November 20, 2009 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ACCOMMODATING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND Prepared for:...

November 20, 2009

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ACCOMMODATING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ACCOMMODATING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND

Prepared for:

Regional Airport Planning Committee

Prepared for:

Regional Airport Planning Committee

Bay ConservationDevelopment Commission

Association ofBay Area Governments

2

Presentation TopicsPresentation Topics

1. Airport Traffic Redistribution

2. Potential Passenger Recapture by External Airports

3. Air Traffic Control Technologies

4. Demand Management

3

What Are the Capacity Limits of the Primary Bay Area Airports?

When Are These Limits Likely to Be Reached?

What Strategies Offer the Greatest Potential to Allow the Region to Efficiently Accommodate Future Aviation Demand?

– Redistribution of Traffic Between the Primary Airports

– Secondary Airports

– Out-of Region airports to be reviewed today

– New ATC Technologies

– Demand Management

– High Speed Rail

– GA Reliever Airports

Critical Study QuestionsCritical Study Questions

Airport Redistribution ScenarioAirport Redistribution Scenario

5

If New ATC and/or Demand Management Cannot Successfully Mitigate the High Levels of Demand and Delay Forecasted for SFO in 2035, it is Likely that Some Traffic Would Shift to Other Primary Airports

Traffic Most Likely to Shift Would be Domestic O&D Passengers

Purpose for Redistribution ScenarioPurpose for Redistribution Scenario

Domestic O&D47%

Domestic Connecting

12%

Int'l Psgrs /141%

30.0M

26.7M

7.7.M

/1 Includes domestic to international connecting passengers/1 Includes domestic to international connecting passengers

Forecast SFO Traffic Mix2035

6

Based on the Unconstrained Forecasts, Average SFO Delays will Exceed 20 Minutes by 2035Based on the Unconstrained Forecasts, Average SFO Delays will Exceed 20 Minutes by 2035

SFO Average Delays

Notes: “Midpoint” = the average of 2020 and 2035 operationsNotes: “Midpoint” = the average of 2020 and 2035 operations

Minutes

Annual Operations (000)

7

The Build-Up of Delays at SFO Will Encourage a Shift of Demand to OAK and SJCThe Build-Up of Delays at SFO Will Encourage a Shift of Demand to OAK and SJC

Excessive Delays at SFO will Produce Added Costs to Airlines and Passengers

Heavy Congestion and Delays at SFO will Create Incentives for Airlines and Passengers to Make Greater Use of Available Capacity at OAK and SJC

The Degree of Traffic Redistribution will Depend on Airline Decisions to Expand Services at Competitive Fares at OAK and SJC

However, Airline Decisions are Based on Expected Profitability—Not on Best Accommodating Future Bay Area Aviation Demand

8

When SFO was Heavily Delayed in the 1990’s, OAK and SJC Increased Their Shares of Bay Area Regional DemandWhen SFO was Heavily Delayed in the 1990’s, OAK and SJC Increased Their Shares of Bay Area Regional Demand

Throughout the 1990’s, SFO was One of the Most Heavily Delayed Airports in the U.S.

These Delays Contributed to Service Expansion and Increased Traffic Shares at OAK and SJC

– OAK Increased its Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers from 20% in the Late 1990’s Up to a Peak of 33% from 2003 to 2006

– SJC Share Gains were Less Pronounced (from approx. 22% up to 26% in 2002)

The Share Gains Experienced at OAK and SJC Occurred Gradually, and Lagged the Onset of Serious SFO Delays by Several Years

9

However, the Share Gains Experienced at OAK and SJC Have Been Completely Eroded by Recent DevelopmentsHowever, the Share Gains Experienced at OAK and SJC Have Been Completely Eroded by Recent Developments

Source: ACI-NA Airport Traffic Statistics; Airport Data

Primary Airport Shares of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

CY 1990 – CY 2009

Primary Airport Shares of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

CY 1990 – CY 2009Share of Bay Area Dom O&D Psgrs

Year OAK SFO SJC

1990 17.2% 65.6% 17.1%1991 18.4% 65.2% 16.4%1992 19.1% 64.3% 16.6%1993 20.9% 61.2% 17.9%1994 21.4% 58.3% 20.3%1995 23.1% 55.7% 21.2%

1996 21.5% 56.1% 22.3%1997 20.0% 57.5% 22.5%1998 20.1% 57.0% 23.0%1999 20.5% 55.5% 24.1%2000 21.1% 53.4% 25.5%

2001 25.6% 46.6% 27.8%2002 30.9% 43.4% 25.7%2003 33.4% 41.6% 25.0%2004 32.6% 43.3% 24.1%2005 32.8% 43.4% 23.8%

2006 32.9% 43.2% 24.0%2007 31.7% 45.1% 23.2%2008 26.3% 51.2% 22.5%2009E 23.1% 56.5% 20.4%

SFO

OAK

SJC

The 2007 Entry of Southwest Airlines, Virgin America and JetBlue Produced a Major Increase in SFO’s Share of Bay Area Domestic Passengers

10

We Expect that a Future Redistribution of Bay Area Traffic will Largely Mirror What has Occurred in the PastWe Expect that a Future Redistribution of Bay Area Traffic will Largely Mirror What has Occurred in the Past

Excessive Congestion and Delays at SFO will Lead to Slowing of Growth

Airlines and Passengers will Find OAK and SJC Relatively More Attractive, Leading to Increases in Domestic Services and Traffic Shares at Both Airports

Airline Decisions which will Drive Redistribution between the Primary Airports Cannot Be Predicted with Any Degree of Certainty

For the Redistribution Scenario, We have Assumed that Both OAK and SJC Return to Their Historic Peak Shares of Bay Area Domestic Traffic

– OAK Peak Historic Share: 33%

– SJC Peak Historic Share: 26%/1

/1 Excludes CY2001 due to the impacts of 9-11.

11

We Expect Redistribution to Produce a Meaningful Shift in Airport Utilization by Bay Area Domestic PassengersWe Expect Redistribution to Produce a Meaningful Shift in Airport Utilization by Bay Area Domestic Passengers

OAK Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

OAK Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

Source: SH&E Analysis

SFO Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

SFO Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

SJC Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

SJC Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D Passengers

2009E2035

Unconstr.2035

w/ Redistr.2009E

2035 Unconstr.

2035 w/ Redistr.

2009E2035

Unconstr.2035

w/ Redistr.

12

The Redistribution Scenario Reduces SFO Passenger Demand from 64M to 60M in 2035, Shifting Over 4 Million Passengers to OAK and SJC

The Redistribution Scenario Reduces SFO Passenger Demand from 64M to 60M in 2035, Shifting Over 4 Million Passengers to OAK and SJC

64.4

20.716.3

60.0

23.118.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SFO OAK SJC

Unconstrained Forecast

With Redistribution

Forecast Airport Passengers2035

Forecast Airport Passengers2035

Millions of Passengers

13

After Redistribution, SFO’s Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D and Total Passengers will DeclineAfter Redistribution, SFO’s Share of Bay Area Domestic O&D and Total Passengers will Decline

30%

47%

23%20%

64%

16%

33%

26%23%

18%

59%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

OAK SFO SJC OAK SFO SJC

Unconstrained Forecast

With Redistribution

Domestic Local Passengers Total Passengers

2035 Airport Passengers Shares Unconstrained Forecast vs. Redistribution Scenario

2035 Airport Passengers Shares Unconstrained Forecast vs. Redistribution Scenario

External Airports AnalysisExternal Airports Analysis

15

In Addition to Internal Airports, Three Nearby External Airports Were Also Analyzed for Their Ability to Reduce Passenger Demand at the Primary Bay Area Airports

In Addition to Internal Airports, Three Nearby External Airports Were Also Analyzed for Their Ability to Reduce Passenger Demand at the Primary Bay Area Airports

Bay Area Airports

Sacramento

Stockton

Monterey

South County

San Jose

SanFrancisco

Oakland

Sonoma

NapaTravis

Buchanan

Livermore

Byron

Gnoss Field

Half Moon Bay Moffett Field

Primary Airport

Internal Secondary Airport

External Secondary Airport

16

The External Airports Vary Widely in their Current Size and Air Service LevelsThe External Airports Vary Widely in their Current Size and Air Service Levels

Sacramento International Airport

– 10,000,000 passengers in 2008

– 138 daily nonstop departures to 28 destinations

– Southwest Airlines provides 59% of daily seats

Monterey Peninsula Airport

– 427,000 passengers in 2008

– 17 daily nonstop departures to 6 destinations

– Served by United, American, US Airways and Allegiant

Stockton Metropolitan Airport

– 59,000 passengers in 2008

– 3 weekly nonstop departures to Las Vegas

– Served by Allegiant

17

General Approach for Estimating External Airports Recapture from Bay Area AirportsGeneral Approach for Estimating External Airports Recapture from Bay Area Airports

Coordinated with Each Airport to Collect Latest Studies

– Market demand studies

– Leakage analyses

– Air passenger surveys

– Forecasts

– Air service targets

Forecast New Nonstop Service Potential at External Airports

Quantified How Many Passengers the New and Expanded Services Could Recapture From the Primary Bay Area Airports

Estimated the Corresponding Reduction in Aircraft Operations at the Primary Bay Area Airports

18

According to a Sacramento Leakage Study, 26% of Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area AirportAccording to a Sacramento Leakage Study, 26% of Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area Airport

SMF71.2%

Other3.2%

SFO9.2%

OAK13.3%

SJC3.1%

Airports Used by Passengers Originating in the Sacramento Catchment Area2005

Airports Used by Passengers Originating in the Sacramento Catchment Area2005

Note: Based on 17-county primary and secondary air service areas.

Source: Sabre, Sacramento International Airport Catchment Area Analysis, May 2005.

Note: Based on 17-county primary and secondary air service areas.

Source: Sabre, Sacramento International Airport Catchment Area Analysis, May 2005.

19

For Sacramento, We Evaluated the Feasibility of New Nonstop Services to 12 Destinations, Largely Transcontinental and Transborder Markets

For Sacramento, We Evaluated the Feasibility of New Nonstop Services to 12 Destinations, Largely Transcontinental and Transborder Markets

Potential New Nonstop Markets from SacramentoPotential New Nonstop Markets from Sacramento

20

In 2035, New Services at Sacramento Could Recapture 612,000 Passengers from the Primary Bay Area AirportsIn 2035, New Services at Sacramento Could Recapture 612,000 Passengers from the Primary Bay Area Airports

167,600

317,700

116,000

219,800

39,00074,000

322,600

611,600

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2020 2035

OAK

SFO

SJC

Total

Passengers

Estimated Sacramento Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports 2020 and 2035

Estimated Sacramento Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports 2020 and 2035

Over Half of the Passenger Recapture Would be from OAKOver Half of the Passenger Recapture Would be from OAK

Note: Individual airport passengers may not add to totals because of rounding.Note: Individual airport passengers may not add to totals because of rounding.

21

73% of Monterey’s Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area Airport73% of Monterey’s Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area Airport

SJC52%

SFO13%

MRY27%

OAK8%

Airports Used by Passengers Originating in the Monterey Catchment Area2004

Airports Used by Passengers Originating in the Monterey Catchment Area2004

Source: SH&E, Monterey Peninsula Airport Leakage Study, November 2004.Source: SH&E, Monterey Peninsula Airport Leakage Study, November 2004.

2008 Monterey Catchment Area O&D Passengers = 1.6M2008 Monterey Catchment Area O&D Passengers = 1.6M

22

We Evaluated New or Additional Nonstop Services from Monterey to High- Density, Short-Haul Markets and Airline Connecting HubsWe Evaluated New or Additional Nonstop Services from Monterey to High- Density, Short-Haul Markets and Airline Connecting Hubs

Candidate Markets for New Nonstop or Additional Services from Monterey

Candidate Markets for New Nonstop or Additional Services from Monterey

Nonstop Services (November 2009)

Market AirlineDaily

DeparturesDaily Seats

Los Angeles American Eagle 4 176

United Express 3 150

San Francisco United Express 6 180

Phoenix US Airways Express 2 100

Denver United Express 1 66

San Diego Allegiant *

Las Vegas Allegiant *

Total 16 672

Monterey’s Existing Nonstop ServicesMonterey’s Existing Nonstop Services

* Less than daily service, operated 2 times weekly with 150-seat aircraft (300 weekly seats).* Less than daily service, operated 2 times weekly with 150-seat aircraft (300 weekly seats).

LosAngeles

San Diego

LasVegas

Seattle

Portland

Phoenix

Denver

Salt Lake City

1,000 Miles

High Density Local Markets

Airline Connecting Hubs

(#) = Bay Area O&D Market Rank

Monterey

23

In 2035, Expanded Monterey Air Services Could Recapture Nearly 1M Passengers from Bay Area Airports, Primarily from SJCIn 2035, Expanded Monterey Air Services Could Recapture Nearly 1M Passengers from Bay Area Airports, Primarily from SJC

50,700109,20082,400

177,500

329,600

709,900

462,700

996,600

0.0

200,000.0

400,000.0

600,000.0

800,000.0

1,000,000.0

1,200,000.0

2020 2035

OAK

SFO

SJC

Total

Passengers (Millions)

Estimated Monterey Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports2020 and 2035

Estimated Monterey Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports2020 and 2035

71% of the Passenger Recapture Would be from SJC71% of the Passenger Recapture Would be from SJC

24

Approximately 37% of Stockton’s Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area AirportApproximately 37% of Stockton’s Catchment Area Passengers Use a Bay Area Airport

SJC4%

SCK6%

SFO20%

SMF57%

OAK13%

Airports Used by Passengers Originating in the Stockton Catchment AreaAirports Used by Passengers Originating in the Stockton Catchment Area

Source: Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Draft Master Plan Update, October 12, 2009 California Regional Air Service Plan, Execution Plan Final Report Appendix A/B, May 30, 2007Source: Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Draft Master Plan Update, October 12, 2009 California Regional Air Service Plan, Execution Plan Final Report Appendix A/B, May 30, 2007

2007 Stockton Catchment Area O&D Passengers = 890,0002007 Stockton Catchment Area O&D Passengers = 890,000

25

Two Scenarios for Air Service Development at StocktonTwo Scenarios for Air Service Development at Stockton

Medium Growth Scenario

– Allegiant adds additional weekly frequencies to LAS in 2020

– Allegiant adds a second destination in 2011

High Growth Scenario

– In addition to Medium Growth assumptions, Stockton attracts services to additional destinations by Allegiant and/or mainline regional carriers

Stockton’s Existing Nonstop ServicesStockton’s Existing Nonstop Services

* Increasing to 4-5 weekly departures in February 2010.* Increasing to 4-5 weekly departures in February 2010.

LosAngeles

San Diego

LasVegas

Seattle

Portland

Phoenix

Denver

Salt Lake City

1,000 Miles

High Density Local Markets

Airline Connecting Hubs

Stockton

Nonstop Services (November 2009)

Market AirlineWeekly

DeparturesWeekly Seats

Las Vegas Allegiant 3 * 450

26

Since More than Half of Stockton’s Traffic Leaks to Sacramento, Stockton’s Recapture Would Only Reduce Bay Area Passenger Demand by 34,000 to 97,000 in 2035

Since More than Half of Stockton’s Traffic Leaks to Sacramento, Stockton’s Recapture Would Only Reduce Bay Area Passenger Demand by 34,000 to 97,000 in 2035

27,40034,200 35,700

96,700

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2020 2035 2020 2035

OAK

SFO

SJC

Total

Passengers

Estimated Stockton Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports2020 and 2035

Estimated Stockton Passenger Recapture from the Bay Area Airports2020 and 2035

Medium Growth High Growth

27

Total Passenger Recapture by the Three External Airports Could Reduce Demand at the Bay Area Airports by 1.7M PassengersTotal Passenger Recapture by the Three External Airports Could Reduce Demand at the Bay Area Airports by 1.7M Passengers

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

SMF MRY SCK * Total

SJC

SFO

OAK

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Passengers as a Result of Passenger Recapture by the External Airports2035

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Passengers as a Result of Passenger Recapture by the External Airports2035

Note: Stockton based on High Growth forecast. Airport totals may not add to Total due to rounding.Note: Stockton based on High Growth forecast. Airport totals may not add to Total due to rounding.

612,000

997,000

97,000

1,705,000

47%

26%

27%

Passengers

28

Aircraft Demand Could be Reduced by 15,600 Annual OperationsAircraft Demand Could be Reduced by 15,600 Annual Operations

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Operations as a Result of Passenger Recapture by the External Airports2035

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Operations as a Result of Passenger Recapture by the External Airports2035

Note: Stockton based on High Growth forecast. Airport totals may not add to Total due to rounding.Note: Stockton based on High Growth forecast. Airport totals may not add to Total due to rounding.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

SMF MRY SCK Total

SJC

SFO

OAK

5,600

9,200

1,000

15,600

7,400(20)

3,900(11)

4,300(12)

AircraftOperations

Annual Operations

Avg. Daily Operations

29

In 2035, Combined Recapture by the External and Internal Airports Could Reduce Passenger Demand at the Primary Airports by 4.3M and Aircraft Operations by 39,000

In 2035, Combined Recapture by the External and Internal Airports Could Reduce Passenger Demand at the Primary Airports by 4.3M and Aircraft Operations by 39,000

2020 2035

Secondary Ariports Passengers

Aircraft Operations Passengers

Aircraft Operations

Internal 963,000 9,500 2,638,000 23,800

External 821,000 8,200 1,705,000 15,600

Total 1,784,000 17,700 4,343,000 39,400

Reduction in Aviation Demand at the Primary Bay Area Airportsas a Result of Air Passenger Service Expansion at the Secondary Airports

2020 and 2035

Reduction in Aviation Demand at the Primary Bay Area Airportsas a Result of Air Passenger Service Expansion at the Secondary Airports

2020 and 2035

30

Expansion by External and Internal Airports Could Reduce Activity at the Bay Area Airports by Only 3-4%, and SFO Activity by Less than 3%

Expansion by External and Internal Airports Could Reduce Activity at the Bay Area Airports by Only 3-4%, and SFO Activity by Less than 3%

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

OAK SFO SJC

BaselineForecast

Forecast withSecondaryAirportExpansion

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Activity as a Result of Passenger Recaptureby the Internal and External Airports

2035

Reduction in Bay Area Airport Activity as a Result of Passenger Recaptureby the Internal and External Airports

2035

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

OAK SFO SJC

-5.2%

-2.6%

-8.9%

-2.7%

-3.3%

-4.8%

Passengers Aircraft Operations

31

Next Steps for Alternative Airports ScenarioNext Steps for Alternative Airports Scenario

Review Recapture Estimates with Individual Airports

Assess Impact of Combined Internal and External Airport Alternatives on Bay Area Airports:

– Runway Capacity and Delays

– Air Quality Emissions and Green House Gases

– Noise Emissions

New ATC Technology ScenarioNew ATC Technology Scenario

33

Air Traffic Control Technologies Will be Assessed as Potential Tools for Allowing the Region to Better Accommodate Future Aviation Demand

Air Traffic Control Technologies Will be Assessed as Potential Tools for Allowing the Region to Better Accommodate Future Aviation Demand

Identify a Set of Promising and Realistic ATC Technologies to Reduce Future Airport Congestion at SFO, OAK and SJC

ATC Technology Working Group has Identified Likely ATC Improvements at SFO, OAK & SJC

Estimate the Impacts of Improved ATC Technology on Airport Capacity and Delays

The Regional Airport System Analysis Update Will:

34

Future Runway Capacity Conditions at Bay Area AirportsFuture Runway Capacity Conditions at Bay Area Airports

Baseline Airfield Capacity/Delay Analysis was Conducted for SFO, OAK & SJC for 2007, 2020 & 2035

SFO Will Reach Capacity Between 2020 and 2035

OAK Will Reach Capacity Shortly After 2035

SJC Has Adequate Capacity Well Beyond 2035

35

SFO: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating ProfileSFO: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating Profile

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2007

2020

2035

2035 VFR Capacity = 100

2035 IFR Capacity = 61

Hourly Operations

Average Weekday Aircraft Operations by HourBaseline 2007 and Base Case Forecast 2020 and 2035


Notes: 2007 capacities = 95 VFR and 56 IFR; 2020 capacities = 99 VFR and 61 IFRNotes: 2007 capacities = 95 VFR and 56 IFR; 2020 capacities = 99 VFR and 61 IFR

36

OAK: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating ProfileOAK: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating Profile

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2007

2020

2035



Hourly Operations




37

SJC: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating ProfileSJC: Baseline and Forecast Average Weekday Operating Profile

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2007

2020



Hourly Operations




38

How ATC Improvements Can Increase Airport CapacityHow ATC Improvements Can Increase Airport Capacity

Reduce required aircraft separations

– Wake Vortex Advisory System (WVAS)

– Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X)

Increase precision of aircraft tracking

– Required Navigational Performance (RNP)

Increase precision of ATC spacing of aircraft

– Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS)

Extend the weather envelope when procedures can be used

– Enhanced Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA)

– Cockpit Display of Traffic Information Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS)

– IFR Paired Approaches

39

ATC Technology Initiatives with Potential Capacity Benefits at All Bay Area AirportsATC Technology Initiatives with Potential Capacity Benefits at All Bay Area Airports

2020

Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS)– Reduce approach separation variations

Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X)– Enhance taxiway flows and reduce runway conflicts under non-visual conditions

Required Navigational Performance (RNP)– Permit more flexible and efficient arrival/departure routes. Increase departure airspace

capacity.

2035

Cockpit Display of Traffic Information Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS)– Reduce aircraft separations in non-visual conditions– Significantly reduce the problems caused by IFR weather today

Wake Vortex Advisory System (WVAS)– Reduce wake vortex separations under certain wind conditions

40

ATC Technology Initiatives with Specific Capacity Benefits at SFO and OAKATC Technology Initiatives with Specific Capacity Benefits at SFO and OAK

2020 - SFO

Enhanced Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA)– Reduce minimum ceiling to 1,600 ft from 2,100 ft today

– Will enable SOIA operations to be conducted more frequently increasing arrivals during marginal weather conditions

2035 - SFO

Development of Paired Approach Instrument Procedures– Use of Automated Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) coupled to aircraft flight

management systems and Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) to allow paired approaches to continue under instrument weather conditions

2020 - OAK

Remove Instrument Landing System hold point on Runway 11– Move ILS antenna or use RNP to reduce the existing large separations between landings

and takeoffs under non-visual conditions during Southeast Plan operations

– Should dramatically reduce the excessive delays that occur today under IFR conditions when landing from west to east

41

Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach Procedure to Runway 28R at SFOSimultaneous Offset Instrument Approach Procedure to Runway 28R at SFO

DARNE MAP (SOIA)

Stabilized Approach Point (SOIA) SAP

OKDUE

San Mateo Bridge

Comparison of SOIA, ILS 28R Geometry to Non-SOIA Runway 28 L/R Parallel Approaches

SOIA

28R ILS28L ILSO 1 2

Scale NM

15 NM

SOIA glide slope2,100

S M Bridge

5,000

Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)No Transgression Zone (NTZ)2,000 feet wide

cloud layer

SOIA

ILS 28R

ILS 28L

PRM NTZ

No Transgression Zone

3,000 ft. separation

42

Continuous Descent Approach (CDA)Continuous Descent Approach (CDA)

The study will also evaluate the potential environmental benefits of CDAs

Widespread use of CDAs requires most all of the new ATC/ATM technologies potentially available in 2035 or later

CDAs do not increase airport capacity; however they offer environmental benefits such as reduced fuel burn, reduced emissions, and lower noise farther away from airport runways

Glide PathAcquisition Point

If Altitude WindowXXXXFTYYYYFT

CDA Profiles

Non-CDA Profile

Area of Maximum Noise Benefit

FAP

2NM

Glide PathAcquisition Point

If Altitude WindowXXXXFTYYYYFT

CDA Profiles

Non-CDA Profile

Area of Maximum Noise Benefit

FAP

2NM

43

There are a Number of Barriers to Full Implementation of New ATC TechnologiesThere are a Number of Barriers to Full Implementation of New ATC Technologies

Aircraft equipage

Airlines’ need for financial payback on aircraft equipment investments

Lengthy certification process for new technologies (~ 7-10 years)

Pilot/controller training and acceptance

Political Pressure will be Needed to Accelerate Deployment of Key Technologies for the Bay Area

44

Next Steps Next Steps

Assess the Impact of New ATC Alternatives on Bay Area Airports:

– Runway Capacity and Delays

– Air Quality Emissions and Green House Gases

– Noise Emissions

Demand Management ScenarioDemand Management Scenario

46

There is Growing Recognition that Demand Management Mechanisms Must be Available to Airports to Meet Future System DemandThere is Growing Recognition that Demand Management Mechanisms Must be Available to Airports to Meet Future System Demand

Focus of Analysis is Not to Define a Specific Program, but Rather to Estimate the Potential Capacity and Delay Benefits that Demand Management Could Produce

Slot Controls (DCA/LGA)

FAA Negotiated Caps (ORD/JFK/EWR)

Perimeter Rules (LGA/DCA/Love Field)

Passenger Caps (Orange County)

Direct Negotiations Between the Airport and the Airlines

Potential Demand Management Mechanisms

Limits on Available Gates (LAX)

Minimum Aircraft Size Rules

Peak Period Pricing (BOS)– Explicitly Permitted at Congested

Airports by New U.S. DOT Rates and Charges Policy

47

The Demand Management Scenario will be

Focused on SFO, Since OAK and SJC are not

Forecast to Incur Serious Delays

The Demand Management Scenario will be

Focused on SFO, Since OAK and SJC are not

Forecast to Incur Serious Delays

48

Airport Demand Management Programs

Such as Peak Period Pricing Can Reduce Congestion and

Delay by Creating Financial Incentives to:

New U.S. DOT Policy Permits Congested Airports to Use Pricing Tools to Increase Efficiency and Reduce DelayNew U.S. DOT Policy Permits Congested Airports to Use Pricing Tools to Increase Efficiency and Reduce Delay

Spread Flight Activity More Evenly Across the Day

Increase Aircraft Size (Upgauging)

49

Current Operations at SFO Peak During the Late Morning and are Well Above the Airport’s IFR CapacityCurrent Operations at SFO Peak During the Late Morning and are Well Above the Airport’s IFR Capacity

Weekday Scheduled Operations at SFO by Hour

August 2009

Source: OAG Schedules

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0000

-0059

0100

-0159

0200

-0259

0300

-0359

0400

-0459

0500

-0559

0600

-0659

0700

-0759

0800

-0859

0900

-0959

1000

-1059

1100

-1159

1200

-1259

1300

-1359

1400

-1459

1500

-1559

1600

-1659

1700

-1759

1800

-1859

1900

-1959

2000

-2059

2100

-2159

2200

-2259

2300

-2359

International

Domestic



50

By 2035, Late Morning Demand Will Exceed SFO’s Maximum VFR Capacity while IFR Capacity Will Be Exceeded Throughout the Day

By 2035, Late Morning Demand Will Exceed SFO’s Maximum VFR Capacity while IFR Capacity Will Be Exceeded Throughout the Day



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2007

2020



Hourly Operations

Time of Day

51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0000

-005

9

0100

-015

9

0200

-025

9

0300

-035

9

0400

-045

9

0500

-055

9

0600

-065

9

0700

-075

9

0800

-085

9

0900

-095

9

1000

-105

9

1100

-115

9

1200

-125

9

1300

-135

9

1400

-145

9

1500

-155

9

1600

-165

9

1700

-175

9

1800

-185

9

1900

-195

9

2000

-205

9

2100

-215

9

2200

-225

9

2300

-235

9

As Scheduled

Smoothed

Differential Pricing Between Peak and Off-Peak Periods Can Encourage Airlines to Spread Flights More Evenly Over the DayDifferential Pricing Between Peak and Off-Peak Periods Can Encourage Airlines to Spread Flights More Evenly Over the Day

Weekday Scheduled Operations at SFO by Hour (August 2009)

* Average hourly operations for 07:00 to 21:59Source: OAG Schedules

Average* = 60

Example of Eliminating 50% of Current SFO Peaking

52

Flights to and from Carrier Hubs Generally Timed to Meet Connecting Banks

Eastbound Transcontinental Flights Typically Depart West Coast Cities Before 3:00pm

Long-haul International Flights Most Often Timed to Depart and Arrive at Reasonable Hours

Aircraft Must be Turned Quickly to Maintain High Utilization and Control Costs

However, Airline Scheduling Considerations Can Limit the Extent of Peak Smoothing that is Feasible However, Airline Scheduling Considerations Can Limit the Extent of Peak Smoothing that is Feasible

These Factors will Constrain Airlines’ Ability to Produce

Dramatic Shifts in Flight Timing

53

Although SFO Has a Comparatively Low Share of Domestic Flights Operated with Small Aircraft…Although SFO Has a Comparatively Low Share of Domestic Flights Operated with Small Aircraft…

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Miami

Los Angeles

Seattle

New York JFK

Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

Philadelphia

New York La Guardia

Washington Dulles

New York Newark

Turboprop/Other

Regional Jet

Share of Daily Domestic Departures Using Regional Jet, Turboprop or Other Aircraft with 50 or Fewer Seats

August 2009

Share of Daily Domestic Departures Using Regional Jet, Turboprop or Other Aircraft with 50 or Fewer Seats

August 2009

47.8%

Note: Includes 10 most congested U.S. airports plus Los Angeles and Seattle


44.6%

43.7%

41.8%

36.1%

31.6%

29.4%

28.7%

25.7%

24.1%

21.8%

19.2%

San Francisco

54

…and One of the Largest Average Aircraft Sizes, SFO Would Nevertheless Benefit From Aircraft Upgauging…and One of the Largest Average Aircraft Sizes, SFO Would Nevertheless Benefit From Aircraft Upgauging

89

90

91

97

99

101

103

116

126

128

138

122

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Washington Dulles

Philadelphia

New York La Guardia

Chicago

New York Newark

Boston

Atlanta

New York JFK

Seattle

Los Angeles

Miami

Average Seats Per Domestic Departure at Large and Congested AirportsAugust 2009

Average Seats Per Domestic Departure at Large and Congested AirportsAugust 2009

Note: Includes 10 most congested U.S. airports plus Los Angeles and Seattle


San Francisco

55

$4.82 $4.90

$4.05$3.75

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

B-757 A-319 CRJ EMB Brasila

The Traditional Weight-Based Landing Fee Provides No Financial Advantage to Larger AircraftThe Traditional Weight-Based Landing Fee Provides No Financial Advantage to Larger Aircraft

Cost per Seat At $4.50 per 1,000 lbsCost per Seat At $4.50 per 1,000 lbs

185 Seats 124 Seats 50 Seats 30 Seats

Source: Jane’s All World’s Aircraft, OAG

56

$2.70$4.03

$10.00

$16.67

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

B-757 A-319 CRJ EMB Brasila

In Contrast, the Use of a Flat Fee During Congested Periods Creates an Economic Incentive to Use Larger AircraftIn Contrast, the Use of a Flat Fee During Congested Periods Creates an Economic Incentive to Use Larger Aircraft

Cost per Seat With a Flat Fee of $500 per OperationCost per Seat With a Flat Fee of $500 per Operation

185 Seats 124 Seats 50 Seats 30 Seats

Source: Jane’s All World’s Aircraft, OAG

57

The Future Fleet Mix for SFO Already Accounts for Small Aircraft Upgauging, but Predominantly After 2020The Future Fleet Mix for SFO Already Accounts for Small Aircraft Upgauging, but Predominantly After 2020

30

56

147

284

137

3253

143

293

150

70 70

143

326

173

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Turboprop Regional Jet Narrowbody Widebody Total Airport

2007 2020 2035

Average Aircraft Size by Aircraft Category

Actual 2007 and Base Case Forecast 2020 and 2035

Average Aircraft Size by Aircraft Category

Actual 2007 and Base Case Forecast 2020 and 2035

An Effective Demand Management Program Should Accelerate and Increase the Extent of Small Aircraft Upgauging

58

Accelerating the Upgauging of Small Aircraft Would Reduce SFO’s 2020 Passenger Aircraft Operations by 7.4%Accelerating the Upgauging of Small Aircraft Would Reduce SFO’s 2020 Passenger Aircraft Operations by 7.4%

43,200 33,700

384,600

33,00015,400

356,200

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

RJs (all) TPs (all) Total Airport

Forecast

Forecast with Small AircraftUpgauging *

-23.6% -54.1%

-7.4%

Forecast 2020 Annual Scheduled Passenger Aircraft Operations at SFO

With and Without Small Aircraft Upgauging

Forecast 2020 Annual Scheduled Passenger Aircraft Operations at SFO

With and Without Small Aircraft Upgauging

However, Benefits in 2035 Would Require Further Upgauging Within SFO’s Domestic Fleet

* All regional jets and turboprops with 50 or fewer sets upgauged to 70-seaters.

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0700-0759

0800-0859

0900-0959

1000-1059

1100-1159

1200-1259

1300-1359

1400-1459

1500-1559

1600-1659

1700-1759

1800-1859

1900-1959

2000-2059

2100-2159

2200-2259

2300-2359

As Scheduled

50% Smoothing

50% Smoothing & Acft Upgauging

The Combination of Peak Smoothing and Aircraft Upgauging can have a Significant Impact on Hourly DemandThe Combination of Peak Smoothing and Aircraft Upgauging can have a Significant Impact on Hourly Demand

Example of 2009 SFO Flight Schedule Impacted by Peak Smoothing and Substitution of Larger Aircraft

* Average hourly operations for 07:00 to 21:59Source: OAG Schedules



60

Next StepsNext Steps

Estimate the Extent of Peak Smoothing that is Feasible, Given Scheduling Realities for Domestic and International Airline Service

– Potential shifting of flights from peak to off-peak hours

– Potential cancellation of some peak period flights

Estimate the Degree of Aircraft Upgauging that can Realistically Occur

Adjust SFO Forecasts to Account for Both Factors

Assess Potential Impacts on SFO Delays, Noise and Air Quality

APPENDIXAPPENDIX

62

Oakland

San Jose

San Francisco

San Francisco

SFO Draws Domestic Passengers From Across the Bay Area RegionSFO Draws Domestic Passengers From Across the Bay Area Region

Pct. of SFO Domestic O&D Passengers by

Ground Origin

2006

Source: MTC Airport Passenger Surveys

55%

12%

11%

8%

63

OaklandOakland

SanFrancisco

San Jose

Pct. of OAK Domestic O&D Passengers by

Ground Origin

2006

The Majority of OAK’s 2006 Domestic Passengers Originated From the East Bay RegionThe Majority of OAK’s 2006 Domestic Passengers Originated From the East Bay Region


54%

21%

15%

64

San JoseSan Jose

SanFrancisco

Oakland

Pct. of SJC Domestic O&D Passengers by

Ground Origin

2006


SJC Draws Passengers Predominantly From the Southern Portions of the Bay Area and Surrounding External ZonesSJC Draws Passengers Predominantly From the Southern Portions of the Bay Area and Surrounding External Zones

40%

32%

18%

65

Compared to Other Top Medium Hub Airports, OAK and SJC Also Have Low Shares of Flights Operated with Small AircraftCompared to Other Top Medium Hub Airports, OAK and SJC Also Have Low Shares of Flights Operated with Small Aircraft

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Austin

Santa Ana

Sacramento

Kansas City

Nashville

Portland

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Raleigh

Memphis

San Juan

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Turboprop/Other

Regional Jet

Share of Daily Departures Using Regional Jet, Turboprop or Other Aircraft with 50 or Fewer Seats

August 2009

Share of Daily Departures Using Regional Jet, Turboprop or Other Aircraft with 50 or Fewer Seats

August 2009

71.3%


70.6%

56.5%

54.9%

46.5%

39.6%

35.0%

34.2%

31.3%

21.4%

16.7%

12.9%

Oakland

San Jose

5.1%

9.0%

3.2%

66

OAK and SJC Rank in the Top 5 Among Top Medium Hub Airports in Terms of Average Aircraft SizeOAK and SJC Rank in the Top 5 Among Top Medium Hub Airports in Terms of Average Aircraft Size

68

69

74

89

90

90

94

100

102

124

125

101

118

118

133

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Memphis

Raleigh

Pittsburgh

San Juan

St. Louis

Portland

Kansas City

Nashville

Austin

Sacramento

Santa Ana

Average Seats Per Departure at Top 15 Medium Hub AirportsAugust 2009

Average Seats Per Departure at Top 15 Medium Hub AirportsAugust 2009


San Jose

Oakland

November 20, 2009 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ACCOMMODATING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND Prepared for:...

Documents

Transcript of November 20, 2009 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR ACCOMMODATING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND Prepared for:...