U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

2002 ACE PLAN

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan
2002 ACE PLAN

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

BUILDING CAPACITY TODAY 

FOR THE SKIES OF TOMORROW

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of System Capacity

December 2002

Prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration 

and ARP Consulting, L.L.C.

Visit us at www.faa.gov/ats/asc
PREFACE

i 2002

ACE PLAN

In 2002, the most important development affecting aviation activity was the gradual recovery of air traffic after the drop off that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. At

this time, the security and safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) are the immediate

concerns of NAS providers and customers. However, the continued expansion of system

capacity remains a priority to ensure that the NAS will be well positioned for the eventual

recovery of traffic once our nation moves past these uncertain times.

The Aviation Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Plan is published annually by the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Office of System Capacity. It contains a summary of the significant accomplishments of FAA-related programs, technologies, and initiatives affecting

the capacity of the NAS. Airports, airlines and aviation organizations use the ACE Plan.

Beyond the U.S. and international aviation industry stakeholders, academia and members

of the U.S. Congress are also part of its audience.

Introduction – Perspectives on the NAS Recovery

Summarizes the events of the past year and the continuing changes in the NAS.

Highlights the priorities of the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). Provides a timeline of

September 11, 2001.

Chapter 1 – Aviation Activity and Capacity in the National

Airspace System

Contains a summary of activity by all user groups during the past year and discusses the

revised FAA forecasts for aviation activity to FY 2013. Also summarizes recent changes in

demand for airport and air traffic services, including the increased use of regional jets and

the introduction of new advanced aircraft.

Chapter 2 – National Airspace System Performance

Discusses new measures of the performance of the NAS. Summarizes recent delays and

trends in delays.

Chapter 3 – Airport Capacity Analysis and Enhancements

Summarizes capacity analysis projects underway or recently completed. Reports on the

demand management solutions in effect at some airports.

Chapter 4 – Airport Development

Provides an overview of new challenges to airport development and an update on airport

construction projects and funding sources.

Chapter 5 – Operational Procedures

Provides an update on new and modified operational procedures. Topics include air traffic

management during convective weather (the Spring/Summer Plan), reduced separation

minima, the development of RNAV approaches, and simultaneous approaches to closely

spaced parallel runways.
Chapter 6 – Airspace Redesign

Contains an update on FAA programs to redesign airspace and maximize efficiencies in air

traffic flow. Reports on various elements of the National Airspace Redesign Plan, including

high-altitude redesign and regional airspace redesign initiatives.

Chapter 7 – National Airspace System Modernization

Contains an overview of the FAA’s air traffic control NAS modernization efforts.

These chapters are supported by additional information on aviation activity and construction projects at the busiest 100 U.S. airports in the following appendices:

Appendix A

Describes the basic elements of the National Airspace System.

Appendix B

Provides historical, current and forecast information on passenger enplanements and 

aircraft operations at the busiest 100 U.S. airports, as ranked by enplanements.

Appendix C

Summarizes the status of the recommendations of completed Capacity Enhancement Plans.

Appendix D

Summarizes runway construction projects that are proposed for 2007 and beyond.

Appendix E

Presents airport layouts with an update of current and proposed capacity enhancement

projects.

Appendix F

Defines acronyms used in the ACE Plan.

Appendix G

Provides definitions of important aviation terms and concepts.

Appendix H

Lists the references used to prepare the ACE Plan and credits materials from FAA and

other sources.

About the Data

The 2002 ACE Plan contains data for both calendar year (CY) 2001 and fiscal year (FY),

October 1 – September 30, 2001. Since FAA forecasts are available only for fiscal years, 

all data relating to those forecasts are for fiscal years. Other data, such as delays, are presented for relevant calendar years. Appendices B and C provide comparative data for the

last 3 fiscal and calendar years.

PREFACE

ii 2002

ACE PLAN
PREFACE

iii 2002

ACE PLAN

While the events of September 11 did negatively impact traffic in FY 2001, the greatest impact is expected to occur during the fourth quarter of calendar year 2001, which is

also the first quarter of FY 2002. Normally these data comparisons vary only slightly.

However, there will be relatively large differences between the fiscal and calendar year

growth rates as reported in 2001 and 2002. Final analysis of this data will be released in

2003. This year, enplanements and operations for the individual airports contained in

Appendix E are given for the most recent calendar year.
INTRODUCTION
Perspectives On NAS Recovery

The nation’s aviation priorities quickly moved from concerns about air traffic congestion

and delays to implementing tighter security measures at airports following the events 

of September 11. Overall, air traffic has declined 2-3 percent during the past year. By 

mid-2002, the uneven resurgence in air travel brought the need for enhanced system

capacity back into the limelight and efforts to increase system capacity must continue,

since it is key to the long vitality of the aviation industry.

The ACE Plan is an annual synopsis of the FAA’s efforts to help improve the efficiency

of the aerospace system. The goal of these efforts is to increase the percentage of flights

that arrive on time, improve airport capacity, and enhance the efficiency of the nation’s aviation system.

The Cyclical Nature of the Industry

Air traffic continues to recover at an uneven pace as geography and national demographics redefine demand and accelerate the challenges to higher-demand air traffic flow

regions. For example, traffic has recovered in the Midwest more quickly than it has on the

East and West coasts. Furthermore, airlines are increasing the use of smaller aircraft such

as regional jets, adding to an already complex air traffic management system.

The aviation industry historically adjusts to changing passenger traffic and freight

demands by seeking to improve service and operating efficiency. In the past year their

efforts include: readjustments of flight schedules, matching aircraft size to market demand,

converting some mainline service to regional operators, increasing flight frequencies in key

markets, cutting operational costs, and offering attractive price incentives. While flight

operations at some airports are recovering at a faster rate than enplanements, airline 

revenues are expected to lag as the industry implements these strategies. Yet passenger

traffic and the number of flights have been gradually increasing and the long-term forecast 

for the U.S. aviation industry is an upturn that will result in system-wide traffic returning to

pre-September 11 levels in 2004. For this reason, it’s critical that the focus of the aviation

industry must include investments for long-term recovery.

During this temporary, economic downturn it’s important to remember that the 

financial state of the airline industry will have an impact on the funding that is available for

capital improvements in the aviation infrastructure. The tendency has been, and is, to delay

some airport development projects; to put some on hold indefinitely; and to withdraw 

airline financial support from some projects. Therefore, it is essential to understand that 

the capacity of the national airspace system remains a key component to the long-term

vitality of the U.S. economy. The FAA is committed to supporting construction of new runways and other airfield improvements that will be needed when air traffic levels recover.

Through the provisions of airport grants and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) approvals,

procedure development, and equipment modernization, the FAA is working with the industry to ensure that the aviation system capacity keeps pace with air travel demand. The 

following figure provides a historical perspective of air traffic recovery following political and

economic shocks over the past 40 years.

INTRODUCTION

vi 2002

ACE PLAN
INTRODUCTION

vii 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure I-1 Aviation System Shocks and Recoveries

“The 60’s led with the Cuban Missile Crisis while the 70’s introduced aircraft hijackings with subsequent effects on international aviation demand in particular. The 80’s opened

with the PATCO strike, while the Persian Gulf War created temporary travel uncertainty in

the early 90’s. The new millennium brings us a new war against worldwide terrorism that

presents a unique set of uncertainties.”1

Event And Recovery Timelines

Prior to September 11, 2001, the NAS handled 1.9 million passengers, traveling on 

60 thousand flights, daily. On that day—the skillful actions of the FAA’s air traffic controllers,

working in unison with airline, military, and government personnel, safely landed 4,500 

aircraft carrying 350,000 passengers and crew in a period of approximately one and a half

hours. More than 1,100 flights were rerouted in the first 15 minutes after the order to land

was issued—more than one aircraft every second. The events of this day continue to have

a rippling effect on air traffic demand in the NAS. The following timeline summarizes the

sequence of events on September 11 to shutdown the air traffic system, followed by the

key milestones of air traffic system recovery.

1960 1965

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Cuban Missile

Crisis

Hijackings

Fuel

Shock

PATCO

Strike

Pan Am

103

Gulf

War

WTC

1993

U.S. Revenue Enplanements (Millions)

Shocks

Actual

Trend

Recessions

1 Aviation System Shocks and Recoveries: “History favors optimism, opportunities in light of tragic events,” by James G. Walsh, Landrum & Brown, for ATA.
September 11, 2001

Chronology of Events on September 11, 2001

0800.

American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 with 92 people on board, takes off from Boston

Logan Airport for Los Angeles.

0814.

United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 with 65 people on board, takes off from Boston

Logan airport for Los Angeles.

0821.

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 with 64 people on board, takes off from

Washington Dulles airport for Los Angeles.

0840.

FAA notifies the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s (NORAD) Northeast Air

Defense Sector about the suspected hijacking of American Flight 11.

0841.

United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 with 44 people on board, takes off from Newark airport for San Francisco.

0843.

FAA notifies NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense sector about the suspected hijacking of

United Flight 175.

0846.

Approximately. American Flight 11 crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

0902

Approximately. United Flight 175 crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

0904.

Approximately. The FAA’s Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center stops all departures from

airports in its jurisdiction (New England and eastern New York State).

0906.

The FAA bans takeoffs of all flights bound to or through airspace of New York Center from

airports in that Center and three adjacent Centers—Boston, Cleveland and Washington.

This is referred to as a First Tier ground stop and covers the Northeast from North Carolina

north and as far as west as eastern Michigan.

0908.

The FAA bans all takeoffs nationwide for flights going to or through New York Center airspace.

INTRODUCTION

viii 2002

ACE PLAN
INTRODUCTION

ix 2002

ACE PLAN

0924.

The FAA notifies NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector about the suspected hijacking of

American Flight 77. The FAA and NORAD establish an open line to discuss American 77

and United 93.

0926.

The FAA bans takeoffs of all civilian aircraft regardless of destination—a national ground stop.

0940.

Approximately. American Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon.

0945.

In the first unplanned shutdown of U.S. airspace, the FAA orders all aircraft to land at the

nearest airport as soon as practical. At this time, there were more than 4,500 aircraft on

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans.

1007.

Approximately. United Flight 93 crashes in Stony Creek Township, PA.

1039.

Reaffirming an earlier order, the FAA issues a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that halts takeoffs

and landings at all airports.

1215.

Approximately. The airspace over the 48 contiguous states is clear of all commercial and

private flights.

Notes:

All times is Eastern Daylight. For UTC/Zulu/GMT, add four hours.

Flight departures are actual takeoff times, not scheduled or gate departure times.2

September 13

Most U.S. airports reopen after meeting new security requirements, Boston and Reagan

National remain closed and general aviation activity is limited.

September 14

General Aviation Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) flights are allowed with restrictions, but cannot operate within 25 nautical miles of DCA or JFK.

September 15

Boston reopens.

2 Federal Aviation Administration August 12, 2002 press release “Chronology of Events on September 11, 2001.”
September 19

Limited return of general aviation, for Part 91 Visual Flight Rule (VFR) flights within

Enhanced Class B airspace, which is the area within 40 to 50 miles of the nations most

heavily, used airports.

October 1

The Federal Aviation Administration steps in and issues 80 war risk insurance policies to

carriers on a temporary basis when commercial insurance markets cancel coverage.

October 4

Washington Reagan National Airport reopens to limited commercial air service, and no

general aviation traffic is allowed.

November 19

President Bush signs the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which establishes a

new agency to handle airport security, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

February 17, 2002

Responsibility for airport security was transferred from U.S. airlines to the federal government, which includes responsibilities for screening luggage and passengers, as well as hiring permanent staff to facilitate new security measures.

April 24

Reagan National now operates with most restrictions lifted, while general aviation traffic is

still prohibited.

September 11

The US National Airspace System carries 188,873 operations, compared to 36,340 operations when the airspace was shut down on September 11, 2001.

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP): Achievements, Planning

Adjustments and Communications Progress

The OEP is a detailed 10-year plan for more than 100 separate programs to support modernization and increase the capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system while

maintaining safety and security. The OEP is periodically modified to reflect new innovations

and emerging technologies that could improve the movement of air traffic, and/or increase

NAS capacity. The airlines, airports and other members of the aviation community shared

in the development of the OEP and continue to play an active role in its evolution. As

demand continues to return, the OEP stays its course to build an aviation system for the

21st century that is responsive to adjusted forecasts of demand. At the same time, the

OEP is also taking into account the current economic climate and working with aviation

community stakeholders to better plan investment decisions, solve problems and advance

new technologies. Solutions are being proposed in four critical areas: Arrival and Departure

Rates, En Route Congestion, Airport Weather, and En Route Severe Weather. Important

OEP initiatives include:

INTRODUCTION

x 2002

ACE PLAN
INTRODUCTION

xi 2002

ACE PLAN

➣ The plans for new runways at 12 airports, which will provide a significant increase

in capacity.

➣ Support from the users, who must make significant investments in avionics

equipment and pilot training to take advantage of the implementation of new

technologies.

➣ Efforts by the FAA, working with National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD), to undertake research and development of new air traffic management technologies, advanced air traffic control

support tools, improved training efficiency and enhanced safety through human

factors research.

Overview of the OEP Quadrants

Arrival and Departure Rates

There are two strategies to help airports meet peak demand: constructing new runways

dramatically increase the capacity of any airport but may take up to 10 years to build; maximizing the use of existing runways—allowing new operations, introducing new technologies, or improving airspace design, surface management, air traffic procedures, standards,

workload, information exchange and decision support tools.

En Route Congestion

In the en route arena, capacity and efficiency are governed by sectors, separation standards and controller workload. To meet peak demand, capacity can be enhanced in short

cycles (adding controllers to sectors, changing the size of sectors) and long cycles (establishing new sectors and new routes). En route congestion quickly ripples into other 

airspace creating delay for many flights. En route success assures flexibility operations.

Airport Weather

For the benchmark airports, typical bad weather operations lower arrival and departure

rates 18 percent compared to good weather. As weather or visibility degrades, runway use

may become limited and spacing between aircraft grows. To make airport operations less

sensitive to weather, we need more options for runway configurations and more consistent

spacing of operations, much of which requires new technologies.

En Route Severe Weather

Almost half of our delays and cancellations arise in bad weather, reactions to that weather

or the congestion it causes. Improvements will come from improved forecasting, improved

sharing of real-time data, and quicker re-configuration of airports, before, during or after

severe weather.
Version 5.0 of the NAS Operational Evolution Plan may be accessed on the FAA’s Web

site, at http://www.faa.gov/programs/oep.

2002—A New Era In Aviation Begins

The cover of this year’s ACE Plan symbolizes recovery, both the return of air traffic and the

renewed confidence of the nation’s air travelers. The photographs represent a passenger’s

experience in traveling through a U.S. airport, depicted in green for economic revitalization,

in blue for the vital role of air traffic controllers and pilots governing the skies, and yellow,

for the dawn of the new era in aviation. It’s been said that jet fuel powers the nation’s economic engine. While the faltering economy and events of 2001 caused a staggering stall,

indications are that the engine is “re-powering.” We look towards a future of recovery and

new heights of achievement as we acknowledge the accomplishments from a Centennial

of Flight, which will be celebrated in 2003. The following illustration represents the efficient,

integrated operations of the National Airspace System.

Figure I-2 Today’s National Airspace System

The ACE Plan highlights capacity-related annual accomplishments and performance

data of the National Airspace System. The OEP is the 10-year tactical implementation effort

that supports the short-, mid- and long-term operations, reflecting the continued collaboration among the FAA, airlines, airports and other major components of the aviation industry. The longer-term outlook is also part of the FAA’s perspective, to provide a safe and 

efficiently operating NAS, able to accommodate increasing air traffic demand without

excessive delays.

INTRODUCTION

xii 2002

ACE PLAN

Oceanic Control

Center

Long Range

Radar National

Operations

Control Center

Terminal Radar

Approach Control

Tower

Tower

Automated

Flight Service

Station Weather

Observing

Stations

Terminal Radar

Approach Control

Navigation Aid

Air Traffic

Control System

Command Center

Air Route Traffic

Control Center
INTRODUCTION

xiii 2002

ACE PLAN

The Vision

In the future airspace system, reflecting the vision for 2020 and beyond, air travel will be

far more reliable and flexible than it is today. At the core of the future airspace system are

state-of-the art decision support tools that improve situation awareness in all aspects of

flight. As for the future vision of the infrastructure, airports will have new capabilities as well.

Along with new runways at the most constrained locations, more airports will be equipped

to handle more air traffic in more difficult kinds of weather, removing the restrictions of predefined route structures. Improved operations at parallel runways, even in degraded

weather, and improved procedures at airports without new runways, are also essential to

capacity growth.3

3 Future Concept of Operations, published by the RTCA, www.jupiteralignedwithmars.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Perspectives On NAS Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

The Cyclical Nature of the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Event And Recovery Timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP): Achievements, Planning Adjustments 

and Communications Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Overview of the OEP Quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

2002—A New Era In Aviation Begins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

The Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1 Aviation Activity and Capacity in the National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1 Activity and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Aviation Activity in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.1 Enplanements and Operations at U.S. Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.2 Enplanements and Operations at the Busiest U.S. Airports . . . . . . . 4

1.2.3 Air Cargo Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.4 General Aviation Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.5 Military Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Other Sources of Commercial Aviation Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3.1 Regional Jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3.2 New Transport Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 National Airspace System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1 System Performance and Performance Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.1 Performance Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.2 Performance Metrics for the Large-Hub Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2 Delays in the National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.1 Delays Reported by the Operations Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.2 The Aviation System Performance Metrics System . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Airport Capacity Analysis and Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1 Capacity Benchmark Analysis Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2.1 Chicago O’Hare Task Force Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.2 Baltimore-Washington International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.3 Washington Dulles International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.4 Airport Air Traffic Ground Control Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.5 Portland International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2.6 Santiago, Chile Capacity Enhancement Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3 Demand Management Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3.1 Demand Management at LaGuardia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvi 2002

ACE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvii 2002

ACE PLAN

4 Airport Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1 The Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2 Construction of New Runways, Extensions, and Taxiways . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.3 Improvements in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

Program Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.4 Resources Supporting Airport Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4.1 Airport Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4.2 Passenger Facility Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4.3 User Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4.4 Bonds: Revenue and General Obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4.5 Other Sources of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.5 Other Airport Development Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.5.1 The Military Airport Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.5.2 Reliever Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.5.3 Essential Air Service to Small Communities Continues . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1 Spring/Summer 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.1 Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.2 Improved Use of Weather Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.1.3 Route Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.1.4 New Route Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.5 Collaborative Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.2 Area Navigation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.2.1 Required Navigational Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5.2.2 Area Navigation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.3 Reduced Separation Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.3.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.3.2 U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minima . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.3.3 Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation Minima . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.4 Increasing Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.5 Approaches to Closely-Spaced Parallel Runways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.5.1 Precision Runway Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.5.2 Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.5.3 Along Track Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

6 Airspace Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.1 The National Choke Points Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.2 High Altitude Airspace Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.3 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Redesign Project . . . . . . 57

6.4 Phoenix Airspace Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.5 Consolidation of Terminal Airspace Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.5.1 Potomac Consolidated TRACON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.5.2 Northern California TRACON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.5.3 New York Integrated Control Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.6 En Route RNAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.7 RNAV Arrivals and Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7 National Airspace System Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7.1 Wide Area Augmentation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7.2 Local Area Augmentation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.3 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

7.4 HOST Software Rewrite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

7.5 Free Flight Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

7.6 Free Flight Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

7.7 Ohio River Valley Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

7.8 Alaska Capstone Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

7.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

A Fundamentals of the National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

A.1 Airports in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

A.1.1 Commercial Service Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

A.1.2 General Aviation Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A.2 Airspace in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A.2.1 Classes of Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A.2.2 En Route and Terminal Airways and Jet Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

A.2.3 Special Use Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

A.3 Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

A.3.1 Air Traffic Control Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

A.3.2 Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

A.3.3 Air Route Traffic Control Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

A.3.4 Air Traffic Control System Command Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A.3.5 Flight Service Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A.4 Navigational Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

B Aviation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

C Capacity Enhancement Plan Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

D Runway Projects 2008 and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

E Airport Layouts for the Top 100 Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

F Acronym Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

G Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

H Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xviii 2002

ACE PLAN
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure I-1 Aviation System Shocks and Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Figure I-2 Today’s National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

Figure 1-1 FAA Forecasts of Passenger Enplanements, 

March 2002 vs. March 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1-2 Aircraft Operations by User Group for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1-3 Busiest Cargo Airports for CY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 1-4 Busiest General Aviation Airports for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 1-5 GA Operations at the Large-Hub Airports for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2-1 Annual Flight Delays CY 1990-CY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2-2 Flight Delays by Month, CY 2000 and CY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2-3 Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations by Month, CY 2000 and 2001 . . . 15

Figure 2-4 Flight Delays by Cause CY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2-5 Arrival Delays for CY 2000 and CY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 3-1 Capacity Benchmark Airport Delay Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4-1 Proposed EIS Streamlining Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 4-2 The 31 Large, Hub, Primary Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 4-3 Completed Runway Construction Projects 

January 1997 to October 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 4-4 Runway Construction Projects November 2002 

to December 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 4-5 Distribution of AIP Grants by Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 5-1 Operating Environments Benefited by Procedural Enhancements . . . . 36

Figure 5-2 CCFP Forecast Examples from the Aviation Weather 

Center Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 5-3 Examples of Playbook Routes into Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 5-4 Coded Departure Routes for Atlanta to Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 5-5 New East Coast Offshore Routing Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 5-6 Direct RNAV Routes vs. Routes Determined by 

Ground Based Navigation Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 5-7 Examples of RNP Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 5-8 Typical Decision Altitude and Visibility Minimums 

for LNAV/VNAV and LPV Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 5-9 RNAV Approaches Published in the U.S. (1995-2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 5-10 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima to 1,000 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 5-11 RVSM Implemented and Planned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 5-12 Reduced Oceanic Lateral and Longitudinal 

Separation Minima (Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 5-13 Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 5-14 Along Track Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 6-1 New Geauga “Ultra High” Sector in Cleveland Center . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 6-2 “Flip-Flop” of Routes into Newark and LaGuardia Airports . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 6-3 En Route vs. Terminal Aircraft Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 6-4 NYICC Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 6-5 En Route RNAV Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 6-6 Q-Routes in the Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

TABLE OF FIGURES

xx 2002

ACE PLAN
TABLE OF FIGURES

xxi 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-1 Passenger Enplanements, by Fiscal and Calendar Years 

(1999, 2000, and 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table B-2 Aircraft Operations, by Fiscal and Calendar Years 

(1999, 2000, and 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table B-3 Passenger Enplanements, 2001 and Forecast 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table B-4 Aircraft Operations, 2001 and Forecast 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Table B-5 Change in Enplanements from 2000 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table B-6 Change in Operations from 2000 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Table C-1 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Airfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table C-2 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Facilities and 

Equipment Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Table C-3 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Operational Improvements . . . 106

Table D-1 Runways Planned, Proposed, or Currently Under Construction 

at the 100 Busiest Airports for 2008 and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY 

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
1 Aviation Activity and Capacity in the National Airspace System

The National Airspace System (NAS) has several different types of traffic, including commercial passenger and cargo traffic, general aviation traffic, and military operations. Each

is an important part of the activity in the NAS and places different demands on the air 

traffic control system. This chapter summarizes trends in aviation activity and discusses

FAA forecasts to FY 2013.

1.1 Activity and Capacity

Aviation activity is a reflection of the demand on airports and the air traffic control system.

The FAA measures activity primarily in terms of passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. Capacity is an expression of the system’s ability to accommodate the demand,

which the airlines and the FAA measure differently. The airlines measure the capacity they

provide in terms of meeting the needs of their customers, passengers and shippers. They

track summary statistics such as available seat miles for passengers and available 

ton-miles for shippers. The FAA has traditionally measured capacity indirectly by tracking

flight delays. Delay is an indicator that capacity is temporarily (or chronically) insufficient. In

recent years, the FAA has improved its measures of capacity through the airport benchmark project and the development of additional measures, such as airport efficiency rates. 

1.2 Aviation Activity in the United States

Aviation activity is generated by a number of diverse participants: large commercial air 

carriers, regional carriers, commuter airlines, on-demand air taxis, all-cargo airlines, the

military and general aviation operators. Each user group places different demands on the

airports and the air traffic control system, because the magnitude, the location, and the

timing of their activities vary. All commercial activity is conducted under the control of the

FAA’s air traffic control system, whether the operators are large commercial jets, regional

jets, cargo carriers, commuters, or air taxis. In contrast, the majority of general aviation

activity takes place at small airports far from major urban centers and may have little or no

contact with the air traffic control system. Much of the contact that general aviation pilots

do have is with the specialists at flight service stations rather than with air traffic controllers.

However, general aviation does have a significant impact at some major airports, as noted

below (see section 1.2.4). Military airports support most of the military traffic and the military’s own air traffic control system handles most of their terminal operations.

1.2.1 Enplanements and Operations at U.S. Airports

In FY 2001, passenger enplanements decreased slightly from the previous year, from

695.7 million to 682.5 million (13.2 million or 1.8 percent fewer), marking the first annual

decline in enplanements since the Gulf War in 1990. The economy was weakening before

the events of September 11, but through August enplanements were running near those

of the previous year. The temporary shutdown of the NAS and the sharp drop in traffic after

September 11 resulted in a decline for the entire year. Enplanements for September 2001

were approximately 34.2 million, 19.9 million (or 38 percent) less than the 52.1 million of

September 2000.

Every year, the FAA prepares a 12-year forecast of aviation activity and presents it at

the FAA Aerospace Forecasts in March. Figure 1-1 compares the March 2002 forecast for

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

2 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

3 2002

ACE PLAN

passenger enplanements to the March 2001 forecast. Although the FAA’s new forecast

shows steady growth resuming in FY 2003, it does not project enplanements reaching the

previous forecast for FY 2002 (about 740 million) until FY 2005, a delay of 3 years; similarly, the new forecast postpones reaching the 1 billion level by 3 years, from FY 2010 to

FY 2013. The gap between the lines shows the long-term impact of September 11, which

translates into lost revenue for the airlines (through tickets sold), the aviation trust fund

(through excise taxes) and the airports (through PFCs).

Figure 1-1 FAA Forecasts of Passenger Enplanements, March 2002 vs. March 2001

The FAA tracks aircraft operations (take-offs plus landings) for four classes of users:

air carriers, air taxis/commuters, general aviation operators, and the military. Of these, only

air carriers and air taxis/commuters generate any passenger enplanements, but general

aviation accounts for the largest number of operations. Figure 1-2 shows the distribution

of aircraft operations by user group for FY 2001.

Figure 1-2 Aircraft Operations by User Group for FY 2001

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts March 2001 and March 2002

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500

Enplanements (Millions) March 2001 March 2002

Source: FAA Operations Network

Air Carrier Air Taxi General Aviation Military

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

Operations (Thousands)
Aircraft operations for all users declined by 3.6 percent in FY 2001, going from 

68.7 million to 66.2 million operations, compared to an earlier forecast for an increase to

71.0 million. However, the rate of change for the four user groups varied significantly: air

carrier operations decreased by 2.6 percent and air taxi/commuter operations increased

by 1.1 percent, while general aviation operations decreased by 5.7 percent and military

operations increased by 0.9 percent. As with enplanements, the real impact of September

11 was only partially shown in FY 2001. For the month of September 2001 the number of

operations was only 4.2 million, compared to the previous year’s 5.8 million operations.

Total operations decreased from 67.7 million in 2000 to 65.5 million in FY 2001.

The FAA forecasts aircraft operations to increase significantly by 2013, reaching 

81.7 million for all users, an increase of 23.5 percent over the 2001 level. But as with 

passenger enplanements, the forecast was adjusted downward after September 11. The

current forecast calls for a decrease in operations for FY 2002 (from 66.2 million to 64.4

million) and a resumption of growth thereafter.

The decrease in the projected number of aircraft operations in the near-term and the

lower forecasts for the longer term varies by user group. The decreases are significant and

long lasting for air carriers and general aviation, but air taxis/commuters and the military

actually show slight increases in operations.

1.2.2 Enplanements and Operations at the Busiest U.S. Airports

Because of the concentration of commercial traffic at the largest airports and the dispersion of general aviation operations, the 100 busiest airports, as ranked by passenger

enplanements, accounted for more than 96 percent of passenger enplanements but only

42 percent of aircraft operations in FY 2001.

Passenger enplanements for the 100 busiest airports (ranked by CY 2000 enplanements), by both fiscal and calendar year for the past 3 years are shown in Appendix B-1.

The FAA forecasts and rates of growth for these same airports for FY 2013 are presented

in Appendix B-2.

Aircraft operations for all user groups for the same 100 airports (ranked by CY 2000

enplanements), by both fiscal and calendar year for the past 3 years are shown 

in Appendix B-3. The FAA forecast and rates of growth for those airports for FY 2013 are

presented in Appendix B-4.

1.2.3 Air Cargo Activity

Cargo traffic, like all other aviation activity, has been depressed by both the aftermath of

the September 11 and the economic downturn. However, recent reports suggest a significant year-over-year recovery in air cargo volumes, indicating that the slump may be 

ending and that more normal growth will resume. Air cargo volume is often considered to

be a leading indicator of economic growth.

The summary data for cargo activity collected by the DOT and published by the FAA

are in terms of revenue ton-miles (RTMs), or one ton of cargo flown for one mile. For FY

2001, total cargo activity was approximately 28.5 billion RTMs, a decline of 3.3 percent

from 30.1 billion in FY 2000. Cargo is carried aboard passenger aircraft and all-cargo 

aircraft. In FY 2001, passenger carriers flew 11.1 billion RTMs (39 percent) and all-cargo 

airlines flew 17.4 billion RTMs (61 percent). Total cargo traffic as measured in RTMs, is

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

4 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

5 2002

ACE PLAN

dominated by the two large all cargo airlines, FedEx, with 26 percent of the market, and

United Parcel Service (UPS), with 15 percent of the market.

Cargo traffic at individual airports is measured in tons loaded and unloaded. Not surprisingly, the airports where FedEx and UPS have hubs for their overnight package service

are among the busiest cargo airports. Memphis, the main base for FedEx, was the busiest

cargo airport in CY 2001 and Louisville, the main hub for UPS, was the fifth busiest cargo

airport. The ten busiest cargo airports and the change in the tonnage loaded and unloaded

in CY 2001 are shown in figure 1-3 below.

Figure 1-3 Busiest Cargo Airports for CY 2001

Airport (ID) Metric Tons Change from CY 2000

Memphis International (MEM) 2,631,631 5.7%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 1,873,750 3.9%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 1,774,402 (13.0%)

Miami International (MIA) 1,639,760 0.0%

Louisville International (SDF) 1,469,837 (3.2%)

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 1,430,727 (21.3%)

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 1,299,628 (11.5%)

Indianapolis International (IND) 1,115,272 (4.3%)

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 795,584 (26.4%)

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 784,085 (13.4%)

Source: Airports Council International–North America

1.2.4 General Aviation Activity

General aviation (GA) includes all segments of civil aviation except commercial air carriers

(air carriers, commuters, air taxis, charters, and unscheduled traffic). The majority of U.S.

airports handle only GA traffic. Many of these are small, rural airports without an air traffic

control tower. Flights to and from these airports typically have little or no contact with the

FAA’s air traffic control system and don’t contribute to airport or airspace congestion.

Nonetheless, in FY 2001, almost 30 million GA operations took place at airports with air

traffic control towers, over 10 percent of total aircraft operations at those airports. Handling

a mix of air carrier and GA aircraft operations requires controllers to carefully segregate 

aircraft types to accommodate different aircraft speeds and to avoid wake vortex incidents. 

General aviation operations have been severely affected by the events of 

September 11, but the impact has been very uneven. In fact, for both fiscal and calendar

year, total GA operations were only slightly down. However, operations at the busier commercial aviation airports were down significantly because of the restrictions placed on GA

after September 11. Perhaps the most significant restriction is the total ban of all general 

aviation operations at Reagan Washington National Airport. Before September 11, DCA 

averaged about 5,000 GA operations per month, some 17.5 percent of all operations.

Figure 1-4 lists the airports with the largest number of general aviation operations. Six of

these airports are primary commercial service airports, while four are relievers.
Figure 1-4 Busiest General Aviation Airports for FY 2001

Airport (ID) City/State Airport Type Operations

Van Nuys (VNY) Van Nuys, CA Reliever 433,590

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) Orlando, FL Primary 385,247

Daytona Beach International (DAB) Daytona Beach, FL Primary 362,506

Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB) Long Beach, CA Primary 344,937

Phoenix-Deer Valley Municipal (DVT) Phoenix, AZ Reliever 332,400

Denver Centennial (APA) Denver, CO Primary 327,309

E.A. Love Field (PRC) Prescott, AZ Primary 313,109

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) Santa Ana, CA Primary 284,343

Oakland-Pontiac (PTK) Pontiac, MI Reliever 283,763

Boeing Field-King County International (BFI) Seattle, WA Reliever 269,106

Source: FAA Operations Network

General aviation also has a significant presence at the busiest commercial service

airports. GA traffic accounted for 8.2 percent of total aircraft operations at the 31 largehub airports in FY 2001. As shown in Figure 1-5, the actual percentage of GA operations

varied from just 1.2 percent at Seattle-Tacoma to 27.4 percent at Ft. Lauderdale.

Figure 1-5 GA Operations at the Large-Hub Airports for FY 2001

General Aviation % General Aviation

Airport (ID) Operations Total Operations Operations

Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 81,993 299,773 27.4%

Honolulu International (HNL) 85,185 339,987 25.1%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 125,483 512,102 24.5%

Chicago-Midway (MDW) 58,026 280,527 20.7%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 72,860 363,682 20.0%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 80,377 513,679 15.6%

Miami International (MIA) 68,631 489,058 14.0%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 57,692 430,082 13.4%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 60,966 475,577 12.8%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 48,151 471,731 10.2%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 63,921 627,561 10.2%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 51,618 540,966 9.5%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 26,992 328,428 8.2%

Orlando International (MCO) 26,686 343,457 7.8%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 28,032 390,306 7.2%

San Diego International Lindberg Field (SAN) 13,960 213,080 6.6%

George Bush International (IAH) 25,331 489,987 5.2%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 25,262 499,474 5.1%

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 22,169 452,696 4.9%

San Francisco International (SFO) 19,858 407,040 4.9%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 20,949 486,503 4.3%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 16,437 462,202 3.6%

Denver International (DEN) 14,512 526,204 2.8%

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

6 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

7 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 1-5 Continued

General Aviation % General Aviation

Airport (ID) Operations Total Operations Operations

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 10,797 404,206 2.7%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 24,496 927,896 2.6%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 8,156 340,459 2.4%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 17,259 783,160 2.2%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 13,144 835,748 1.6%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 13,558 898,899 1.5%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 5,110 423,903 1.2%

Total Large-Hub Airports 1,212,003 14,863,673 8.2%

Source: FAA Operations Network

1.2.5 Military Operations

Military operations account for a small fraction of the activity at the nation’s commercial 

airports, but a significant amount of U.S. airspace is designated as special use airspace

reserved for military operations. Special use airspace is available to commercial or 

GA operations only when the military opens a particular airspace area to non-military operations for a specified time period. Special use airspace and procedures for sharing that 

airspace are discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six and Appendix A. Following

September 11, the deployment of military aircraft in civilian airspace has increased, as

patrols have been instituted to provide greater security.

1.3 Other Sources of Commercial Aviation Activity

Additional sources of commercial aviation activity may have a significant long-term impact of

the demand for airport and airspace capacity. The most important of these trends is the continuing growth in the use of regional jets to replace both mainline jets (primarily operated by

large commercial carriers) and turboprops (primarily operated by regional airlines), which

affects the mix of aircraft at airports and in en route and terminal airspace. The large aircraft

manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing, although cutting production of current models this year,

are continuing development of new models.

1.3.1 Regional Jets

Regional jets (RJs) are turbo-fan-powered airplanes, generally seating 70 or fewer passengers, with certain models seating up to 100 passengers. Operationally, regional jets are

positioned between large turboprops, such as the Saab 340 and the Bombardier Dash-8,

and narrow body mainline jets, such as the B-737 and the MD-80.

The replacement of turboprops has been a consistent trend over the years because

of travelers’ preference for jets. Recently, RJs have been replacing mainline jets on some

routes as airlines have tried to adjust capacity in a period of declining traffic. The 

ability of regional jets to replace both turboprops and mainline jets has enabled them to

maintain a strong market position in spite of the downturn in commercial aviation since

September 11.

Over the past decade, the regional jet market has grown impressively. In 1991, three

regional airlines operated fewer than 20 RJs. By 2001, 15 regional airlines operated 666
regional jets. In that same period, the number of regional jet departures grew from a little

more than 9,100 (less than one percent of industry operations) to over 1.2 million in 2001

(32 percent).

Most aviation analysts, and the FAA, expect the size of the regional jet fleet, the

number of regional jet operations, and the number of airports they serve to grow rapidly. 

In FY 2001, the commuter/regional airlines enplaned 80 million passengers. The FAA 

projects their system-wide enplanements (which includes both turboprop and jet operations) to increase at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent through FY 2013.

Most of the carriers’ growth will come from an increase in the use of regional jets.

The proportion of the carriers’ traffic provided by regional jets continues to increase as they

replace turboprops with regional jets and as larger regional jets, with seating capacity

exceeding 70, are introduced. The increased use of regional jets is also expected to

increase the average seating capacity of the regional fleet and the average passenger trip

length for these carriers. The FAA forecasts that the number of regional jets in service will

increase from 2,427 in FY 2001 to 4,457 in FY 2013.

The continuing increase in the number of RJs may ultimately have a negative impact

on air traffic flow and operations because of the increased volume on jet routes to/from 

airports and at higher en route altitudes. At the same time, certain airports that have built

runways for turboprop aircraft may find those facilities underused.

1.3.2 New Transport Aircraft

Each of the major aircraft manufacturers has its own proposal for a radically new aircraft,

the A380, a new large aircraft (NLA) for Airbus and the sonic cruiser for Boeing. Each manufacturer’s aircraft plan is based on a different outlook for the future of the industry. Airbus

anticipates there will be a need for a much larger aircraft that will serve to connect busy

and congested hubs, where landing slots will be at a premium. Boeing, while conceding

the demand for a small number of such very large aircraft, projects a greater demand for

point-to-point service, especially in long distance markets. However Boeing is re-evaluating which model of aircraft will be more successful in meeting that demand.

Whatever the long-term outcome is, none of these aircraft will be put into operation

for several years and then only a few aircraft at a time. The first passenger version of the

A380 is scheduled for delivery in 2006, followed by a freighter, the A380F, in 2008.

Boeing has not yet committed to the production of the sonic cruiser and recently has

begun considering applying much of the sonic cruiser’s new technology to a fuel-efficient

conventional jet.

The A380 will seat 555 passengers in its original configuration, while the A380F will

be capable of carrying 330,000 pounds of cargo. Airbus has approximately 95 firm orders

for the two aircraft to date. Fourteen U.S. airports expect to provide A380/A380F service

by 2010.4

In February 2002, the General Accounting Office published its survey of those 

airports’ estimates of the costs of the modifications required to serve the A380/A380F. The

14 airports collectively estimated that it would cost more than $2 billion to make the

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

8 2002

ACE PLAN

4 The 14 airports are Los Angeles, Chicago O’Hare, New York Kennedy, Anchorage, San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Washington Dulles, Memphis,

Atlanta, Houston Intercontinental, Orlando, Miami, and Denver.
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CAPACITY

IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

9 2002

ACE PLAN

required modifications. Airbus responded that many of the airports’ estimates were high

because of rough and inconsistent analyses and the inclusion of certain costs that are 

not NLA-specific. Airbus estimated that the required changes would cost only some 

$520 million. An unresolved issue that contributes to the variation in the cost estimates is

whether, and under what conditions, operational modifications such as restricting the NLA

to certain taxiways could be employed to avoid large expenditures on airport upgrades.

The FAA’s New Large Aircraft Facilitation Group, which is composed of representatives from the FAA, aircraft manufacturers, airports, and various aviation industry associations, has been active in assessing the potential impact of the A380 or other large 

aircraft. Its work has included evaluations of the structural and/or operational modifications that might be required to accommodate these aircraft at U.S. airports and working

with the International Civil Aviation Organization to ensure the development of harmonious

standards.

In addition to the work of the NLA Facilitation Group, the Office of System Capacity

recently conducted a ground movement analysis at Memphis International Airport to determine whether the operation of an NLA would adversely impact the operation of other 

aircraft at that airport. The study found that there would be no significant impact. A similar

study is being conducted at Kennedy International Airport.
CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE
2 National Airspace System Performance

The Chief Financial Officers’ Act of 1990 requires the systematic measurement of 

performance and the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) holds agencies accountable for achieving specific results. During the past 6 years, the Department of

Transportation’s Performance Plan developed a series of measures for FAA programs and

results, which were supported and augmented by additional metrics in the FAA

Performance Plan and the Air Traffic Services Performance Plan. The FAA has increased

its emphasis on measuring how well it is meeting the expectations of its customers and

managers, based on direction from the Congress that the FAA be operated as a performance-based organization.

2.1 System Performance and Performance Goals

A key to the transformation of the FAA into a performance-based organization is the development of a series of metrics by which the performance of the agency can be measured.

Some of these proposed metrics have been long-time FAA goals that were presented and

tracked in annual FAA plans, but others are more detailed examinations of aviation activity

and system performance.

Much of the impetus for creating a more responsive FAA began with pressure from

the Congress, the DOT, the airlines and the media to find a solution to the dramatic

increase in flight delays, which peaked during the summer of 2000. Two important FAA 

initiatives in response to this concern were the development of the Aviation System

Performance Metrics (ASPM) system, which is discussed later in this chapter, and the

Airport Capacity Benchmark Report, which was featured in last year’s ACE Plan. The FAA

is continuing to develop the ASPM system and is updating the Benchmark Report.

2.1.1 Performance Goals

The FAA’s final FY 2002 and preliminary FY 2003 performance goals are divided into three

categories:

➣ GPRA Goals: outcome-oriented goals that define success at the FAA corporate

level and are reported in the DOT Performance Plan and Report;

➣ Supplemental Goals: high visibility output-oriented goals that help accomplish

GPRA goals; and,

➣ Organizational Excellence Goals: internal corporate goals focused on meeting

customer, employee, and financial expectations

The primary GPRA goal related to this plan is the FAA’s performance goal for aviation

delay, which is to add aviation system capacity at a rate that matches demand, so that 

on-time arrival performance improves by one percentage point per year. The airlines, the

FAA and DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics have all agreed to use the percentage of

flights arriving on time (within 15 minutes of scheduled arrival time) as a common measure

of aviation delay. A target for 2001 was not established; however, the actual percentage of

on-time flights improved from 74.9 percent in 2000 to 76.2 percent in 2001.

The FAA supplementary performance measures that are related to the performance

goal for aviation delay are: aviation delays per 100,000 activities; the cumulative increase

CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

12 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

13 2002

ACE PLAN

in throughput during peak periods at certain major airports; the cumulative increase in

direct routings for the en route phase of flight; the percentage of runways in good or fair

condition; and, the number of runways accessible in low visibility.

2.1.2 Performance Metrics for the Large-Hub Airports

The FAA is also developing a set of performance indicators that will be used to assess the

performance of the large-hub airports. Focusing on these airports will improve the efficiency of the entire NAS since so much traffic passes through these airports. The primary

service performance indicators for the operations of the NAS include:

➣ Percentage of on-time arrivals

➣ Average minutes of arrival delay

➣ Ground stop minutes of delay

➣ Ground delay program minutes of delay

➣ Average daily arrival capacity

➣ Airport arrival efficiency rate

These performance indicators rely upon a variety of data sources from DOT and FAA,

including the Aviation System Performance Metrics System, the Operations Network

(OPSNET), the Enhanced Traffic Management System, and the Air Carrier Statistics

Monthly. These, and other, performance indicators are still under development and will be

reported on in greater detail in next year’s ACE Plan.

2.2 Delays in the National Airspace System

Delay is the traditional measure of NAS performance, but it is not a straightforward measure

to calculate on either an individual flight, for an airport, or for the entire system. There are

many delay parameters that can be tracked.

By any measure, the number of delays decreased significantly in 2001. This was to

be expected, given the decline in traffic during much of the year, especially following

September 11. This trend was true for the entire system, as well as for individual airports,

although the magnitude of the changes varied among them. Generally, the decline in the

number of delays was far greater than the decline in the number of operations because

both the system and many of the largest airports had been operating at or near their 

theoretical capacity. In these cases, the decrease in the number of operations had a disproportionate impact on delays. A related response was observed in 1999 and 2000,

when a relatively small increase in the number of operations produced a large increase in

the number of delays.

2.2.1 Delays Reported by the Operations Network

The FAA reports the delay performance of the NAS every month, using data from OPSNET.

These data come from observations by FAA personnel, who record only aircraft that are

delayed by 15 minutes or more during any phase of flight. According to OPSNET data

348,103 flights were delayed in CY 2001, a decrease of 102,186 delays or 22.7 percent
from the 450,289 flight delays in CY 2000. Figure 2-1 shows flight delays for the years for

which OPSNET data are available.

Figure 2-1 Annual Flight Delays CY 1990-CY 2001

However, the decreases in delays in 2001 over 2000 were largely the result of the

decrease in flying after September 11. Delays for the period from January-August 2001

were 287,320, only a marginal decrease from the 299,767 recorded in the same period in

2000 (a decrease of 4.2 percent). In contrast, for the period from September-December

2001, only 60,783 delays were recorded, a huge decrease from the 150,522 recorded in

the same period in 2001 (a decrease of 59.6 percent. Figure 2-2 highlights the sharp

divergence after September 11.

Figure 2-2 Flight Delays by Month, CY 2000 and CY 2001

The total number of aircraft operations during the same period was down by only 3.3

percent. Thus, the rate of delays decreased as well as the absolute number of delays.

Figure 2-3 shows the number of delays per 1,000 aircraft operations, by month, for 2000

and 2001. The sharp drop in the rate of delays after September 11 is readily apparent.

CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

14 2002

ACE PLAN

Source: FAA Operations Network

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

500

400

300

200

100

Flight Delays (Thousands)

Source: FAA Operations Network

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

60

50

40

30

20

10

Flight Delays (Thousands) 2000 2001
CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

15 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 2-3 Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations by Month, CY 2000 and 2001

One of the most valuable aspects of the OPSNET system is that it attributes each

delay to one of several causal factors: weather, traffic volume, NAS equipment outages,

closed runways, and other causes. The primary causes of delay have varied little year over

year, with a large majority of delays attributed to weather (from 65 to 75 percent) and a

smaller but significant percentage to traffic volume (12 to 22 percent.) Figure 2-4 shows

the distribution of delays by cause for CY 2001.

Figure 2-4 Flight Delays by Cause CY 2001

In response to numerous inquiries this year, the FAA began tracking ground delays

throughout the NAS. Ground Delay Programs are implemented to control the volume of air

traffic to airports where the projected traffic demand is expected to exceed the airport’s

acceptance rate for a lengthy period of time. The determination that delays are expected

to be long lasting rather than temporary is based on the evaluation of weather conditions,

forecasts, and projected demand.

The most common reason for the imposition of a Ground Delay Program is the reduction of the airport’s acceptance rate, most often because of adverse weather conditions

Source: FAA Operations Network

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations 2000 2001

Source: FAA Operations Network

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

60

50

40

30

20

10

Flight Delays (Thousands)

Other

Runway

Equipment

Volume

Weather
such as low ceilings and visibility. There were 94,909 ground delays recorded in CY 2001,

down sharply from the previous year’s 135,752, a decrease of 31.1 percent. As with other

measures of activity and delay, much of the decline took place in the last 4 months of 

the year.

2.2.2 The Aviation System Performance Metrics System

The FAA has developed a new delay measurement system, in cooperation with the

Department of Transportation and the airlines, called the Aviation System Performance

Metrics (ASPM) system. In November 1999, the FAA, the Air Transport Association and a

number of air carriers agreed to share data so that a common set of performance metrics

could be computed. The participants agreed that the metrics would be made available

without any attempt to assign causality. Currently, 49 airports comprise the ASPM system. 

Ten large air carriers have agreed to provide actual flight times directly to the FAA

every day through ARINC, a private aviation services company. The times on an individual

flight that will be provided are the Out, Off, On and In (OOOI) times. Flight times for four

other air carriers are added to the ASPM database once a month, using data that are

reported to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Flight

times for all other carriers are estimates. For each individual flight, the OOOI data are

merged with data from the FAA’s Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) and the

Official Airline Guide.

Congress had directed the FAA and the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (BTS) to develop a common system for reporting delays. The FAA

and BTS have agreed upon a common definition of delay: a flight will be considered

delayed if it arrives at the destination gate 15 minutes or more after its scheduled arrival

time. ASPM is now being used by the FAA and the DOT Inspector General in tracking

delays and other measures of the performance of the NAS. ASPM provides a great deal

of descriptive data. A recent DOT report on airline industry metrics cited a number of

these, including the following: actual arrivals, arrival delays, the average length of those

delays, the percentage of flight departing late, cancellations, the percentage of flights 

arriving late, gate departure delays, and the length of gate departure delays. Figure 2-5

shows the number of arrival delays for the past 2 calendar years. Arrival delays in CY 2001

decreased to 719,862 from the previous year’s 983,565 (a decrease of 26.8 percent).

CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

16 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

17 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 2-5 Arrival Delays for CY 2000 and CY 2001

The rate of decrease in arrival delays was much greater in the last 4 months of 2001,

following the events of September 11, at 48.5 percent, than in the preceding 8 months.

2.3 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

The previous sections have discussed performance measures that are released to the

public and are used by both government and industry analysts to evaluate the performance of the NAS. The FAA is also developing some measurement tools that are more

closely tailored to the daily operation of the air traffic control system. One of these is the

Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS), a set of tools that assists ATC

facility managers in measuring the performance of their facilities. The FAA’s Office of

System Capacity and NASA’s Aviation Safety Program developed it collaboratively.

PDARS extracts radar data from the Host or ARTS computers and processes and 

distributes these data to FAA facilities via a secure Intranet. These data can be analyzed to

uncover the root causes of impediments to NAS operations. PDARS provides the analyst

with a set of interactive tools that can access the distributed database of operational data

to measure, analyze, and report system performance. PDARS also maintains an archive of

historical data, which supports trend analysis and before-after comparisons.

PDARS’s operational performance data can be depicted both numerically and graphically. The numerical tools provide the capability to see the large-scale picture of system

performance and enable the analyst to identify the causes of performance problems.

Reports can be exported to spreadsheet and slide presentation packages. The heart of

the graphical depiction system is the Graphical Airspace Design Environment (GRADE),

which provides users with a three-dimensional view of airspace and air traffic. GRADE

graphics can be exported to slide presentation packages.

PDARS has been deployed at Bay, Northern California, Southern California, Phoenix,

Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Houston TRACONs; Oakland, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Ft. Worth,

Houston, and Indianapolis centers, as well as the Air Traffic Control System Command

Center. It is scheduled to be deployed at the Jacksonville, Memphis, Atlanta, and Miami

centers.

Source: FAA Aviation System Performance Metrics System

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

120

100

80

60

40

20

Arrival Delays (Thousands) 2000 2001
CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS
3 Airport Capacity Analysis and Enhancements

The analysis of capacity of the nation’s airports is a complex process. The primary determinant of an airport’s capacity is its physical design: the number, length and location of

runways, intersections, taxiways, gates, and the distance between parallel runways. The

FAA works with airports and other aviation industry stakeholders to conduct studies to

improve the operating efficiency of the infrastructure.

For the past 15 years, the FAA’s Office of System Capacity (ASC) has collaborated

with airport authorities and air traffic control facilities throughout the U.S. to analyze alternatives for increasing capacity and reducing delays. This chapter summarizes the progress

achieved in the number of studies that are underway.

3.1 Capacity Benchmark Analysis Continues

In 2001, the FAA issued the Airport Capacity Benchmark Report that analyzed capacity 

at 31 airports—the 30 busiest U.S. passenger airports and Memphis, a major cargo 

airport. The objective of the Benchmark Report was to document the number of flights

these airports can handle under optimum and reduced weather conditions, and to project

future capacity based upon plans for new runways, revised air traffic procedures, and

technology improvements. Benchmark rates for each airport were estimated by the air traffic controllers for a particular airport based on their experience in handling flights on a daily

basis, and calculated using a computer model of airfield capacity. The facility-provided and

calculated estimates were compared to historical arrival and departure data to confirm their

validity. In addition, FAA representatives visited several of the airports to validate the

methodology.

Once these rates were derived, the benchmarks were then compared to air carrier

flight schedules to document how frequently scheduled demand exceeds the benchmarks

under optimum and reduced weather conditions. While capacity benchmarks can be

exceeded for a short period of time without producing a large number of delays, when the

number of scheduled flights exceeds the benchmark for sustained periods of time, delays

are inevitable.

In 2002, the FAA began to update the Capacity Benchmark Report and increased

the number of benchmarked airports to 35. Cleveland, Ft. Lauderdale, Portland and

Midway airports were added due to a combination of factors, such as overall passenger

activity and expected major increases in capacity. Figure 3.1 shows the operational 

volume and delay rates at the 35 benchmarked airports for CY 2001.

Figure 3-1 Capacity Benchmark Airport Delay Rate

2000 2001 2000 2001

Airport (ID) Operations Operations Difference Delay Rate Delay Rate Difference

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 913,449 887,403 -3% 30.90 24.33 -21%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 508,283 471,989 -7% 47.50 34.45 -27%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 315,348 323,771 3% 6.91 5.10 -26%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 331,899 291,714 -12% 11.43 6.37 -44%

Charlotte/Douglas International (CLT) 460,370 471,155 2% 5.96 5.20 -13%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 477,844 386,388 -19% 15.40 10.21 -34%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 342,790 270,145 -21% 7.90 10.50 33%

CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS

20 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS

21 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 3-1 Continued

2000 2001 2000 2001

Airport (ID) Operations Operations Difference Delay Rate Delay Rate Difference

Denver International (DEN) 528,604 507,826 -4% 2.20 3.60 64%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 865,777 802,587 -7% 23.83 21.98 -8%

Detroit Metro Wayne County (DTW) 554,580 523,039 -6% 17.60 15.40 -13%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 457,182 445,082 -3% 81.20 60.28 -26%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 292,462 290,124 -1% 3.74 5.30 42%

Honolulu International (HNL) 345,496 326,994 -5% 0.02 0.12 500%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 479,931 424,150 -12% 19.45 8.04 -59%

George Bush International (IAH) 490,568 477,367 -3% 28.10 33.02 18%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 358,951 317,746 -11% 38.80 24.62 -37%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 521,300 498,970 -4% 8.01 5.36 -33%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 783,684 738,679 -6% 21.87 22.60 3%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 392,047 376,919 -4% 155.90 76.98 -51%

Orlando International (MCO) 366,278 326,456 -11% 6.27 3.97 -37%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 298,437 276,520 -7% 11.90 8.05 -32%

Memphis International (MEM) 386,335 393,925 2% 0.37 0.88 138%

Miami International (MIA) 516,545 469,871 -9% 11.32 11.28 0%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 522,253 501,252 -4% 12.74 14.46 14%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 908,977 911,861 0% 63.30 59.49 -6%

Portland International (PDX) 317,477 293,902 -7% 0.51 0.30 -41%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 483,567 467,183 -3% 44.50 40.45 -9%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 638,757 606,666 -5% 21.95 15.31 -30%

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 448,181 451,180 1% 3.78 2.69 -29%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 207,916 206,848 -1% 2.50 4.88 95%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 445,677 400,670 -10% 10.44 20.76 99%

San Francisco International (SFO) 430,554 387,599 -10% 56.90 38.31 -33%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 366,933 370,282 1% 1.96 2.27 16%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 484,224 478,947 -1% 18.24 18.10 -1%

Tampa International (TPA) 278,632 260,859 -6% 1.56 2.76 77%

ASC has conducted capacity enhancement studies at 25 of the 35 benchmarked 

airports and continues with its plans to improve the operational efficiencies through a combination of airfield construction, enhanced technology, and improved procedures. Following

is an update of the studies that have recently been completed or that are underway.

3.2 Airport Capacity Design Team Studies

Design teams are composed of FAA representatives from the Office of System Capacity,

Air Traffic, the Technical Center and the regional Airports office, along with representatives

from the airport, airlines, and other parties with aviation interests. When the study is completed, the Airport Capacity Design Team issues a Capacity Enhancement Plan (CEP) that

presents a list of recommended actions and estimates the impact of each alternative on

delays at the airport.
3.2.1 Chicago O’Hare Task Force Study

The Chicago O’Hare Task Force, co-sponsored by the City of Chicago and the FAA, was

created in June 2001 to identify options that could be used to reduce flight delays at

O’Hare and to examine the merits of each option. The Task Force released its report in

June 2002. The alternatives focused on airspace/technology, air traffic control procedures,

and collaborative decision-making. The task force examined 82 alternatives, and 47 were

identified as alternatives that would improve the operating efficiency of O’Hare and reduce

delays. The Task Force findings identified potential benefits ranging from $300,000 up to

$38.1 million annually at the 2,772 daily operations level. At the 3,400 daily operations

activity level, potential savings range from $3.4 million to $99.5 million annually.

3.2.2 Baltimore-Washington International Airport

The Baltimore/Washington International Airport Capacity Task Force is conducting a

study to determine when a new runway will be needed at BWI airport and to determine

which of the alternatives should proceed for further capacity, cost, and environmental

study. The team is now in phase three of the project. In 2001, the FAA released an evaluation of each proposed capacity improvement and simulations were conducted to 

further evaluate impacts associated with capacity solutions. In 2003, the team will

update the forecasts, conduct further capacity analysis, develop cost estimates and

conduct environmental studies.

3.2.3 Washington Dulles International Airport

Operations at Washington Dulles Airport decreased by 6.6 percent, from 430,082 in 

FY 2001 to 401,750 operations in FY 2002. Like many U.S. international gateways, traffic

recovery at Dulles has been slow. The construction of additional runways will be phased in

as demand develops. No new runways have been added at Dulles since it opened in 1962.

Washington Dulles International Airport completed its capacity review and alternatives analysis for the spacing and implementation of a fourth and fifth runways late last year.

In addition to the fourth and fifth runways, an extension of the existing crosswind runway

to 13,000 feet is being considered. Currently, the longest runway at Dulles is 11,500 feet.

The final study includes a recommended airfield layout and a cost estimate.

3.2.4 Airport Air Traffic Ground Control Simulations

ASC is participating in air traffic control ground simulations at Phoenix Sky Harbor

International Airport, utilizing the FAA Technical Center’s Airfield Delay Simulation Model

(ADSIM) and the Airspace Delay Simulation Model (SIMMOD). In 2003, Runway 7L/25R 

will be closed for 60 days due to construction, and the simulations will assist air traffic 

controllers in developing the most efficient scenarios for operating aircraft, to determine the

best ground route alternatives for arrival and departures.

3.2.5 Portland International Airport

Portland International Airport is ranked 44th in aircraft operations, and is forecast to experience a 26.6 percent increase in operations by 2010, according to 2001 Terminal Area

Forecast baseline data. The Port recently decided to adopt low growth forecast figures for

decisions regarding the timing of future facility enhancements. Using the Port’s local 

CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS

22 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS

23 2002

ACE PLAN

forecast, the Portland International Airport Capacity Design Team updated its 1996

Capacity Enhancement Plan. The first phase of this multi-phase effort had two goals: one

was to evaluate the capacity and delay reduction benefits of the proposed third parallel

runway, North/South taxiway, and new technology. The second goal was to determine the

delay costs of existing departure noise restrictions. The study was published October

2001, and is available on the ASC web site. The second phase of the study was initiated

Fall 2002 and will further analyze the capacity and delay reduction benefits of the proposed

third parallel runway by comparing the centralized and decentralized terminal options along

with the reconfiguration of associated taxiways. This study is expected to be completed at

the end of 2003 with findings included in the following year’s ACE Plan.

3.2.6 Santiago, Chile Capacity Enhancement Project

Because the FAA’s recognized expertise in evaluating capacity enhancements, foreign

operators often ask for assistance. A team comprised of the FAA and the Dirección

General Aeronáutica Civil (DGAC) of Chile conducted an evaluation of a proposed DGAC

project to increase the capacity of the Arturo Merino Benitez International Airport that was

released in January 2002. The FAA conducted an assessment of airport capacity and 

evaluated the impact of a proposed closing of an existing runway for refurbishments.

Additionally, the FAA proposed use of radar procedures and implementation of more extensive use of visual separation standards, to enhance airport capacity models. The team

determined that the best option is construction of a new, converging diagonal runway,

which will provide coverage for the temporary closing of the main runway closing, as well

as provide a long-term benefit to future operations.

3.3 Demand Management Solutions

Demand management involves taking specific actions to reduce, redistribute, or increase

aircraft operations to address a particular problem. Conditions that might suggest such 

a solution include excess demand that results in consistently high levels of flight delay, 

particularly at an airport with limited expansion possibilities that is significant to the operation of the NAS. Several U.S. airports are “slot-controlled,” meaning that the number of

flights per day is capped. Conversely, communities that are undeserved by airlines may

require special measures to ensure that rural communities have access to air service.

3.3.1 Demand Management at LaGuardia

LaGuardia is a slot-controlled airport, which means that the number of take-offs and landings are limited. In 2000, LaGuardia accounted for 25 percent of flight delays nationwide.

In 2001, there was a sharp increase in the number of new entrant carriers, and consequently delays, when new legislation increased the number of available slots and

increased access to small carriers. To help remedy this situation, a moratorium on new

flights was imposed and there was a scale back of the recently added flights.

Subsequently, a temporary lottery was instituted. The lottery system gives priority to operators using larger aircraft, and variations of the current slot allocation system would set

aside certain slots for service to small communities and possibly new entrants. The FAA

has extended the current slot lottery system through October 2004. So far, this solution,
which includes trading and leasing slots, has provided a more efficient allocation system

and delays have been sharply reduced.

This lottery extension provides the FAA with more time to establish a long-term

demand management system. In 2002, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

conducted delay reduction studies for LaGuardia and Kennedy airports in cooperation with

Capacity Enhancement Task Force made up of representatives from the FAA, airlines,

other users, and the Port Authority.

CHAPTER 3

AIRPORT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

AND ENHANCEMENTS

24 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
4 Airport Development

An airport is divided into airfield and landside sections. The airfield is composed of 

runways, taxiways, apron areas, aircraft parking positions, air traffic control facilities, and

navigational aids. The landside consists of the terminal building and the associated access

roads. The ACE Plan primarily addresses airfield capacity. Although landside capacity

remains an important aspect of the air transportation system, particularly given the heightened security initiatives underway, airport terminals are managed by the airport operators,

and with the exception of its role in administering grants and other financing options, the

FAA is not actively involved in landside capacity enhancement. The summary of airport

construction contained in this chapter and Appendix D applies to the airfield.

The general principles that were established over half a century ago that guide the

Federal Government’s involvement and subsequent policies regarding airports remains 

relevant, in the context of the cyclical nature of the traffic and new economic challenges

facing the infrastructure. Therefore, it is appropriate to review these principles, relative to

the airport development activities described in Chapter 4.

4.1 The Guiding Principles:5

➣ Airports should be safe and efficient; located at optimum sites; and developed

and maintained to appropriate standards.

➣ Airports should be affordable to both users and the Government, relying primarily

on user fees and placing minimal burden on the general revenues of local, state,

and Federal Government.

➣ Airports should be flexible and expandable, able to meet increased demand and

to accommodate new aircraft types.

➣ Airports should be permanent, with assurances that they will remain open for

aeronautical use over the long term.

➣ Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities, maintaining a 

balance between the needs of aviation and the requirements of residents in

neighboring areas.

➣ The airport system should support national objectives for defense, emergency

readiness, and postal delivery.

➣ The airport system should be extensive, providing as many people as possible with

convenient access to air transportation, typically not more than 20 miles travel to

the nearest National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airport.

➣ The airport system should help air transportation contribute to a productive

national economy and international competitiveness.

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

26 2002

ACE PLAN

5 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2001-2005.
CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

27 2002

ACE PLAN

4.2 Construction of New Runways, Extensions, and Taxiways

New runway construction remains the most effective capacity enhancement solution.

However, often the most congested airports often do not have land that is easily accessible for the addition of runways, taxiways and landing aids. Changing departure and

approach patterns frequently cause noise impacts that adversely affect noise-sensitive

areas such as homes, hospitals, churches and schools. The FAA works closely with states,

airlines, airports and neighboring communities to help craft alternatives that increase capacity while minimizing the number of people exposed to increased noise. The FAA has been

working to streamline the process of assessing environmental impacts of proposed projects

to help reduce the amount of time from the conception to construction of airport enhancements, without compromising the quality of the environmental review process.

4.3 Improvements in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

Program Continue

In 2002 the FAA continued its efforts to streamline the EIS preparation for projects that 

normally require extensive documentation (i.e., new airports, new runways, and major

extensions). Figure 4.1 highlights the FAA’s proposed initiatives for streamlining the EIS

process for projects at the 31 Large, Hub, Primary Airports.

Figure 4-1 Proposed EIS Streamlining Initiatives 6

Streamlining Initiative Benefit

For major runway projects at large, hub, The Office of Airports (ARP) has established EIS Teams for proposed projects at:

primary airports, establish EIS Teams San Francisco Int’l.; Washington-Dulles Int’l.; Philadelphia Int’l.; O’Hare Int’l a 

comprised of FAA, airport, and legal personnel proposed airport at Peotone, IL; New Orleans Int’l.; and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood

experienced in EIS preparation. Int’l. The Teams are intended to reduce time consuming, major revisions to draft 

EISs by ensuring draft EISs adequately address an array of technical and legal 

issues. This accelerates FAA’s preparation of the final EIS, thereby allowing ARP 

to more quickly decide the fate of capacity enhancing projects at these dominant 

airports.

Reallocate FAA staff to support ARP has converted 5 existing vacancies to environmental specialist positions.

environmental work. This has increased the number of people managing and preparing EISs.

Maximize consultant resources to assist FAA Using consultants to complete specific administrative duties allows ARP 

with routine tasks (e.g., initial administrative environmental specialists to concentrate on preparing and managing EISs, instead

record assembly, writing draft letters, memos, of writing preliminary versions of various administrative memos and letters.

or similar correspondence, researching issues).

Streamline process and use more FAA is expanding its categorical exclusion list. This will reduce the number of 

categorical exclusions. environmental documents ARP environmentalists must prepare. It will allow them 

to focus on EISs necessary for projects occurring at major hub airports typically 

having significant environmental impacts.

Write and issue Best Practices Information The BPI discusses proven methods to facilitate EIS preparation and management 

(BPI) on preparing and managing EIS. and to meet project schedules.

Large, hub, primary airports are defined as those airports that enplane more than 1

percent of the total enplanements. Together, these airports enplane more than 70 percent

of U.S. air passengers. The 31 Large Hub Primary Airports listed in Figure 4.2 are based

upon the CY 2001 airport ranking by enplanements.

6 Report to Congress on Environmental Review of Airport Improvement Projects, U.S. DOT, May 2001.
New

ExtensionRenovationReconstructionRealignment

Figure 4-2 The 31 Large, Hub, Primary Airports

1 Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 17 Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA)

2 Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 18 Boston Logan International (BOS)

3 Los Angeles International (LAX) 19 Philadelphia International (PHL)

4 Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 20 Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT)

5 Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 21 New York La Guardia (LGA)

6 Denver International (DEN) 22 Baltimore-Washington International (BWI)

7 Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 23 Pittsburgh International (PIT)

8 San Francisco International (SFO) 24 Honolulu International (HNL)

9 George Bush International (IAH) 25 Salt Lake City International (SLC)

10 Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 26 Greater Cincinnati International (CVG)

11 Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 27 Washington Dulles International (IAD)

12 Newark Liberty International (EWR) 28 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL)

13 Miami International (MIA) 29 Tampa International (TPA)

14 New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 30 San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN)

15 Orlando International (MCO) 31 Chicago Midway (MDW)

16 Lambert St. Louis International (STL)

A number of the busiest airports have completed new runways or other runway 

construction projects over the past 5 years. Figure 4-3 shows that 7 new runways were

opened from January 1997 to October of 2002. Another 19 construction projects were

completed for the same period, including 15 runway extensions, 1 renovation, 2 reconstructions and 1 realignment. There are 39 construction projects planned between

November 2002 and 2007 shown in Figure 4-4, including the building of 13 new runways.

Figure 4-3 Completed Runway Construction Projects January 1997 to October 2002

Airport (ID) Year Runway

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) • 1997 17R/35L

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) • 1997 10L/28R

Port Columbus International (CMH) • 1997 10L

Grand Rapids Kent County International (GRR) • 1997 18/36

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) • 1997 1L/19R

Chicago Midway (MDW) • 1997 4R/22L

Louisville International (SDF) • 1997 17R/35R

Memphis International (MEM) • 1997 18L/36R

Grand Rapids Kent County International (GRR) • 1998 17/35

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) • 1998 4L/22R

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) • 1998 7L/25R

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) • 1998 3/21

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) • 1998 31L/13R

Albuquerque International (ABQ) • 1999 12/30

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

28 2002

ACE PLAN
New

ExtensionRenovationReconstructionRealignment

NewExtensionReconstructionRunway IdentifierEstimated Cost ($M)Planned Operational YIn Progress

ear

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

29 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 4-3 Continued

Airport (ID) Year Runway

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) • 1999 17L/35R

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) • 1999 3L/21R

Philadelphia International (PHL) • 1999 8/26

Memphis International (MEM) • 2000 18C/36C

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) • 2000 7/25

Palm Beach International (PBI) • 2000 9L/27R

San Jose International (SJC) • 2000 12L/30R

Des Moines International (DSM) • 2001 5/23

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) • 2001 4L/22R

El Paso International (ELP) • 2001 4/22

Kahului (OGG) • 2001 2/20

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) • 2001 8L/26R

Figure 4-4 Runway Construction Projects November 2002 to December 2007

D – Deferred

Airport (ID)

Albany County (ALB) • 10/28 TBD 2002 •

Birmingham (BHM) • 5/23 TBD 2002 •

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) • 18L/36R $32.2 2002 •

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) • 15R/33L TBD 2002 •

Dayton International (DAY) • 6R/24L TBD 2002 •

Pensacola Regional (PNS) • 8/26 TBD 2002 •

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) • 14/32 TBD 2002 •

Manchester (MHT) • 6/24 TBD TBD

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) • 6L/24R $458.0 2004

Denver International (DEN) • 16R/34L $167.0 2003 •

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) • 18R/36L $400.0 TBD D

George Bush International (IAH) • 8L/26R $260.0 2003 •

Orlando International (MCO) • 17L/35R $203.0 2003 •

Miami International (MIA) • 8/26 $215.0 2003 •

San Jose International (SJC) • • 12R/30L $61.4 2003

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) • 10/28 $133.0 2006

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) • 18W/36W $187.0 TBD D

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) • 5L/23R $96.0 2004

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) • 4/22 $11.4 2004

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) • 17/35 $563.0 2004 •
New

ExtensionReconstructionRunway IdentifierEstimated Cost ($M)Planned Operational YIn Progress

ear

Figure 4-4 Continued

D – Deferred

Airport (ID)

Norfolk International (ORF) • 5R/23L $100.0 2004

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5L/23R $7.0 2004

Albany County (ALB) • 1/19 $7.5 2005

Boston Logan International (BOS) • 14/32 $100.0 2006

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) • 14/32 $4.9 2005

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) • 17/35 $233.0 2005 •

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) • 9/27 $18.2 2005

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) • 17C/35C $25.0 2005

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) • 9R/27L $898.0 2005

Lubbock International (LBB) • 8/26 $15.0 2005

Manchester (MHT) • • 17/35 $65.0 2005

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) • 5R/23L $40.0 2006

San Antonio International (SAT) • 3/21 $20.0 2006

San Antonio International (SAT) • • 12L/30R $11.0 2006

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) • 12R/30L $1,100.0 2006

Washington Dulles International (IAD) • 1W/19W $200.0 2007

4.4 Resources Supporting Airport Development

Federal interest in the capital investment for airports is guided by the government’s 

commitment to ensure safety and security, preserve and enhance system capacity, assist

small commercial and general aviation airports, fund noise mitigation, and protect the

environment.

Airport revenue comes from numerous sources—either directly or indirectly from 

revenue generated by the airlines, their passengers, and airport vendors, or through the

taxes collected from aviation system users. Capital development funds are provided by the

public and private sectors, including airport bonds, federal and state grants, passenger

facility charges (PFCs), and airport-generated income.

4.4.1 Airport Improvement Program

The FAA administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and it remains a critical source

of support for the nation’s civilian air transportation infrastructure. The AIP federal grants are

financed from taxes and fees collected from and dispensed to civilian airports from the

Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

The fund was created by Congress more than 30 years ago to fund improvements to

airports and to the air traffic control system. It also provides funding for FAA operating

expense. Revenues in the trust fund come primarily from airline user fees and/or fuel taxes.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund finances the Airport Improvement Program (100% trust

fund), the Facilities and Equipment Program (100% trust fund), the Research, Engineering

and Development Program (100% trust fund), and the FAA Operations and Maintenance

Programs (allocations vary, usually at 50% trust fund and the remainder from general funds).

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

30 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

31 2002

ACE PLAN

The AIP program provides federal grants for the planning and development of eligible

capital projects that support airport operations, including runways, taxiways, aprons, and

noise abatement. Airport sponsors and non-federal contributors must provide the portion of

the total project cost that is not funded with by AIP grants. In FY 2002, the FAA awarded

$3.3 billion in AIP grants, which included an allocation of $561 million for security projects.

This unprecedented increase in AIP grant funds awarded to airports for security projects 

in FY 2002 has affected the amount of funding available for some airport development 

projects, in comparison to FY 2001. In FY 2002, $477 million was awarded to capacity 

projects, representing a decline of 40.3 percent from FY 2001. Figure 4.5 shows the 

distribution of AIP Grants (in millions) by Development Category, FY 2001 and 2002.7

Figure 4-5 Distribution of AIP Grants by Development

Development Category 2001 Grant % of 2001 Budget 2002 Grant % of 2002 Budget

1. Standards $953.7 29.4% $812.4 25.2%

2. Reconstruction $729.7 22.5% $592.7 18.4%

3. Capacity $510.2 15.8% $477.6 14.83%

4. Environment $410.8 12.7% $319.8 9.93%

5. State Block Grant $223.2 6.9% $202.7 6.2%

6. Safety $200.6 6.2% $137.5 4.2%

7. Other $86.2 2.6% $45.6 1.4%

8. Security $55.7 1.7% $561.0 17.4%

9. Planning $54.6 1.6% $53.5 1.6%

10. Statutory Emphasis $9.4 0.2% $18.4 0.5%

Totals $3,234.0 100.0% $3,221.0 100.0%

2

2

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

5 6

7 6

7

8

8

9

10 9 10

7 Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, APP-500.
Airports that qualify for AIP funding must fit one of the following categories:

➣ Publicly owned commercial service airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and have scheduled service

➣ Primary airports

➣ Cargo service airports, served by aircraft that only provide air transportation of

property with an aggregate annual landing weight of more than 100 million

pounds

➣ Relievers

➣ Remaining airports not specifically defined in the act, referred to as GA airports. 

4.4.2 Passenger Facility Charges

Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) are fees paid by the enplaning passengers, using 

airports that the FAA has authorized to collect these charges. The airlines collect PFCs as

an add-on to airfare. The maximum PFC rate now is $4.50 per trip segment, with a cap

of $18 for a roundtrip ticket. Since 1992, the FAA has approved over 300 airports to

impose this fee, representing eventual collections of more than $32.8 billion. PFCs are

used to finance capital improvements to address safety, capacity, airport access, and

security needs, as well as noise reduction projects. PFCs can also be used for the

enhancement of competition between or among carriers, or the payment of interest on

airport revenue bonds.

Every PFC is tied to a particular capital improvement project that has been approved

by the FAA. Only 16 percent of this amount approved for collection is currently targeted for

airside improvements. The majority of funds are earmarked for landside improvements—

such as security and terminal projects; noise abatement—that involve land acquisition,

soundproofing, monitoring and airport planning, and access improvements, such as roadways, rail, land and planning. As a result of the decline in air traffic in 2001, which is not

expected to recover to pre-September 11 levels for at least another 2 years, this revenue

source has been significantly reduced.

4.4.3 User Charges

Airport user charges include aircraft landing fees; apron, gate-use, or parking fees; 

fuel flowage fees; and terminal charges for rent or use of passenger hold rooms, ticket

counters, baggage claim areas, administrative support, hangar space, and cargo buildings. Non-airport user charges include revenue from sources such as terminal concession

rentals and fees, automobile parking, car rentals and interest income.

4.4.4 Bonds: Revenue and General Obligation

The issuance of bonds has been the primary means of financing airport development 

projects at commercial service airports. Most airport debt financing has used tax-exempt

general airport revenue bonds (GARBS), which are secured by an airport’s future revenue.

Over the years, the use of general obligation bonds, which have a stronger credit standing

because they are backed by government taxation power, has declined. This trend is attributed to the improved acceptance of GARBS.

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

32 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

33 2002

ACE PLAN

Bond debt service is typically financed through airport user charges and PFCs.

Historically, airport revenue has kept pace with increased debt-service costs, and so the

ability to issue new debt has not been harmed. However, the decline in air traffic following

September 11 has negatively impacted airport finances.

4.4.5 Other Sources of Funding

While most U.S. airports are self-sustaining, state and local governments contribute to the

development of community airports, offering matching grants to secure federal support,

providing direct grants to fund airport maintenance projects, and financing the installation

of navigation aids. To expand air service and encourage competition, local and state

municipalities, and the Federal Government have also supported airport and air service

development marketing initiatives. Private sources of funding may also be available through

airport tenants, third-party developers and private entities.

4.5 Other Airport Development Activities

There are other types of programs that currently enhance or have the potential to improve

system capacity in the future. These programs provide facility and air service options that

are consistent with Guiding Principles in the beginning of Chapter 4.

4.5.1 The Military Airport Program

The FAA chooses sites for this program, which is an AIP set-aside that provides a 

fixed percentage of the discretionary monies to fund the conversion of facilities that have

converted or plan to convert from military to civilian or joint use. Another program benefit is

the ability to use funds for projects not normally funded by AIP. Last year’s AIR-21 law

increased the total number of airports participating in MAP from 12 to 15. In July, the FAA

selected five new sites including Guam International, in Agana, Guam, San Bernardino

International, San Bernardino, California, Sawyer Airport, in Marquette Michigan,

MidAmerica Airport, Belleville, Illinois, and Plattsburgh International in Plattsburgh, New York.

In addition to the five airports recently added to the program, other participating 

airports are: Pease International Tradeport, Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Cecil Field,

Jacksonville, Florida; Okaloosa Regional Airport, Valparaiso, Florida; Tipton Airport,

Odenton, Maryland; Southern California Logistics Airport, Victorville, California;

Sacramento Mather Airport, Sacramento, California; March Inland Port, Riverside,

California; Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, Michigan; Gray Army Airfield, Killeen,

Texas; and Chippewa County International Airport, Kincheloe, Michigan.

4.5.2 Reliever Airports

The FAA has encouraged the development of high capacity general aviation airports in

major metropolitan areas to provide general aviation with attractive alternatives to using

congested airports. There are 334 of these specialized airports, called “reliever airports.”

In some cases, reliever airports have proven to be an effective element in a region’s air

transportation system.

This year, there have been very few developments at reliever airports, as major 

carriers significantly reduced capacity, and major airport congestion forcing alternative

route solutions was not a prevailing problem. MidAmerica Airport, located in Mascoutah
Illinois, which is 24 miles east of St. Louis Lambert International, serves primarily as a

reliever for Lambert’s cargo traffic. MidAmerica, which is a joint-use facility with Scott Air

Force Base, will use its MAP funds to build a cargo facility. With waning passenger loads,

MidAmerica has not yet been able to generate its own passenger traffic. The reliever 

airport lost its sole commercial passenger carrier, Pan American Airlines in January 2002.

4.5.3 Essential Air Service to Small Communities Continues

This program was established when the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) went into effect in

1978. Congress added a new section to the Federal Aviation Act to ensure that smaller

communities would retain a link to the national air transportation system, with Federal 

subsidy where necessary. The Essential Air Service (EAS) Program subsidizes air travel 

to approximately 100 rural communities. In 2001, there was a decline of 19 percent in air

service to smaller communities, with the majority of the decline coming from markets

served by turboprops. This significant decline can primarily be attributed to a combination

of the weakening economy and the events of September 11. In July of CY 2002, under

provisions of AIR-21, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) granted 40 small communities $20 million under a pilot program to address local air service problems. These

funds will help resolve issues such as high fares and insufficient levels of service. Under

this program, the communities will match awards by nearly 75 percent.

CHAPTER 4

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

34 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
5 Operational Procedures

The FAA continually enhances the procedures governing the operation of aircraft in the NAS.

Procedural changes are implemented to increase airspace capacity, take advantage of

improved aircraft and avionics performance, maximize the use of a new runway, or simply to

make the existing air traffic management system work more efficiently.

Although less expensive and time-consuming than other capacity-enhancing solutions,

such as building new runways, the development and implementation of new procedures is

a complex process. The collaboration of the air traffic controllers and pilots who will be using

the procedures is essential. In addition, both controllers and pilots must receive appropriate

training before new procedures can be implemented.

Recent FAA actions to develop new operational procedures are discussed in this

chapter. These procedures result in more efficient operations in the en route, arrival 

and departure, and approach phases of flight (Figure 5-1), and ultimately give pilots more

flexibility in determining their route, altitude, speed, departure and landing times.

Figure 5-1 Operating Environments Benefited by Procedural Enhancements

Operating Environment

Procedural Enhancements En Route Arrival and Departure Approach

Spring/Summer 2002 • •

RNAV Procedures • • •

Reduced Separation Minima •

Civilian Access to SUA • •

Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways •

5.1 Spring/Summer 2002

Because intersecting airways interconnect the NAS, a weather delay in one part of the

nation’s airspace can have a ripple effect, spreading delays across the country. For the

past three years, the FAA and the airlines have collaborated in developing new operational

procedures, aided by information technology, to improve traffic flow during the severe

weather events that are typical in the spring and summer. The collaborative effort, referred

to as the Spring/Summer plan, began in 2000, and the approaches to maintaining 

smooth operations during severe weather have been gradually improved over the years.

Key elements of the Spring/Summer 2002 plan are described in the section below.

5.1.1 Strategic Planning

The strategic planning team at the Command Center conducts conference calls with major

air traffic facilities and representatives from the user community, every 2 hours, 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week to discuss the status of the system and constraint projections, and to

develop the strategic plan of operations. The strategic plan of operations is a collaborative

agreement on how to deal with severe weather and other system constraints, and ensure

a degree of predictability for all stakeholders by looking ahead 2 to 6 hours and providing

a common view of system issues. The resulting strategic plan is posted on the Command

Center web site and sent via advisory to air traffic facilities and the user community.

Since its inception, the number of conference calls has increased to cover a larger

portion of the day (originally 7 am to 9 pm EST). The improved use of weather information,

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

36 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

37 2002

ACE PLAN

route coordination, and collaborative decision-making, described below, all contribute to

more effective strategic planning and efficient traffic flow.

5.1.2 Improved Use of Weather Information

The Collaborative Convective Forecast Product (CCFP) facilitates strategic traffic flow

planning by forecasting thunderstorm activity that may impact the NAS. It consists of 2,

4, and 6-hour forecasts of convection that will cover at least 25 percent of the area identified. Forecasts are prepared by the National Weather Service’s Aviation Weather Center

in collaboration with meteorologists from the airlines, the FAA’s Center Weather Service

Units, and National Business Aviation Association members. The area of coverage is the

continental United States and coastal waters. In 2003, the coverage will be expanded 

to include portions of Ontario and Quebec, Canada. CCFP forecasts are available on 

several websites.

To facilitate route selection through weather-affected airspace, the FAA is exploring

use of the prototype Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS) for near-term forecasts.

The CIWS combines data from a number of radars to provide 0-to-2 hour forecasts on

localized weather systems. This information will help the FAA to move airplanes through or

around weather systems and quickly recapture airspace lost during thunderstorms.

Figure 5-2 CCFP Forecast Examples from the Aviation Weather Center Website

5.1.3 Route Coordination

The FAA and the airlines work together to develop alternatives to facilitate the efficient 

re-routing of traffic during severe weather and periods of congestion. The availability of 

pre-determined alternate routes provides flexibility in dealing with most severe weather

events and expedites the route coordination process. It also allows airlines to plan ahead

for possible route changes when severe weather is forecast. The Playbook contains textual and graphical displays of specific route alternatives for the most common scenarios

that occur during severe weather seasons. The number of alternative routings available in

HGHT: 370+

GWTH: +

PROB: HIGH

CVRG: 25–49%

25

20

15

HGHT: 370+

GWTH: NC

PROB: MED

CVRG: 50–74%

HGHT: 370+

GWTH: +

PROB: LOW

CVRG: 25–49%

Collaborative

Convective

Forecast

Product

Valid Time:

Nov 1, 2000 05Z

Issuance Time:

Nov 1, 2000 03Z

TSTM COVERAGE AND

DOWNWIND DENIED AREA:

SOLID

HIGH = 74–100%

MED = 50–74%

LOW = 25–49%

TOPS:

100's OF FEET

GROWTH:

++ = FAST POSITIVE

+ = POSITIVE

NC = NO CHANGE

– = NEGATIVE

PROB OF OCCURENCE:

HIGH = 70–100%

MED = 40–69%

LOW = 1–39%
the national Playbook has increased since the Spring/Summer initiative began, from 

20 plays in 2000 to 114 plays in 2002. Airlines and controllers can use the Playbook to

evaluate alternatives if a CCFP forecast indicates that a specific airway is likely to be

blocked. Figure 5-3 shows a map of playbook routes available for flights into Chicago

O’Hare when a weather system blocks one portion of an airway.

Figure 5-3 Examples of Playbook Routes into Chicago

The FAA and airlines can also access a list of alternative routes called coded

departure routes (CDRs) by querying a database called the Route Management Tool

(RMT). The RMT facilitates information exchange between the FAA en route centers, the

Command Center, and the airline user community, which mitigates potential adverse

impacts to air traffic during periods of severe weather or congestion. Coded departure

routes have eight character identifiers. The first three characters identify the departure

airport, the second three the arrival airport, and the last two are unique route identifiers.

For example, the database contains three CDR’s for Atlanta to Miami, each corresponding to a different departure fix (Figure 5-4). The FAA plans to incorporate the Playbook

routes into the Route Management Tool so that both playbook routes and CDR’s can be

accessed on one system.

Figure 5-4 Coded Departure Routes for Atlanta to Miami

Route Departure Departure Arrival Traversed

# Code Origin Destination Fix Route String ARTCC ARTCC ARTCCs

1 ATLMIA9E KATL KMIA EATWO KATL EATWO IRQ CRG OMN ZTL ZMA ZJX ZMA ZTL

J79 VRB HEATT5 KMIA

2 ATLMIA9W KATL KMIA WEONE KATL WEONE MGM SZW J43 ZTL ZMA ZJX ZMA ZTL

PIE CYY3 KMIA

3 ATLMIAPR KATL KMIA SOONE KATL SOONE J89 J75 RSW ZTL ZMA ZJX ZMA ZTL

CYY3 KMIA

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

38 2002

ACE PLAN

SAC

FMG

LLC BAM LCU

BCE

EKR

OCS BFF

DPR

ONL

FSD

MCW

FOD

JVL ORD

DBQ MDW

BDF

MAGOO

OKK

IRK VHP

KURTZ

IIU

BNA MEM

TXK

MCB

SQS

TUL

SGF

ABQ TCC PNH IRW

GUP

DRK ZUN

PGS
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

39 2002

ACE PLAN

5.1.4 New Route Alternatives

In 2002, the FAA expanded the airspace available when standard routes are blocked by

weather or congestion by offering six Canadian routes, two of which Canada has agreed to

have available at all times. In addition, off the east coast of the U.S., flights now have

access to two new off-shore routes through the Virginia Military Capes (VACAPES) airspace

(for a total of eight) when it is not in use by the military. Use of the VACAPES requires coordination between the military, air traffic facilities and the Command Center. In 2001, the

VACAPES routes were only available about 30 percent of the time. The recent addition of

new oceanic radar sectors to the east of the VACAPES airspace provides additional 

alternative north-south routes. The radar coverage allows aircraft to fly closer to the military

airspace due to the reduced separation standards applicable in a radar environment.

Aircraft that want to use the new routes must be equipped to fly over the ocean. The 

offshore routes are longer than the overland routes, but flights save time in severe weather

because flights between New York and Florida can be routed to the new sectors to avoid

storms that otherwise delay take-off. Figure 5-5 shows a map of the VACAPES and the new

offshore radar sectors.

Figure 5-5 New East Coast Offshore Routing Alternatives

5.1.5 Collaborative Decision-Making

Collaborative Decision-Making (CDM) is a joint government/industry initiative aimed 

at improving air traffic management through increased information exchange among the

various parties in the aviation community and improved automated decision support tools.

KY

VA

WV

OH

PA

Canada

Atlantic Ocean

MD

NY MA

CT

RI

NJ

DE

NC

SC

GA

TN

VACAPES

Military Airspace

Offshore Radar

Sector Boundaries

VACAPES Routes

(VS1-8)

Routes Through the

New Offshore Sector
The program is one of five core technologies in the FAA’s Free Flight program and includes

participants from the FAA, air carrier industry, private industry, and academia. The FAA

uses CDM to provide real-time information on weather, delays, cancellations and equipment to more than 30 airlines, business aviation, and major FAA air traffic control facilities. 

Recent improvements to the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS), the realtime operations system used by the FAA and airlines to manage traffic through the nation’s

airspace, have facilitated CDM. For example, ETMS now allows traffic managers to identify

Flow Constrained Areas, where constraints such as volume or convective activity may

require alternative traffic management initiatives such as re-routes or miles-in-trail restrictions. Early identification of these Flow Constrained Areas will allow traffic specialists to 

identify and evaluate where multiple flights are attempting to avoid the same storm. Airline

dispatchers will use the information to assess which flights will need to be re-routed.

Flights destined for an airport where visibility is low are often held before they leave

the ground, in order to avoid circling the airport when they arrive. A new version of ETMS

contains information on changing airport weather conditions, known as Runway Visual

Range (RVR) data, at 48 high-activity airports. Formerly, visibility data was only available

directly from the traffic control tower at each airport. Now that this RVR data is available in

real-time nationwide, airlines and the FAA are notified immediately that conditions at the

destination airport are improving. The immediate availability of RVR data helps the airlines

and FAA to quickly agree on ending ground delay programs and resuming regular service. 

The new version of ETMS also includes a Simplified Substitution Process for airlines

to request priority handling of certain flights. In earlier versions of ETMS, scheduling determinations were based primarily on the scheduled arrival time of each flight. Now, if a 

certain flight has many passengers who need to make connections or a crew near the end

of its shift, the airline has a much simpler method to easily override the time-of-arrival list

and give that flight a higher priority than others operated by the same carrier. This feature

has special significance at hub airports, where it will help airlines to reduce the number of

missed connections attributable to weather delays.

5.2 Area Navigation Procedures

The accuracy of modern aviation navigation systems and user requests for increased 

operational efficiency in terms of direct routings have resulted in the development of area

navigation (RNAV) procedures for the en route, terminal, and approach phases of aircraft

operations. RNAV is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired

flight path, without reference to ground-based navigation aids. Figure 5-6 is a conceptual

illustration of the doglegs associated with routes determined by ground-based navigation

aids versus a direct RNAV route. Aircraft equipped with a qualified flight management 

system (FMS), GPS, or DME/DME sensors can safely fly RNAV routes. RNAV operations

provide a number of additional advantages over conventional navigation, including:

➣ Flexibility in permitting user-preferred routes that take advantage of optimal 

altitude and wind;

➣ Parallel routing to accommodate a greater flow of en route traffic;

➣ Establishment of bypass routes around high-density terminal areas and special

use airspace;

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

40 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

41 2002

ACE PLAN

➣ More efficient traffic patterns (i.e., between the en route, arrival, and final

approach segments of the flight path);

➣ Fewer voice transmissions between the pilot and controller to execute approaches;

➣ Smoother and safer descent paths on approach; and,

➣ Approaches to more airports in low-visibility conditions.

The concept of Required Navigational Performance (RNP), which defines levels of

RNAV accuracy, is explained below, followed by a discussion of the FAA’s development of

RNAV approach procedures. More information on the implementation of RNAV concepts

to enhance airspace capacity en route and in the arrival and departure phases of flight is

provided in Chapter 6.

Figure 5-6 Direct RNAV Routes vs. Routes Determined by Ground Based Navigation Aids

5.2.1 Required Navigational Performance

Required navigational performance (RNP) defines RNAV accuracy requirements for a variety

of operations. For example, terminal RNP operations are defined as RNP-1 meaning that the

aircraft’s navigation system must be able to maintain a total error of plus-or-minus one 

nautical mile 95 percent of the time. RNP specifies the performance requirements for the 

aircraft, but does not require that an aircraft be equipped with a specific navigation sensor.

Figure 5-7 shows examples of RNP-based RNAV operations, and how they may be applied.

Figure 5-7 Examples of RNP Applications

Operation RNP Type Example Application

Oceanic/Remote RNP-10 50 NM Separation

Oceanic/Remote RNP-4 30/30 NM Separation

En Route Domestic RNP-2 RNAV 8 NM Route Spacing

Terminal Area RNP-1 RNAV 4 NM Spacing

Approach RNP-0.3 RNAV LNAV (Non-Precision Approach)

Approach RNP-0.3 RNAV LNAV/VNAV (Approach Procedure with Vertical Guidance)

Note: These are examples of how RNP may be applied. Other types of operations may also be developed and applied.

Source: FAA Advisory Circular No. 20-RNP

Radio

Beacons
In July 2002, the FAA issued a policy statement explaining the benefits of RNP and

committing the FAA to developing a plan to establish public RNP airspace and procedures

in U.S. domestic airspace by July 2003. In August 2002, the FAA issued an advisory 

circular that establishes the standards for RNP approaches and landings.8

RNP concepts have been implemented within the airspace of several countries, as

well as some areas of oceanic airspace (see Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation

Minima in this chapter). Currently, use of RNP by United States operators is limited to international operations in RNP airspace, and domestic special procedures commissioned by

particular airlines. Alaska Airlines flies an RNP RNAV approach to Juneau and six other

Alaskan Airports, allowing flights to land or take-off under weather conditions that would

have required flights to be delayed or rerouted in the past. Aircraft flying the approach 

have unique equipage requirements, such as dual GPS receivers, inertial navigation 

systems coupled to a flight director or autopilot, and use of a color weather radar display

in ground-mapping mode.

5.2.2 Area Navigation Approaches

RNAV approaches increase airport throughput by allowing airplanes to safely navigate

landings in sub-optimal weather conditions. The development of RNAV approaches contributes to opening smaller airports to larger volumes of air traffic, which may alleviate some

of the pressure on large, busy airports. RNAV approach charts can currently contain up to

four approaches with differing minima. They are the LNAV (lateral navigation), LNAV/VNAV

(lateral navigation/vertical navigation), LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance),

and circling.

The LNAV approach is a non-precision approach that can be conducted with

approach-certified GPS receivers. As of April 2002, the FAA had published 2,884 LNAV

approaches at general aviation airports, of which 37 percent are at airports with no 

vertically-guided instrument approaches and no previous straight-in instrument approach

capability.

The LNAV/VNAV procedure is an approach procedure with vertical guidance that falls

between a conventional non-precision approach and a true precision approach.

LNAV/VNAV approaches have the lateral accuracy associated with non-precision

approaches, but also have a stable, guided vertical path that leads to the runway aim

point. They allow a more stable and reliable descent path than traditional non-precision

instrument approaches. LNAV/VNAV approaches typically have a decision altitude of 350

feet or higher above the runway touchdown point, and require the aircraft to be equipped

with an approved barometric-VNAV system or a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)

certified receiver. The FAA has published approximately 350 LNAV/VNAV procedures, and

expects to have 700 LNAV/VNAV procedures available when WAAS is commissioned in

2003. Certified WAAS receivers are expected to become available in 2003.

LPV approaches will use WAAS to open up more runways to 250-foot ceiling 

and three-quarter mile visibility minimums (Figure 5-8). The LPV approach provides lateral

guidance that is equivalent to or better than an instrument landing system (ILS) localizer,

and vertical guidance that is only slightly less accurate than an ILS. The FAA expects to 

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

42 2002

ACE PLAN

8 AC 120-29A Criteria for Approval of Category I and Category II Weather Minima for Approach.
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

43 2002

ACE PLAN

publish its first LPV procedures in September 2003, and an additional 300 LPV approaches per year thereafter. An important benefit of LPV will be bringing vertically-guided instrument procedures to several thousand runways that would normally not have an instrument

approach, many which serve general aviation users. LPV approaches will attain 250 feet

and 3/4 mile visibility at approximately 80% of the runways in the NAS, while LNAV/VNAV

reach the same minima at only 20 percent of the runways.9

Figure 5-8 Typical Decision Altitude and Visibility Minimums for LNAV/VNAV and LPV Approaches

Since the inception of GPS, the number of RNAV approach procedures has increased

steadily. By the end of FY 2002, 3,584 RNAV approaches had been developed and 

published—up from 44 in 1995 (Figure 5-9). The FAA plans to develop and publish between

700 and 800 RNAV approaches (LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV combined) per year through

FY 2007. The FAA projects that by 2007 all public use paved runways will have RNAV

approaches. A national RNAV development prioritization can be found at the following FAA

website (http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nfpo/production). The procedure development

schedule can be searched by fiscal year (2001-2006) or by region.

Figure 5-9 RNAV Approaches Published in the U.S. (1995-2001)

New Cumulative

Fiscal Year RNAV Approaches RNAV Approaches

1995 44 44

1996 339 383

1997 585 968

1998 516 1,484

1999 531 2,015

2000 504 2,519

2001 447 2,966

2002 618 3,584

3/4 Mile

Visibility

1 1/2 Mile

Visibility

Visibility Minimum

LNAV/VNAV

350 feet HAT

LPV

250 feet HAT

Height Above

Touchdown

(HAT)

9 Navigation and Landing Transition Strategy, FAA, August 2002.
5.3 Reduced Separation Minima

Separation standards, also referred to as separation minima, are being reduced incrementally in various regions to take advantage of technological advances that improve the

accuracy and timeliness of position information available to pilots and air traffic controllers.

Vertical and horizontal separation minima have been already been reduced in large portions

of oceanic airspace, and the reduction of vertical separation minima for U.S. domestic 

airspace is in the planning stages.

5.3.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

Procedures implemented more than 40 years ago required a 2,000-foot minimum vertical

separation between IFR aircraft operating above Flight Level10 (FL) 290, but only 1,000-foot

separation below FL290. The 2,000-foot separation above FL290 was necessary because

the instruments used to measure aircraft altitude at that time had relatively poor accuracy

at higher altitudes. The 2,000-foot minimum vertical separation restricts the flight levels

available at FL290 and above to six. During peak periods these flight levels can become

congested. Over the past several years, the U.S. and other nations, in cooperation with

the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and international air carriers, have

reduced vertical separation minima from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet in selected airspace.

The goal of this initiative, called Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) is to

increase airspace capacity and to allow more aircraft to operate at fuel-efficient altitudes.

Implementation of RVSM makes six additional flight levels available (Figure 5-10). In the

RVSM environment, aircraft are more likely to receive their requested altitude and route,

because more aircraft can be accommodated on the most time- and fuel-efficient tracks

or routes available. RVSM also gives air traffic controllers greater flexibility in re-routing traffic around storms, and enabling aircraft to cross-intersecting flight paths above or below

conflicting traffic.

To ensure that aircraft will be able to maintain separation, aircraft that want to participate in RVSM must meet stringent altimetry system standards. Aircraft that are approved

for RVSM are eligible to conduct RVSM operations worldwide. Approximately 22 percent

of flights in U.S. airspace are already conducted by aircraft that have been approved for

RVSM operations.

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

44 2002

ACE PLAN

10 Flight Level is a level of constant atmospheric pressure stated in three digits that represent altitude in hundreds of feet. For example, Flight Level 250 represents a barometric altimeter indicator of 25,000 feet.
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

45 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 5-10 Reduced Vertical Separation Minima to 1,000 Feet

RVSM is being phased in by altitude and airspace region. It has been implemented

in oceanic airspace in the North and South Atlantic, the Pacific, the South China Sea, and

in the portion of the West Atlantic Route System (WATRS) that is in the New York Oceanic

Flight Information Region (FIR). Since RVSM is in its early stages in many of these 

areas, benefits can only be estimated. In the North Atlantic airspace, introduction of RVSM

resulted in elimination of 50 percent of the fuel penalty attributed to inefficient track 

design and cruise level, and traffic congestion. The implementation of RVSM worldwide is 

illustrated in Figure 5-11.

410

400

390

380

370

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

FL290

410

RVSM Altitudes CVSM Altitudes

390

370

350

1,000 Feet Separation Minimum

330

310

FL290
Figure 5-11 RVSM Implemented and Planned

5.3.2 U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

In May, 2002 the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would implement RVSM

in domestic U.S. airspace in December 2004. The new separation standards would apply

to the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, from FL 290–410

inclusive.

FAA data indicate that about 13,500 planes now operate between FL290 and

FL410. So far, about 3,600 planes, including 1,600 airliners, are RVSM-certified. Under

the proposed rules, aircraft that are not RVSM-certified will be able to transition through but

not cruise in U.S. DRVSM airspace. Airplanes that are not yet RVSM-certified when

DRVSM goes into effect will be handled at lower or higher altitudes. The FAA forecasts that

DRVSM will save operators $5.8 billion in fuel costs over 15 years, including $371 million

in the first year of the program.

The comment period for the U.S. DRVSM rule expired on August 8, 2002. The 

airline industry reiterated support for DRVSM, but operators and manufacturers of small

jets say the rule would impose unacceptable aircraft modification costs, and to minimize

its impact, it should be phased in gradually. The Air Transportation Association (ATA) noted

in its comments that domestic U.S. airspace will be the “last large block of dense-traffic

airspace” to receive RVSM benefits. RVSM has already been implemented in the continental airspace of Australia and Europe, and northern Canada. Canada is planning to

implement RVSM in southern Canadian airspace at the same time that it is implemented

domestically in the U.S. ATA agreed that a single-phase conversion, as was done 

in Europe, is the best way to implement, but suggested that the conversion date be postponed until January 2005, after the holiday peak in air traffic. Charter operators reiterated

concerns about the equipage costs. One noted that the retrofit would create serious and

unacceptable financial and operational hardship. Without the new equipment, they would

have to fly below level 290, resulting in higher fuel burn and more financial consequences.

The final rule on domestic RVSM implementation will be published in June 2003.

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

46 2002

ACE PLAN

Implemented Planned

Canada North

4/02

Canada South

12/04

West Atlantic

11/01

Europe/South

America Corridor

1/02

Europe

1/02

Pacific

2/00

Pacific

2/00

NAT

3/97

Middle East

11/03

Australia

11/01

Europe/Asia

South of Himalayas

11/03

Caribbean and

South America

2004

Western Pacific

South China Sea

10/02

Domestic U.S.

12/04
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

47 2002

ACE PLAN

5.3.3 Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation Minima

The current oceanic air traffic control system uses filed flight plans and position reports to

track an aircraft’s progress and ensure that separation is maintained. Position reports, sent

by pilots over high frequency radio through a private radio service that relays the messages

to the air traffic control system, are infrequent (approximately one per hour). Radio communication is subject to interference, disruption, and delay because radio operators are

required to relay messages between pilots and controllers. These deficiencies in communications and surveillance have necessitated larger horizontal separation minima for aircraft

flying over the ocean out of radar range. But with the improved navigational capabilities

made possible by technologies such as the global positioning system (GPS) and controller

pilot data link communications, both lateral and longitudinal oceanic horizontal separation

standards are being reduced.

Allowing properly equipped aircraft to operate at reduced oceanic separation will

enable more aircraft to fly optimal routes, reducing the time required for the oceanic leg of

the flight. Reduced separation laterally may provide space for additional routes to current

destinations or new direct markets. Reduced longitudinal (nose-to-tail) separation will 

provide more opportunity to add flights without a delay or speed penalty.

Oceanic lateral separation standards were reduced from 100 to 50 nautical miles in

the Northern and Central Pacific regions in 1998 and in the Central East Pacific in 2000

(for aircraft that are RNP-10 approved). The FAA plans to extend the 50 nautical mile 

separation standard to the South Pacific. Because flights along the South Pacific routes

are frequently in excess of 15 hours, the fuel and time-savings resulting from more aircraft

flying closer to the ideal wind route in this region are expected to be substantial.

In addition, there are plans to reduce oceanic lateral and longitudinal separation 

minima to 30 nautical miles in portions of the South Pacific airspace by 2005 (accelerated

from the initial plan for 2006) (Figure 5-12). These reduced separation minima will only

apply to aircraft with sufficiently accurate navigation equipment (RNP-4),11 controller to pilot

data link communication, and enhanced surveillance capabilities provided by automatic

dependent surveillance.

11 RNP-4 approved aircraft are equipped with navigation systems that can navigate within 4 miles of desired position with 95% probability.
Figure 5-12 Reduced Oceanic Lateral and Longitudinal Separation Minima (Proposed)

5.4 Increasing Civilian Access to Special Use Airspace

The FAA routinely works with the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide civilian access

to special use airspace (SUA) when it is not being used by the military, through agreements concerning civilian access to specific SUA and the development of automated

information systems that report on the availability of SUA. Since September 11, 2001,

both agencies have increased their efforts to ensure efficient coordination because of the

increased number of military operations. More frequent military involvement, especially

near large metropolitan areas, adds an additional, unpredictable congestion factor. The

FAA and the military have continued to improve their communications systems to facilitate

civilian use of SUA when it is not being used by the military. These coordination activities

include the following:

➣ At the Palatka Complex in Florida, Restricted Area-2906 was scheduled for 

general aviation access 24 hours per week in early 2001. Based on its initial 

success, weekend hours of access were expanded.

➣ In Florida, the Jacksonville Center and the Navy Fleet Area Control and

Surveillance Facility have initiated an airspace coordination process using a 

flight-planning tool developed by the Air Force. Using the software, either facility

can depict airspace and transmit the data to the other. This enhances the flow of

civilian traffic with a minimal impact on Navy flight operations.

➣ In cooperation with DoD, the FAA has developed a computer information system,

the Special Use Airspace Management System (SAMS) to provide pilots, airlines,

and controllers with the latest status information, current and scheduled, on 

special use airspace. DoD operates the Military Airspace Management System

(MAMS), which gathers information about SUA scheduling and transmits this data

to SAMS. These two systems, working in concert, ensure that the FAA and 

system users have access to daily information on SUA availability on the internet.

A prototype system called Special Use Airspace/In-Flight Service Enhancement

would be used to disseminate graphic depictions of near-real time SUA information to airlines and GA users.

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

48 2002

ACE PLAN

Reduced Separation Provides More

Options for Wind Optimal Routes

30 NM

30 NM

Lateral

Longitudinal
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

49 2002

ACE PLAN

➣ The FAA has begun to include VFR waypoints on sectional and terminal charts,

which can be used to help VFR pilots navigate around special use airspace. The

waypoints help pilots using GPS for supplemental navigation by allowing them to

fly from point-to-point and navigate around special use airspace and other

restricted or congested airspace.

5.5 Approaches to Closely-Spaced Parallel Runways

At airports with closely-spaced parallel runways, capacity is constrained in low-visibility

conditions. When visibility is good pilots can conduct simultaneous visual approaches to

closely-spaced parallel runways. But during periods of low visibility, simultaneous

approaches to closely-spaced parallel runways monitored by conventional airport surveillance radar are not permitted. For parallel runways separated by 2,500 feet to 4,300 feet,

two arrival streams can be maintained but operations are limited to parallel dependent

instrument approaches using 1.5 mile staggered separation. For parallel runways spaced

less than 2,500 feet apart, operations are restricted to one arrival stream, which effectively

reduces the airport’s arrival capacity to one-half of its capacity in visual meteorological 

conditions. To help reduce the negative effect of weather on arrival capacity, the FAA has

developed several approach procedures that take advantage of the enhanced surveillance

capability of the precision runway monitor (PRM).

5.5.1 Precision Runway Monitor

The PRM is a surveillance radar that updates essential aircraft target information 4 to 5

times more often than conventional radar equipment. PRM also predicts the aircraft track

and provides aural and visual alarms when an aircraft is within ten seconds of penetrating

the non-transgression zone. During PRM approaches to closely-spaced parallel runways,

a separate controller monitors each runway. Use of the PRM allows air traffic controllers 

to ensure safe separation of aircraft on the parallel approach courses and maintain an efficient rate of aircraft landings during adverse weather conditions. All pilots must complete

special training before they are authorized to conduct a simultaneous ILS PRM approach

to closely-spaced parallel runways.

In December 2001, the FAA determined that the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance

System (TCAS) may be operated in the resolution advisory (RA) mode when conducting a

PRM approach. Previously, the FAA had required pilots to turn off the TCAS RA during 

a PRM approach to avoid the possibility of conflict between the RA and an air traffic 

controller’s instruction. In the rare event of a simultaneous TCAS RA and controller breakout instruction, the pilot should immediately respond to the RA and comply with the turn

portion of the ATC breakout instruction. If following a RA requires deviating from an ATC

clearance, the pilot should advise ATC as soon as possible.

The FAA has commissioned PRMs at Minneapolis and St. Louis, and most recently,

at Philadelphia International Airport in September 2001. PRM’s are scheduled for commissioning at San Francisco and John F. Kennedy in late-2002, Cleveland in late-2004, and

Atlanta in 2006, coincident with the completion of the fifth parallel runway. The FAA has

approved the following procedures using a PRM to allow simultaneous instrument

approaches in adverse weather.
➣ Simultaneous instrument approaches for 4,300 feet-3,400 feet spacing (applicable to Minneapolis).

➣ Simultaneous instrument approaches down to 3,000 feet spacing with one

instrument landing system (ILS) localizer offset by 2.5-3 degrees (Philadelphia

and proposed for JFK).

➣ Simultaneous offset instrument approaches (SOIA) for parallel runways spaced at

least 750 feet apart, and less than 3,000 feet apart at airports identified by the

FAA (proposed for SFO).

In June 2002, Philadelphia began using its PRM to conduct simultaneous approaches to its parallel runways spaced 3,000 feet apart. Air traffic controllers can use this 

procedure to direct slower moving aircraft to the north runway, and the faster jets to the

south parallel runway. The SOIA procedure, which has been developed but not yet implemented, is discussed in more detail in the following section.

5.5.2 Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches

The SOIA procedure would allow simultaneous approaches to parallel runways spaced

from 750 feet to 3,000 feet apart. It requires the use of a PRM, a straight-in ILS approach

to one runway, and an offset localizer directional aid (LDA) with glide slope approach to the

other runway (Figure 5-13).

The SOIA concept involves the pairing of aircraft along adjacent approach courses

separated by at least 3,000 feet with a designated missed approach point approximately

3.5 nautical miles from the runway threshold. The pilot on the offset approach would fly a

straight-but-angled approach until descending below the cloud cover. At that point, the

pilot would have a period of time to visually acquire the traffic on the other approach before

continuing to the runway. If the pilot does not see the other aircraft before reaching the

missed approach point, the approach would be discontinued.

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

(STL) are the first candidate airports for SOIA. At SFO the arrival rate is 60 aircraft per hour

in clear weather using both parallel runways, which are 750 feet apart. In times of heavy

fog and low-ceiling conditions, aircraft are placed in-trail to one runway, reducing the airport arrival rate by half. The SOIA procedure will enable SFO to maintain an arrival rate of

up to 40 aircraft per hour with a cloud base as low as 1,600 feet and four miles visibility.

The FAA has completed flyability, collision risk, and preliminary wake turbulence analyses

for the SOIA procedure, but the PRM has not yet been commissioned. At STL, the parallel runways are approximately 1,300 feet apart. PRM-SOIA procedures are expected to be

operational in 2003 for both sites. Other potential sites for SOIA include Newark,

Cleveland, and Miami airports.

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

50 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

51 2002

ACE PLAN

Figure 5-13 Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach

5.5.3 Along Track Separation

Along track separation is a proposal to increase arrivals to parallel runways spaced less

than 2,500 ft. apart in periods of low visibility. The procedure entails parallel dependent

instrument approaches staggered down to 1.5 nautical miles diagonally (Figure 5-14). The

relevant safety analyses have not yet been conducted to determine whether a PRM would

be required for this procedure to ensure safe separation.

Figure 5-14 Along Track Separation

3,000 ft at MAP

Missed Approach

Point (MAP)

Weather Minimums Dependent on

Runway Spacing

2.5 to 3.0 Degree Offset

ILS with Glideslope

Runway Spacing

Requires PRM 2,500 ft to 2,999 ft

ILS

Non Transgression Zone 

 (2,000 ft Wide)

1.5 NM Diagonal Separation can be Used to

Lowest Approved Weather Minimums

Runway Spacing

Less Than 2,500 ft

1.5 NM Diagonal Separation

ILS

ILS
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN
6 Airspace Redesign

The growth of aviation traffic in the past decade has placed increasing demands on 

the FAA to enhance airspace capacity. When airport congestion exacerbates airspace

congestion, controllers respond by initiating restrictions such as en route holding of aircraft

and miles-in-trail restrictions to moderate the flow of aircraft into terminal areas. In addition,

at many airports, flights must funnel through common arrival or departure fixes, which

reduces throughput rates due to the large number and types of aircraft with varying 

performance characteristics using the same airspace.

The FAA is reviewing the structure of the nation’s airspace and redesigning it to

improve throughput and provide user flexibility, consistent with evolving air traffic and

avionics technologies. This umbrella airspace initiative, referred to as National Airspace

Redesign, encompasses several regional redesign efforts. In addition, the recently completed National Choke Points initiative focused on short-term solutions to problems in

chronically congested airspace in the Northeast, and the high-altitude redesign project is

addressing congestion in en route airspace.

FAA airspace planners are using various approaches to increase airspace capacity

and minimize the need for air traffic restrictions, including re-sectorization, consolidating

and expanding terminal airspace, and developing area navigation routes. Sectorization is

the processes whereby the FAA divides the airspace into appropriately-sized and -shaped

volumes that facilitate safe and orderly traffic flows and provides a manageable level of

work for the air traffic controllers assigned to each sector. Consolidating terminal airspace

reduces the amount of coordination required to handle arriving and departing aircraft, and

expanding it frequently allows controllers to begin to reduce aircraft spacing further out

from the airport. The development of RNAV arrival and departure procedures allows more

efficient use of constrained terminal airspace, because arrival and departure streams can

be closer together than those governed by ground-based navigation aids.

6.1 The National Choke Points Initiative

In 2002, the FAA completed the 2-year National Choke Points initiative. This initiative

focused on short-term actions to improve air traffic flow at seven problem areas located

in the highly traveled airspace “triangle” between Chicago, Washington, D.C., and

Boston. This area includes many of the country’s major population areas and its most

congested airports.

The FAA used a combination of techniques to successfully alleviate the choke

points. The most common approaches were reorganizing existing sectors, creating new

sectors, and adjusting controller staffing accordingly. In all, 19 new sectors were created.

In addition, the FAA modified aircraft routes, and separated slower traffic to facilitate

smooth flow. The choke point initiative has succeeded in reducing delays in these areas

by an average of 23 percent. Examples of steps that were taken to address choke points

are described below.

➣ Cleveland Center airspace has historically been complex and difficult to manage

because of the proximity of Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati airports,

and the significant traffic in the New York to Chicago corridor. To address these

issues, several sectors were realigned and three new sectors were opened. For

example, in November 2001, a new sector called Geauga Sector “Ultra-High”

CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

54 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

55 2002

ACE PLAN

was created to relieve the pressure in this area by stratifying existing sectors at

FL370 and above (Figure 6-1). Another sector, Dansville, was split horizontally to

streamline the east-west flow of traffic between New York and Boston Centers to

Chicago, and airports within Cleveland Center airspace. In the Pittsburgh area,

the Clarksburg Sector was opened as part of a several sector reconfiguration

designed to reduce the complexity of traffic in that area. This change benefited

traffic destined to Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, and Cleveland.

➣ In Washington center airspace, arrival flows from the south into Newark and

LaGuardia, had previously passed through narrow sectors on crossing flight

paths. In December 2001, the FAA reversed or “flip-flopped” routes to LaGuardia

and Newark airports, which created parallel flight paths to replace the crossing

flight paths (Figure 6-2). During the first few months of use, the flip-flop allowed

controllers to reduce miles-in-trail restrictions and reduced delays on both

approaches. In addition, the adjustment has reduced the noise impact in some

communities under the Newark arrival path.

Figure 6-1 New Geauga “Ultra High” Sector in Cleveland Center

Lorain

FL310-350

Ravenna

FL240-290

Geauga

FL370 and

Above

Blufton

FL310-350

Sandusky

FL240-290

MI

IN OH

PA

NY

New Geauga

“Ultra High” Sector

ZOB
Figure 6-2 “Flip-Flop” of Routes into Newark and LaGuardia Airports

6.2 High Altitude Airspace Redesign

High-altitude redesign focuses on efficient flow of en route operations. Currently, aircraft

that are flying near or across sector boundaries are frequently delayed as they are handed

off from one air traffic control facility to another. The objective of high altitude airspace

redesign is to allow users to fly preferred routes and altitudes with fewer restrictions and

delays than the present system requires. The airspace above FL350 will be redesigned to

allow this flexibility with minimal constraints.

Current procedures to separate traffic require longitudinal separation of five miles in

en route airspace. When two aircraft are flying along the same airway, they are kept in trail,

one behind the other, which can delay the trailing plane. If the two aircraft are heading for

different airports, it should be possible for them to fly on parallel routes, maintaining safe

separation but enabling both to operate at optimal speed. Parallel routing will reduce 

the inefficiencies and workload created by placing aircraft in trail as the primary means of

providing structure and controlling volume.

The FAA has created a high-altitude program office to develop high-altitude alternatives. Preliminary high-altitude airspace modifications for the northwest portion of the 

country are being modeled, with initial implementation planned for 2003. This first phase

uses parallel RNAV routes in high-traffic and confined airspace and navigation waypoints

for tactical navigation around weather and special use airspace.

The Great Lakes Corridor En Route Redesign project is another FAA project with a

high-altitude redesign component. In the Great Lakes region (including Chicago,

Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Chicago centers), many sectors regularly impose miles-intrail restrictions to mitigate sector saturation or complex workload. This project will focus

on reducing sector complexity, procedural and automation enhancements to reduce

restrictions, routing through special use airspace when available, and development of

RNAV routes.

CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

56 2002

ACE PLAN

Atlantic

Ocean

Atlantic

Ocean

La Guardia

Flight

La Guardia

Flight

Newark

Flight

Newark

Flight

EWR EWR

LGA LGA PA

NY

CT

NJ

PA

NY

CT

NJ

Pre-Flip Post-Flip
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

57 2002

ACE PLAN

6.3 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan 

Redesign Project

More passengers and planes fly in and out of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

metropolitan area than any other area in the U.S. This area services more than 8,000

flights per day, and more than 99 million passengers per year. The metropolitan area 

airports and their terminal airspace were not designed to handle this volume of traffic and

as a result, several of them are among the most delayed airports in the U.S.

The proximity of these airports to one another results in complex pilot/controller and

controller/controller coordination and circuitous flight paths. The complex flow patterns

make it difficult for controllers to reroute flights from an overloaded arrival fix to a less loaded

fix, which consequently results in aircraft being placed into a holding pattern. Holding is

used to maximize utilization at an arrival airport by maintaining a line of holding aircraft near

the airport. The constant availability of arriving aircraft allows airlines to use arrival slots as

soon as they become available. If there are no aircraft near the airport waiting to fill slots 

as soon as they open, arrival capacity is wasted. Due to the high volume of traffic and 

the limited holding capacity near the metropolitan area, much of the airborne holding for

New York area airports occurs outside of the New York Center.

The FAA is in the early stages of redesigning the airspace in the New York/New

Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan area. The FAA is in the process of designing alternatives

to relieve airspace congestion generated by Newark, Kennedy, LaGuardia, Philadelphia

and several regional and general aviation airports. The alternatives address traffic in the

airspace currently controlled by the New York TRACON, roughly a 50-mile radius around

the TRACON.

One alternative would modify existing traffic patterns principally by the creation of

RNAV routes. The number of routes into and out of the New York TRACON is limited today

by current radar technology. The increased navigational capabilities offered by advanced

navigational systems such as flight management systems and the global positioning system

would allow the creation of RNAV routes that can be spaced closer together than existing

routes. This would increase throughput, while reducing delays and flight.

Another alternative, referred to as the Four Corner Concept, would establish 

four arrival areas around the metropolitan area. Once aircraft overfly the corner fix, they

could proceed directly to the destination airport, or to another corner, or enter into a large

overhead circular pattern to await final sequencing into their ultimate destination airport.

Aircraft in the circular pattern would be stacked at different altitudes to accommodate large

quantities of aircraft in the metropolitan area. Departing aircraft would be routed between

the four arrival areas.

The Ocean Routing Concept is focused on departure procedures for EWR, but

affects JFK and LGA flight procedures as well. Under this concept, Newark departures

from the south runways (22L/R) would be routed eastbound over the Atlantic, regardless

of their destination. Aircraft would turn back toward their destinations after gaining altitude

to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the underlying communities.
In addition, another “clean sheet” approach is being explored. The airspace redesign

team is in the process of finalizing the alternatives. Once the alternatives are complete, the

environmental analysis will begin, including noise modeling.

6.4 Phoenix Airspace Redesign

In February 2002, the FAA introduced airspace and procedural changes for flights serving

Sky Harbor and other Phoenix-area airports. These changes are an element of Northwest

2000, which seeks to optimize the airspace controlled by the Phoenix TRACON and the

nearby high-altitude airspace controlled by the Albuquerque Center. The redesign of

Phoenix airspace is based on conventional procedures (using radar vectoring) in the initial

phases, with introduction of RNAV procedures over time. On a recent test flight into Phoenix

using an RNAV arrival route, the aircraft saved approximately four minutes of flight time.

6.5 Consolidation of Terminal Airspace Control

Typically, a TRACON controls aircraft within 5 and 50 miles of an associated airport. In 

metropolitan areas with several airports, the terminal airspace of adjacent airports may

overlap, creating a complicated airspace structure. In these circumstances, consolidating

two or more TRACONs into a single facility can simplify that airspace structure. The consolidation improves communications among controllers handling operations over a wide

geographic range and increases their flexibility in merging, maneuvering, and sequencing

aircraft to and from the area airports. Additional flexibility can be gained by bringing portions of en route airspace under TRACON control, especially where comprehensive radar

coverage allows three-mile spacing rather than the five-mile spacing that is customary in

the en route environment (see Figure 6-3). Examples of ongoing FAA efforts to consolidate

airspace control are the Potomac Consolidated TRACON (PCT), the Northern California

TRACON (NCT), and the New York Integrated Control Complex (NYICC). The PCT and

NCT primarily involve consolidating the airspace of several TRACONs, with the addition of

relatively small areas of en route airspace. The NYICC would bring large amounts of en

route airspace under TRACON control.

Figure 6-3 En Route vs. Terminal Aircraft Spacing

CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

58 2002

ACE PLAN

5 NM

5 NM

3 NM

3 NM

Terminal En Route
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

59 2002

ACE PLAN

6.5.1 Potomac Consolidated TRACON

The Potomac Consolidated TRACON (PCT) consolidates the radar operations of five 

airports serving the Washington Metropolitan Area: Andrews Air Force Base (ADW),

Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI), Dulles International Airport (IAD),

Richmond International Airport (RIC) and Washington National Airport (DCA). The building

is complete and is schedule to be commissioned in late 2002.

The PCT will have continuous radar coverage from south of Richmond, Virginia to

north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and from as far west as Cumberland, Maryland and

east to Cambridge, Maryland. The PCT will gain control of several pieces of airspace that

are currently controlled by the en route centers. The expanded and consolidated terminal

area airspace will allow the PCT modify aircraft routes and altitudes to handle inbound and

departing aircraft more efficiently. The FAA developed several alternative airspace structures for taking advantage of the consolidated TRACON airspace. Each of the alternatives

includes a significant redesign of PCT airspace, but require varying degrees of coordination and transfer of control with adjacent facilities.

One alternative under consideration for more efficient traffic flow into the

Washington/Baltimore area incorporates RNAV routing. Under this alternative, a ring of fixes

around the Baltimore/Washington area could be implemented to allow direct routing to and

from major cities. Another alternative would establish four arrival and departure areas around

the Baltimore/Washington area. A third alternative would maintain most of the existing

ingress and egress points into the PCT airspace, while removing the intra-TRACON 

boundaries and related constraints of the existing airspace structure. This alternative is considered low risk from the viewpoint of implementation because it would not significantly

affect the airspace structure of ATC facilities adjacent to PCT airspace. The FAA plans to

name its preferred alternative in early 2003.

6.5.2 Northern California TRACON

In August 2002 the FAA began transferring air traffic control responsibilities from four existing TRACONs in Northern California (Oakland, Monterey, Sacramento, and Stockton) to the

NCT. The transfer of operations will be done in four phases, starting with Sacramento, and

ending with Oakland in 2003. When fully commissioned, the NCT will monitor flights in and

out of more than 20 airports. The FAA is evaluating airspace alternatives that will take

advantage of the operational advantages of the co-located facilities.

6.5.3 New York Integrated Control Complex

The New York Integrated Control Complex (NYICC) concept emerged from the National

Airspace Redesign Team’s efforts to optimize airspace and procedures in the New York

City-New Jersey-Philadelphia area. The NYICC would potentially integrate terminal 

airspace from the New York TRACON with portions of the airspace currently controlled by

adjacent TRACONs and centers abutting the New York TRACON (Figure 6-4).

Expanding the New York TRACON airspace would reduce the fragmentation of arrival

and departure corridors across multiple centers, which currently limits the flexibility to

address the dynamic nature of the northeast corridor traffic flows. Bringing portions of en

route airspace under terminal control will provide additional airspace to support a more

even balance of arrivals among arrival fixes and holding patterns within the TRACON.
Capacity benefits will include reduced delays, reduced restrictions, and enhanced operations during severe weather events.

In 2002, the FAA conducted a human factors analysis of arrival and departure flows

involving controllers from the New York TRACON and New York center. Three scenarios

were modeled: the current conditions (separate facilities, standard procedures); collocation of TRACON and center controllers so they could observe each other’s displays and

coordinate face-to-face; and use of less restrictive terminal separation procedures by the

en route sector handing-off or receiving traffic to/from the New York TRACON. Preliminary

results were supportive of the proposed concepts.

Figure 6-4 NYICC Concept of Operations

6.6 En Route RNAV

One of the limiting factors of the present-day NAS is that aircraft must generally follow 

airways that are based on a system of ground-based navigational aids. Following those 

airways involves flying from one navigational fix to another, connecting a series of doglegs,

which increases the distance flown and the time required to do so. This is changing with the

development of advanced RNAV routes. RNAV routes allow an aircraft to fly a more direct

route. In 2001, airlines flying RNAV routes reported a savings of approximately $31.2 million

as a result of time and fuel savings (Figure 6-5). Several recent RNAV route development 

initiatives are described below.

➣ In the Southern Region, the FAA has developed 62 multi-center RNAV Routes.

Delta is the principal user of 44 routes (flying between Atlanta, Georgia and 

various Florida cities). Eight of the routes were developed specifically for business

jets flying from satellite airports. Delta projects an annual savings of approximately

$3 million from utilizing these routes. US Airways is the principal user of 18 multicenter routes between Charlotte, North Carolina and South Carolina, Georgia and

Florida and they estimate annual savings of approximately $2 million as the result

of these routes.

CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

60 2002

ACE PLAN

PA

MD

NY MA

CT

RI

NJ

DE

PA

MD

NY MA

CT

RI

NJ

DE

ZOB

ZBW

ZNY

ZDC

ZNY

Ocn

ZOB

ZBW

NYICC

ZDC

NYICC

Ocn

PHL

NY

PHL

NY

Before

Existing Boundary Interactions

After

Proposed NYICC Boundary Interactions
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

61 2002

ACE PLAN

➣ Atlantic Southeast Airlines operates 47 RNAV routes in the Southern Region,

which are projected to generate approximately $2 million in savings for the airline.

➣ Since September 2001, Texas to South Florida “Q” routes provides RNAV routing

for the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 6-6). These routes are only available to operators

equipped for RNAV systems approved for IFR navigation. The routes generate an

estimated $22 million in user savings per year as a result of more direct flights.

Continental Airlines reported saving 5 minutes per flight on the new routes. The

development of these routes also allowed military warning areas in the Gulf to be

redesigned to allow increased training on the next generation of fighter aircraft.

Several RNAV routes through the Gulf of Mexico connecting North America to

Mexico and South America have also been proposed.

➣ As of September 2002, the Western-Pacific and Northwest Mountain Regions

have developed 21 RNAV routes between key cities. The cities include Seattle,

Portland, and Vancouver in the Pacific Northwest, and Los Angeles, San

Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs, John Wayne-Orange

County, Las Vegas, and Phoenix in the Western-Pacific Region. The RNAV routes

were developed in conjunction with Alaska Airlines as the lead carrier. The objective of these routes is to provide a seamless RNAV departure, en route, and

arrival between the selected airports for all appropriately equipped RNAV aircraft.

Alaska airlines project its annual savings as a result of these direct routes to

exceed $800,000.

Figure 6-5 En Route RNAV Projects

13 - Atlantic Coast

Airline Routes

21 - West Coast

Routes

“Q” Routes Provide RNAV Routing

for Gulf of Mexico

47 - Atlantic Souteast Airlines RNAV Routes

62 - Multi-Center Routes
Figure 6-6 RNAV Routes in the Gulf of Mexico

6.7 RNAV Arrivals and Departures

RNAV allows for the creation of arrival and departure routes that are independent of 

existing fixes and navigation aids, and provides multiple entries to existing Standard

Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) and multiple exits from Departure Procedures (DPs).

Airports with multiple runways or with shared or congested departure fixes benefit the most

from segregating departures and providing additional routings. In addition, a study by

MITRE/CAASD estimates that use of RNAV procedures for arriving aircraft reduces the

number of pilot/controller voice transmissions required from sixteen for an aircraft guided

by ATC heading vectors, to four for an RNAV procedure. The reduction in controller workload improves both safety and system efficiency.

The FAA has developed a three-phase process for the conceptualization, development, testing, commissioning, charting and use of RNAV Terminal Routes. This process

provides controllers with the ability to develop new procedures and visualize them with

existing traffic flows.

Approximately 40 public use RNAV Departure Procedures (DPs) and Standard

Terminal Arrivals (STARS) have been implemented within the NAS. Many of these procedures are “specials” commissioned by particular airlines and subsequently converted to

public use. The following is the status of several terminal RNAV projects.

➣ In October 2001, the Las Vegas TRACON and the Los Angeles Center implemented the 4-corner post (4CP) project, becoming the first major airport to use

RNAV arrival and departure procedures for all runways. Los Angeles center has

begun adjusting and testing a variety of new RNAV routes to ensure smoother

transitions into and out of the terminal area.

➣ In the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Northwest Airlines has completed validation

flights for a terminal RNAV STAR.

CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

62 2002

ACE PLAN

FL

MS

LA

AL GA

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic

Ocean

Military Airspace

HRV

LFV

SRQ

CYY

Q102

Q100

Q105
CHAPTER 6

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

63 2002

ACE PLAN

➣ In Philadelphia, US Airways has been flying an RNAV STAR and DP. These 

procedures are moving to public charting.

➣ At the New York Kennedy Airport, American and Delta Airlines have been flying

“SKUBY1” (an RNAV STAR).

➣ At Newark Liberty Airport, Continental Airlines flies two DPs (“SELBY1” and

“FILSA”).

➣ At Washington Dulles, Atlantic Coast Airline completed flight simulator trials on a

DP, which was subsequently publicly charted in 2001.
CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION
7 National Airspace System Modernization

NAS modernization has been designed as an evolutionary process that will sustain current

NAS operations while new technologies are introduced, proven, and then deployed. This

process will allow for a smooth transition from one technology to another, provide sufficient

time for users to equip their aircraft with the avionics required to take advantage of the new

technologies, and realistic schedules for the FAA to test, train for, and deliver services.

NAS modernization is an ongoing process that builds upon the implementation of

individual projects to improve the effectiveness of the entire NAS. The events of

September 11 have understandably shifted the focus of the aviation community from congestion and capacity enhancement to security. But despite the decrease in traffic in the

last year and forecasts for a gradual rebound, long-term forecasts still call for a large

increase in demand over the next decade. NAS modernization, and the capacity

enhancement that it will provide, remains a vital task of the FAA and its partners. In this

vein, important work on NAS modernization continued during the past year.

7.1 Wide Area Augmentation System

The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is a supplement to the basic Global

Positioning System (GPS) signal that increases the accuracy, availability, and integrity of

the signal. The FAA intends to provide time efficiencies and cost savings through satellitebased navigation implementation. This technology allows direct point-to-point navigation,

optimum routing, and other capacity improvements. Efficiencies and savings realized by

the airlines, the traveling public, and the FAA include:

➣ Increased air traffic control efficiencies and NAS capacity through an airspace

system that is restructured to accommodate direct routings between airports, as

well as reduced separation standards.

➣ Reduced fuel cost to airlines and reduced travel time to the public through use of

more economical air routes.

➣ Reduced FAA operating costs through the potential decommissioning of part of

the existing ground-based navigation system.

The WAAS signal-in-space continues to provide accuracies well within the range

required by the WAAS specifications and coverage availability over most of the continental

United States. Recent accomplishments include developing WAAS interference mitigation

and rejection methods; developing a safety processor to meet FAA safety assurance standards; and conducting ionosphere data collection and analysis to define WAAS final operational capabilities. Proposed activities for the near future include refining WAAS performance

and assessment capabilities; developing interference detection and mitigation techniques;

and analyzing the impact of additional civil GPS frequencies.

WAAS is projected to become operational in 2003, providing LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance) approach minimums of 250 feet. An important benefit of LPV

will be bringing vertically-guided instrument procedures to several thousand runways that

would not normally have an instrument approach, many of which serve general aviation 

users. Sometime between 2009 and 2015, WAAS is expected to provide ILS-like Cat I

approaches to 200-foot decision altitude and one-half mile visibility at most U.S. airports.

CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

66 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

67 2002

ACE PLAN

7.2 Local Area Augmentation System

The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is an additional augmentation of GPS that will

provide highly accurate navigation signals to suitably equipped aircraft. The LAAS program

was designed as a collaborative project between the FAA and the private sector. During

the past year this approach has made significant advances towards the implementation

and actual use of this advanced navigation and guidance system. FedEx has been the

leading participant in this effort and has conducted a number of successful trials at its

Memphis base. LAAS should provide the following efficiencies and cost savings:

➣ An increased number of instrument approaches, extending all-weather service to

a greater number of cities and reduce traffic complexity resulting from backcourse approaches and circle-to-land operations.

➣ Lower landing minimum, improving on-time performance by reducing the 

frequency of flight disruptions such as missed approaches, diversions, delays,

and cancellations.

➣ Increased number of approaches with vertical guidance and improving safety by

reducing the risk of controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents.

➣ Increase navigation accuracy and flexibility and improve traffic efficiency by 

facilitating more effective NAS configurations and optimized fuel/time navigation

solutions.

LAAS is intended to complement WAAS; the systems will function together to 

supply users of the NAS with seamless satellite-based navigation for all phases of flight.

LAAS will be used to meet Cat I precision approach requirements at those locations where

the accuracy correction signals from WAAS geostationary satellites may not be fully reliable (e.g., in mountainous areas). LAAS will also be used to meet the more stringent

Category II/III requirements at selected locations throughout the U.S. LAAS will yield the

extremely high accuracy, availability, and integrity necessary for Cat II/III precision

approaches, at one meter or less.

7.3 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System

The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) is a joint FAA and

Department of Defense program to replace Automated Radar Terminal Systems (ARTS)

and other capacity-constrained, older technology systems at 74 FAA and up to 199

Department of Defense terminal radar approach control facilities and associated towers.

Controllers will use STARS to provide air traffic control services to aircraft in terminal

areas. Typical terminal area air traffic control services include: the separation and sequencing of air traffic, the provision of traffic alerts and weather advisories, and radar vectoring

for departing and arriving traffic. The system will reduce the life-cycle cost of ownership,

accommodate air traffic growth, and provide for the introduction of new automation 

functions that improve the safety and efficiency of the NAS. One of the key features of

STARS is that FAA will be able to upgrade the software to provide new air traffic control tools.

The STARS program has been significantly revised since its first definition in 1996. It

was originally designed to use off-the-shelf technology, with little specialized software
development. However, in consultation with the air traffic controllers and the airways 

facilities maintenance technicians, who raised a number of concerns about the computerhuman interface, the FAA concluded that it needed to develop a more customized system

and to implement it incrementally. In March 2002, the FAA reduced the number of facilities

that will be receiving STARS from 188 to 74 and changed the date to complete installation

at all of those facilities from 2005 to 2008. The date for deploying the full STARS to the

first location is still 2002. Limited versions of STARS are already installed in El Paso, TX;

Syracuse, NY; Memphis, TN; Hartford, CT; Birmingham, AL; Albuquerque, NM; Detroit, MI;

Albany, NY; and Providence, RI.

The first full STARS deployment took place at the Philadelphia terminal control facility

on November 17, 2002. The FAA will use STARS to control live traffic, which is considered

initial operating capability, but will retain the existing air traffic control system as a backup

until the new system is formally commissioned.

7.4 HOST Software Rewrite

In 1999, the hardware for the air traffic control system was successfully replaced. The

HOST and Oceanic Computer Replacement program replaced the interim computers that

had served the ATC system from the mid-1980s to the present. However, the basic en

route center automation system, which receives, processes, coordinates, distributes, and

tracks information on aircraft movements throughout the nation’s airspace, is based 

upon the original, often modified, software. Those programs were written in a computer

language, JOVIAL, that is not widely used now and therefore are difficult to upgrade to

accommodate new requirements.

The FAA is developing the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program to

replace the current NAS software and to add the capabilities required to support NAS

modernization. ERAM will provide an open standards-based system that will incorporate

commercial off-the-shelf and non-developmental items as much as possible. ERAM will

make it easier to integrate new capabilities into the system, reduce the training needed to

maintain the system, and offer enhanced simulations. The FAA has selected a team to

begin the ERAM program and the final specification is under development.

7.5 Free Flight Phase 1

Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) Core Capabilities Limited Deployment initiative was designed to

deliver early benefits of free flight to NAS users while mitigating the risks of implementing

new technologies. The FFP1 program has been successfully implemented at all of its 

initially planned sites and has been extended to others. In addition, the new technologies

are bringing real and measurable improvements, as summarized below.

User Request Evaluation Tool

User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) is operational at six centers: Kansas, California,

Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Chicago, and Washington (Leesburg). Both facilities are

providing increased direct routings to users, resulting in savings in aircraft direct operating

costs of $1.5 million per month. Also, the Indianapolis Center has eliminated more than 22

altitude restrictions, saving users nearly $1 million per year in fuel costs. URET is being

deployed at five additional centers.

CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

68 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

69 2002

ACE PLAN

Traffic Management Advisor

The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) is fully operational at three centers, providing

metered traffic flows to the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, and Minneapolis airports. In addition

to more fuel-efficient flows, TMA has increased peak capacity at these airports by 2-to-5

percent. Additional TMA systems are deployed at centers feeding traffic to Atlanta, Los

Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami airports, where the controllers use TMA to provide

increased situational awareness, leading to more efficient traffic flows.

Surface Movement Advisor

The Surface Movement Advisor (SMA) was the first Free Flight Phase 1 program to 

be completed. Feedback from the airlines has been very positive; Northwest Airlines has

estimated that it has been able to avoid three-to-five costly diversions weekly, especially

during periods of inclement weather. Four additional airlines are currently using SMA data

to improve operations.

Collaborative Decision Making

Both a philosophy of traffic management and an array of computer tools that facilitate a

real-time collaboration between the FAA, and the airlines, Collaborative Decision Making

(CDM) provides FAA traffic flow managers and airline dispatchers with the same real-time

information. It links the FAA with the dispatch systems of the airlines and provides the 

airlines with access to NAS data, including weather, equipment, and delays. CDM allows

the FAA to manage the air traffic system more efficiently and the airlines to employ their 

aircraft more effectively.

7.6 Free Flight Phase 2

Free Flight Phase 2 (FFP2) builds on the successes of Free Flight Phase 1 to improve 

safety and efficiency within the NAS. FFP2 includes the east-to-west expansion of Phase 1

elements, including URET and TMA, to additional FAA facilities. FFP2 will provide 

incremental enhancements to URET and TMA during the period 2003-2005. FFP2 will

deploy a number of additional capabilities.

One of the Phase 2 initiatives, Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC),

achieved initial daily use on October 7, 2002, in Miami Center airspace. CPDLC provides

a method of communication between the air traffic control facility and the aircraft cockpit

through the digital transmission of messages, eliminating a great deal of voice traffic, 

thereby reducing congestion on radio frequencies.

Additionally in Phase 2, the FAA (and its collaborators) will conduct selected research

activities to extend certain FFP1 capabilities and to develop others. Research activities in

FFP2 include the Multi-center Traffic Management Advisor, the Surface Management

System, and two controller routing and conflict resolution aids, the Direct-To-Tool, and the

Problem Analysis, Resolution and Ranking (PARR) function.

7.7 Ohio River Valley Project

The Ohio River Valley (ORV) project is a government/industry initiative to demonstrate and

validate the capabilities of advanced communications, navigation, surveillance, and air 

traffic control procedures to increase the capacity and efficiency of the NAS. This initiative
is another step in the evolutionary process of bringing emerging technologies into the NAS.

The Ohio River Valley project addresses issues connected with fielding advanced systems

such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), Controlled Flight Into

Terrain (CFIT) avoidance, and the Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B). The Ohio

River Valley project evaluates the following issues:

➣ Addresses pilot and controller human factors issues.

➣ Develops and assesses new operational procedures and the associated training.

➣ Streamlines certification processes and procedures.

➣ Develops a cost-effective avionics and NAS infrastructure.

➣ Defines a realistic NAS transition path that is supported by the user community

The Ohio River Valley project is testing ADS-B avionics on commercial cargo aircraft

in the Ohio River Valley. These tests are taking place in terminal areas with significant cargo

operations, including Memphis, Tennessee; Wilmington, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; 

Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and Nashville, Tennessee. The Ohio River Valley Project is

co-sponsored by the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) and the FAA. The CAA has purchased, equipped, and is maintaining the avionics for the test aircraft. The CAA members

are conducting revenue flights with these aircraft to evaluate the systems’ performance in

normal operations.

The FAA has purchased, installed, and is maintaining ground systems at the five

sites. A ground broadcast server has been installed at the Wilmington site that receives

data from the other sites and depicts ADS-B targets fused with radar targets. As the 

project proceeds, fused ADS-B and radar target data will be made available to suitablyequipped aircraft to enable the pilots to see both targets on a cockpit display, along with

selected broadcast information such as weather maps, special use airspace status, and

wind shear alerts.

As part of the ORV project, the project has established or modified operational 

concepts and procedures, including departure spacing, runway and final approach occupancy awareness, and airport surface operational awareness. These initiatives are for

demonstration purposes only at this time. In addition, the project installed a special

Common ARTS automation system at the Louisville TRACON for evaluation by controllers

in their work with airborne ADS-B applications and has installed a multilateration ADS-B

surface surveillance system at Memphis in order to conduct an evaluation of surface 

management. That evaluation was completed in 2001.

As the ORV project continues, the FAA and the industry will share the funding of avionics and ground systems to build on ongoing industry initiatives. These include resolving

ADS-B technology issues; continuing extensive data collection activities during operational

evaluations; exploring the use of TIS-B and FIS-B data link messages to receive traffic and

weather information in the cockpit; and developing an integrated cockpit display of terrain,

traffic, and weather conditions. Throughout the project, the FAA will take special care to

ensure that controllers and both commercial and general aviation pilots are included in the

evaluation of operational enhancements and data link alternatives.

CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

70 2002

ACE PLAN
CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

71 2002

ACE PLAN

7.8 Alaska Capstone Program

The Capstone Program was established by the FAA as part of its Safer Skies initiative, in

response to a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety study, Aviation Safety in

Alaska, to address Alaska’s high accident rate for small aircraft, which is five times the

national average. A recent FAA-sponsored study estimated that 38 percent of commercial

operator accidents in Alaska could be avoided if information on position relative to terrain

and real-time weather information were available to pilots in the cockpit. The principal

objective of the Capstone Program is to improve pilots’ situational awareness of the flight

environment and to thereby avoid mid-air collisions and controlled flight into terrain.

Although the FAA plans to initially demonstrate the benefits of these technologies in Alaska,

it will eventually consider extending those technologies to the entire NAS.

Capstone is a joint government/industry initiative designed to prototype, demonstrate, validate, and implement the capabilities of advanced surveillance systems and air

traffic procedures, using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), Flight

Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B), and Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B)

as enabling technologies.

The Capstone initiative is a visible program providing tangible benefits. Capstone is

building an infrastructure that is consistent with NAS modernization plans and it is identifying the transition path for procedure development and technology implementation while

providing near-term safety benefits. Capstone’s first priority is to improve aviation system

safety in Alaska through the introduction of new communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies.

The FAA has equipped 120 commercial aircraft in a non-radar environment in the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of southwest Alaska with the Capstone avionics suite. It

includes a cockpit multifunction display, a GPS navigation/communications unit, a

Universal Access Transceiver data link unit, and a GPS-based terrain database of Alaska.

The suite enables each participating aircraft to broadcast its identification, position, and

altitude, climb rate, and direction and to receive similar signals from other aircraft.

The FAA has begun the installation of a network of data-link ground stations that will

transmit radar targets of non-participating aircraft to the Capstone aircraft. In addition, the

ground stations will transmit flight information services, including weather reports and forecasts, maps, status of special use airspace, pilot reports, and notices to airmen. The FAA

is also publishing non-precision approaches and installing automated weather observation

systems at 10 village airports in the Delta region.

The initial improvements of Capstone are directed towards pilots conducting Visual

Flight Rule (VFR) operations. In the future, the FAA plans to certify systems and equipment

and develop enhanced operational procedures for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations.

When this is accomplished, ADS-B can be used for air traffic control functions just as

radar is now used. Specific accomplishments of the Capstone Program in Alaska include

the following:

➣ Initiated the use of ADS-B at the Anchorage center with a single ground-based

receiver to provide radar-like services in the Bethel, AK area.

➣ Installed eight operational ground-based receivers in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta

region of southwestern Alaska.
➣ Installed and commissioned nine Automated Weather Observation Systems with

weather cameras.

➣ Published 19 first-time GPS approaches for 10 Alaskan airports.

➣ Trained over 100 pilots and associated personnel on Capstone avionics.

➣ Demonstrated the incorporation of WAAS technology with Capstone avionics in

southeast Alaska.

Additional developments in Capstone are planned to continue through the rest of

2002 and during 2003. These include the installation of Capstone avionics in additional

participating aircraft in southeast Alaska, the installation of ADS-B ground-based transceivers in Bethel and southeast Alaska, and evaluations of these and earlier actions.

7.9 Summary

NAS modernization continues on the successful path that has been established in the past

several years. The current decline in aircraft operations gives the FAA and the aviation community a rare opportunity to accomplish many of these activities without the press of heavy

congestion. Although the financial difficulties of the aviation industry may delay the equipage

of some aircraft with the avionics required to take advantage of many of the FAA’s NAS

modernization activities, in the longer term these are likely to be accomplished, in part

because many of these new technologies offer substantial near-term benefits and because

they are important steps in the continuing evolution of the system to one of Free Flight.

CHAPTER 7

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

MODERNIZATION

72 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
Fundamentals of the National Airspace System

The National Airspace System is an interconnected system of airports, airways, air traffic

facilities and navigational aids. These elements of the NAS are operated and supported by

airport employees, air traffic controllers, technicians, airspace specialists, and others.

Airports, air traffic facilities and equipment, and navigational aids are static physical

components of the NAS. Over longer periods, airports may be expanded as new runways,

taxiways, and terminal buildings are built; new air traffic facilities may be built and air traffic

equipment and navigational aids modernized. In contrast, the condition of the airways

changes continuously, as they are affected by changing weather, winds, and traffic. This

chapter describes both the static and dynamic elements of the NAS.

A.1 Airports in the United States

Although there are more than 19,000 airports in the United States, the FAA considers only

3,364 existing airports to be significant to the capacity of the NAS. These airports 

are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) and are thereby 

eligible to receive Federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program. Within the

NPIAS, airports are divided into two major categories: commercial service airports and

general aviation airports.

A.1.1 Commercial Service Airports

Commercial service airports are public airports receiving scheduled passenger service and

having 2,500 or more passenger enplanements. Of the 535 commercial service airports,

the 401 airports that have more than 10,000 annual enplanements are classified as 

primary airports. Those commercial service airports enplaning from 2,500 to 10,000 

passengers annually are classified as “other” commercial service airports.

Within the primary airport classification, the term hub is used to identify very busy commercial service airports. This use is different from that of the airline industry, where a hub is

an airport where passengers connect with other flights coming from the spokes of the system. The NPIAS term does not differentiate between airports with mostly connecting traffic

and those with mostly origin-destination traffic. The primary airports are divided into largehub, medium-hub, small-hub, and non-hub airports, based on their annual enplanements.

Large-hub airports are those that account for at least one percent of total U.S. passenger

enplanements. Medium hubs are airports that account for between 0.25 percent and one

percent of total passenger enplanements and small hubs from 0.05 percent to 0.25 percent

of total passenger enplanements. Commercial service airports that enplane less than 0.05

percent of total passenger enplanements but more than 10,000 annually are classified as

non-hub primary airports.

The number of large-hub, medium-hub and small-hub airports varies from year-toyear because the classification is based on a percentage of total passenger enplanements

rather than on a fixed number. For example, from 2000 to 2001, while the number of large

hubs stayed the same at 31, the number of medium hubs increased from 35 to 36, and

the number of small hubs decreased from 71 to 68.

Traffic in the United States is concentrated at the largest airports. The 31 large-hub

airports handled 69.2 percent of passenger enplanements in 2001, the 36 medium-hub

airports handled 19.8 percent, and the small hubs another 7.6 percent. Collectively, the

APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

74 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

75 2002

ACE PLAN

135 hub airports had 96.6 percent of total passenger enplanements. The remaining 266

primary airports had only 3.3 percent of enplanements, while the 134 non-primary commercial service airports had only 0.1 percent of enplanements.

A.1.2 General Aviation Airports

The FAA classifies airports that have fewer than 2,500 annual enplanements or do not

receive any scheduled commercial service as general aviation airports. They are included

in the NPIAS if they account for enough activity (generally defined as having at least 

10 based aircraft) and are at least 20 miles from the nearest other NPIAS airport.

The 2,829 NPIAS general aviation airports are divided into reliever and general 

aviation airports. Relievers are high capacity general aviation airports in major metropolitan

areas that provide general aviation pilots and aircraft with attractive alternatives to 

using congested commercial service airports. There were 260 relievers in 2001, including

important airports such as Merrill Field in Anchorage, Alaska; Teterboro Airport in 

New Jersey near New York City; and Van Nuys in California. The remaining 2,569 general

aviation airports typically serve rural areas, and have very little, if any, commercial service.

Although relievers and other general aviation airports have little commercial service,

they do have a small number of passenger enplanements, primarily provided by air taxi

operators. In 2001, there were 1,999 general aviation airports that had some enplanements, but which together totaled only 0.1 percent of passenger enplanements.

A.2 Airspace in the United States

Airspace in the United States is managed by the FAA to provide for its orderly and safe use.

The NAS includes all airspace over the United States from 60,000 feet down to, but not

including, the ground. Over the years, the FAA has promulgated numerous regulations that

divide the airspace into different classifications and provide complex rules for operating 

within each classification.

A.2.1 Classes of Airspace

The national airspace is divided into two broad categories, controlled (Classes A through

E airspace) and uncontrolled (Class G airspace). Within these two categories, there are a

number of classifications that determine the flight rules, pilot qualifications, and aircraft

capabilities required to operate within any section of the airspace. The specific classification of any area is broadly based on the complexity and density of aircraft movements, the

nature of operations conducted within the airspace, the level of safety required, and the

national and public interest. The six classes of U.S. airspace are described below.

Class A Airspace

All airspace from 18,000 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 60,000 MSL, including the airspace

overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the contiguous 48 states and

Alaska. All operations within Class A airspace must be under Instrument Flight Rules and

are under the direct control of FAA controllers. Class A airspace always starts at 18,000

MSL and it is not specifically charted.
Class B Airspace

Airspace surrounding the nation’s busiest commercial service airports. At its core it

extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL. Class B airspace is charted on sectional

charts, IFR en route (low altitude) charts, and terminal area charts.

Class C Airspace

Airspace surrounding airports of mid-sized cities with a large number of commercial 

flight operations; it extends from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) to 4,000 AGL. An

operating control tower at the primary airport and radar services are key components of

Class C airspace.

Class D Airspace

This airspace is applied to airports with operating control towers where the traffic volume

does not meet Class C or Class B standards. This area encompasses 700 AGL to 

2,500 AGL.

Class E Airspace

This airspace class includes all airspace from 14,500 MSL up to, but not including 18,000

feet MSL. Class E airspace also includes all other controlled airspace necessary for IFR

operations at lower altitudes but not already classified as A, B, C, or D. This includes 

features such as low level airways (victor airways) and IFR transition areas.

Class G Airspace

Class G airspace is uncontrolled airspace and includes all airspace not otherwise designated as A, B, C, D, or E. Operations within Class G airspace are governed by the principle of

“see and avoid.”

A.2.2 En Route and Terminal Airways and Jet Routes

En route airspace in the United States consists of routing corridors used by both IFR and

VFR traffic. Traffic is concentrated along these routes. Low altitude airways, termed victor

airways, are the primary routes used by both IFR and VFR traffic. They are eight nautical

miles wide and generally go from 1,200 feet above ground level up to, but not including,

18,000 MSL. The airway floor may be higher in areas of the western U.S. where terrain

interferes more with the navigational facilities upon which the airways are based. They are

depicted on aeronautical charts as blue shaded lines with a “V” (hence the term victor), 

followed by a number, such as V500, and are found on the sectionals, IFR en route low

altitude charts, and terminal area charts.

Jet routes serve the same function as the low altitude airways except that they are

found at 18,000 MSL and above (up to 45,000 MSL). Traffic on the jet routes is always

IFR and is managed by air traffic control. Jet routes are shown on high altitude charts as

a gray line and are designated by the letter “J,” followed by a number, such as “J547.”

A.2.3 Special Use Airspace

Special use airspace (SUA) is designed to segregate flight activity related to military and

national security needs from other airspace users. Although most SUA involves military

APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

76 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

77 2002

ACE PLAN

activity, other areas involve civilian users such as the Department of Energy or the U.S.

Secret Service.

Special Use Airspace is established by the FAA, usually at the request of the affected

civilian agency or military branch. There are six different kinds of special use airspace:

Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas, Military Operations Areas, Alert Areas, Warning Areas,

and Controlled Firing Areas.

Prohibited Areas

Prohibited areas are established over sensitive ground facilities such as the White House,

presidential homes, and Camp David. All aircraft are prohibited from flight operations 

within a prohibited area unless specific prior approval is obtained from the FAA or the 

controlling agency.

Restricted Areas

Restricted areas are established in areas where ongoing or intermittent activities occur that

create unusual hazards to aircraft, such as artillery firing, aerial firing, and missile testing.

Restricted areas differ from prohibited areas in that most of them have specific hours 

of operation. Entry during those hours requires specific permission from the FAA or the

controlling agency.

Military Operations Areas

Military Operations Areas (MOA) are established to contain certain military activities, such

as air combat maneuvers, intercepts, and acrobatics. Civilian flights are allowed within an

MOA even when the area is in use by the military. Air traffic control will provide separation

services to IFR traffic.

Alert Areas

Alert Areas contain a high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity, such

as helicopter activity near oil rigs, which could present a hazard to other aircraft. There are

no special requirements for operations within alert areas other than heightened vigilance.

Warning Areas

Warning areas contain the same kind of hazardous flight activity as restricted areas (artillery

firing, aerial gunnery, etc.), but are located over domestic and international waters. Warning

areas generally begin three miles offshore.

Controlled Firings Areas

Controlled firing areas contain civilian and military activities that could be hazardous to 

non-participating aircraft, such as rocket testing, ordinance disposal, and blasting. They are

different from prohibited and restricted areas in that radar or a ground lookout is used to

indicate when an aircraft is approaching the area, at which time all activities are suspended.
A.3 Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

Air traffic control specialists ensure that air traffic moves safely and efficiently through the NAS.

That traffic includes not only commercial flights, but also military and general aviation flights.

Air traffic control is provided by three general classes of controllers, each resident in

different types of facilities and responsible for a different phase of flight. First, ground and

local controllers at Air Traffic Control Towers at airports handle aircraft from the gate to the

taxiway and runway, through the take-off, and at the other end of the flight, from landing

back to the gate. Second, radar controllers at the Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities 

handle aircraft from take-off to a cruising altitude at the origin (departure control) and return

them through their approach at the destination (approach control). Third, en route controllers

working at Air Route Traffic Control Centers manage the flow of traffic along the airways

between the terminal areas.

The overall flow of aircraft across the entire United States is managed by the 

Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon, Virginia. In addition, flight service

stations provide important pre-flight and in-flight services to general aviation pilots. The

functions of each of these air traffic control facilities are described briefly below.

A.3.1 Air Traffic Control Towers

Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) at more than 400 airports control the effective movement

of traffic both on the ground and in the air within approximately five nautical miles of the

airport and up to an altitude of 3,000 feet. Air traffic controllers rely on a combination of

technology and visual surveillance to direct aircraft departures and approaches, maintain

safe distances between aircraft, and communicate weather-related information, 

clearances, and other instructions to pilots.

A.3.2 Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities

Over 185 Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities sequence and separate

aircraft as they approach and depart major metropolitan areas. TRACONs typically control

air traffic within a 30-mile radius and less than 15,000 feet altitude, exclusive of ATCT airspace. The FAA classifies TRACONS by the number of aircraft activities that they provide.

An aircraft activity is any contact between a controller and an aircraft, so the number is

substantially greater than the number of aircraft operations, which includes just, take offs

and landings. Activities also include other measures.

The traffic within terminal airspace consists mostly of takeoffs and landings to and

from the airports in its area, but also includes air traffic that is overflying the area. Terminal

airspace is divided into sectors that can be modified, based on the runway configurations

in use by the airports within that TRACON’s airspace.

A.3.3 Air Route Traffic Control Centers

Twenty-one Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) control and monitor aircraft in transit over the United States and during approaches to some airports. Each en route center

handles a different region of airspace, passing control from one to another as respective

borders are reached until the aircraft reaches TRACON airspace or leaves U.S. airspace.

APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

78 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

79 2002

ACE PLAN

Three centers—Oakland, New York and Anchorage—also control aircraft over the

ocean. Outside radar range, which extends only 175 to 225 miles offshore, controllers must

rely on periodic radio communication of position reports to determine an aircraft’s location.

The centers are designated by a three-letter code that begins with Z; for example,

the Cleveland center is designated ZOB. The size of the airspace managed by a center

varies substantially, but typically consists of tens of thousands of square miles extending

over several states.

A.3.4 Air Traffic Control System Command Center

The Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) in Herndon, Virginia monitors

traffic flows across the United States and communicates with other air traffic facilities and

airline operating centers to minimize congestion and delays due to adverse weather, equipment outages, closed runways, and other capacity-related circumstances. The Command

Center is one of the key parts of the FAA’s evolving plan for management of an everincreasing amount of air traffic.

A.3.5 Flight Service Stations

The air traffic control specialists at flight service stations provide pre-flight and in-flight

services to pilots, primarily those in general aviation. The specific services provided include

flight plan filing; pre-flight and en route weather briefings that include the status of navigational aids; airport condition reports; search and rescue operations; assistance to lost or

disoriented aircraft pilots; provision of instrumental flight rule and special visual flight rule

clearances, soliciting pilot reports on flying conditions, and providing special services such

as customs and immigration.

Pilots can receive these services by visiting a flight service station, by telephone, or

through air-to-ground communications. The flight service stations also provide a weather

briefing and flight plan processing service through the Direct User Access Terminal Service

(DUATS), which can be accessed via toll-free telephone service.

A.4 Navigational Aids

An extensive network of facilities, generally known as navigational aids, or navaids, 

supports aircraft movement in the NAS. Pilots use en route navaids to guide aircraft from

the vicinity of one airport to another. A typical en route navaid is the very high frequency

omnidirectional range (VOR), which provides magnetic bearing information so that a pilot

can determine the aircraft’s position relative to the transmitter or its absolute position

through triangulation with another en route navaid.

Other navaids help a pilot descend from cruising altitude to land on an airport 

runway. The instrument landing system (ILS), which consists of a localizer for horizontal

guidance and a glide slope for vertical guidance, provides instrument approach capability

to the runway during low visibility. The localizer is placed beyond the stop end of the runway, aligned with the centerline. The glide slope is located beside the runway, near the

touchdown point. An ILS may be certified as Category (CAT) I, II, or III, depending on its

equipment configuration and system capabilities.
Lighting systems, such as the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) and runway

end identification lights (REIL), are navaids that provide pilots with visual cues to assist

them in making safe approaches and landings.

The FAA plans to move from this system of ground-based navaids to a satellitebased system called the global positioning system (GPS). The basic GPS system is

already being used by pilots for navigation in oceanic and en route airspace. Differential

GPS will augment, and eventually replace, many of the ground-based navaids discussed

above. The FAA anticipates that the wide area augmentation system (WAAS) will provide

en route, terminal, non-precision approach and selected CAT I precision approach capability throughout the NAS. The GPS local area augmentation system (LAAS) will provide

CAT II and III precision approach and landing capability.

APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

80 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS
The nation’s busiest airports account for almost all passenger enplanements. Appendix B

provides activity statistics for the top 100 of these airports. The rankings are based on 

calendar year 2000 enplanements. Aircraft operations are also provided for these same

100 airports. Please note that these are not generally the 100 airports with the most 

aircraft operations, although there is a fairly high correlation between enplanements and

operations. The airport diagrams in Appendix D are for the same 100 airports, that is,

those with the most calendar year 2000 enplanements.

Each year the airports that constitute the busiest 100 change slightly, as traffic at

some airports grows more rapidly than at others. Often, several airports near the bottom

of the list will be dropped off and replaced by others.

This year, the forecasts for both passenger enplanements and aircraft operations 

for the 40 busiest airports are preliminary. The FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy & Plans is

revising these estimates, but the final forecasts were not available at press time.

Airline traffic has been volatile during the past year, and is still reacting to the 

combination of a business recession and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Since the FAA issued its national level forecasts in March 2002, the underlying economic

assumptions have changed and the anticipated recovery in the economy and the aviation

industry has stalled. Major developments in the airline industry itself have increased the

level of uncertainty for both the short- and long-term. These include the bankruptcy 

of U.S. Airways, the redeployment of flights at American Airlines hubs, and the serious

financial difficulties at other carriers. For these reasons, APO is re-examining its forecasts

at a number of the cities most directly affected by these developments.

Forecasting future aviation activity is always difficult and the further in the future these

projections are made, the greater their uncertainty. However, at this time, the industry is

facing an unprecedented level of volatility and rapid changes in fundamental industry 

patterns, making the accuracy of preliminary figures more uncertain than is usually the

case. Therefore, please use these forecasts with the knowledge that they are preliminary

and may be significantly adjusted, both up and down, and with greater volatility exhibited

at individual airports than in the system as a whole. Revised numbers will be available early

next year on the APO website.

ERRATA

2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

82 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-1 Passenger Enplanements, by Fiscal and Calendar Years (1999, 2000, and 2001)

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 1 37,606,932 39,375,330 38,403,184 38,136,866 39,277,901 37,181,068

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 2 34,418,016 34,153,190 32,861,464 34,050,083 33,845,895 31,529,561

Los Angeles International (LAX) 3 30,436,893 32,332,452 31,501,162 30,830,915 32,167,896 29,365,436

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 4 28,074,665 28,066,194 26,891,403 27,990,212 28,274,512 25,610,562

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 5 16,316,300 18,652,345 18,064,086 16,781,835 18,094,251 17,478,622

Denver International (DEN) 6 18,148,611 18,883,765 18,068,664 18,039,836 18,382,940 17,178,872

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 7 15,630,979 17,530,409 17,215,302 16,055,319 17,425,214 16,633,435

San Francisco International (SFO) 8 19,262,805 18,498,749 17,862,249 19,249,988 19,556,795 16,475,611

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 9 14,996,958 16,564,385 16,576,594 15,267,294 16,358,035 16,173,551

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 10 15,422,494 17,203,373 16,462,360 15,683,399 16,959,014 15,852,433

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 11 16,910,175 17,873,801 16,698,964 16,982,496 17,326,775 15,819,584

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 12 16,794,443 17,144,940 16,521,266 16,927,048 17,212,226 15,497,560

Miami International (MIA) 13 16,561,634 16,716,291 15,740,006 16,531,295 16,489,341 14,941,663

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 14 15,244,975 16,080,974 15,734,725 15,375,183 16,155,437 14,553,815

Orlando International (MCO) 15 13,780,567 15,136,268 14,483,116 14,026,868 14,831,648 13,622,397

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 16 14,831,699 14,552,733 14,139,923 15,075,992 15,288,493 13,264,751

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 17 13,377,182 14,225,451 13,604,468 13,610,469 13,875,942 13,184,630

Boston Logan International (BOS) 18 13,090,336 13,816,195 12,831,269 13,183,145 13,613,507 11,739,553

Philadelphia International (PHL) 19 11,711,796 13,022,732 12,175,642 11,762,140 12,294,051 11,736,129

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 20 10,754,284 11,936,722 11,859,005 10,618,589 11,469,282 11,548,952

New York La Guardia (LGA) 21 11,769,143 12,567,451 12,342,023 11,968,030 12,697,208 11,352,248

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 22 8,316,697 10,617,714 10,302,083 8,681,738 9,675,681 10,098,665

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 23 9,480,757 10,520,627 10,183,267 9,302,650 9,871,995 9,939,223

Honululu International (HNL) 24 10,611,794 10,511,446 10,150,357 10,974,390 11,174,701 9,810,860

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 25 9,472,439 9,297,702 9,285,642 9,453,726 9,522,344 8,951,776

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 26 10,801,642 9,185,962 8,951,201 10,863,290 11,223,966 8,586,907

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 27 8,824,447 8,501,994 8,360,991 9,400,078 9,643,275 8,484,112

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 28 6,858,842 8,541,532 8,147,642 6,932,142 7,817,173 8,015,055

Tampa International (TPA) 29 7,348,044 8,200,264 8,102,506 7,490,117 7,969,797 7,901,725

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 30 7,550,495 7,953,273 7,780,769 7,636,623 7,898,360 7,506,320

Chicago Midway (MDW) 31 5,973,886 7,214,205 7,236,415 6,218,667 7,059,520 7,112,784

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 32 7,277,596 7,959,838 7,374,029 7,166,772 7,517,811 6,267,395

Portland International (PDX) 33 6,673,068 6,553,125 6,438,633 6,749,174 6,754,514 6,168,103

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 34 5,502,165 6,886,249 6,309,826 5,582,359 6,170,384 5,981,440

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 35 5,993,436 6,745,903 5,924,679 6,089,380 6,269,516 5,633,495

Kansas City International (MCI) 36 5,728,867 5,888,791 5,879,219 5,760,037 5,903,296 5,614,347

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 37 4,733,764 5,821,456 5,623,479 4,850,517 5,196,451 5,566,100

Memphis International (MEM) 38 5,069,903 6,234,454 5,876,534 5,211,305 5,684,619 5,560,524

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 39 4,097,431 5,135,074 4,968,382 4,394,220 5,191,077 4,890,606

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 40 4,669,177 4,900,382 4,947,243 4,735,571 4,936,271 4,767,533

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 41 4,677,079 5,178,299 4,943,132 4,760,643 5,135,591 4,706,307

Nashville International (BNA) 42 4,124,254 4,498,272 4,358,463 4,207,731 4,479,909 4,209,465

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 43 4,222,752 4,239,410 4,265,788 4,243,907 4,354,609 4,128,980
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

83 2002

ACE PLAN

Enplanements Table B-1 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Sacramento International (SMF) 44 3,739,973 3,977,530 4,097,754 3,783,566 3,979,043 4,021,102

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 45 3,708,121 3,803,407 3,787,262 3,739,968 3,914,051 3,688,304

Indianapolis International (IND) 46 3,729,011 3,848,584 3,750,829 3,736,811 3,833,975 3,595,425

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 47 3,235,560 3,877,600 3,591,420 3,305,037 3,648,600 3,428,202

Bradley International (BDL) 48 2,990,923 3,630,661 3,571,026 3,148,196 3,651,943 3,416,243

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 49 3,415,726 3,707,856 3,552,296 3,415,478 3,596,052 3,352,083

San Antonio International (SAT) 50 3,384,107 3,552,109 3,434,758 3,403,544 3,528,955 3,313,545

Port Columbus International (CMH) 51 3,309,279 3,499,475 3,402,615 3,366,430 3,441,286 3,296,013

Ontario International (ONT) 52 3,081,421 3,386,558 3,259,334 3,125,592 3,197,795 3,168,975

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 53 3,107,273 3,177,486 3,149,546 3,137,931 3,148,780 3,095,899

Palm Beach International (PBI) 54 2,822,271 2,895,252 2,979,195 2,877,039 2,928,658 2,954,015

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 55 2,940,576 3,145,347 2,983,348 2,962,677 3,089,592 2,825,473

Kahului (OGG) 56 2,852,793 2,930,601 2,869,392 2,886,173 2,999,863 2,777,692

T.F. Green (PVD) 57 2,479,686 2,688,902 2,767,789 2,556,183 2,684,204 2,751,762

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 58 2,403,891 2,526,879 2,688,420 2,418,587 2,574,322 2,596,005

Jacksonville International (JAX) 59 2,408,602 2,615,286 2,610,899 2,445,231 2,616,211 2,523,809

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 60 1,981,817 1,977,515 2,035,781 2,536,319 2,503,138 2,419,261

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 61 2,936,412 2,824,584 2,498,416 2,912,801 2,732,837 2,388,923

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 62 2,386,135 2,449,620 2,322,699 2,376,645 2,380,531 2,250,685

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 63 1,775,824 2,517,454 2,325,775 1,827,466 2,140,002 2,204,087

Louisville International (SDF) 64 1,894,067 1,996,612 1,950,543 1,908,829 1,974,269 1,876,499

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 65 1,827,848 1,899,827 1,802,980 1,836,457 1,861,057 1,773,894

Tuscon International (TUS) 66 1,774,759 1,792,763 1,805,592 1,781,091 1,804,086 1,749,560

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 67 1,743,145 1,760,822 1,729,672 1,749,450 1,739,169 1,675,889

Tulsa International (TUL) 68 1,708,934 1,715,020 1,668,810 1,711,539 1,737,672 1,627,293

Manchester (MHT) 69 1,336,586 1,580,791 1,600,848 1,397,024 1,568,860 1,599,062

El Paso International (ELP) 70 1,663,004 1,685,686 1,616,621 1,688,927 1,678,287 1,544,734

Birmingham (BHM) 71 1,500,093 1,555,779 1,559,770 1,525,654 1,538,007 1,505,133

Guam (GUM) 72 1,507,821 1,648,783 1,657,127 1,550,245 1,665,676 1,489,164

Norfolk International (ORF) 73 1,488,519 1,531,236 1,485,273 1,494,396 1,518,552 1,478,687

Albany County (ALB) 74 1,139,963 1,343,034 1,512,482 1,140,518 1,407,092 1,463,632

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 75 1,386,426 1,531,207 1,471,811 1,420,073 1,524,458 1,425,007

Spokane International (GEG) 76 1,494,400 1,560,577 1,468,964 1,516,688 1,534,342 1,423,624

Lihue (LIH) 77 1,306,051 1,385,839 1,335,368 1,345,733 1,413,454 1,342,287

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 78 1,370,143 1,395,692 1,402,775 1,382,198 1,402,168 1,317,519

Kona International (KOA) 79 1,265,532 1,347,671 1,286,032 1,271,744 1,352,606 1,235,893

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 80 1,285,014 1,296,442 1,253,209 1,292,507 1,276,145 1,211,753

Richmond International (RIC) 81 1,314,927 1,309,985 1,285,536 1,318,137 1,330,487 1,187,681

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 82 1,252,184 1,202,157 1,207,456 1,227,154 1,218,403 1,132,597

Dayton International (DAY) 83 1,109,094 1,166,726 1,128,856 1,115,756 1,164,032 1,070,456

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 84 1,247,484 1,209,120 1,110,323 1,223,324 1,205,552 1,050,344

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 85 785,065 1,205,402 1,040,475 942,379 1,120,686 1,009,919

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 86 1,093,587 1,071,752 992,105 1,088,456 1,060,746 936,450
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

84 2002

ACE PLAN

Enplanements Table B-1 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 87 905,280 950,164 943,620 907,773 960,640 906,768

Savannah International (SAV) 88 749,800 866,483 875,158 763,905 879,821 836,791

Des Moines International (DSM) 89 835,494 830,105 823,367 849,603 843,290 789,715

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 90 779,322 826,841 828,260 785,882 843,787 786,326

Hilo International (ITO) 91 722,555 748,066 718,594 735,668 791,398 714,537

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 92 862,187 885,008 75,667 878,737 863,539 705,607

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 93 742,634 792,339 750,723 753,892 788,807 701,606

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 94 619,039 755,577 735,165 630,655 776,729 695,502

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 95 680,480 668,869 693,911 681,272 673,451 675,034

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 96 465,427 454,579 564,162 426,570 508,092 645,944

Jackson International (JAN) 97 659,502 686,124 671,471 670,251 679,103 642,146

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 98 681,163 665,566 665,166 678,852 668,098 625,591

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 99 761,112 750,142 628,465 763,215 743,603 590,391

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 100 630,835 662,378 625,411 645,926 648,648 586,028

Total Top 100 634,428,299 672,687,592 650,097,477 641,914,193 668,401,873 622,738,721
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

85 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-2 Aircraft Operations, by Fiscal and Calendar Years (1999, 2000, and 2001)

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 1 898,855 906,326 927,896 897,290 908,977 911,861

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 2 895,435 922,016 898,899 909,911 913,449 887,403

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 3 867,146 875,673 835,748 867,338 865,777 802,587

Los Angeles International (LAX) 4 771,337 781,418 783,160 779,150 783,684 738,679

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 5 555,793 624,261 627,561 563,843 638,757 606,666

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 6 561,295 561,123 540,966 559,548 554,580 523,039

Denver International (DEN) 7 494,884 520,882 526,204 500,612 528,604 507,826

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 8 505,064 524,261 512,102 510,420 522,253 501,252

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 9 523,424 535,935 513,679 542,922 521,300 498,970

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 10 503,538 489,529 486,503 501,239 484,224 478,947

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 11 460,158 483,806 489,987 463,173 490,568 477,367

Boston Logan International (BOS) 12 505,483 510,113 499,474 502,164 508,283 471,989

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 13 445,485 458,697 471,731 444,629 460,370 471,155

Miami International (MIA) 14 523,277 516,009 489,058 516,507 516,545 469,871

Philadelphia International (PHL) 15 478,397 484,963 475,577 480,279 483,567 467,183

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 16 439,032 449,168 452,696 438,412 448,181 451,180

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 17 463,492 458,677 462,202 463,000 457,182 445,082

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 18 459,098 495,717 430,082 482,787 479,931 424,150

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 19 430,572 444,630 423,903 433,660 445,677 400,670

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 20 372,057 368,713 393,027 363,224 371,784 397,557

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 21 508,454 478,558 403,399 524,205 449,050 395,653

Memphis International (MEM) 22 371,447 381,746 398,451 374,817 386,335 393,925

San Francisco International (SFO) 23 436,659 437,763 407,040 440,032 430,554 387,599

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 24 466,030 485,191 390,306 476,128 477,844 386,388

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 25 448,312 412,048 385,742 471,454 387,864 384,987

New York La Guardia (LGA) 26 367,520 378,018 404,206 368,311 392,047 376,919

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 27 368,982 369,343 363,682 369,431 366,933 370,282

Honululu International (HNL) 28 345,002 343,296 339,987 346,477 345,496 326,994

Orlando International (MCO) 29 363,261 367,367 342,315 363,856 366,278 326,456

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 30 306,819 309,516 328,428 303,287 315,348 323,771

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 31 354,952 358,977 340,459 355,677 358,951 317,746

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 32 308,138 319,235 304,988 310,531 317,763 300,166

Portland International (PDX) 33 322,519 321,114 304,896 322,447 317,477 293,902

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 34 316,587 336,635 305,299 321,420 331,899 291,714

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 35 279,823 287,094 299,773 280,860 292,462 290,124

Chicago Midway (MDW) 36 293,442 301,879 280,527 297,613 298,437 276,520

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 37 284,111 295,649 293,995 291,185 296,434 273,687

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 38 304,364 299,237 363,682 305,480 299,844 272,299

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 39 315,737 344,092 328,340 334,768 342,790 270,145

Tuscon International (TUS) 40 286,362 259,906 258,031 279,406 250,943 261,800

Tampa International (TPA) 41 272,330 277,888 269,948 271,996 278,632 260,859

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 42 258,184 254,900 248,111 259,926 251,391 247,173

Indianapolis International (IND) 43 251,199 259,861 257,295 252,763 259,860 245,439
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

86 2002

ACE PLAN

Operations Table B-2 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 44 243,140 259,106 249,823 248,281 256,787 243,849

Port Columbus International (CMH) 45 228,974 235,538 243,203 223,435 238,011 243,201

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 46 231,266 232,555 238,200 228,933 233,173 241,673

Nashville International (BNA) 47 239,075 249,145 241,280 242,433 248,135 237,139

San Antonio International (SAT) 48 251,038 255,622 234,423 256,148 246,200 236,102

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 49 207,707 229,617 232,430 204,380 238,239 226,591

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 50 185,421 203,863 224,575 186,819 212,635 220,439

Palm Beach International (PBI) 51 196,866 209,241 223,406 198,468 214,327 212,640

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 52 219,104 225,426 214,549 221,866 221,855 211,512

Kansas City International (MCI) 53 220,019 219,388 215,833 219,956 218,194 209,833

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 54 224,095 208,894 213,080 222,356 207,916 206,848

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 55 223,223 230,677 199,364 237,770 220,739 206,221

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 56 214,889 245,931 210,050 224,133 236,903 205,976

Tulsa International (TUL) 57 199,402 204,940 195,669 201,907 198,970 199,533

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 58 161,662 164,068 172,241 164,053 160,083 176,499

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 59 179,336 180,547 173,476 181,958 174,802 176,067

Louisville International (SDF) 60 174,250 180,819 177,642 175,282 181,535 175,852

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 61 194,151 174,782 167,596 192,088 169,537 170,842

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 62 187,303 185,180 173,371 189,957 178,930 168,868

Bradley International (BDL) 63 182,572 176,629 170,322 183,444 169,736 165,029

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 64 180,155 174,892 164,390 179,891 171,010 164,741

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 65 155,059 162,380 172,294 157,648 165,334 161,019

Kahului (OGG) 66 192,479 176,156 165,832 188,387 174,855 160,324

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 67 178,916 162,867 159,832 175,278 160,730 159,705

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 68 168,891 167,016 162,507 166,972 167,502 157,326

Ontario International (ONT) 69 157,481 153,396 157,448 156,607 155,026 154,900

Sacramento International (SMF) 70 154,165 152,205 151,613 155,521 149,969 151,642

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 71 142,354 151,965 147,689 148,384 148,596 149,342

Birmingham (BHM) 72 156,513 154,143 149,996 155,842 153,917 148,869

T.F. Green (PVD) 73 157,597 157,228 148,800 156,366 155,545 148,336

Albany County (ALB) 74 149,782 145,889 148,233 148,946 144,761 148,331

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 75 152,186 141,793 146,047 151,154 140,291 145,751

Richmond International (RIC) 76 128,892 143,341 148,993 127,986 149,918 144,902

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 77 184,933 178,173 147,163 188,216 167,879 143,973

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 78 152,633 151,589 142,119 152,103 149,873 139,663

Jacksonville International (JAX) 79 162,628 149,705 142,561 161,539 148,797 134,572

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 80 132,289 137,526 138,607 133,398 138,641 133,550

Dayton International (DAY) 81 152,004 148,085 135,992 151,116 145,123 131,651

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 82 144,736 134,703 124,429 145,716 125,755 128,555

El Paso International (ELP) 83 144,761 141,768 129,438 145,040 140,618 126,545

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 84 138,383 140,394 127,903 138,332 136,465 126,224

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 85 129,140 140,021 131,638 137,487 136,129 125,499

Norfolk International (ORF) 86 151,120 133,482 120,438 140,920 133,856 119,320
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

87 2002

ACE PLAN

Operations Table B-2 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001

Des Moines International (DSM) 87 136,054 129,896 121,469 134,765 127,668 118,068

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 88 128,964 109,179 111,968 125,026 106,252 112,043

Spokane International (GEG) 89 114,793 119,210 111,739 115,947 117,759 110,314

Savannah International (SAV) 90 108,831 112,449 110,104 110,794 112,614 109,047

Kona International (KOA) 91 82,752 91,306 105,510 82,886 97,974 107,813

Manchester (MHT) 92 118,028 107,545 109,232 113,687 106,086 106,633

Lihue (LIH) 93 115,344 112,198 108,013 218,088 113,842 103,654

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 94 102,030 101,147 97,620 103,857 96,059 98,558

Hilo International (ITO) 95 115,009 116,375 103,169 115,916 115,536 96,238

Jackson International (JAN) 96 111,546 97,610 92,324 108,034 90,753 92,463

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 97 74,174 76,497 77,616 74,502 77,376 75,779

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 98 62,577 68,541 70,092 63,433 70,378 68,201

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 99 70,383 77,775 67,119 73,476 73,646 65,554

Guam (GUM) 100 57,351 60,149 65,467 121,542 63,389 58,405

Total Top 100 28,112,482 28,441,792 27,745,292 28,470,647 28,254,954 26,970,206
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

88 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-3 Passenger Enplanements, 2001 and Forecast 2013

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 1 564,162 1,195,286 111.9%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 2 8,951,201 17,961,187 100.7%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 3 1,471,811 2,871,744 95.1%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 4 5,623,479 10,638,795 89.2%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 5 7,236,415 12,893,737 78.2%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 6 8,147,642 13,894,421 70.5%

Norfolk International (ORF) 7 1,485,273 2,447,477 64.8%

Manchester (MHT) 8 1,600,848 2,596,088 62.2%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 9 1,802,980 2,908,531 61.3%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 10 12,175,642 19,324,306 58.7%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 11 16,462,360 25,916,165 57.4%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 12 756,667 1,190,064 57.3%

Tampa International (TPA) 13 8,102,506 12,701,159 56.8%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 14 8,360,991 13,044,126 56.0%

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 15 943,620 1,455,273 54.2%

Louisville International (SDF) 16 1,950,543 2,965,958 52.1%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 17 1,040,475 1,580,591 51.9%

T.F.Green (PVD) 18 2,767,789 4,188,020 51.3%

Bradley International (BDL) 19 3,571,026 5,357,299 50.0%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 20 2,983,348 4,461,390 49.5%

Ontario International (ONT) 21 3,259,334 4,855,608 49.0%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 22 3,591,420 5,305,919 47.7%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 23 1,110,323 1,639,084 47.6%

Tuscon International (TUS) 24 1,805,592 2,652,746 46.9%

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 25 16,576,594 24,182,179 45.9%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 26 3,149,546 4,593,932 45.9%

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 27 735,165 1,069,106 45.4%

Birmingham (BHM) 28 1,559,770 2,262,292 45.0%

Madison-Dane County Regional (MSN) 29 693,911 1,006,376 45.0%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 30 38,403,184 55,678,527 45.0%

Denver International (DEN) 31 18,068,664 26,145,884 44.7%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 32 16,521,266 23,858,158 44.4%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 33 2,610,899 3,768,456 44.3%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 34 3,402,615 4,885,352 43.6%

Spokane International (GEG) 35 1,468,964 2,106,478 43.4%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 36 18,064,086 25,850,073 43.1%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 37 3,787,262 5,413,443 42.9%

Guam International (GUM) 38 1,657,127 2,364,774 42.7%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 39 26,891,403 38,187,824 42.0%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 40 5,924,679 8,385,550 41.5%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 41 4,968,382 7,027,625 41.4%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 42 2,688,420 3,802,283 41.4%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 43 10,302,083 14,562,279 41.4%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

89 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-3 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 44 16,698,964 23,564,304 41.1%

Savannah International (SAV) 45 875,158 1,234,602 41.1%

Sacramento International (SMF) 46 4,097,754 5,771,109 40.8%

Jackson International (JAN) 47 671,471 938,534 39.8%

San Antonio International (SAT) 48 3,434,758 4,797,806 39.7%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 49 2,035,781 2,836,746 39.3%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 50 1,729,672 2,403,179 38.9%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 51 6,309,826 8,737,417 38.5%

Nashville International (BNA) 52 4,358,463 6,021,541 38.2%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 53 1,402,775 1,935,181 38.0%

Orlando International (MCO) 54 14,483,116 19,871,264 37.2%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 55 17,215,302 23,598,204 37.1%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 56 32,861,464 45,014,919 37.0%

Indianapolis International (IND) 57 3,750,829 5,134,954 36.9%

Miami International (MIA) 58 15,740,006 21,544,409 36.9%

Kansas City International (MCI) 59 5,879,219 7,837,566 33.3%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 60 7,780,769 10,368,370 33.3%

El Paso International (ELP) 61 1,616,621 2,135,657 32.1%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 62 828,260 1,091,466 31.8%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 63 4,947,243 6,517,399 31.7%

Memphis International (MEM) 64 5,876,534 7,739,709 31.7%

Portland International (PDX) 65 6,438,633 8,477,233 31.7%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 66 31,501,162 41,377,848 31.4%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 67 4,943,132 6,491,420 31.3%

Hilo International (ITO) 68 718,594 943,426 31.3%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 69 2,322,699 3,035,859 30.7%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 70 665,166 864,951 30.0%

San Francisco International (SFO) 71 17,862,249 23,161,655 29.7%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 72 9,285,642 12,024,921 29.5%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 73 13,604,468 17,565,442 29.1%

Honolulu International (HNL) 74 10,150,357 13,096,525 29.0%

Kahului (OGG) 75 2,869,392 3,698,644 28.9%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 76 11,859,005 15,279,470 28.8%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 77 12,831,269 16,505,808 28.6%

Richmond International (RIC) 78 1,285,536 1,653,051 28.6%

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 79 2,325,775 2,978,858 28.1%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 80 15,734,725 20,068,352 27.5%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 81 10,183,267 12,965,863 27.3%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 82 1,253,209 1,572,789 25.5%

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 83 750,723 939,815 25.2%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 84 2,979,195 3,710,326 24.5%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 85 2,498,416 3,050,068 22.1%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 86 992,105 1,205,206 21.5%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

90 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-3 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Kona International (KOA) 87 1,286,032 1,562,235 21.5%

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 88 625,411 752,484 20.3%

Albany County (ALB) 89 1,512,482 1,795,193 18.7%

Des Moines International (DSM) 90 823,367 969,059 17.7%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 91 14,139,923 16,530,574 16.9%

New York La Guardia (LGA) 92 12,342,023 14,338,063 16.2%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 93 4,265,788 4,675,308 9.6%

Dayton International (DAY) 94 1,128,856 1,236,358 9.5%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 95 7,374,029 7,997,355 8.5%

Tulsa International (TUL) 96 1,668,810 1,797,802 7.7%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 97 1,207,456 1,298,671 7.6%

Lihue (LIH) 98 1,335,368 1,435,902 7.5%

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 99 628,465 643,625 2.4%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 100 3,552,296 3,538,092 -0.4%

Total Top 100 650,778,477 907,528,152 39.5%

Data Source: APO-130
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

91 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-4 Aircraft Operations, 2001 and Forecast 2013

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 1 390,306 692,569 77.4%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 2 280,527 437,739 56.0%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 3 512,102 773,721 51.1%

San Antonio International (SAT) 4 234,423 349,854 49.2%

Kona International (KOA) 5 105,510 157,284 49.1%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 6 199,364 291,046 46.0%

Denver International (DEN) 7 526,204 761,121 44.6%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 8 898,899 1,244,420 38.4%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 9 540,966 746,500 38.0%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 10 363,682 494,537 36.0%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 11 403,399 544,606 35.0%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 12 304,988 409,252 34.2%

Kahului (OGG) 13 165,832 222,142 34.0%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 14 238,200 318,604 33.8%

Sacramento International (SMF) 15 151,613 200,385 32.2%

Savannah International (SAV) 16 110,104 144,680 31.4%

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 17 167,596 220,186 31.4%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 18 172,241 226,261 31.4%

Memphis International (MEM) 19 398,451 520,699 30.7%

Orlando International (MCO) 20 342,315 446,888 30.5%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 21 835,748 1,088,794 30.3%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 22 462,202 601,967 30.2%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 23 475,577 617,935 29.9%

Louisville International-Standiford Field (SDF) 24 177,643 229,222 29.0%

Ontario International (ONT) 25 157,448 202,922 28.9%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 26 124,429 159,715 28.4%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 27 147,163 188,375 28.0%

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 28 489,987 625,895 27.7%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 29 164,390 207,315 26.1%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 30 214,549 269,047 25.4%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 31 77,616 97,041 25.0%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 32 243,203 303,642 24.9%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 33 224,575 277,105 23.4%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 34 299,773 368,244 22.8%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 35 385,742 472,727 22.6%

Nashville International (BNA) 36 241,280 295,559 22.5%

T.F.Green (PVD) 37 148,800 182,190 22.4%

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 38 67,119 81,844 21.9%

Norfolk International (ORF) 39 120,438 146,206 21.4%

Albany County (ALB) 40 148,233 178,887 20.7%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 41 927,896 1,119,581 20.7%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 42 328,428 395,403 20.4%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 43 627,561 755,376 20.4%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

92 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-4 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 44 452,696 544,641 20.3%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 45 111,968 134,532 20.2%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 46 162,507 194,810 19.9%

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 47 127,903 153,002 19.6%

Bradley International (BDL) 48 170,322 203,473 19.5%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 49 213,080 254,332 19.4%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 50 430,082 512,005 19.0%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 51 138,607 164,632 18.8%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 52 513,679 608,348 18.4%

Kansas City International (MCI) 53 215,833 255,563 18.4%

Tuscon International (TUS) 54 258,031 303,037 17.4%

Honululu International (HNL) 55 339,987 397,410 16.9%

Tulsa International (TUL) 56 195,669 227,692 16.4%

Portland International (PDX) 57 304,896 354,101 16.1%

El Paso International (ELP) 58 129,438 150,215 16.1%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 59 232,430 267,600 15.1%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 60 471,731 542,695 15.0%

Lihue (LIH) 61 108,013 124,223 15.0%

Indianapolis International (IND) 62 257,295 294,847 14.6%

Tampa International (TPA) 63 269,948 309,293 14.6%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 64 210,050 238,604 13.6%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 65 142,561 161,767 13.5%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 66 147,689 166,839 13.0%

Miami International (MIA) 67 489,058 549,703 12.4%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 68 173,476 194,484 12.1%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 69 305,299 342,014 12.0%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 70 159,832 178,852 11.9%

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 71 393,027 438,881 11.7%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 72 293,995 325,043 10.6%

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 73 97,620 107,879 10.5%

Birmingham (BHM) 74 149,996 165,603 10.4%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 75 783,160 864,431 10.4%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 76 340,459 375,143 10.2%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 77 423,903 465,431 9.8%

Spokane International (GEG) 78 111,739 121,877 9.1%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 79 142,119 154,188 8.5%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 80 285,507 307,581 7.7%

San Francisco International (SFO) 81 407,040 435,633 7.0%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 82 486,503 520,661 7.0%

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 83 70,092 74,623 6.5%

Richmond International (RIC) 84 148,993 158,416 6.3%

Jackson International (JAN) 85 92,324 97,778 5.9%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 86 499,474 528,559 5.8%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

93 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-4 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2013 Change from 2001

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 87 131,638 137,626 4.5%

Manchester (MHT) 88 109,232 113,510 3.9%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 89 249,823 258,198 3.4%

New York La Guardia (LGA) 90 404,206 417,530 3.3%

Hilo International (ITO) 91 103,169 106,510 3.2%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 92 173,371 178,518 3.0%

Dayton International (DAY) 93 135,992 137,956 1.4%

Des Moines International (DSM) 94 121,469 122,390 0.8%

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 95 172,294 169,288 -1.7%

Guam (GUM) 96 65,467 64,296 -1.8%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 97 146,047 143,272 -1.9%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 98 223,406 210,509 -5.8%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 99 248,111 232,902 -6.1%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 100 328,340 263,091 -19.9%

Total Top 100 27,667,118 33,593,523 21.4%

Source: APO-130
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

94 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-5 Change in Enplanements from 2000 to 2001

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 1 454,579 564,162 24.1%

Albany County (ALB) 2 1,343,034 1,512,482 12.6%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 3 2,526,879 2,688,420 6.4%

New York La Guardia (LGA) 4 12,567,451 13,242,023 5.4%

Madison-Dane County Regional (MSN) 5 668,869 693,911 3.7%

Sacramento International (SMF) 6 3,977,530 4,097,754 3.0%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 7 1,977,515 2,035,781 2.9%

T.F. Green (PVD) 8 2,688,902 2,767,789 2.9%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 9 2,895,252 2,979,195 2.9%

Manchester (MHT) 10 1,580,791 1,600,848 1.3%

Savannah International (SAV) 11 866,483 875,158 1.0%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 12 4,900,382 4,947,243 1.0%

Tuscon International (TUS) 13 1,792,763 1,805,592 0.7%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 14 4,239,410 4,265,788 0.6%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 15 1,395,692 1,402,775 0.5%

Guam (GUM) 16 1,648,783 1,657,127 0.5%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 17 1,202,157 1,207,456 0.4%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 18 7,214,205 7,236,415 0.3%

Birmingham (BHM) 19 1,555,779 1,559,770 0.3%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 20 826,841 828,260 0.2%

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 21 16,564,385 16,576,594 0.1%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 22 665,566 665,166 -0.1%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 23 9,297,702 9,285,642 -0.1%

Kansas City International (MCI) 24 5,888,791 5,879,219 -0.2%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 25 2,615,286 2,610,899 -0.2%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 26 3,803,407 3,787,262 -0.4%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 27 11,936,722 11,859,005 -0.7%

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 28 950,164 943,620 -0.7%

Des Moines International (DSM) 29 830,105 823,367 -0.8%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 30 3,177,486 3,149,546 -0.9%

Tampa International (TPA) 31 8,200,264 8,102,506 -1.2%

Bradley International (BDL) 32 3,630,661 3,571,026 -1.6%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 33 8,501,994 8,360,991 -1.7%

Portland International (PDX) 34 6,553,125 6,438,633 -1.7%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 35 1,760,822 1,729,672 -1.8%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 36 17,530,409 17,215,302 -1.8%

Richmond International (RIC) 37 1,309,985 1,285,536 -1.9%

Kahului (OGG) 38 2,930,601 2,869,392 -2.1%

Jackson International (JAN) 39 686,124 671,471 -2.1%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 40 16,080,974 15,734,725 -2.2%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 41 7,953,273 7,780,769 -2.2%

Louisville International (SDF) 42 1,996,612 1,950,543 -2.3%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 43 39,375,330 38,403,184 -2.5%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

95 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-5 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Indianapolis International (IND) 44 3,848,584 3,750,829 -2.5%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 45 9,185,962 8,951,201 -2.6%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 46 32,332,452 31,501,162 -2.6%

Tulsa International (TUL) 47 1,715,020 1,668,810 -2.7%

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 48 755,577 735,165 -2.7%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 49 3,499,475 3,402,615 -2.8%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 50 14,552,733 14,139,923 -2.8%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 51 10,617,714 10,302,083 -3.0%

Norfolk International (ORF) 52 1,531,236 1,485,273 -3.0%

Nashville International (BNA) 53 4,498,272 4,358,463 -3.1%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 54 18,652,345 18,064,086 -3.2%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 55 10,520,627 10,183,267 -3.2%

Dayton International (DAY) 56 1,166,726 1,128,856 -3.2%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 57 5,135,074 4,968,382 -3.2%

San Antonio International (SAT) 58 3,552,109 3,434,758 -3.3%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 59 1,296,442 1,253,209 -3.3%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 60 5,821,456 5,623,479 -3.4%

Honolulu International (HNL) 61 10,511,446 10,150,357 -3.4%

San Francisco International (SFO) 62 18,498,749 17,862,249 -3.4%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 63 17,144,940 16,521,266 -3.6%

Lihue (LIH) 64 1,385,839 1,335,368 -3.6%

Ontario International (ONT) 65 3,386,558 3,259,334 -3.8%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 66 34,153,190 32,861,464 -3.8%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 67 1,531,207 1,471,811 -3.9%

Hilo International (ITO) 68 748,066 718,594 -3.9%

El Paso International (ELP) 69 1,685,686 1,616,621 -4.1%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 70 28,066,194 26,891,403 -4.2%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 71 3,707,856 3,552,296 -4.2%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 72 17,203,373 16,462,360 -4.3%

Orlando International (MCO) 73 15,136,268 14,483,116 -4.3%

Denver International (DEN) 74 18,883,765 18,068,664 -4.3%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 75 14,225,451 13,604,468 -4.4%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 76 5,178,299 4,943,132 -4.5%

Kona International (KOA) 77 1,347,671 1,286,032 -4.6%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 78 8,541,532 8,147,642 -4.6%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 79 1,899,827 1,802,980 -5.1%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 80 3,145,347 2,983,348 -5.2%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 81 2,449,620 2,322,699 -5.2%

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 82 792,339 750,723 -5.3%

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 83 662,378 625,411 -5.6%

Memphis International (MEM) 84 6,234,454 5,876,534 -5.7%

Miami International (MIA) 85 16,716,291 15,740,006 -5.8%

Spokane International (GEG) 86 1,560,577 1,468,964 -5.9%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

96 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-5 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Philadelphia International (PHL) 87 13,022,732 12,175,642 -6.5%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 88 17,873,801 16,698,964 -6.6%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 89 13,816,195 12,831,269 -7.1%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 90 7,959,838 7,374,029 -7.4%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 91 3,877,600 3,591,420 -7.4%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 92 1,071,752 992,105 -7.4%

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 93 2,517,454 2,325,775 -7.6%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 94 1,209,120 1,110,323 -8.2%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 95 6,886,249 6,309,826 -8.4%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 96 2,824,584 2,498,416 -11.5%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 97 6,745,903 5,924,679 -12.2%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 98 1,205,402 1,040,475 -13.7%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 99 885,008 756,667 -14.5%

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 100 750,142 628,465 -16.2%

Total Top 100 672,687,592 651,678,477 -3.1%

Data Source: APO
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

97 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-6 Change in Operations from 2000 to 2001

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Kona International (KOA) 1 91,306 105,510 15.6%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 2 203,863 224,575 10.2%

Guam (GUM) 3 60,149 65,467 8.8%

New York La Guardia (LGA) 4 378,018 404,206 6.9%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 5 209,241 223,406 6.8%

Orlando-Sanford (SFB) 6 368,718 393,027 6.6%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 7 309,516 328,428 6.1%

Greater Buffalo International (BUF) 8 162,380 172,294 6.1%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 9 164,068 172,241 5.0%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 10 287,094 299,773 4.4%

Memphis International (MEM) 11 381,746 398,451 4.4%

Richmond International (RIC) 12 143,341 148,993 3.9%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 13 235,538 243,203 3.3%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 14 141,793 146,047 3.0%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 15 458,697 471,731 2.8%

Ontario International (ONT) 16 153,396 157,448 2.6%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 17 109,179 111,968 2.6%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 18 232,555 238,200 2.4%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 19 906,326 927,896 2.4%

Greer Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 20 68,541 70,092 2.3%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 21 208,894 213,080 2.0%

Albany County (ALB) 22 145,889 148,233 1.6%

Manchester (MHT) 23 107,545 109,232 1.6%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 24 76,497 77,616 1.5%

George Bush Intercontinental/Houston (IAH) 25 483,806 489,987 1.3%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 26 229,617 232,430 1.2%

Denver International (DEN) 27 520,882 526,204 1.0%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 28 137,526 138,607 0.8%

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 29 449,168 452,696 0.8%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 30 458,677 462,202 0.8%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 31 624,261 627,561 0.5%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 32 781,418 783,160 0.2%

Sacramento International (SMF) 33 152,205 151,613 -0.4%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 34 295,649 293,995 -0.6%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 35 489,529 486,503 -0.6%

Tuscon International (TUS) 36 259,906 258,031 -0.7%

Honululu International (HNL) 37 343,296 339,987 -1.0%

Indianapolis International (IND) 38 259,861 257,295 -1.0%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 39 369,343 363,682 -1.5%

Kansas City International (MCI) 40 219,388 215,833 -1.6%

Louisville International-Standiford Field (SDF) 41 180,819 177,643 -1.8%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 42 162,867 159,832 -1.9%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 43 484,963 475,577 -1.9%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

98 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-6 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Savannah International (SAV) 44 112,449 110,104 -2.1%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 45 510,113 499,474 -2.1%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 46 524,261 512,102 -2.3%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 47 922,016 898,899 -2.5%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 48 254,900 248,111 -2.7%

Birmingham (BHM) 49 154,143 149,996 -2.7%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 50 167,016 162,507 -2.7%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 51 151,965 147,689 -2.8%

Tampa International (TPA) 52 277,888 269,948 -2.9%

Nashville International (BNA) 53 249,145 241,280 -3.2%

Palm Springs Regional (PSP) 54 101,147 97,620 -3.5%

Bradley International (BDL) 55 176,629 170,322 -3.6%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 56 259,106 249,823 -3.6%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 57 561,123 540,966 -3.6%

Lihue (LIH) 58 112,198 108,013 -3.7%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 59 180,547 173,476 -3.9%

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) 60 174,782 167,596 -4.1%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 61 535,935 513,679 -4.2%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 62 319,235 304,988 -4.5%

Tulsa International (TUL) 63 204,940 195,669 -4.5%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 64 875,673 835,748 -4.6%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 65 344,092 328,340 -4.6%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 66 299,237 285,507 -4.6%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 67 444,630 423,903 -4.7%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 68 149,705 142,561 -4.8%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 69 225,426 214,549 -4.8%

Portland International (PDX) 70 321,114 304,896 -5.1%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 71 358,977 340,459 -5.2%

Miami International (MIA) 72 516,009 489,058 -5.2%

T.F. Green (PVD) 73 157,228 148,800 -5.4%

Jackson International (JAN) 74 97,610 92,324 -5.4%

Kahului (OGG) 75 176,156 165,832 -5.9%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 76 140,021 131,638 -6.0%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 77 174,892 164,390 -6.0%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 78 151,589 142,119 -6.2%

Spokane International (GEG) 79 119,210 111,739 -6.3%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 80 185,180 173,371 -6.4%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 81 412,048 385,742 -6.4%

Des Moines International (DSM) 82 129,896 121,469 -6.5%

Orlando International (MCO) 83 367,367 342,315 -6.8%

San Francisco International (SFO) 84 437,763 407,040 -7.0%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 85 301,879 280,527 -7.1%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 86 134,703 124,429 -7.6%
APPENDIX B

AVIATION STATISTICS

99 2002

ACE PLAN

Table B-6 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 Change from 2000

Dayton International (DAY) 87 148,085 135,992 -8.2%

San Antonio International (SAT) 88 255,622 234,423 -8.3%

El Paso International (ELP) 89 141,768 129,438 -8.7%

Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 90 140,394 127,903 -8.9%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 91 336,635 305,299 -9.3%

Norfolk International (ORF) 92 133,482 120,438 -9.8%

Hilo International (ITO) 93 116,375 103,169 -11.3%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 94 495,717 430,082 -13.2%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 95 230,677 199,364 -13.6%

Myrtle Beach International (MYR) 96 77,775 67,119 -13.7%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 97 245,931 210,050 -14.6%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 98 478,558 403,399 -15.7%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 99 178,173 147,163 -17.4%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 100 485,191 390,306 -19.6%

Total Top 100 28,441,797 27,667,118 -2.7%

Source: APO-130
APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

New RunwayConstruct 3rd Parallel RunwayConstruct 4th Parallel RunwayRelocate RunwayNew TaxiwayRunway ExtensionTaxiway ExtensionAngled Exits/Improved StagingHolding Pads/Improved StagingTerminal Expansion

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

102 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-1 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Airfield

R – Recommendations

C – Completed

N – No Longer in Consideration

Region Airport (ID)

AAL Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 00

ACE Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01 R

Kansas City International (MCI) 90 R N C R R R

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 88 R C R R

AEA Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 91 R C C

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 99 R R C

New York John F Kennedy International (JFK) 02

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 02

Norfolk International (ORF) 94 R R

Philadelphia International (PHL) 91 R N N R R

Richmond International (RIC) 94 R R

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 90 R C C C C R

AGL Chicago Midway (MDW) 91 R C C R

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 91 R N R C C

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 94 N R R R R R R R

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 88 R R R C R

Indianapolis International (IND) 93 R R C R C R C

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 93 R C C R R R

Port Columbus International (CMH) 93 R N R R C R R R

ANE Boston Logan International (BOS) 92 R R N N R C

ANM Portland International (PDX) 96 C R C

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 91 C C C R R

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 91 R C

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) – Update 95

ASO Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 91 R R C R C R

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 95

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 93 R R R R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) – Update 95 R R R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 87 C C C C

Memphis International (MEM) 88 C C R C R

Memphis International (MEM) – Update Study 97 R R R R R

Miami International (MIA) 89 C N C C

Miami International (MIA) – Update Study 97 R R

Nashville International (BNA) 91 R C C R R R
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

New RunwayConstruct 3rd Parallel RunwayConstruct 4th Parallel RunwayRelocate RunwayNew TaxiwayRunway ExtensionTaxiway ExtensionAngled Exits/Improved StagingHolding Pads/Improved StagingTerminal Expansion

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

103 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-1 continued

Region Airport (ID)

ASO Orlando International (MCO) 90 R R C R

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 99

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 00

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 01 R

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 91 R N N R R R

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 91 R R C R C

Tampa International (TPA) 00 R R R R R R R R

ASW Albuquerque International (ABQ) 93 C C C C R R

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 94 C R C

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 93 R R R R R R R R

New Orleans International (MSY) 92 R R R

San Antonio International (SAT) 92 R R R R C

AWP Honolulu International (HNL) 92 R R R R R

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 94 R C C C R

Los Angeles International (LAX) 91 C R C R C R

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 87 R R R

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 89 R R C R C C

San Francisco International (SFO) 87 N N R C R R C

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 87 C C C
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Install/Upgrade ILSInstall/Upgrade RVRsInstall/Upgrade LightingInstall/Upgrade VORUpgrade Terminal Approach RadarInstall ASDEInstall/Upgrade PRMNew ATCWake Vortex Advisory System

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

104 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-2 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Facilities and Equipment Improvements

R – Recommendations

C – Completed

N – No Longer in Consideration

Region Airport (ID)

AAL Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 00

ACE Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01

Kansas City International (MCI) 90 R R C

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 88 R R C R

AEA Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 91 C R

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 99 R

New York John F Kennedy International (JFK) 02 R C R R

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 02 R R R R

Norfolk International (ORF) 94 R R R

Philadelphia International (PHL) 91 R R R

Richmond International (RIC) 94 R R R

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 90 C C

AGL Chicago Midway (MDW) 91

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 91 C R

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 94 R R R

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 88 R R

Indianapolis International (IND) 93 R C R R

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 93 R C R C C

Port Columbus International (CMH) 93 C R R R R

ANE Boston Logan International (BOS) 92 R R

ANM Portland International (PDX) 96 C

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 91 C C C C R

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 91 R R

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) - Update 95

ASO Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 91 R R R R

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 95

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 93 R R C R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) - Update 95 R R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 87 C C C C C R R

Memphis International (MEM) 88 C

Memphis International (MEM) - Update Study 97 R R R

Miami International (MIA) 89 C C C C

Miami International (MIA) - Update Study 97 R R

Nashville International (BNA) 91 C R
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Install/Upgrade ILSInstall/Upgrade RVRsInstall/Upgrade LightingInstall/Upgrade VORUpgrade Terminal Approach RadarInstall ASDEInstall/Upgrade PRMNew ATCWake Vortex Advisory System

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

105 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-2 continued

Region Airport (ID)

ASO Orlando International (MCO) 90 R R R R

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 99

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 00 C

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 01

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 91 R R R R

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 91 R C C R

Tampa International (TPA) 00 R R R R R

ASW Albuquerque International (ABQ) 93 C R

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 94

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 93 R R R C

New Orleans International (MSY) 92 R C

San Antonio International (SAT) 92 C C R R R

AWP Honolulu International (HNL) 92 R

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 94 R

Los Angeles International (LAX) 91 C C

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 87

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 89 C R C

San Francisco International (SFO) 87 C R

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 87
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Airspace Restructure/AnalysisIFR Approach ProceduresDeparture SequencingReduced Separations BTW ArrivalsIntersecting Operations with Wet RunwaysExpand TRACON/Establish TCASegregate TrafficDe-peak Airline SchedulesEnhance Reliever and GA Airport System

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

106 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-3 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Operational Improvements

R – Recommendations

C – Completed

N – No Longer in Consideration

Region Airport (ID)

AAL Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 00 R

ACE Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01

Kansas City International (MCI) 90 R R R

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 88 C C N

AEA Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 91 R

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 99

New York John F Kennedy International (JFK) 02

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 02

Norfolk International (ORF) 94 R

Philadelphia International (PHL) 91 R R R R

Richmond International (RIC) 94 R R

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 90 C C N N

AGL Chicago Midway (MDW) 91 R R

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 91 C

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 94 R R R R R

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 88 R

Indianapolis International (IND) 93 C R R R

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 93 C C R

Port Columbus International (CMH) 93 R R R R R

ANE Boston Logan International (BOS) 92 C R

ANM Portland International (PDX) 96 R R C R

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 91 C C R

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 91 R C N

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) - Update 95

ASO Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 91 R C R

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 95

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 93 R R R R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) - Update 95 R R

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 87 C N

Memphis International (MEM) 88 C N N

Memphis International (MEM) - Update Study 97 C R R

Miami International (MIA) 89 C C

Miami International (MIA) - Update Study 97 R R C

Nashville International (BNA) 91 C R R N R
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Airspace Restructure/AnalysisIFR Approach ProceduresDeparture SequencingReduced Separations BTW ArrivalsIntersecting Operations with Wet RunwaysExpand TRACON/Establish TCASegregate TrafficDe-peak Airline SchedulesEnhance Reliever and GA Airport System

APPENDIX C

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 

UPDATE

107 2002

ACE PLAN

Table C-3 continued

Region Airport (ID)

ASO Orlando International (MCO) 90 C R R R

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 99 C

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 00

Orlando-Sanford International (SFB) 01

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 91 R R R R

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 91 R R

Tampa International (TPA) 00 R R R C

ASW Albuquerque International (ABQ) 93 R R R

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 94 C C C C

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 93 R R R R

New Orleans International (MSY) 92 R C C C

San Antonio International (SAT) 92 R R R R

AWP Honolulu International (HNL) 92 R C

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 94 R R C

Los Angeles International (LAX) 91 R

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 87

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 89 R R R R R C

San Francisco International (SFO) 87 C C R R C

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 87 C
APPENDIX D

RUNWAY PROJECTS 2008 

AND BEYOND
APPENDIX D

RUNWAY PROJECTS 2008 

AND BEYOND

110 2002

ACE PLAN

Table D-1 Runways Planned, Proposed, or Currently Under Construction at the 100 Busiest Airports for 2008 and Beyond

Runway Estimated Planned

Airport (ID) New Extension Identifier Cost ($M) Operational Year In Progress

Indianapolis International (IND) • 5R/23L $80.0 2008

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) • 10R/28L $150.0 2010

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) • 3R/21L $65.0 2010

Hilo International (ITO) • 8/26 $25.0 2010

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) • 18/36 $400.0 2010

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 13/31 $11.2 2010

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) • 6R/24L $80.0 2010

Tulsa International (TUL) • 18/36 $115.0 2010

Jacksonville International (JAX) • 7R/25L $50.0 2011

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17/35 $13.0 2012

Denver Stapleton International (DEN) • 8L/26R $285.0 2013

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17R/35L $8.0 2014

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17L/35R $8.0 2014

Tampa International (TPA) • 17/35 $150.0 TBD

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) • 10R/28L TBD 2015

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) • 7/25 $160.0 2015

Port Columbus International (CMH) • 10S/28S $128.0 2020

Grand Rapids Kent County International (GRR) • 8L/26R TBD 2020

Savannah International (SAV) • 9L/27R $20.0 2020

Washington Dulles International (IAD) • 12R/30L $200.0 TBD

Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) • 14L/32R $10.0 TBD

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) • 5R/23L TBD TBD

San Antonio International (SAT) • 12N/30N $400.0 TBD

Tucson International (TUS) • 11R/29L $40.0 TBD

Charlotte/Douglas International (CLT) • 18R/36L $22.0 TBD

Tampa International (TPA) • 9/27 TBD TBD

Tampa International (TPA) • 18L/36R TBD TBD

Nashville International (BNA) • 2E/20E TBD TBD

Nashville International (BNA) • 2R/20L TBD TBD

Dayton International (DAY) • 6L/24R TBD TBD

Spokane International (GEG) • 3L/21R TBD TBD

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) • 9R/27L TBD TBD

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) • 1R/19L TBD TBD

Kansas City International (MCI) • 1L/19R $12.0 TBD

Orlando International (MCO) • 17R/35L TBD TBD

Memphis International (MEM) • 18R/36L TBD TBD

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) • 14L/32R TBD TBD

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) • 5W/23W TBD TBD

Richmond International (RIC) • 16/34 $45.0 TBD

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) • 12L/30R $54.3 TBD

Sacramento International (SMF) • 16R/34L TBD TBD

Sacramento International (SMF) • 16L/34R TBD TBD

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) • 1L/19R TBD TBD
APPENDIX D

RUNWAY PROJECTS 2008 

AND BEYOND

111 2002

ACE PLAN

Table D-1 continued

Runway Estimated Planned

Airport (ID) New Extension Identifier Cost ($M) Operational Year In Progress

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) • 12R/30L $50.0 TBD

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) • 10L/28R $55.0 TBD

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) • 10R/28L TBD TBD

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5L/23R $7.0 TBD

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5R/23L TBD TBD
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

114 2002

ACE PLAN

ABQ Albuquerque International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

ALB Albany County Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

ANC Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport . . . . . . 117

ATL Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 118

AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 119

BDL Bradley International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

BHM Birmingham Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

BNA Nashville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

BOI Boise Air Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

BOS Boston Logan International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

BUF Greater Buffalo International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

BUR Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 126

BWI Baltimore-Washington International Airport . . . . . . . 127

CHS Charleston International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

CLE Cleveland Hopkins International Airport . . . . . . . . . 129

CLT Charlotte/Douglas International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 130

CMH Port Columbus International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

COS Colorado Springs Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

CVG Greater Cincinnati International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 133

DAL Dallas-Love Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

DAY Dayton International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

DCA Ronald Reagan National Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

DEN Denver International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 138

DSM Des Moines International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport . . . . . . . 140

ELP El Paso International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

EWR Newark Liberty International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport . . . . 143

GEG Spokane International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

GRR Gerald R. Ford International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

GSO Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport . . . . 146

GSP Greenville-Spartanburg International . . . . . . . . . . . 147

GUM Guam International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

HNL Honolulu International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

HOU Houston William P. Hobby Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

IAD Washington Dulles International Airport . . . . . . . . . 151

IAH George Bush International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

IND Indianapolis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

ISP Islip Long Island MacArthur Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

ITO Hilo International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

JAN Jackson International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

JAX Jacksonville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

JFK New York John F. Kennedy International Airport . . . . 158

KOA Kona International Airport at Keahole . . . . . . . . . . . 159

LAS Las Vegas McCarran International Airport . . . . . . . . 160

LAX Los Angeles International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

LGA New York LaGuardia Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

LIH Lihue Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

LIT Little Rock Adams Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

MCI Kansas City International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

MCO Orlando International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

MDW Chicago Midway Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

MEM Memphis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

MHT Manchester Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

MIA Miami International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

MKE Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport . . . . 171

MSN Madison/Dane County Regional Airport . . . . . . . . . 172

MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport . . . . . . . . 173

MSY Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport . . 174

MYR Myrtle Beach International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

OAK Metropolitan Oakland International Airport . . . . . . . . 176

OGG Kahului Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

OKC Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport . . . . . . . . 178

OMA Omaha Eppley Airfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

ONT Ontario International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 181

ORF Norfolk International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

PBI Palm Beach International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

PDX Portland International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

PHL Philadelphia International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport . . . . . . . . 186

PIT Greater Pittsburgh International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 187

PSP Palm Springs Regional Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

PVD T.F. Green Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

PWM Portland International Jetport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

RDU Raleigh-Durham International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 191

RIC Richmond International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

RNO Reno Tahoe International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

ROC Greater Rochester International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 194

RSW Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport . . . . . 195

SAN San Diego International Lindberg Field . . . . . . . . . . 196

SAT San Antonio International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

SAV Savannah International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

SDF Louisville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

SEA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 200

SFB Orlando-Sanford Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

SFO San Francisco International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

SJC Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport . . . 203

SJU San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport . . . 204

SLC Salt Lake City International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

SMF Sacramento International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

SNA John Wayne Airport - Orange County . . . . . . . . . . 207

SRQ Sarasota Bradenton Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

STL Lambert St. Louis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 209

SYR Syracuse Hancock International Airport . . . . . . . . . 210

TPA Tampa International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

TUL Tulsa International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

TUS Tucson International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

TYS Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

115 2002

ACE PLAN

53 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

3.1

260

230

NM

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,137,931 3,148,780 3,095,899 228,933 233,173 241,673

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

3

8

12

35

30

21

17

26

ABQ – Albuquerque International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

116 2002

ACE PLAN

74 Enplanements Operations

1.5

(M) (K)

1.0

150

145

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,140,518 1,407,092 1,463,632 148,946 144,761 148,331

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Control

Tower

Terminal

19

28

1

10

ALB – Albany County Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 10/28 is planned. The estimated cost of construction is $5.8 million and is expected to be completed in 2002. An extension of Runway 1/19 is planned at an estimated cost of $7.5 million. Completion is expected in 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

117 2002

ACE PLAN

60 Enplanements Operations

2.6

(M) (K)

2.3

320

300

AK

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,536,319 2,503,138 2,419,261 310,531 317,763 300,166

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

32

6L

6R

14

24R

24L

ANC – Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport

A new runway, 32L/14R, is being proposed, at a cost of $16 million. No completion date is available at this time.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

118 2002

ACE PLAN

1 Enplanements Operations

40

(M) (K)

35

920

870

GA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

38,136,866 39,277,901 37,181,068 909,911 913,449 887,403

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Main

Terminal

Control Tower A B C D E

9L 27R

9R

8R 26L

8L 26R

27L

9S 27S

ATL – Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

A fifth Runway 10/28, 9,000 ft. long and approximately 4,200 ft. south of Runway 9R/27L, is under design. Land acquisition is ongoing. The

runway will permit triple independent IFR approaches using the PRM. The total estimated cost is $1.2 billion. Construction began in 2000. The

estimated operational date is early 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

119 2002

ACE PLAN

47 Enplanements Operations

3.8

(M) (K)

3.4

240

200

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,305,037 3,648,600 3,428,202 186,819 212,635 220,439

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

17R

17L

35R

35L

AUS – Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

120 2002

ACE PLAN

48 Enplanements Operations

3.8

(M) (K)

3.3

200

170

CT

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,148,196 3,651,943 3,416,243 183,444 169,736 165,029

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

15

24

19

6

1

33

BDL – Bradley International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

121 2002

ACE PLAN

71 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.5

160

145

AL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,525,654 1,538,007 1,505,133 155,842 153,917 148,869

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18 24

36

6

BHM – Birmingham Airport

A 2,000-ft. extension of Runway 5/23 is currently proposed in the Airport’s Master Plan. As proposed, the Runway 23 threshold would be

displaced by 2,000 ft. Therefore, Runway 23’s length available for departures and arrivals would be 12,000 ft. and 10,000 ft., respectively.

Runway 5’s available length for both arrivals and departures would increase to 12,000 ft. The increased length will allow increased aircraft

payloads. An environmental assessment for the runway extension was completed in 1999. The runway extension is planned to be completed

by 2002. The total estimated cost is $17 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

122 2002

ACE PLAN

42 Enplanements Operations

4.6

(M) (K)

4.3

250

235

TN

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,207,731 4,479,909 4,209,465 242,433 248,135 237,139

N 0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000

Terminal

Control

Tower

20R

20L

20E

20C

13

2L

2C

2R

2E

31

BNA – Nashville International Airport

A new Runway 2E/20E is planned for the future between 1,500 and 3,500 ft. from Runway 2R/20L. In addition, an extension to Runway

2R/20L is planned.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

123 2002

ACE PLAN

75 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

180

160

ID

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,420,073 1,524,458 1,425,007 179,891 171,010 164,741

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

28

28L

28R

10R

10L

BOI – Boise Air Terminal

A third parallel Runway 10R/28L is planned for the long-term future. It is planned 5,400 ft. south of existing Runway 10R/28L (to be renamed

10C/28C). A third parallel Runway 9/27 is planned for the long-term future. The eastern 5,000 ft. will be constructed in 2002 for military

short-field landing training. The third runway is planned 5,200 ft. south of existing Runway 10R/28L.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

124 2002

ACE PLAN

18 Enplanements Operations

14

(M) (K)

12

520

480

MA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

13,183,145 13,613,507 11,739,553 502,164 508,283 471,989

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal E

Terminal C

Terminal A

Terminal B

Control

Tower

33R

22L

22R

15L

15R

33L

4L

14 9

2L

32

27

BOS – Boston Logan International Airport

A new uni-directional 5,000 ft. Commuter Runway 14/32, and a new midfield taxiway, 9000 ft. in length, and other improvements are planned.

An Environmental Impact Statement is nearing completion for the airfield project. The estimated cost for construction for the new runway is

$100 million including mitigation. Massport’s current plans reflect completion of the new Runway in 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

125 2002

ACE PLAN

63 Enplanements Operations

2.4

(M) (K)

2.0

180

160

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,827,466 2,140,002 2,204,087 157,648 165,334 161,019

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

23

14

5

32

BUF – Greater Buffalo International Airport

Construction of an extension to Runway 14/32 is planned. Estimated cost of construction is $4.9 million and it is expected to be completed

in 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

126 2002

ACE PLAN

62 Enplanements Operations

2.4

(M) (K)

2.2

180

160

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,376,645 2,380,531 2,250,685 175,278 160,730 159,705

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

15

26

33

8

BUR – Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

127 2002

ACE PLAN

22 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

9

340

310

MD

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

8,681,738 9,675,681 10,098,665 303,287 315,348 323,771

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

28

4

22

33L

33R

15L

15R

10R

28L

BWI – Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Various capacity improvements are currently under consideration by the Washington/Baltimore International Airport (BWI) Capacity Task Force.

The BWI Capacity Enhancement Plan (CEP) is projected for release in 2002. The CEP will detail several viable proposed capacity improvements and runway alternatives, and identify the anticipated date of project(s) construction.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

128 2002

ACE PLAN

90 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.8

140

120

SC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

785,882 843,787 786,326 137,487 136,129 125,499

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

3

33

21

15

CHS – Charleston International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

129 2002

ACE PLAN

35 Enplanements Operations

6.4

(M) (K)

5.8

340

300

OH

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

6,089,380 6,269,516 5,633,495 321,420 331,899 291,714

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

18

28

36

6L

6R

24L

24R

CLE – Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

The current ALP shows construction of a new Runway 6L/24R that will be 9,000 ft. long. Construction of Phase I, 7,000 ft., is under construction and is expected to be operational in December 2002. Phase II, completing construction to 9,000 ft., is awaiting relocation of existing NASA facilities now in progress and is scheduled to be operational in November 2004. The cost of Phase I and II is $129 million. Also

planned is the conversion of existing 6L/24R into a parallel taxiway at a cost of $3 million, scheduled for completion 2005. Future projects

include an extension of existing Runway 6R/24L from 9,000 ft. to 11,250 ft., at an estimated cost of $40 million. The schedule is pending,

based upon available funding.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

130 2002

ACE PLAN

20 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

11

480

440

NC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

10,618,589 11,469,282 11,548,952 444,629 460,370 471,155

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18R

18L

36R

18W

36W

36L

5

23

CLT – Charlotte/Douglas International Airport

A third parallel 9,000-ft. Runway 18W/36W, 3,700 ft. west of Runway 18R/36L, is being planned. It would permit triple dependent IFR

approaches. Land acquisition is ongoing. Construction is expected to start in mid-2002 and be completed by late-2005, at an estimated cost

of $187 million. A 2,000-ft. extension of Runway 18R/36L is also planned. The estimated cost is $22 million, and it is expected to be operational beyond 2006. The extension is primarily for departures.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

131 2002

ACE PLAN

51 Enplanements Operations

3.6

(M) (K)

3.2

260

230

OH

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,366,430 3,441,286 3,296,013 223,435 238,011 243,201

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10R

28L

28R

10L

10S

28S

CMH – Port Columbus International Airport

The Airport Layout Plan illustrates a third parallel Future Runway 10R/28L, constructed 800 ft. south of the existing Runway 10R/28L. (Existing

Runway 10R/28L will become Runway 10C/28C upon completion of construction of the third parallel Future Runway 10R/28L.) The new runway will be 10,125 ft. in length and 150 ft. in width, with two high-speed exits, a 90-degree exit at the center and a 90-degree bypass taxiway at each end. This would provide a 3,600-ft. separation between the proposed Runway 10R/28L and the existing Runway 10L/28R. With

the installation of the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM), the existing Runway 10L/28R and the proposed Runway 10R/28L could be used for

arrival traffic. Runway 10C/28C would be used as the departure runway. The expected operational date is 2020, with project costs estimated

at $128 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

132 2002

ACE PLAN

84 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.1

240

210

CO

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,223,324 1,205,552 1,050,344 237,770 220,739 206,221

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

12

30

35

35R

17L

17R

COS – Colorado Springs Municipal Airport

Runway 17R/35L began reconstruction March 2002 with completion scheduled for November 2002.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

133 2002

ACE PLAN

26 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

9

480

410

KY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

10,863,290 11,223,966 8,586,907 476,128 477,844 386,388

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Control

Tower

9

36

18

27

36L

36R

18L

18R

CVG – Greater Cincinnati International Airport

A new 8,000 ft. third parallel Runway 18R/36L is planned to be located 4,300 ft. west of the existing Runway 18R/36L (to be renamed

17/35). The estimated cost is $233 million. The expected operational date is 2005. The new runway may allow triple independent IFR

approaches. A 1,000 ft. extension to Runway 9 is required for the new runway to become operational. However, a 2,000 ft. extension is

planned and is expected to be completed in 2005 at an estimated cost of $18.2 million. The extension would allow departures of aircraft with

heavier payloads and/or longer haul-lengths. An EIS is currently underway for both projects.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

134 2002

ACE PLAN

49 Enplanements Operations

3.6

(M) (K)

3.4

260

240

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,415,478 3,596,052 3,352,083 248,281 256,787 243,849

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

13L

13R

31L

31R

18

36

DAL – Dallas-Love Field

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

135 2002

ACE PLAN

83 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

1.0

160

140

OH

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,115,756 1,164,032 1,070,456 151,116 145,123 131,651

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control Tower

Beacon

36

18

6L

6R

24L

18R

DAY – Dayton International Airport

Future plan revisions under consideration are: a northerly shift of Runway 18/36 including an extension to Runway 18 end to provide a total

length of 9,500 ft.; an additional extension to Runway 6R end to provide a total length of 11,000 ft.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

136 2002

ACE PLAN

32 Enplanements Operations

8

(M) (K)

6

360

290

VA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

7,166,772 7,517,811 6,267,395 334,768 342,790 270,145

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Terminals

Control

Tower

15

19

22

33

4 1

DCA – Ronald Reagan National Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

137 2002

ACE PLAN

6 Enplanements Operations

19

(M) (K)

17

540

510

CO

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

18,039,836 18,382,940 17,178,872 500,612 528,604 507,826

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

N 3,000

Control

Tower

Terminal

Concourses

A

B

C

8R

7L

17L

17R

26L

16L

34R

25R

35L

35R

34L

16R

DEN – Denver International Airport

Runway 16R/34L is the last of the six original runways to be built at the new airport. It will be separated 2,600 ft. from Runway 16L/34R,

and be 16,000 ft. in length and is designed to accommodate Group VI aircraft. The runway is under construction and is expected to be completed in 2003 at an estimated cost of $150 million. Other airfield construction being completed in FY 2002 includes cross-field Taxiway EA

and a new de-icing Pad J.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

138 2002

ACE PLAN

4 Enplanements Operations

30

(M) (K)

25

880

820

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

27,990,212 28,274,512 25,610,562 867,338 865,777 802,587

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

West

Control

Tower

East

Control

Tower

Terminals

B A

D C

E

Central

Control

Tower

Illustrates new Terminal D,

pedestrian bridge 

between Terminals D and C, 

and new people mover system 

under construction.

13R

31L

36C 36R 35L 35C

35R

31R

17L

13L

17R

18R

18C 18L 17C

36L

DFW – Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

Proposed 2,000-ft. extensions to all of the north/south parallel runways will provide an overall length of 13,400 ft. for each. All extensions

are expected to be completed by 2005. The estimated cost of the extensions is $95 million. A terminal expansion program has recently been

completed that added five new jet departure gates to the south side of Terminal 2W; provided baggage and passenger connections to Terminal

2E; and renovated a portion of Terminal 2W. Construction on the new west runway, Runway 18R/36L, will begin when warranted by aviation

demand. It could be available as early as 2005. The estimated cost is $400 million. It will be located 5,800 ft. west of the existing Runway

18R/36L (to be renamed 18C/36C), and will be used primarily for arrivals. The addition of Runway 18R/36L will allow DFW to accommodate

quadruple simultaneous precision instrument approaches.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

139 2002

ACE PLAN

89 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.8

140

120

IA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

849,603 843,290 789,715 134,765 127,668 118,068

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

N 3,000

Terminal

Control

Tower

23

5

12R

12L

30L 30R

DSM – Des Moines International Airport

Construction began in 1997 for a southwest extension of Runway 5/23, and was completed in 2001. Cost for construction is estimated at

$31 million, with an additional estimated $23 million for road relocation.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

140 2002

ACE PLAN

11 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

16

560

530

MI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

16,982,496 17,326,775 15,819,584 559,548 554,580 523,039

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

22

10

4 3L

9R

15

3R

21C

21L

27R

27L

Terminals

Control

Tower

DTW – Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

A fourth north-south parallel, Runway 4/22 began in 1999 and was completed in 2001. The cost of construction was $116.5 million. This

runway could potentially permit triple IFR arrivals with one dependent and one independent pairing.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

141 2002

ACE PLAN

70 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.6

150

125

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,688,927 1,678,287 1,544,734 145,040 140,618 126,545

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

22

4

8R

8L 26R

26L

ELP – El Paso International Airport

Passenger Facility Charge collection was completed for the 1,000-ft. extension of Runway 22. The estimated cost is $7 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

142 2002

ACE PLAN

12 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

16

480

450

NJ

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

16,927,048 17,212,226 15,497,560 463,000 457,182 445,082

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

4

2

1

3

Control

Tower

11

22R

22L

29

4R

4L

EWR – Newark Liberty International Airport

A 2,800 foot extension to Runway 4L/22R (4L extension of 1,000 feet, 22R extension of 1,800 feet) has recently been completed.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

143 2002

ACE PLAN

28 Enplanements Operations

9

(M) (K)

7

300

280

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

6,932,142 7,817,173 8,015,055 280,860 292,462 290,124

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

N 3,000

North

Terminal

West

Terminal

South

Terminal

Control

Tower

13

9L

31

9R

27R

27L

FLL – Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport

An extension of the short parallel Runway 9R/27L to 9,000 ft. is planned to provide the airport with a second parallel, air carrier runway.

Construction is expected to begin in 2003. The estimated cost of construction is $300 million. The anticipated operational date is 2005. The

extended runway would be used for arrivals and departures and would allow dual dependent IFR arrivals of all types of aircraft.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

144 2002

ACE PLAN

76 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

3.0

240

220

WA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,516,688 1,534,342 1,423,624 115,947 117,759 110,314

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower 3L

7

3R

25

21L

21R

GEG – Spokane International Airport

The long-term future plan is to construct a new parallel Runway 3L/21R, 8,800 ft. long and separated from Runway 3R/21L by 4,400 ft. This

would enable independent parallel operations, doubling hourly IFR arrival capacity.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

145 2002

ACE PLAN

87 Enplanements Operations

1.0

(M) (K)

0.9

140

125

MI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

907,773 960,640 906,768 138,332 136,465 126,224

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

17

8L

8R

35

26R

26L

GRR – Gerald R. Ford International Airport

A new 7,000-ft. parallel Runway 8L/26R is planned for future development. The current 8L/26R would be converted into a taxiway at that

time. There are no immediate plans to construct Runway 8L/26R. This is a long-term proposal in 10-20 years.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

146 2002

ACE PLAN

78 Enplanements Operations

1.5

(M) (K)

1.2

140

130

NC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,382,198 1,402,168 1,317,519 133,398 138,641 133,550

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

5L 14

5R

32

23R

23L

GSO – Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport

Construction of a new 10,000 ft. parallel Runway 5L/23R, 5,300 ft. north of Runway 5/23, is being planned. An EIS was completed in 2001.

It is expected to be operational by 2004. The estimated cost is $96 million. The new runway would allow dual independent arrivals and departures in all weather conditions.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

147 2002

ACE PLAN

93 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.7

80

65

SC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

753,892 788,807 701,606 63,433 70,378 68,201

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

4L

4R

22L

22R

GSP – Greenville-Spartanburg International

A new 8,200-ft. parallel Runway 3R/21L is anticipated in 2010 at an estimated cost of $65 million. Presently, it is planned to have a 4,300-

ft. separation from Runway 3L/21R. This would allow dual independent IFR arrivals, potentially doubling hourly IFR arrival capacity. Also, an

extension of Runway 3L/21R to 11,000 ft. was completed in 1999 at a cost of $57.6 million. The extension allows departures of aircraft with

larger payloads and/or greater haul-lengths.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

148 2002

ACE PLAN

72 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.5

130

80

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

GUAM

1,550,245 1,665,676 1,489,164 121,542 63,389 58,405

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

6R

6L

24R

24L

GUM – Guam International Airport

Extensions to both Runway 6L/24R and Runway 6R/24L are proposed. The 2,000 ft. extension to Runway 6L/24R has a proposed operational date of 2004. The 3,000 ft. extension to Runway 6R/24L has a proposed operational date of 2010. Both runway extensions are expected to cost $30 million each.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

149 2002

ACE PLAN

24 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

10

360

330

HI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

10,974,390 11,174,701 9,810,860 346,477 345,496 326,994

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Control

Tower

Terminal

Hickam Air Force Base

26L

22R

22L

26R

8R

4R

4L

8L

HNL – Honolulu International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

150 2002

ACE PLAN

43 Enplanements Operations

4.4

(M) (K)

4.1

260

240

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,243,907 4,354,609 4,128,980 259,926 251,391 247,173

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

4

35

17

22

12R

12L

30R

30L

HOU – Houston William P. Hobby Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

151 2002

ACE PLAN

27 Enplanements Operations

10

(M) (K)

8

500

450

VA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

9,400,078 9,643,275 8,484,112 482,787 479,931 424,150

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Control

Tower

Main Terminal

A B

D C

Midfield Concourses

1W

1L

1R

12R

12L

30L

30R

19W 19R

19L

IAD – Washington Dulles International Airport

Two new parallel runways are under consideration. A north-south parallel Runway 1W/19W, would be located west of the existing parallels and

north of Runway 12/30. This could provide triple independent parallel approaches, if they are approved. A second parallel Runway 12R/30L

has been proposed for location southwest of Runway 12/30. The cost to build the two runways is estimated at $400 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

152 2002

ACE PLAN

9 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

500

475

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

15,267,294 16,358,035 16,173,551 463,173 490,568 477,367

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals A C

D B

Control

Tower

8R

8L

9L

9R

33R

33L

15R

15L

26L

26R

27R

27L

IAH – George Bush International Airport

An $85 million, 4,000-ft. extension to Runway 15R/33L is planned for the year 2002. A new Runway 8L/26R is planned to be parallel to,

and north of, the existing Runway 8/26. Commissioning is tentatively scheduled for the year 2003. Runway 8L/26R, in conjunction with

Runways 9L/27R and 8R/26L, has the potential to support triple IFR approaches, if approved. Another new runway, 9R/27L, parallel to and

south of Runway 9/27, is also planned in the distant future. Construction is expected to cost $260 million for Runway 8L/26R.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

153 2002

ACE PLAN

46 Enplanements Operations

4

(M) (K)

3

260

240

IN

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,736,811 3,833,975 3,595,425 252,763 259,860 245,439

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

32

14

5L

5R

5R

23R

23L

23L

IND – Indianapolis International Airport

A third parallel Runway 5R/23L, is planned south of existing Runway 5R/23L (to be renamed 5C/23C). Estimated project cost is $80 million,

and the expected operational date is 2008. Taxiway “N” was put into service in October 1999 at a total cost of $7.6 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

154 2002

ACE PLAN

85 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

1.0

240

210

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

942,379 1,120,686 1,009,919 204,380 238,239 226,591

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

24

28

6

10

33R

15R

15L

33L

ISP – Islip Long Island MacArthur Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

155 2002

ACE PLAN

91 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.7

120

100

HI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

735,668 791,398 714,537 115,916 115,536 96,238

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

21

3

8

26

ITO – Hilo International Airport

A 2,200 ft. east extension of Runway 8/26 is proposed for development by between 2011 and 2020.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

156 2002

ACE PLAN

97 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.6

110

95

MS

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

670,251 679,103 642,146 108,034 90,753 92,463

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

16R

16L

34R

34L

JAN – Jackson International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

157 2002

ACE PLAN

59 Enplanements Operations

2.8

(M) (K)

2.4

180

140

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,445,231 2,616,211 2,523,809 161,539 148,797 134,572

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

25

7

13

7R

31

25L

JAX – Jacksonville International Airport

A new parallel Runway 7R/25L is being planned. It will be 6,500 ft. south of the existing Runway 7/25, permitting independent parallel IFR

operations and potentially doubling Jacksonville’s hourly IFR arrival capacity. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2010, with completion

expected in 2011. The estimated cost of construction is $50 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

158 2002

ACE PLAN

14 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

360

330

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

15,375,183 16,155,437 14,553,815 355,677 358,951 317,746

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Control

Tower

4R

4L

13R

13L

22R

22L

31L

31R

JFK – New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

Construction to widen runway 4R/22L from 150 ft. to 200 ft. was completed in early November 2002. Reconstruction plans for Runway

13R/31L will start and be completed in 2005. No estimates of cost are available at this time.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

159 2002

ACE PLAN

79 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.2

120

90

HI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,271,744 1,352,606 1,235,893 82,886 97,974 107,813

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

35

17

KOA – Kona International Airport at Keahole

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

160 2002

ACE PLAN

7 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

16

560

510

NV

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

16,055,319 17,425,214 16,633,435 542,922 521,300 498,970

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

7L

1L

1R 7R

19R

19L

25R

25L

LAS – Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Construction plans are underway to construct 3,000 feet of taxiway north of taxiway B, with connections to taxiways G and D. This project is

estimated to cost $23.3 million. Plans for terminal development include construction of an apron and taxi lane to support a 12-gate expansion of the D concourse. The apron and taxi lane work is estimated to cost $20 million, and construction of the terminal building, estimated

to cost $80 million, may not commence until after December 31, 2002.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

161 2002

ACE PLAN

3 Enplanements Operations

34

(M) (K)

29

800

750

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

30,830,915 32,167,896 29,365,436 779,150 783,684 738,679

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Control

Tower

6R

6L

7L

7R

24R

24L

25R

25L

LAX – Los Angeles International Airport

Taxiway exits and a new parking structure are planned at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

162 2002

ACE PLAN

21 Enplanements Operations

13

(M) (K)

11

400

370

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

11,968,030 12,697,208 11,352,248 368,311 392,047 376,919

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

22

13

4

31

LGA – New York LaGuardia Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

163 2002

ACE PLAN

77 Enplanements Operations

1.5

(M) (K)

1.3

240

140

HI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,345,733 1,413,454 1,342,287 218,088 113,842 103,654

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

35

21

17

3

LIH – Lihue Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

164 2002

ACE PLAN

80 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.2

190

160

AR

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,292,507 1,276,145 1,211,753 181,958 174,802 176,067

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

36

4L 4R

22R

22L

LIT – Little Rock Adams Field

An extension of Runway 4L/22R was completed in late 1998.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

165 2002

ACE PLAN

36 Enplanements Operations

6.0

(M) (K)

5.7

230

210

MO

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

5,760,037 5,903,296 5,614,347 219,956 218,194 209,833

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Control

Tower

1L

1R

9

27

19L

19R

MCI – Kansas City International Airport

In accordance with the Airport Master Plan, an extension of Runway 1L/19R is currently planned for the future. One additional parallel runway

west of the existing north-south runway is being considered after 2020.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

166 2002

ACE PLAN

15 Enplanements Operations

15

(M) (K)

13

380

340

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

14,026,868 14,831,648 13,622,397 363,856 366,278 326,456

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

1 2

3 4

Control

Tower

Control

Tower

36L

36R

17R

17L

35R

35L

18R

18L

MCO – Orlando International Airport

A new 9,000 ft. fourth parallel Runway 17L/35R that will allow simultaneous triple flow instrument approaches will be open for operations in

2003. The cost of the runway is $203 million. It will be located 4,300 ft. east of existing Runway 17R/35L which has a 1,000-ft. extension

planned to prevent aircraft from obstructing the Runway 17R approach. A new Air Traffic Control Tower is under construction and will be one

of the tallest towers in the USA. A new north cross-field taxiway has been completed and is now operational. A fourth airside passenger terminal located in the North Terminal area has been completed and is now open. The first phase of a new South Terminal is now in the design

stage and will open in 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

167 2002

ACE PLAN

31 Enplanements Operations

8

(M) (K)

6

300

280

IL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

6,218,667 7,059,520 7,112,784 297,613 298,437 276,520

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

4L

4R

13R

31L

31R

31C

22R 22L 13L

13C

MDW – Chicago Midway Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

168 2002

ACE PLAN

38 Enplanements Operations

5.8

(M) (K)

5.3

400

480

TN

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

5,211,305 5,684,619 5,560,524 374,817 386,335 393,925

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

9

27

36L 36C

36R

18L 18R

18C

MEM – Memphis International Airport

A reconstruction and extension of Runway 18C/36C was recently completed at an estimated cost of $103 million. The extended runway will

allow departures by aircraft with heavier payloads and/or greater haul-lengths.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

169 2002

ACE PLAN

69 Enplanements Operations

1.7

(M) (K)

1.4

115

106

NH

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,397,024 1,568,860 1,599,062 113,687 106,086 106,633

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

24

17

6

35

Terminal

Control

Tower

MHT – Manchester Airport

Current plans call for the reconstruction and extension of Runway 17/35 that includes a 2,250 extension of Runway 35 to the South. Taxiway

“A” will also be extended.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

170 2002

ACE PLAN

13 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

540

490

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

16,531,295 16,489,341 14,941,663 516,507 516,545 469,871

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

New Terminal Design and Mid-Field Hold Pad

Terminals

Control

Tower

9L

12

30 9R

8

26

27R

27L

MIA – Miami International Airport

Construction of a new air carrier Runway 8/26, 8,600 ft. long and 800 ft. north of existing Runway 9L/27R, is estimated to be completed 

by 2003. The estimated cost of construction is $206 million. An EIS was completed in December 1998. The new Runway is planned for use 

primarily as an arrival runway in VFR and non-precision IFR conditions.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

171 2002

ACE PLAN

55 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

2.7

230

215

WI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,962,677 3,089,592 2,825,473 221,866 221,855 211,512

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal Control

Tower

7L

7R 1R

13

31

25

1L

7

19R

25R

19L

25L

MKE – Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

A 700-ft. extension to Runway 7L/25R was completed in the summer of 1998. Extension of this runway from 4,100 ft. to 4,800 ft. will

accommodate commuter aircraft and delay the need for a third parallel runway until about the year 2015.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

172 2002

ACE PLAN

95 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.6

160

130

WI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

681,272 673,451 675,034 145,716 125,755 128,555

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

13

21

31

3

36

MSN – Madison/Dane County Regional Airport

The airport is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Runway Safety Area of the Runway 13/Runway 18 Approaches.

Presently Runway 13 does not meet FAA Runway Safety Area design criteria due to railway, waterway, and perimeter road intrusions. The

actions proposed under the EA will correct design deficiencies of the Runway Safety Area, clear up pavement marking discrepancies on

Runway 13, and provide for clear approaches to Runway 13 and 18.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

173 2002

ACE PLAN

10 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

530

510

MN

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

15,683,399 16,959,014 15,852,433 510,420 522,253 501,252

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Terminal

Control

Tower

22

4

35

17

30L

30R

12L

12R

MSP – Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

Construction of the proposed 8,000 ft. Runway 17/35, at a cost of $490 million, will reduce the projected 2020 annual delay cost from $66

million to $38 million. The runway is expected to be operational in 2004 and will be used primarily for departures to the south and arrivals

from the north. Construction of a 1,000 ft. extension to the northeast end of Runway 4/22 is planned.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

174 2002

ACE PLAN

40 Enplanements Operations

5

(M) (K)

4

170

155

LA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,735,571 4,936,271 4,767,533 166,972 167,502 157,326

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

36

18

19

24

6

28

1

10

MSY – Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport

A new north-south Runway 18/36, is planned. This new runway will be nearly parallel to the existing Runway 1/19 and will be located west

of the threshold of Runway 10, approximately 11,000 ft. away from Runway 1/19. Pending environmental findings and funding availability, it

is expected that the runway will be completed around 2010.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

175 2002

ACE PLAN

94 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.6

76

68

SC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

630,655 776,729 695,502 73,476 73,646 65,554

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

35

17

MYR – Myrtle Beach International Airport

A recent Master Plan update recommends that the airport should develop a new terminal by the year 2005, extend the 9,500 ft. runway by

1,000 ft. to the north, and begin plans for a parallel runway. In the near future, Runway 17/35 will be redesigned as Runway 18/36.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

176 2002

ACE PLAN

37 Enplanements Operations

5.6

(M) (K)

4.9

540

440

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,850,517 5,196,451 5,566,100 524,205 449,050 395,653

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

9R

9L

33

11

29

15

27R

27L

OAK – Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

177 2002

ACE PLAN

56 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.7

200

170

HI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,886,173 2,999,863 2,777,692 188,387 174,855 160,324

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

23

20

5

2

OGG – Kahului Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

178 2002

ACE PLAN

67 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.6

180

160

OK

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,749,450 1,739,169 1,675,889 164,053 160,083 176,499

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

36

31

13

17

35

17R

17L

35L

35R

OKC – Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport

Construction of a new west parallel runway 1,600 ft. west of Runway 17/35 is reflected on the ALP. Estimated cost of construction is $13

million. Extensions to both north/south runways, Runways 17L/35R and 17R/35L, are also planned. The estimated cost of extending the runways is $8 million each. Construction of the extension to Runway 17R/35L is expected to start in 2010 and be completed by 2014. A 2,200

ft. extension to the northwest of Runway 13/31 is planned as well. Relocation of MacArthur Boulevard may begin in 2003, with runway completion in 2010. The cost is estimated at $11.6 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

179 2002

ACE PLAN

65 Enplanements Operations

2.0

(M) (K)

1.7

200

150

NE

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,836,457 1,861,057 1,773,894 188,216 167,879 143,973

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

14R 14L

32R

32L

18

36

OMA – Omaha Eppley Airfield

An extension of Runway 14L/32R to 7,000 ft. is planned, and the project was approved via an LOI of $44 million. The extension of Runway

End 14L has not been funded, however, construction is planned for 2003 or 2004. Plans beyond 2007 include reconstruction of Runway

14R/32L, at an estimated cost of $24.5 million, and the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 is estimated to cost $8.5 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

180 2002

ACE PLAN

52 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

3.1

160

155

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,125,592 3,197,795 3,168,975 156,607 155,026 154,900

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Terminal

Terminal 2 Terminal 4

Control

Tower

8L

8R

26R

26L

ONT – Ontario International Airport

Plans are proposed for a runway reconstruction that will be operational in 2005, at an estimated cost of $34.2 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

181 2002

ACE PLAN

2 Enplanements Operations

35

(M) (K)

32

920

890

IL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

34,050,083 33,845,895 31,529,561 897,290 908,977 911,861

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals Terminal

West

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

36

9L

9L

9S

9R

9R

Departure Runway

Arrival Runway

Departure Runway

Arrival Runway

4R

4L

22R

27R

32R

22L

27L

32L

27S

9N 27N

27L

27R

14R

14L

ORD – Chicago O’Hare International Airport

The O’Hare Modernization Plan currently consists of constructing one new runway and relocating three of the existing seven runways along

with the required new taxiways to provide a new airfield configuration with six runways in the 9/27 direction and two in the 4/22 direction.

Airfield construction, estimated at $2.5 billion, will be phased over several years with the construction of the first new runway beginning in

2004. This new configuration will reduce IFR delays by 95 percent and overall delays at O’Hare by 79 percent.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

182 2002

ACE PLAN

73 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

150

120

VA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,494,396 1,518,552 1,478,687 140,920 133,856 119,320

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Main

Terminal

South

Terminal

Control

Tower

32

5L

14

5R

23R

23L

ORF – Norfolk International Airport

A new air carrier runway, Runway 5R/23L, was analyzed by the Eastern Virginia Capacity Design Team. An Environmental Review is currently

underway. Runway construction was scheduled to begin in 2002 with completion by 2004, at an estimated cost of $100 million providing the

airport can acquire the small amount of additional land required.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

183 2002

ACE PLAN

54 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.8

220

190

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,877,039 2,928,658 2,954,015 198,468 214,327 212,640

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

13

31

9L

9R 27L 27R

PBI – Palm Beach International Airport

Runway 9L/27R is planned to be extended 1,200 ft. to the west and 811 ft. to the east, for a total length of 10,000 ft. The total estimated

project cost is $9 million. An Environmental Assessment was completed and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in April

1998. Construction was completed in 2000. The runway thresholds will remain in their present locations; therefore, the extended length will

only be used for departures.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

184 2002

ACE PLAN

33 Enplanements Operations

6.8

(M) (K)

6.3

340

300

OR

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

6,749,174 6,754,514 6,168,103 322,447 317,477 293,902

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Control

Tower

Terminal

21

10R 10L

28R

28L

3

PDX – Portland International Airport

An update of the 1996 Capacity Enhancement Plan was completed in an initial phase in 2001, with the final phase to be completed in 2003.

The update evaluated development of a third parallel runway south of the existing parallel runways with associated taxiways (not shown) under

construction after 2020, and constructing an additional terminal or expanding the existing terminal. The update also evaluated the capacity

benefit or impact of the new parallel runway under various operating scenarios. Two new connecting taxiways are proposed over the next 5

years to reduce runway occupancy times on Runway 10R/28L and congestion on the south parallel taxiway.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

185 2002

ACE PLAN

19 Enplanements Operations

13.0

(M) (K)

11.5

500

470

PA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

11,762,140 12,294,051 11,736,129 480,279 483,567 467,183

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

A-East

A-West

B

C

D

E

F

Control

Tower

9L

9R

35

17

26

27L

27R

8

PHL – Philadelphia International Airport

The new 5,000-ft. parallel commuter runway, Runway 8/26, opened in late-1999 at an estimated cost of $220 million. It is located 3,000

ft. north of Runway 9R/27L.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

186 2002

ACE PLAN

5 Enplanements Operations

19

(M) (K)

17

660

560

AZ

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

16,781,835 18,094,251 17,478,622 563,843 638,757 606,666

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

7L

7R

8 26

25L

25R

Terminal

Terminal

Control

Tower

Arizona Air National Guard

PHX – Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

A new third parallel runway, Runway 7/25 800 ft. south of Runway 8R/26L, was completed in 2000. Runway 7/25 is being constructed to a

length of 7,800 ft. The airport layout plan proposes an ultimate length of 9,500 ft., but further construction is not scheduled at this time. The

construction of a 900 ft. west extension of Runway 8L/26R, at cost of $7.0 million, was completed in 2001.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

187 2002

ACE PLAN

23 Enplanements Operations

10.0

(M) (K)

9.5

460

430

PA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

9,302,650 9,871,995 9,939,223 438,412 448,181 451,180

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

‹ 10,502 ft. fi

Terminal Terminal

Control

Tower

14

32

28

10

10L

28R

10C

10R

28C

28L

PIT – Greater Pittsburgh International Airport

The ongoing Master Plan has recommended that at least two new runways will be needed within a 20-year planning period to accommodate

projected Baseline (normal growth) forecast demands and achieve acceptable aircraft delay times and associated delay costs. The southern

parallel will be located approximately 4,300 ft. south of existing Runway 10R/28L and should be operational by the time the airport reaches

495,000 annual aircraft operations. The Master Plan was completed in 2001.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

188 2002

ACE PLAN

100 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.6

110

95

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

645,926 648,648 586,028 103,857 96,059 98,558

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

13R

13L

31R

31L

PSP – Palm Springs Regional Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

189 2002

ACE PLAN

57 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.5

160

150

RI

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,556,183 2,684,204 2,751,762 156,366 155,545 148,336

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

5L

5R

34

16

23L

23R

PVD – T.F. Green Airport

T.F. Green Airport is currently in the process of updating its Airport Master Plan.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

190 2002

ACE PLAN

98 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.6

130

110

ME

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

678,852 668,098 625,591 125,026 106,252 112,043

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

11

29

36

PWM – Portland International Jetport

The design is completed for a 400 ft. extension to the west end of runway 11/29, an upgrade to CAT III for runway 11/29, and complete

rehabilitation of runway 11/29 and associated taxiways. Construction of the 11/29 runway extension will begin in 2002.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

191 2002

ACE PLAN

39 Enplanements Operations

5.4

(M) (K)

4.7

320

270

NC

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,394,220 5,191,077 4,890,606 291,185 296,434 273,687

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Control

Tower

14

32

5L

5W

5R

23R

23L

23W

RDU – Raleigh-Durham International Airport

A new 8,000-ft. parallel Runway 5W/23W, located 3,000-4,300 ft. west of existing Runway 5L/23R, is planned for the future (beyond 2005).

Also, a 1,500-ft. runway extension to the south end of existing Runway 5R/23L is planned following the construction of the new runway. This

would bring the total useable length for landings and take-offs to 9,000 ft.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

192 2002

ACE PLAN

81 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.2

160

135

VA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,318,137 1,330,487 1,187,681 127,986 149,918 144,902

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

25

7

2

20

16

34

RIC – Richmond International Airport

An extension of Runway 16/34 is under design. Construction has been delayed until after 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

193 2002

ACE PLAN

61 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.5

160

140

NV

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,912,801 2,732,837 2,388,923 152,103 149,873 139,663

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

7 25

16R 16L

34R

34L

RNO – Reno Tahoe International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

194 2002

ACE PLAN

82 Enplanements Operations

1.3

(M) (K)

1.1

200

170

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,227,154 1,218,403 1,132,597 189,957 178,930 168,868

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

22

7

4

25

28

ROC – Greater Rochester International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

195 2002

ACE PLAN

58 Enplanements Operations

2.8

(M) (K)

2.4

80

70

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

2,418,587 2,574,322 2,596,005 74,502 77,376 75,779

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

24

6

6R

24L

RSW – Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional Airport

Planning has begun for a new 9,100 ft. parallel Runway 6R/24L, 4,300 ft. or more southeast of Runway 6/24. Construction is expected to

begin in 2008. The new runway should be operational by 2010. The estimated cost of the project is $80 million. This new runway will support independent parallel operations. A new terminal complex is planned to be located between the parallel runways. It is expected to be operational by 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

196 2002

ACE PLAN

30 Enplanements Operations

8.0

(M) (K)

7.5

240

210

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

7,636,623 7,898,360 7,506,320 222,356 207,916 206,848

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

1

2

Control

Tower

9

27

SAN – San Diego International Lindberg Field

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

197 2002

ACE PLAN

50 Enplanements Operations

3.6

(M) (K)

3.3

260

230

TX

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,403,544 3,528,955 3,313,545 256,148 246,200 236,102

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Terminal

Control

Tower

3R

30L

12R

21L

30N

12N

12L

30R

SAT – San Antonio International Airport

Reconstruction and extension of 12L/30R for air carrier operations is planned for completion by 2006. A third parallel runway, Runway

12N/30N, is in the long term planning, within 5-10 years. Taxiway and cargo ramp expansion were completed in 2000. Expansion of the terminal to 29 gates is planned for 2002.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

198 2002

ACE PLAN

88 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.7

116

108

GA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

763,905 879,821 836,791 110,794 112,614 109,047

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

27

36

9L 27R

9

SAV – Savannah International Airport

A new 9,000 ft. parallel Runway 9L/27R, approximately 5,000 ft. north of Runway 9/27, is expected to be constructed by 2020, with an

estimated cost of $20 million. This runway would allow independent parallel operations, thereby potentially doubling hourly capacity.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

199 2002

ACE PLAN

64 Enplanements Operations

2.0

(M) (K)

1.8

190

175

KY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,908,829 1,974,269 1,876,499 175,282 181,535 175,852

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

11

29

35R

17R

17L

35L

SDF – Louisville International Airport

A runup pad at the south end and west of runway 17R-35L is proposed for construction in the year 2003 at a cost of $5 million. The extension of runway 17R-35L is presently under review. The cost and date of construction is yet to be determined.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

200 2002

ACE PLAN

17 Enplanements Operations

14

(M) (K)

13

460

410

WA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

13,610,469 13,875,942 13,184,630 433,660 445,677 400,670

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

16R

16L

34L

34R

16W

34W

SEA – Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Airport improvements include a new Runway 16W/34W, 8,500 ft. in length, which will be located 2,500 ft. from Runway 16L/34R.

Construction began in 1999. The runway will be completed by 2006 at a cost of $773.0 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

201 2002

ACE PLAN

96 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.5

400

350

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

426,570 508,092 645,944 363,224 371,784 397,557

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal Control

Tower

27R

27L

27C

9L

18

36

9R

9C

SFB – Orlando-Sanford Airport

Runway 9C/27C, completed in 1998 at a cost of $6.5 million, was approved for permanent use in 2001 by the FAA, following completion of

an Environmental Assessment. Future plans include extending Runway 9R/27L to 7,400 ft. for completion by 2005 at an estimated cost of

$14 million, and then reconstructing this runway by 2006 at an estimated cost of $4 million. Long term plans include extending Runway 18/36

to 8,500 ft., for completion by 2007 at an estimated cost of $6 million, and extending 9L/27R to 12,000 ft. beyond 2007.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

202 2002

ACE PLAN

8 Enplanements Operations

20

(M) (K)

17

400

360

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

19,249,988 19,556,795 16,475,611 440,032 430,554 387,599

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10L

10R

19R

19L

28L

28R

1R

1L

SFO – San Francisco International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

203 2002

ACE PLAN

34 Enplanements Operations

6.8

(M) (K)

5.8

320

270

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

5,582,359 6,170,384 5,981,440 305,480 299,844 272,299

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Terminal

Control

Tower

11

29

12R

30R

30L

12L

SJC – Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport

Extension, widening and strengthening of Runway 12L/30R was completed in August 2001 at a cost of $65 million. Reconstruction of Runway

12R/30L was completed in 2002, and the lengthening of the runway from 10,200 ft. to 11,000 ft. is planned for 2003. The estimated cost

is $61.4 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

204 2002

ACE PLAN

41 Enplanements Operations

5.2

(M) (K)

4.7

240

210

PR

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

4,760,643 5,135,591 4,706,307 224,133 236,903 205,976

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

8 Terminal

10

26

28

SJU – San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction at this airport.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

205 2002

ACE PLAN

25 Enplanements Operations

10

(M) (K)

9

380

360

UT

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

9,453,726 9,522,344 8,951,776 369,431 366,933 370,282

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

17

17

35

35

32

14

34R 34L

16R

16L

SLC – Salt Lake City International Airport

In the long-term Runway 17/35 is planned to be realigned parallel with the other two major runways. This project is identified in the 20-year

master plan update.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

206 2002

ACE PLAN

44 Enplanements Operations

4.2

(M) (K)

3.7

160

150

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,783,566 3,979,043 4,021,102 155,521 149,969 151,642

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

Control

Tower

34R 34L

16R 16L

SMF – Sacramento International Airport

A master plan update is currently in progress. A time frame for the proposed northerly extensions of Runway 16L/34R, to an ultimate length

of 12,000 ft., has not yet been identified. Alternatives for the development of a third parallel runway are being considered. A third runway

would not be required until beyond 2015.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

207 2002

ACE PLAN

45 Enplanements Operations

4.0

(M) (K)

3.5

480

400

CA

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

3,739,968 3,914,051 3,688,304 471,454 387,864 384,987

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

1L

1R

19L

19R

SNA – John Wayne Airport - Orange County

An extension of Runway 1L/19R has been considered, but is not included in Orange County’s current airport development plans.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

208 2002

ACE PLAN

99 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.6

200

170

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

763,215 743,603 590,391 192,088 169,537 170,842

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

4

22

14

32

SRQ – Sarasota Bradenton Airport

Two new parallel taxiways are being developed east of Runway 14/32 (Charlie Taxiway) and north Runway 4/22 (Delta Taxiway), as are additional runway exits suited to G.A. operations. The new parallel taxiways will reduce occupancy time and separate ground taxi operations between

air carriers and G.A. The cost of these taxiways is estimated at $12.5 million and will be operational by 2004. In addition, an extension of the

existing Runway 14/32 is planned at a cost of $5.1 million. It is expected to be operational in 2002. The runway extension will allow departures by larger and heavier aircraft and by aircraft with longer haul-lengths.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

209 2002

ACE PLAN

16 Enplanements Operations

16

(M) (K)

14

520

470

MO

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

15,075,992 15,288,493 13,264,751 501,239 484,224 478,947

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

24

17

13

35

31

6

12

30

12L

30L

30R

12R

STL – Lambert St. Louis International Airport

A new parallel Runway 12R/30L has been recommended in the St. Louis Airport Master Plan Update. The Plan calls for a parallel runway supporting independent IFR arrivals. Construction is in progress with an estimated completion date of 2006.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

210 2002

ACE PLAN

86 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

1.0

160

140

NY

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,088,456 1,060,746 936,450 151,154 140,291 145,751

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

15

33

10L

10R

28R

28L

Control Terminal

Tower

SYR – Syracuse Hancock International Airport

A new parallel Runway 10L/28R, 9,000 ft. long and separated from the existing Runway 10/28 by 3,400 ft. is being considered. It would

provide independent parallel IFR operations, doubling hourly IFR arrival capacity. The cost of construction is estimated to be $55 million for

the first phase of the new runway, which would be 7,500 ft. long, including a parallel taxiway and connections to the ramp. The final length of

the runway would be 9,000 ft. A capacity analysis and needs study is presently underway. Runway 10R/28L is planned to be extended 2,000

ft. to an ultimate length of 11,000 ft.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

211 2002

ACE PLAN

29 Enplanements Operations

9

(M) (K)

7

280

260

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

7,490,117 7,969,797 7,901,725 271,996 278,632 260,859

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

9

17

35

27

18R

36L

36R

18L

TPA – Tampa International Airport

A third parallel Runway 17/35 is being considered for construction in 2010, with an operational date of 2012. It will be located 700 ft. west of

the centerline of existing Runway 18R/36L, and will be approximately 10,160 ft. in length. Prior to the construction of this new runway, it is

anticipated that Runway 18R will be upgraded to CAT II/III, and the associated ILS will be relocated to the new runway before it becomes operational. It is anticipated that Runway 18L will also be upgraded to CAT II/III capabilities to permit south flow landings below CAT I minimums. In

addition, a 2,200-ft. northern extension of Runway 18L and a 1,200 ft. eastern extension of Runway 27 are being considered for the time frame

beyond 2020.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

212 2002

ACE PLAN

68 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.6

205

200

OK

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,711,539 1,737,672 1,627,293 201,907 198,970 199,533

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

8 26

18

36

18R

18L

36L

36R

TUL – Tulsa International Airport

A new parallel Runway 18/36, located 6,400 ft. east of the present 18L/36R and 9,000 ft. long, is being considered. The new runway would

permit IFR triple independent approaches, if approved, to Runways 18L, 18C, and 18R. It is estimated to cost $115 million and will be operational in 2010.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

213 2002

ACE PLAN

66 Enplanements Operations

1.9

(M) (K)

1.7

290

260

AZ

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

1,781,091 1,804,086 1,749,560 279,406 250,943 261,800

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

21

3

11

29

11R

11L

29L

29R

TUS – Tucson International Airport

An additional parallel air carrier Runway 11R/29L has been proposed. Upon completion of the new runway, the current Runway 11R/29L, a

general aviation runway, will revert to its original taxiway status. Current plans call for construction to start in 2008 to be operational in 2010.

The estimated is $50 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX E

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE 

TOP 100 AIRPORTS

214 2002

ACE PLAN

92 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.7

150

145

TN

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

878,737 863,539 705,607 148,384 148,596 149,342

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

5L

5R

23R

23L

TYS – Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport

An extension of both runways, 5L/23R and 5R/23L, is being planned for the future.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction
APPENDIX F

ACRONYM LISTING
ACE Aviation Capacity Enhancement

ADA Airline Deregulation Act of 1993

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast

ADSIM Airfield Delay Simulation Model

AGL Above Ground Level

AIP Airport Improvement Program

AIR-21 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 

for the 21st Century

ALP Airport Layout Plan

ARTCCs Air Route Traffic Control Centers

ARTS Automated Radar Terminal Systems

ASC Office of System Capacity

ASPM Aviation System Performance Metrics

ATA Air Transport Association

ATCT Air Traffic Control Towers

ATCSCC Air Traffic Control System Command Center, 

also known as Command Center

BPI Best Practices Information

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CAA Cargo Airline Association

CCFP Collaborative Convective Forecast

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CDRs Coded Departure Routes

CDTI Cockpit Display of Traffic Information

CEP Capacity Enhancement Plan

CFIT Controlled Flight Into Terrain

CIP Capital Investment Plan

CIWS Corridor Integrated Weather System

CPDLC Controller Pilot Data Link Communication

CY Calendar Year

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DPs Departure Procedures

DRVSM Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

DSR Display System Replacement

DUATS Direct User Access Terminal Service

EAS Essential Air Service

EIS Environmental Impact Study

ERAM En Route Automation Modernization

ETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FFP1 Free Flight Phase 1

FIS Flight Information Service

FL flight level

APPENDIX F

ACRONYM LISTING

216 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX F

ACRONYM LISTING

217 2002

ACE PLAN

FMS Flight Management System

FY Fiscal Year

GA General Aviation

GARBs General Airport Revenue Bonds

GPRA Government Performance Results Act of 1993

GPS Global Positioning System

GRADE Graphical Airspace Design Environment

IFR Instrument Flight Rule

ILS Instrument Landing System

LAAS Local Area Augmentation System

LDA Localizer Directional Aid

LNAV Lateral Navigation

LOI Letter of Intent

LPV Lateral with Precise Verticals

MAMS Military Airspace Management System

MAP Military Airport Program

MOA Military Operations Area

MSL Mean Sea Level

NAR National Airspace Redesign

NAS National Airspace System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCT Northern California TRACON

NLA New Large Aircraft

NORAD Northeast Air Defense Sector

NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NYICC New York Integrated Control Complex

OEP Operational Evolution Plan

OOOI Out, Off, On and In

OPSNET FAA’s Operations Network

PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator

PARR Problems Analysis, Resolution and Ranking

PCT Potomac Consolidated TRACON

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

PFCs Passenger Facility Charges

PRM Precision Runway Monitor

REIT Runway End Identification Lights

RJs Regional Jets

RMT Route Management Tool

RNAV Advanced Area Navigation

RNP Required Navigational Performance 

RTMs Revenue Ton-Miles

RVR Runway Visual Range

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SAMS Special Use Airspace Management System
SIMMOD Simulation Model

SMA Surface Movement Advisor

SOIA Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches

STARs Standard Terminal Arrival Routes

SUA Special Use Airspace

TCAS Traffic Collision Avoidance System

TMA Traffic Management Advisor

TIS-B Traffic Information System Broadcast

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control facility

TSA Transportation Security Administration

URET User Request Evaluation Tool

VACAPES Virginia Military Capes

VFR Visual Flight Rule

VNAV Vertical Navigation

VOR very high frequency omnidirectional range

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System

WATRS West Atlantic Route System

APPENDIX F

ACRONYM LISTING

218 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY
Air Traffic Control

A service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly and expeditious

flow of air traffic.

Air Route Traffic Control Center

A facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on IFR flight

plans within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight.

Airway

A Class E airspace area established in the form of a corridor. The centerline of which is

defined by radio navigation aids.

Approach Gate

An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for vectoring aircraft to the final approach

course.

Area Navigation

A method of navigation that permits aircraft operations on any desired course within 

the coverage of station-referenced navigation signals or within the limits of self-contained

system capability.

Category I (CAT I) Precision Approach

A precision approach that provides for approach to a height above touchdown of not less

than 200 feet and with runway visual range of not less than 2,400 feet.

Category II (CAT II) Precision Approach

A precision approach that provides for approach to a height above touchdown of not less

than 100 feet and with runway visual range of not less than 1.200 feet.

Category III (CAT III) Precision Approach

A precision approach that provides for approach without a decision height minimum and

with runway visual range from 700 feet to none.

Close Parallel Runways

Two parallel runways whose extended centerlines are separated by less than 4,300 feet.

Controlled Airspace

An airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to 

IFR flights and to VFR flights.

Data Link

A digital communications system that can transmit data from a controller to an aircraft 

and vice versa.

Departure Procedure

A charted IFR departure procedure.

Distance Measuring Equipment

Ground and airborne equipment designed to measure (in nautical miles) the distance of an

aircraft from a navigational aid such as a VOR, VORTAC, OR, TACAN.

APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY

220 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY

221 2002

ACE PLAN

Fix

A geographical position determined by visual reference to the surface, by reference to one

or more navaids, by celestial plotting, or by another navigational device.

Flight Level

A level of constant atmospheric pressure related to a reference datum of 29.92 inches of

mercury. Each is stated in three digits that represent hundreds of feet. For example, flight

level 250 represents a barometric altimeter indication of 25,000 feet.

Flight Management System

A computer system that uses a large data base to allow routes to be programmed and 

fed into the system, which is constantly updated with respect to position accuracy by 

reference to conventional navigation aids.

Flow Control

Measures designed to adjust the flow of traffic into a given airspace, along a given route,

or bound for a given airport so as to ensure the most effective utilization of the airspace.

Glideslope

Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing.

Global Positioning System

A space-based radio positioning, navigation and time-transfer system, which provides

highly accurate position and velocity information, and precise time, on a continuous 

global basis.

Ground Delay

The amount of delay attributed to air traffic control, encountered prior to departure.

Ground Stop

Normally, the last initiative to be utilized; this method mandates that the terminal facility will

not allow any departures to enter center airspace until further notified.

Handoff

The action taken to transfer the radar identification of an aircraft from one controller to

another when the aircraft will enter the receiving controller’s airspace and radio communications will be transferred.

Hold Procedures

A predetermined maneuver that keeps aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting

further clearance from air traffic control.

Instrument Flight Rules

Rules governing procedures for conducting instrument flight.

Instrument Landing System

A precision approach and landing aid that normally consists of a localizer, a glideslope,

marker beacons, and an approach light system.
Integrity

The ability of a system to provide timely warnings to users when the system should not be

used for navigation.

Lateral Navigation

A function of area navigation that calculates, displays, and provides lateral guidance to a

profile or path.

Miles-in-Trail

A specified distance between aircraft, normally in the same stratum associated with the

same destination or route of flight.

National Airspace System

The common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment and services;

airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations

and procedures, technical information, and manpower and material. Included are system

components shared jointly with the military.

Navigational Aid

Any visual or electronic device, airborne or on the surface, that provides point-to-point

guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.

Nonprecision Approach

A standard instrument approach in which no electronic guide slope is provided.

Parallel Runways

Two or more runways at the same airport whose centerlines are parallel.

Precision Runway Monitor

Provides air traffic controllers with high precision secondary surveillance radar for aircraft

on final approach to parallel runways that have extended centerlines separated by less

than 4,300 feet.

Precision Approach

A standard instrument approach in which a course and glideslope/glidepath are provided.

Radio Altimeter

Aircraft equipment that makes use of the reflection of radio waves from the ground to

determine the height of the aircraft above the surface.

Reliever Airport

A general aviation airport designated to provide an alternative to commercial service 

airports in major metropolitan areas.

Required Navigation Performance

A statement of the navigation performance accuracy necessary for operation within 

a defined airspace, including the operating parameters of the navigation systems used

within that airspace.

APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY

222 2002

ACE PLAN
APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY

223 2002

ACE PLAN

Sector or Control Sector

An airspace area of defined horizontal and vertical dimensions for which a controller or group

of controllers has air traffic control responsibility, normally within a center or terminal area.

Separation

In air traffic control, the spacing of aircraft to achieve their safe and orderly movement in

flight and while landing and taking off.

Standard Terminal Arrival

A pre-planned instrument flight rule air traffic control arrival procedure published for pilot

use in graphic and/or textural form. STARs provide transition form the en route structure to

an outer fix or an instrument approach fix/arrival waypoint in the terminal area.

Threshold

The beginning of that portion of the runway useable for landing.

Traffic Management Unit

The entity in ARTCCs and designated terminals responsible for direct involvement in the

active management of travel.

Tower

A terminal facility that uses air/ground communications, visual signaling, and other 

devices to provide ATC services to aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport or on the 

movement area.

TRACON

A terminal ATC facility that uses radar and nonradar capabilities to provide approach 

control services to aircraft arriving, departing, or transiting airspace controlled by the facility.

Vertical Navigation

A function of area navigation that calculates, displays, and provides vertical guidance to a

profile or path.

Visual Flight Rules

Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions.

Vortex or Wake Vortex

A circular pattern of air created by the movement of an airfoil through the air when generating lift.

Waypoint

A predetermined geographical position used for route/instrument approach definition 

and other navigational purposes that is defined relative to a VORTAC station or in terms of

latitude/longitude coordinates.
APPENDIX H

CREDITS
Special thanks to:

The many FAA employees at Headquarters and Regional Offices that contributed to this

publication, providing technical insight, background materials and feedback.

Holland McKenna McKenna Associates

Silver Spring, Maryland

Marlene Mandel QED Consulting, L.L.C.

Arlington, VA

James G. Walsh Landrum & Brown, Incorporated

APPENDIX H

CREDITS

226 2002

ACE PLAN