle using the best runway configuration with the best weather. If you want to study the charts you can see what happens when the weather gets "bad" (IMC/IFR) and/or they lose a runway. (Don't be surprised if that FAA link suddenly quits working.)
I hope the difference in those numbers leaps out at you. 126 - 96 = 30 arrivals an hour. 30 arrivals + 30 departures = 60 airplanes per hour per runway. Just like I discussed earlier.
So, what's the deal? Why are delays increasing despite added capacity? One word: scheduling. This is the "big picture" point I want you to see. They (the whole industry) promise airline passengers what they crave -- ...reducing passengers' average waits as they taxi or circle in the air... -- but they don't deliver. As soon as we build any increased capacity, it gets overscheduled. And the delays only get worse.
I mention this because, in a way, I'm as bad as the rest of the industry. I know that airline delays get your attention. But what I'm really after -- my ulterior motive -- is safety. Safety always has been and it always will be my goal. The motive isn't really "ulterior." Check the bio at the bottom of this entry. I was a safety rep for air traffic controllers. Let me interpret that for you. I not only told the FAA and the aviation industry when I thought they were doing something wrong, I let air traffic controllers know when I thought they were doing something wrong. I was quite insufferable about it -- as only a true believer can be.
I'm telling you all this for one simple reason -- when you push anything to its limits, it tends to break. Engines, people, and air traffic control systems. If you redline an engine constantly, you're just asking for it to break. If you redline the air traffic control system, you're asking for the same thing. If we allow the airlines to schedule an airport at its maximum capacity -- constantly -- the airport gets overwhelmed when the slightest thing goes wrong—when a thunderstorm comes along; when it gets foggy or snows; when an aircraft has a flat tire and can't taxi off the runway. When these events happen, you (the airline passenger) want to know how long your delay will be. Air traffic controllers want to know where they're supposed to put all the airplanes already in the air, inbound to the airport. In the holding patterns is the obvious (and correct) answer but I'm guessing most of you have never even thought about how that is done. The phrase "mad scramble" comes to mind. "Mad scramble" and "safety" don't really go together.