U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

2003

ACE PLAN

Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

BUILDING CAPACITY TODAY 

FOR THE SKIES OF TOMORROW

Federal Aviation Administration 

December 2003

Prepared jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration 

and ARP Consulting, L.L.C.

Visit us at www.faa.gov

ACE PLAN 2003 Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan
PREFACE

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 and near-term goals of FAA-related programs, technologies, and initiatives affecting the

capacity of the National Airspace System (NAS). Airports, airlines and aviation organizations use the

ACE Plan. In addition to the U.S. and international aviation industry stakeholders, academia and

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

The ACE Plan discusses various approaches to enhancing airport and airspace capacity. The

FAA relies on procedural and technological investments to increase airspace capacity, and while

those approaches are also useful in the airport environment, airport capacity is most directly

enhanced by building new runways or other airfield infrastructure.

Introduction

Summarizes the challenges that continue for the aviation industry. Features selected milestones in

aviation history and technological development affecting the NAS.

Chapter 1 – Aviation Activity in the National Airspace System

Contains a summary of activity by user groups during 2003 and discusses the revised FAA forecasts for aviation activity to FY 2014.

Chapter 2 – National Airspace System Performance and Airport Capacity Analysis

Reports new NAS performance measures. Summarizes recent delays, trends in delays, and the

data systems that assist in analysis.

Chapter 3 – Development of Airport Capacity

Summarizes various programs that increase airport capacity. Reports on the progress of capacity

analysis projects and runway construction projects. 

Chapter 4 – Operational Procedures

Provides new, updated 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 5 – Airspace Redesign

Contains program updates 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 6 – Air Traffic Control System Modernization

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

i 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
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

Provides historical, current, and forecast information on passenger enplanements and aircraft 

operations.

Appendix B

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

Appendix C

Summarizes runway construction projects that are proposed for 2009 and beyond.

Appendix D

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

Appendix E

Defines acronyms used in this plan.

Appendix F

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

sources.

About the Data

Each year the airports that constitute the busiest 100 will slightly change as traffic at some of the

airports grow more rapidly. Often several airports near the bottom of the list will be dropped off and

replaced by others.

The 2003 ACE Plan contains data for both calendar years (CY) 2002 and fiscal years 

(FY) 2002. 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. 

Forecasting future aviation activity is always difficult and the further in the future these 

projections are made, the greater their uncertainty. Therefore, please use these forecasts with the

knowledge that they may be significantly adjusted, both up and down.

PREFACE

ii 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
INTRODUCTION CHARTING THE NEXT CENTURY OF FLIGHT

“Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we

penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes.” ~ Charles A. Lindbergh
Challenges Continue for the Aviation Industry

In 2003, the aviation industry and the U.S. economy as a whole continued a steady but uneven

recovery. The recovery of U.S. aviation has been slower than expected, largely resulting from the

impact of the war in Iraq and airline industry restructuring. The demand for air travel both within the

U.S. and between the U.S. and other world travel regions declined sharply in 2002, resulting in a

reduction of scheduled flight, or less system capacity, reflecting an 8.6 percent decline in available

seat miles (ASMs) from 2001.

The ripple effect of troubled finances for the airlines continues to impact the nation’s airports.

Relationships between airlines and airports are changing, as hub airports are most vulnerable when

major capital plans rely on one or more of the major carriers as tenants, and lower air traffic has a

negative impact on Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) revenue. However, less capacity has not 

proportionately reduced the demand on air traffic management resources. The complexity of air

traffic has increased at many large hub airports because of the increase in regional jets. Low-cost

carriers continue to expand point-to-point service as opportunities result from the route consolidations of the larger carriers. Smaller regional jets that require greater separation will operate a greater

proportion of flights in the future. Most large air carrier schedule reductions at large hub airports

occurred during off-peak periods, and at some airports, peak-period activity levels have increased

over pre-September 11th levels. These complexities make the FAA’s job more challenging even

with less overall traffic.

For commercial aviation to recover its traffic and profitability, business travel must return to

pre-2001 levels, currently FAA forecasts this to occur in 2006. The resumption of business travel

depends on the recovery and strength of future U.S. and world economic activity. It is also too early

to assess whether or not increased security measures at airports may have contributed to the 

permanent or temporary shift of passengers, particularly higher-yield business travelers, to other

modes of transportation. The FAA, along with the stakeholders of the aviation industry, are using

this period of traffic recovery to apply measurement systems supportive of a performance-based

organization, and to implement new planning initiatives, such as the FAA Flight Plan 2004-2008

and update the FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan.

The FAA expects that the Nation’s invaluable air transportation system will remain the most

popular transportation mode throughout the foreseeable future. The following summary and chapter

divider graphics of the 2003 ACE Plan commemorate a century of powered flight, as the FAA 

continues to operate with an indomitable spirit of dedication and commitment, to “Chart the Next

Century of Flight” for the world’s largest, busiest and safest aviation system.

Highlights from a Century of Powered Flight

On December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright launched the world’s first successful flight of 

a powered, heavier-than-air machine, and went on to perfect a controllable aircraft by 1905. The

Wright brothers, pursuing their passions and applying their ingenuity, gave birth to the dynamic 

aviation industry that continues to succeed through the most trying of times, driven by men and

women exhibiting a similar indomitable spirit and love of flight.

The first flight took place in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, piloted by Orville, lasted 12 seconds

and went a distance of 37 meters. In 2002, the U.S. commercial air carrier passenger 

fleet reached an inventory of 5,156 aircraft. While the Introduction for the 2003 ACE Plan contains

highlights from “A Century of Powered Flight,” the chapter dividers will include famous quotations

INTRODUCTION

CHARTING THE NEXT CENTURY OF FLIGHT

iv 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
INTRODUCTION

CHARTING THE NEXT CENTURY OF FLIGHT

about aviation, to recognize the inspiration that aviation provides, affecting all aspects of our 

culture. As the FAA and its stakeholders work together to chart the next century of flight, imagine

the magnitude of changes that will occur in the aviation and aerospace industry by 2103.

Selected Milestones In Aviation History and Technological Developments Affecting Demand and Capacity in the National Airspace System*

Year Event

1903 Wright Flyer First powered airplane

1926 Goddard Rockets First liquid propellant rocket

1926 Western Air Express One of the first U.S. airlines to offer regular passenger service

1926 Varney Speed Lines Carrier established that eventually became Continental Airlines in 1937 

1927 Spirit of St. Louis First solo transatlantic flight

1927 Pitcairn Aviation Established, 3 years later became Eastern Air Transport operating through its shutdown in 1991

1928 Commerce Department A partial radio navigation beacon system was developed; teletype machines usage began to 

transmit aviation weather information

1928 Delta Air Services Carrier established that became Delta Air Corp in 1930

1929 NY-2 Biplane (Lt. James Doolittle) First flight guided entirely by instruments

1930 Air Traffic Control (ATC) First radio equipped ATC tower in Cleveland

1930 American Airways Formed and changed to American Airlines in 1934 

1930 Transcontinental and Western Air First merger, for the companies that became Trans World Airlines (TWA) in 1950

1930 Cleveland Municipal Airport First establishment of radio control of airport traffic

1932 Amelia Earhart First woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean

1938 Civil Aeronautics Authority CAA created to manage Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs)

1942 Bell XP-59A Airacomet First American turbojet

1942 Tuskegee Airmen First Group of African American aviators earn their wings

1942 VS-300 (Igor Sikorsky) First flight of the modern helicopter

1946 Civil Aeronautics Authority First radar-equipped control tower at Indianapolis

1946 FAAP Act Established the Federal-aid Airport Program

1947 Bell X-1 aka Glamorous Glennis First aircraft to travel the speed of sound at a speed of Mach 1.06 or 670 mph

1949 Chicago O’Hare ARTCC First radiotelephone communications with pilots

1949 Civil Aeronautics Authority Authorized commercial planes to use Ground Control Approach (GCA) radar for bad weather landings

1951 U.S. Aviation Industry First time air passenger miles passed train passenger miles

1954 Boeing 707 First U.S. jet transport tested. Speed 550 mph, range: 3,500 mi., passenger capacity: 150

1957 Civil Aeronautics Authority Establishes control of continental airspace at or above 24,000 ft. via 12 super skyways

1958 Explorer First successful U.S. satellite launched

1958 FAA FAA formed by the Federal Aviation Act

1958 NASA Formation of the civilian space agency

1961 FAA First national standards for air traffic rules for flights on and around all controlled airports 

went into effect

1962 Mariner 2 First interplanetary probe

1962 Mercury (John Glenn) First American in earth orbit

1962 FAA At Chicago O’Hare, simultaneous instrument approaches on parallel runways was approved to 

relieve traffic delays at peak periods

1964 XB-70A First flight of Air Force supersonic aircraft

1965 Gemini IV First American space walk

* For a more detailed summary of milestones in aviation history, see www.centennialofflight.gov; The FAA web site offers its historic summary for the period 1926-1996 

on www.faa.gov.

v 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
continued from page v

Year Event

1967 American X-15 First hypersonic, high altitude aircraft

1968 U.S. Congress Established the Aviation Trust Fund for funding FAA programs and operations

1969 Apollo 11 Command Module First manned lunar landing

1970 FAA Established the Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center

1976 Concorde First supersonic passenger flight approved at New York JFK and Washington Dulles airports for 

Anglo French SST Concorde operation

1978 President Carter Signed the Airline Deregulation Act that resulted in applications for 248 new airline routes and 

special provisions boosting commuter airline growth

1981 Columbia (OV-102) First U.S. space shuttle to fly into orbit

1981 FAA Adopted a reduced interim air traffic control operations plan “Flow Control 50” due to dismissal 

of 11,400 controllers

1983 Global Positioning System (GPS) First aircraft navigated across the Atlantic entirely using GPS cited by the FAA for future civil 

aviation use

2001 FAA September 11th terrorist attacks forces the unprecedented 2-day shutdown of U.S. airspace

INTRODUCTION

CHARTING THE NEXT CENTURY OF FLIGHT

vi 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Challenges Continue for the Aviation Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Highlights from a Century of Powered Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

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

1.1 Aviation Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.1 Commercial Passenger Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1.1.1 Passenger Enplanements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1.1.2 Aircraft Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.1.2 Air Cargo Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.1.3 Changes in the Commercial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2 Non-Commercial Aviation Activity and Commercial Space Transportation . . . . . . . . 7

1.2.1 General Aviation Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2.2 Military Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2.3 Commercial Space Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 System Performance Goals and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1 The Air Traffic Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2 The FAA Flight Plan 2004-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 The Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3.1 The Greater Capacity Goal of the OEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4.1 Jacksonville/Atlanta (LOA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.2 Ontario Class C Airspace Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4.3 SFO MOLEN Departure Procedure Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.5 Delays in the National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.5.1 Delays Reported by the Operations Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5.2 The Aviation System Performance Metrics System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3 Development of Airport Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1 Capacity Enhancement Through Airport Construction Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1.1 Capacity Enhancement Through Construction of New Runways 

and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 Other Strategies For Improving Airport Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2.1 Airport Design Team Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1.1 The Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport Perimeter 

Taxiway Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1.2 The Portland International Airport Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1.3 Baltimore-Washington International Airport Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.1.4 Philadelphia International Airport Simulation Study . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.2 Capacity Benchmark Analysis Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2.3 International Initiatives Address Global Capacity Enhancement . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2.4 Future Airport Capacity Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3 Resources Affecting Airport Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.1 Airport Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.3.2 Passenger Facility Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3.3 User Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3.4 Airport Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.3.5 Other Sources of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4 Other Airport Development Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4.1 The Military Airport Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4.2 The Essential Air Service Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4.3 Impact of New Transport Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.4.3.1 Aircraft Design Impacts Airport Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.4.3.2 Airbus and Boeing’s Perspectives of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4 Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.1 Spring/Summer 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.2 Area Navigation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2.1 Required Navigational Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2.2 Area Navigation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2.3 RNAV Arrivals and Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.3 Reduced Separation Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.3.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.3.1.1 World-Wide Implementation of the Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.3.2 U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.3.3 Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation Minimums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.4 Approaches to Closely-Spaced Parallel Runways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.4.1 Approaches Using a Precision Runway Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.4.2 RNP Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5 Airspace Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.1 High Altitude Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.1.2 Navigation Reference System Waypoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.1.2.1 Waypoints for Navigating Around Special Use Airspace . . . . . . . 49

5.1.3 High Altitude RNAV Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.2 Terminal Area Airspace Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.2.1 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Redesign Project . . . . . . 50

5.2.2 Potomac Consolidated TRACON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.2.3 Northern California TRACON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

6 Transformation of the Air Traffic Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.1 Free Flight and The National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.2 Major Developments in Navigation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.2.1 Wide Area Augmentation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.2.2 Local Area Augmentation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.2.3 Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6.2.3.1 Alaska Capstone Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2.3.2 Ohio River Valley Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

ix 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
6.3 Replacement and Modernization of Air Traffic Control Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6.3.1 Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.3.2 En Route Automation Modernization Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.3.3 Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures System . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

A Aviation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

B Capacity Enhancement Plan Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

C Runway Projects 2009 and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

D Airport Layouts for the Top 100 Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

E Acronym Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

F Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

TABLE OF CONTENTS

x 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
TABLE OF FIGURES
Selected Milestones In Aviation History and Technological Developments Affecting 

Demand and Capacity in the National Airspace System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Figure 1-1 Aircraft Operations by User Type for FY 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 1-2 FAA Forecasts of Passenger Enplanements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 1-3 FAA Forecasts of Air Carrier and Air Taxi and Commuter Operations . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 1-4 Airports with the Most Air Cargo Activity for CY 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 1-5 General Aviation Operations at the OEP Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2-1 PDARS Deployment Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 2-2 Proposed Arrival Procedure Modification – Pretest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2-3 Proposed Arrival Procedure Modification – Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 2-4 Ontario International Airport Arrivals Exiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 2-5 SFO MOLEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2-6 PDARs Deployment Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 2-7 Annual Flight Delays CY 1991-CY 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2-8 Flight Delays by Month, CY 2002 and CY 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2-9 Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations by Month, CY 2002 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 2-10 Flight Delays by Cause CY 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 3-1 Completed Runway Construction Projects January 1998 to October 2003 . . . 25

Figure 3-2 Runway Construction Projects November 2003 to December 2008 . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 3-3 Capacity Benchmark Pacing Airports Delay Rate (2000 through 2002) . . . . . . 29

Figure 3-4 OPSNET Delay Data for the Pacing Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3-5 Airport Improvement Program Funding History ($ in Billions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3-6 FAA Design Group Aircraft Comparison by Wing Span Length . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 4-1 Potential Arrival Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 5-1 Initial Implementation of High Altitude Redesigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 5-2 High Altitude Airspace Redesign, Phase I Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 5-3 Navigation Reference System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 5-4 Weather Reroute with NRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 5-5 Jet Routes and High Altitude Q-Routes on the West Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

TABLE OF FIGURES

xii 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
TABLE OF FIGURES

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

(2000, 2001, and 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

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

(2000, 2001, and 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table A-3 Passenger Enplanements, 2002 and Forecast 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table A-4 Aircraft Operations, 2002 and Forecast 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table A-5 Change in Enplanements from 2001 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table A-6 Change in Operations from 2001 to 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table B-1 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Airfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table B-2 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Facilities and 

Equipment Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table B-3 Airport Capacity Recommendations – Operational Improvements . . . . . . . . . . 88

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

at the 100 Busiest Airports for 2009 and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

xiii 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 1 AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

“Travelers are always discoverers, especially those who travel by air. There are

no signposts in the air to show a man has passed that way before. There are

no channels marked. The flier breaks each second into new uncharted seas.” ~ Anne Morrow Lindbergh
1 Aviation Activity in the National Airspace System

Measuring aviation activity is a way of estimating the demand on airports and the air traffic control

system. Capacity is an expression of their ability to meet that demand, so any analysis of capacity

requires an analysis of current and future demand. The FAA measures aviation activity primarily in

terms of passenger enplanements, revenue ton miles, and aircraft operations. By definition, only

commercial passenger operations produce passenger enplanements and only cargo operations produce revenue ton miles, while all aviation activity produces aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings).

Three general types of aviation activity take place in the National Airspace System: commercial passenger and cargo transportation, general aviation, and military operations. Each type uses

different types of aircraft, has its own patterns of operations, and places different demands on 

airports and the air traffic control system. This chapter briefly describes each type of aviation 

activity, recent trends in different measures of that activity, and FAA forecasts through FY 2014.

1.1 Aviation Activity

Within each of the general types of aviation activity, there are many kinds of operators that conduct

a wide range of operations. Commercial activity includes large commercial air carriers, regional 

carriers, on-demand air taxis, all-cargo airlines, and others. All commercial activity is conducted 

within the FAA’s air traffic control system, and is concentrated at the largest airports, usually near

large metropolitan areas. General aviation includes private pilots flying on business, corporate jets,

agricultural applications, and recreational and student pilots. The majority of general aviation activity

(but by no means all) takes place at small airports far from urban centers and may have little or no

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

the specialists at flight service stations rather than with air traffic controllers. However, general 

aviation does have a significant presence at some major airports. Military operations include flight

training, weapons familiarization, and troop and equipment transport. Each of these types of activity

use a variety of aircraft, including both fixed wing airplanes and helicopters, from an experimental

home-built aircraft to a B-747 or a supersonic jet fighter. Military airports support most of the military

traffic and the military’s own air traffic control system handles most of their terminal operations.

The FAA tracks aircraft operations for four classes of users: air carriers, air taxis/commuters,

general aviation operators, and the military. As Figure 1-1 shows, general aviation accounted for

the majority of all aircraft operations in FY 2002, with air carrier and air taxi/commuters accounting

for most other operations. Military operations made up a small fraction of all aircraft operations. The

proportion of total operations by each user group does not vary much from year to year. Aircraft

operations for all user groups for the busiest 100 airports for the past three years (both fiscal and

calendar) are shown in Appendix A-2.

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

2 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

Figure 1-1 Aircraft Operations by User Type for FY 2002

1.1.1 Commercial Passenger Activity

Commercial aviation continued to struggle during 2002. Already reduced forecasts were revised

downward as the gradual recovery to pre-recession traffic levels failed to take place as expected.

However, FAA forecasts do show that passenger enplanements will reach 2000 levels by 2006.

The aviation industry also showed signs of segmentation, as low-fare carriers continued to expand

and earn small profits, while the hub-and-spoke carriers reduced capacity and incurred substantial

losses. The shift of capacity from the hub-and-spoke carriers to their regional partners increased,

as they tried to reduce costs, match capacity with demand, and maintain frequency in smaller 

markets by substituting regional jets with 50 to 70 seats for mainline jets with 110 seats or more.

Airports and aircraft manufacturers continued to be negatively affected as well, with airports

facing reduced revenues and postponing some expansion projects and both Airbus and Boeing

delivering far fewer aircraft than in recent years. These trends continued during the first nine months

of 2003, although a relatively successful summer season resulted in record load factors and

reduced losses for the hub-and-spoke carriers, and increased profits for the low cost carriers.

1.1.1.1 Passenger Enplanements

Passenger enplanements continued to decline in FY 2002, falling from the already depressed level

of 682.5 million in FY 2001 to only 628.6 million (a decrease of 53.9 million enplanements or 

7.9 percent). The total number of enplanements was slightly below the 631.4 million level of 

FY 1997, five years earlier.

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

Annual FAA Aviation Forecast Conference in March.1 Figure 1-2 compares the March forecasts 

for passenger enplanements for the past three years. The forecasts for March 2003 and March

2002 are well below the March 2001 forecast throughout the forecast period. During FY 2002,

actual enplanements exceeded the March 2002 forecast (628.6 million rather than the forecast

600.3 million). However, the new FAA forecast further lowers projections for FY 2003 and all 

3 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

58%

20%

17%

5%

General Aviation

Air Taxi/Commuters

Air Carriers

Military

1 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2003-2014, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, March 2003. Previous editions from March 2001 and

March 2002 were also used.
subsequent years. The gap between the lines in Figure 1-2 shows the projected long-term impact

of the economic slowdown and the subsequent restructuring of the aviation industry. The shortfall

in enplanements translates into lost ticket revenue for the airlines, less excise tax revenue for the

aviation trust fund, and lower passenger facility charge revenue to support airport enhancements.

Figure 1-2 FAA Forecasts of Passenger Enplanements

The United States has more than 400 commercial service airports, yet passenger enplanements are heavily concentrated at the busiest airports. Well over 90 percent of all enplanements

take place at the 100 busiest airports. Enplanements for those airports for the past three years

(both fiscal and calendar) are shown in Appendix A-1. The FAA forecasts for FY 2014 and the

change from FY 2002 for those same airports are presented in Appendix A-3. The changes in

enplanements from FY 2001 to FY 2002 are shown in Appendix A-5.

1.1.1.2 Aircraft Operations

As previously shown in Figure 1-1, the majority of aircraft operations in FY 2002 were general 

aviation operations, but the two categories of commercial activity, air carrier and air taxi/commuter,

each accounted for a large number of aircraft operations (20 and 17 percent of all operations

respectively). As with passenger enplanements, commercial aircraft operations are heavily 

concentrated at the nation’s busiest airports, with over 80 percent of air carrier operations and 49

percent of air taxi/commuter operations at the top 55 airports.2

In FY 2002, commercial aircraft operations declined from 25.6 million in FY 2001 to 24.2 

million (a decrease of 1.4 million operations or 5.5 percent). The overall figures mask the diverging

trends in air carrier and air taxi/commuter operations. In the same period, air carrier operations

dropped by 10.5 percent, reflecting the deep decline in the mainline operations of the major 

carriers. However, air taxi/commuter operations actually increased 1.4 percent, largely because of

the substitution of regional jets for larger jets on many routes.

The FAA forecasts indicate that both of these trends will continue, with overall operations far

below previous estimates, but with virtually all of the decline in air carrier operations. Figure 1-3

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

4 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

FY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600 March 2001

Enplanements (Millions)

March 2002 March 2003

2 There are substantial numbers of general aviation and military operations at some of the nation’s busiest commercial service airports.
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

compares the FAA forecasts for March 2001 and March 2003 for air carrier and for air taxi/commuter operations. The figure shows a sharp decline for air carrier operations for FY 2002 and 

FY 2003, with a recovery beginning in FY 2004 but with operations remaining far below those of the

earlier forecast. In contrast, the figure shows air taxi/commuter operations increasing modestly in 

the early years of the forecast period, although below the levels of the previous forecast, and by 

FY 2005 actually exceeding the March 2001 forecast.

Figure 1-3 FAA Forecasts of Air Carrier and Air Taxi and Commuter Operations

1.1.2 Air Cargo Activity

Air cargo includes shipments of air freight, express packages, and mail. Summary data for air cargo

activity are collected by the Department of Transportation and published by the FAA. This activity is

measured in revenue ton miles (RTMs), where one revenue ton mile represents one ton of cargo

flown for one mile. Air cargo is carried aboard both passenger aircraft and all-cargo aircraft, generally referred to as freighters. Aircraft operations for air cargo activity, for both passenger aircraft that

carry cargo and all-cargo carriers, are included in the overall totals reported above.

In FY 2002, some 36 percent of air cargo shipments were transported in the belly space of

passenger aircraft and 64 percent was transported in all-cargo aircraft. Two large all-cargo carriers

dominate the air cargo market: FedEx with 31 percent and United Parcel Service with 16 percent of

the total. However, several major passenger carriers also accounted for significant shares, including

United Airlines (8 percent), Northwest Airlines (8 percent), and American Airlines (7 percent).

Air cargo activity continues to be affected by the economic slowdown and increasing worries

about cargo security. In FY 2002, air cargo volume was approximately 27.3 billion RTMs, a decline

of 3.9 percent from the already depressed levels of FY 2001. The FAA forecasts project that air

cargo volume won’t exceed FY 2000 levels until FY 2005.

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 services are among the

busiest cargo airports. Memphis, the main hub for FedEx, was the busiest cargo airport in CY 2002

and Louisville, the main hub for UPS, was the sixth busiest cargo airport. The ten busiest cargo airports and the change in the tonnage loaded and unloaded in CY 2002 are shown in Figure 1-4,

based on data reported by the Airports Council International—North America.

5 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

22

20

18

16

14

15

14

13

12

11

March 2001

March 2003

March 2001

March 2003

Millions Millions

Air Carrier Operations Air Taxi/Commuter Operations 

FY
Figure 1-4 Airports with the Most Air Cargo Activity for CY 2002

Airport (ID) Metric Tons Change from CY 2001

Memphis International (MEM) 3,390,800 28.8%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 1,779,855 (0.3%)

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 1,771,595 (5.5%)

Miami International (MIA) 1,624,242 (0.9%)

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 1,589,648 6.3%

Louisville International (SDF) 1,524,181 3.8%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 1,473,980 13.4%

Indianapolis International (IND) 901,917 (18.9%)

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 850,050 (5.0%)

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 734,083 (0.2%)

1.1.3 Changes in the Commercial Sector

The commercial airline industry is in the midst of a major restructuring, characterized by a divergence

in the growth of network carriers and low fare carriers, the continued replacement of mainline jets

with regional jets, and the appearance of a new generation of regional jets with greater seating

capacity and passenger comfort.

The divergence between hub-and-spoke carriers and low-fare carriers is clear in their financial

performance since the economic downturn began. The hub-and-spoke carriers have incurred

unprecedented losses, despite government aid, and two of the largest of them have declared bankruptcy. In the same period, the low-fare carriers have generally recorded profits. During the summer

of 2003, as the result of relatively strong traffic and high load factors, the hub-and-spoke carriers’

losses were less than had been expected, but observers don’t expect to return to profitability for at

least another year. In contrast, the low-fare carriers increased their profits during the summer and

aviation analysts expect those carriers to continue to increase their profits during the next year.

Another important divergence between the hub-and-spoke and low-fare carriers is the relative change in domestic capacity. The hub-and-spoke carriers have reduced capacity throughout

their systems by withdrawing older aircraft from service, deferring or canceling orders of new 

aircraft, and reducing service at selected hubs and in a large number of smaller markets. Some of

the aircraft withdrawn from service have been permanently retired, well ahead of schedule, but a

large number have been placed in long-term desert storage (well over 500 relatively new aircraft,

some 10 percent of the 2001 fleet, are now in storage). Although the hub-and-spoke carriers have

accepted some new aircraft, other orders have been deferred or cancelled, and virtually no new

orders have been announced. The low-fare carriers, however, have added aircraft to their fleets by

continuing to accept previously ordered aircraft and placing orders with both the mainline and

regional jet manufacturers.

The hub-and-spoke carriers have also reduced capacity by scaling back operations at their

less-profitable hubs and by either eliminating service in smaller markets or by transferring those

routes to their regional affiliates, substituting regional jets for mainline jets. Although such changes

preserve service and frequency in those markets, a smaller number of seats are now available, representing a significant reduction in capacity. Once again, the low-fare carriers have taken another

path, deploying their new aircraft to both existing and new markets and poised to move into the hub

airports that have been de-emphasized by network carriers, such as Pittsburgh and St. Louis. The

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

6 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

low-fare carriers now provide about 21 percent of domestic market capacity, up from 15 percent in

2000. Aviation analysts expect their share to reach 40 percent by 2006.

Since the introduction of the regional jet in the early 1990s, the number of regional jets in

operation has increased dramatically, from only nine in 1993 to an estimated 976 in FY 2002.3 The

FAA estimates that this rapid growth will continue, topping 1,000 for the first time in FY 2003 and

reaching as many as 2,834 in FY 2014. At that point, regional jets will make up 35 percent of the

total passenger fleet, nearly doubling their current proportion. Regional jets have been used for a

variety of purposes, including replacing turboprop service, providing additional capacity in mainline

markets, replacing mainline service, and initiating new point-to-point service in some markets.

The commercial sector is also being affected by the development and introduction of larger

regional jets. These jets, with 70 to110 seats, blur the distinction between regional jets and the

smaller mainline jets. They are expected to be introduced in a variety of markets, following the pattern of growth of regional jets. Just as regional jets replaced turboprops, the large regional jets may

replace smaller regional jets in some markets. In addition, as the airlines adjust capacity in individual markets to meet demand, large regional jets will replace mainline jets. Of particular significance

was an order by Jet Blue, the fast-growing low fare carrier, for 100 Embraer EMB-190s, a planned

100-seat aircraft (with an option for another 100), to be delivered beginning in 2005, indicating that

the use of regional jets is expanding into new areas. Previously, the low-fare carriers, such as

Southwest, Air Tran and Jet Blue, have concentrated on smaller mainline jets for quick turnaround

in markets between large cities or secondary airports near large cities. In contrast, Jet Blue is

expected to use the EMB-100s to add point-to-point service in markets that are too small for Jet

Blue’s 162-seat Airbus A320s and to supplement mainline jet service in existing markets.

1.2 Non-Commercial Aviation Activity and Commercial Space Transportation

The non-commercial aviation sector consists of general aviation and military operations. Although

these sectors do not receive as much notice as the commercial sector does, general aviation is

vitally important to many sectors of the economy and military operations are a key element of

national security policy. Commercial space transportation, which refers to the launch of an object

into space by a non-governmental entity, is an important component of the economy.

1.2.1 General Aviation Activity

General aviation includes all segments of civil aviation except commercial air carriers. It is remarkably diverse in its activities, its participants, and the equipment they use. General aviation functions

range from the training of student pilots to the operation of mainline jets for private individuals or

companies. Its uses include sightseeing, agricultural application, the provision of emergency medical services, personal and corporate business travel, cargo movement, and flying for pleasure. The

diverse general aviation fleets ranges from gliders and home-built experimental aircraft, to trainers

and a variety single-engine piston aircraft, and to multi-engine piston aircraft and an enormous

range helicopters, turbo props, and jets.

Most of the thousands of U.S. airports handle only general aviation traffic. Many of these are

small, rural airports without an airport 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

7 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

3 These estimates are from the FAA Aerospace Forecasts. The FAA defines a regional jet as an aircraft having 70 seats or less. Therefore, the forecasts do not include the

new, larger regional jets, which will have as many as 100 seats.
or airspace congestion. Nonetheless, in FY 2002, almost 30 million general aviation operations

took place at airports with airport traffic control towers, over 10 percent of total aircraft operations

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

airports. General aviation traffic accounted for 15.5 percent of total aircraft operations at the 35

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) airports in FY 2002. Figure 1-5 shows that the percentage of general aviation operations at these airports varied from just 1.1 percent at Seattle-Tacoma to 25.6

percent at Honolulu.

Figure 1-5 General Aviation Operations at the OEP Airports

General Aviation % General Aviation

Airport (ID) Operations Total Operations Operations

Honolulu International (HNL) 80,825 316,089 25.6%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 62,958 275,473 22.9%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 79,739 401,491 19.9%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 79,451 401,750 19.8%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 54,625 293,076 18.6%

Tampa International (TPA) 40,499 245,225 16.5%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 93,603 577,820 16.2%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 72,214 467,160 15.5%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 72,277 491,205 14.7%

Miami International (MIA) 61,577 442,358 13.9%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 68,377 497,934 13.7%

Portland International (PDX) 36,859 277,400 13.3%

Memphis International (MEM) 46,061 393,858 11.7%

Charlotte/Douglas International (CLT) 46,168 465,246 9.9%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 30,417 310,281 9.8%

Orlando International (MCO) 27,891 303,328 9.2%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 20,559 264,075 7.8%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 15,005 201,604 7.4%

Greater Pittsburgh International (PIT) 23,701 439,360 5.4%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 24,122 453,302 5.3%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 24,816 473,084 5.2%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 25,309 490,663 5.2%

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 23,362 458,649 5.1%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 19,367 405,370 4.8%

San Francisco International (SFO) 16,386 359,133 4.7%

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) 24,917 762,371 3.3%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 12,619 407,730 3.1%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 24,290 901,703 2.7%

Denver International (DEN) 13,164 495,104 2.7%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 9,104 354,218 2.6%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 7,166 291,021 2.5%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 15,306 637,588 2.4%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 18,058 882,407 2.0%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 2,854 180,743 1.6%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 3,822 361,814 1.1%

CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

8 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 1

AVIATION ACTIVITY IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

1.2.2 Military Activity

Military operations account for a very small fraction of the activity at the nation’s airports, accounting

for just five percent of total operations in FY 2002. Military operations have increased slightly in the

last two fiscal years as the result of increased training and patrols related to aviation security. The

FAA projects a generally stable level of military operations throughout the forecast period.

Despite the relatively small number of military operations, they have a significant impact on navigation in the National Airspace System because substantial amount of U.S. airspace is designated

as special use airspace and reserved for military operations. Special use airspace is available to

commercial or general aviation operators only when the military opens a particular airspace area to

non-military operations, usually for a specified time period. The procedures for sharing special use

airspace are discussed in greater detail, later in this report.

1.2.3 Commercial Space Transportation

Commercial space transportation is an emerging industry, with new launch and recovery facilities

at both inland and sea-based locations. Operators are developing new space vehicles, including

evolved expendable launch vehicles and reusable launch vehicles.

Historically, commercial space operations have taken place at coastal ranges, using only

expendable launch vehicles. Because of their infrequency and offshore trajectories, these space

operations have had a minimal impact on National Airspace System operations. However, changes

in the magnitude and complexity of space operations will place new demands on the National

Airspace System. The expected increase in commercial launches and reentries, from a broad

range of locations, will contribute to competition for airspace with other users. To address these

issues, the FAA has developed a Space and Air Traffic Management System that supports both the

evolving space transportation industry and existing aviation activities. This represents an expansion

of the U.S. air traffic management system to integrate space and aviation operations 

9 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
“Aviation is proof that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve 

the impossible.” ~ Eddie Rickenbacker

CHAPTER 2 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS
2 System Performance Goals and Measurements

Through extensive planning, the establishment of clear objectives and measurable goals, restructuring, and a commitment to improving customer service, the FAA continues to improve its 

operational efficiency. The various plans described in the following section highlight the capacityrelated initiatives underway. For further information about the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, the

Flight Plan or the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), refer to the web site at www.faa.gov.

In addition to the plans briefly described in the following section, the FAA, under Department

of Transportation (DOT) leadership, is committed to working with other government agencies to

develop a long-range national plan for our future aviation system. FAA’s Joint Planning Office is

spearheading this effort with participation from the National Aeronautical and Space Administration,

Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Commerce.

Targeted for completion by the year 2025, the plan will lay out a concept of operations, focus

research funding, and guide the transformation of air traffic management and our ground-based

infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century.

2.1 The Air Traffic Organization

In November 2003, the FAA announced its plan for the creation of its Air Traffic Organization, which

is the culmination of a decades-long attempt to improve the delivery of air traffic services by adopting best business-like practices. The ATO is an operating entity within the FAA that consolidates

the functions previously performed by Air Traffic Services (ATS), Research and Acquisition (ARA),

and the Free Flight Program Office (AOZ).

The ATO is headed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), who reports directly to the FAA

Administrator and is a member of the FAA’s senior management team. The Secretary of

Transportation and the FAA Administrator retain responsibility for general safety and policymaking

functions. Beginning in January 2004, the ATO organization will be implemented in three phases,

establishing the management information framework, including a cost-accounting system; developing and implementing meaningful performance measures that reflect the needs of FAA customers;

and putting a system in place that connects the major top-level goals to daily operation. ATO supports the FAA’s long-term strategic plans, and ATO has prime responsibility for achieving many of the

goals and objectives of the current FAA Flight Plan.

2.2 The FAA Flight Plan 2004-2008

The FAA Flight Plan for 2004-2008 summarizes the Agency’s short-term strategies for achieving

success, and monitoring how well it is meeting the expectations of its customers and other stakeholders of the National Airspace System (NAS).

The enormous task of transforming the aviation system to meet the challenges in the second

century of powered flight require an ambitious plan engaging both the FAA and the aviation community. The FAA’s ability to improve safety and expand capacity in the U.S. and in the international

arena depends in part on the willingness of authorities on the state, local, and international levels 

to cooperate with the Agency in such areas as building new airports, expanding runways, or implementing new technologies.

The Plan contains four goal areas and the programs and initiatives to meet them. The goal

areas include: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, International Leadership, and Organizational

Excellence. The Flight Plan provides an overview of all aspects of FAA activity, with an emphasis on

CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

12 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

operations. The OEP identifies the responsibilities and duties of the key players in the industry, each

of whom must make their own contributions in order to increase capacity and efficiency of the NAS.

2.3 The Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)

The OEP is the FAA’s rolling ten-year plan to increase the capacity and efficiency of the National

Airspace System while enhancing safety and security. Introduced in June 2001, the OEP reflects

the ongoing close collaboration among the entire aviation community, which includes passenger

and cargo carriers, airports, manufacturers, general aviation, the Department of Defense, the

National Weather Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The OEP and

Flight Plan are discussed in the following section, relative to system capacity.

2.3.1 The Greater Capacity Goal of the OEP

Like safety, additional capacity is also a necessity. The efficient growth of air travel requires growth

in aviation capacity. Demand with all its economic benefits will only revive and increase if passengers

can move quickly and efficiently through the system, and airline operations can thrive only if they are

as streamlined as possible. The greater capacity goal is supported by the FAA, working with local

governments and airspace users to provide a national system that meet or exceeds demand. As the

OEP is a capacity enhancement plan, the metrics contained in the plan relate to accessibility (capacity and throughput) and efficiency. The OEP Metrics Plan uses effective capacity (measuring the 

theoretical volume of traffic that can be handled at a fixed level of delay) to capture the synergy

between capacity and demand changes. This goal will be attained through a series of objectives:

➣ Increase airport capacity to provide a system that meets or exceeds air traffic demand.

➣ Improve efficient air traffic flow over land and sea.

➣ Increase or improve airspace capacity in the eight major metropolitan areas and corridors

that most affect total system delay: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago,

Washington/Baltimore, Atlanta, LA Basin, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

➣ Increase on-time performance of scheduled carriers.

Taking into account the impact of the global economy, the war in Iraq and Severe Acute

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) on US air travel, revised industry forecasts now indicate that

demand will not rebound until 2005 at the earliest. Thus, the FAA is engaged in a complex and

thorough planning process to ensure that the NAS will be able to accommodate more traffic while

easing delays, and increase safety and security while addressing noise and air quality.

2.4 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS)

The previous section discussed performance measures that are used by both government and

industry analysts to evaluate 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. The

Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) assist 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

it to FAA facilities via a secure Wide Area Network (WAN). Data can be analyzed to uncover the root

13 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
causes of impediments to NAS operations. PDARS provides the analyst with a set of interactive tools

that can access the distributed database and measure, analyze, and report system performance.

PDARS also maintains an archive of historical data, which supports trend analysis, and before and

after comparisons. Operational performance data can be depicted both numerically and graphically.

The numerical tools provide the capability to quantify the large-scale picture of system performance

and enable the analyst to identify opportunities for performance improvements. 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 an 

animated three-dimensional view of airspace and air traffic. GRADE graphics can be exported 

to slide presentation packages. The following Figure 2-1, shows the PDARS deployment locations

as of this printing.

Figure 2-1 PDARS Deployment Locations

2.4.1 Jacksonville/Atlanta (LOA)

The PDARS\GRADE system was utilized by Jacksonville Center to test and validate in a timely 

manner the impact of a revised operational procedure involving Atlanta Hartsfield International arrivals

from the southeast. The interfacility negotiated Letter of Agreement (LOA) allows for Jacksonville

Center to descend Atlanta arrivals to FL330 or lower, prior to handoff to Atlanta Center, providing 

traffic and workload permit. The descent of the Atlanta arrivals earlier allows Atlanta controllers to 

provide a more desirable descent profile.

Figure 2-2 is a GRADE graphic highlighting the location and flight track portion of Atlanta

arrivals descending through FL355-FL365 within Jacksonville Center airspace using the pretest

procedure. Note that the majority of the Atlanta arrivals shown are descended with this altitude 

stratum in the northwest portion of Jacksonville Center airspace. Figure 2-3 shows the location and

CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

14 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

ZSE

D10

ZHU

ZJX

ZMA

ZDC

Data Source Sites

Network Administration Site

Client Sites

Central Site

NASA/Ames

Research

Center

Western Pacific

Regional Office

Southwestern

Regional Office

Southern

Regional Office

System

Command

Center

Great Lakes

Regional Office

Central

Regional Office

ZNY

NCT

ZOA

I90

ZLC

ZDV

ATAC ZLA

ZAU

ZMP

ZAB

ZBW

ZKC

SCT

ZOB

ZID

ZFW

ZME

ZTL

P50
CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

flight tracking data for Atlanta arrivals using the test procedure. In comparing the “before and after”

operation, GRADE graphics in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 clearly illustrate Jacksonville Center controller’s

were able to descend more Atlanta arrivals earlier using the test procedure, and provided a more

advantageous operation.

Figure 2-2 and 2-3 Proposed Arrival Procedure Modification

2.4.2 Ontario Class C Airspace Study

This study was commenced as a result of pilot reports indicating that aircraft on the instrument

approaches into Ontario International Airport were dropping out of the Class C airspace on both east

and west operations. Of concern was the number of visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft navigating close

to and around Ontario Class C, and with the possible conflictions that this situation might create. The

Southern California TRACON (SCT) Airspace Planning Office was directed to investigate this situation

and used the PDARS\GRADE system to examine just how Ontario arrival, departure, and over flight

aircraft interact with the Class C airspace and to determine if a Class C extension was necessary.

Figure 2-4 shows one of the GRADE graphics produced during this study and illustrates that

Ontario International Airport arrivals under west plan do indeed leave and return to Class C airspace. This egress and ingress generally occurs five to seven miles from the airport while on final

approach. The graphic in Figure 2-4, as well as other PDARS/GRADE data, was used in this study

as a tool in collaborating with adjacent facilities to implement interim procedural changes, and for

development of airspace design improvements. An extension to the Class C has been proposed

as a result of these efforts.

15 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

Atlantic

Ocean

Atlanta Arrivals

Descending

Through FL355-FL365

Prior to the test 8/14/03

Jacksonville

Center

Pretest ATL

FL

GA

Atlantic

Ocean

Test

FL

GA

Atlanta Arrivals

Descending

Through FL355-FL365

During the test 8/26/03

Jacksonville

Center

ATL
Figure 2-4 Ontario International Airport Arrivals Exiting

2.4.3 SFO MOLEN Departure Procedure Analysis

The MOLEN Standard Instrument Departure (SID) calls for aircraft to cross the MOLEN intersection,

thereby remaining over the ocean for noise abatement purposes. In 2001, it was brought to FAA’s

attention that San Francisco Departures utilizing the MOLEN SID were at times being expedited prior

to reaching MOLEN intersection. This non-standard departure routing was permitted during the day,

but was not to be used at night because it would cause flights to fly over the Point Reyes National

Sea Shore. Bay TRACON (now part of the new Northern California TRACON) was requested to evaluate the problem and determine if flights were in fact being re-routed during nighttime operations.

To accomplish this task, the PDARS/GRADE system was used to analyze the SFO MOLEN

Departure Procedure and to determine the extent of compliance with the nighttime restriction.

In Figure 2-5, the SFO departure flights depicted as dotted lines are flight tracks as flown in

2001. Note that several of these flights cross land in the vicinity of the Point Reyes VORTAC (PYE).

As a result of the initial PDARS/GRADE analysis, FAA re-emphasized to controllers that compliance

with the SID was mandatory during nighttime operations. A follow-on analysis was conducted by

Northern California TRACON. The flights depicted as solid blue lines, are SFO departures from

2003 and are representative of current operations. Note, all but one flight are in compliance with

the MOLEN Departure Procedure and that the expedited flight it turns out was vectored during the

daytime. Figure 2-5 and additional PDARS\GRADE data were presented in briefings requested by

the public. Use of this information was essential in assuring the public that the SFO MOLEN

Departure Procedure was being followed.

CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

16 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

ONT arrivals dropping out

of the Class C airspace on a

five to seven mile final

Class C

Boundary

PETIS

5

2,700 MSL

944 MSL

Center of Runways

10

MSL

20

30

40

6 7 8 NM (Approximately)
CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

Figure 2-5 SFO MOLEN

PDARS is typically put to work almost immediately after its installation. PDARS will be

deployed at all 20 domestic Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) and several Terminal Radar

Approach Control Facilities (TRACONs) by the end of CY 2004. Figure 2-6 gives the timeline for

PDARS deployment that will occur within five phases planned for completion in 2006.

17 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

Pacific Ocean

San Pablo

Bay

Suisun

Bay PYE-VORTAC

SAU-VORTAC

STINS

NORMM

LOZIT ANGEL

MOLEN

OAK-VORTAC

SGD-VORTAC

San

Francisco

Berkeley

Oakland

Richmond

San Rafael

Vallejo

Napa

Petaluma

2001 Departure 

Procedure

Today’s Departure

Procedure
Figure 2-6 PDARs Deployment Timeline

2.5 Delays in the National Airspace System

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

calculate for an individual flight, airport, or for the entire system. There are many delay parameters

that can be (and are) tracked.

By any measure, indications of a recovery in air traffic are evidenced by the increase in delays

by year end 2003, which ended the trend of a significant decrease in delays that occurred between

2000 and 2002. Traffic continues to recover at an uneven rate throughout the system, as many of

the largest airports have been operating at or near their theoretical capacity. As observed in prior

years, a small increase in the number of operations at certain airports produce a disproportionate

increase in the number of delays.

CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

18 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002

ID Task Name Duration

1 PDARS Deployment 1282 Days

2 Westcoast Prototype 1 Day

9 Phase II 280 Days

17 Phase III 280 Days

24 Phase IV 240 Days

25 ASO 30 Days

26 ZOB 30 Days

27 ZMP 30 Days

28 ZAU 30 Days

29 ACL 30 Days

30 ZMC 30 Days

31 ACE 30 Days

32 ZSE 30 Days

33 ZLC 30 Days

34 ZDV 30 Days

35 ANM 30 Days

36 ZNY 30 Days

37 ZDC 30 Days

38 AEA 30 Days

39 ZBW 30 Days

40 ANE 30 Days

41 Phase V 780 Days

42 ATL 40 Days

43 CLT 40 Days

44 CBC 40 Days

45 MCO 40 Days

46 MEM 40 Days

47 MIA 40 Days

48 STL 40 Days

49 TPA 40 Days

JASON D J FMAMJ JASOND J FMAMJ JASOND J FMAMJ JASOND J FMAMJ JASOND J FMAMJ JASOND
CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

2.5.1 Delays Reported by the Operations Network

In December 2003, the DOT and FAA expanded its monthly report on airline service, to include 

reasons for flight delays. This information may be accessed on the Web at www.bts.gov under the

Aviation Information Header, see “Airline On-time Performance and Causes of Flight Delays.” The FAA

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

data is generated from observations by FAA personnel, who record only the aircraft that are delayed

by 15 minutes or more during any phase of flight. According to OPSNET data 316,888 flights were

delayed by 15 minutes in CY 2003, an increase of 31,239 or 10.9 percent from the 285,649 delays

in CY 2002. Figure 2-7 shows flight delays for the years for which OPSNET data are available.

Figure 2-7 Annual Flight Delays CY 1991-CY 2003

Eight of the months in 2003 had higher delays than the corresponding months of 2002,

some significantly higher. As traffic continues to recover, more delay can be expected without

increases in capacity. Figure 2-8, highlights the changes in delay by month between CY 2002 and

CY 2003.

Figure 2-8 Flight Delays by Month, CY 2002 and CY 2003

19 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

CY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

500

400

300

200

100

Flight Delays (Thousands)

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

40

30

20

10

Flight Delays (Thousands) 2002 2003
The total number of aircraft operations during the same period was down by only 0.3 percent.

Thus, the rate of delays increased as well as the absolute number of delays. Figure 2-9 shows the

number of delays per 1,000 aircraft operations, by month, for 2002 and 2003.

Figure 2-9 Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations by Month, CY 2002 and 2003

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 2-10 shows the distribution of delays by

cause for CY 2003.

Figure 2-10 Flight Delays by Cause CY 2003

CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

20 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

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

8

6

4

2

Flight Delays per 1,000 Operations 2002 2003

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

40

30

20

10

Flight Delays (Thousands)

Other Runway Equipment Volume Weather
CHAPTER 2

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASUREMENTS

In response to numerous inquiries in 2002, 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 such as low

ceilings and visibility. There were 107,841 ground delays recorded in CY 2003, an increase of

28,537 or 36 percent from the previous year’s 79,304.

2.5.2 The Aviation System Performance Metrics System

The Aviation System Performance Metrics System (ASPM) was originally developed on a cooperative basis by the FAA and nine air carrier members of the Air Transport Association to measure 

performance of the NAS by individual flight by phase of flight on a next day basis. Currently, 22 air

carriers report flight data for flights to and from 55 airports.

ASPM integrates daily data from two primary sources: the Enhanced Traffic Management

System (ETMS) and Out, Off, On, and In data from ARINC. In addition, data are included from the

Official Airline Guide (OAG), and monthly carrier filings under 14 CFR Part 234, Airline Service

Quality Reports, with the DOT.

In 2002 the FAA and DOT jointly agreed a flight was delayed if it arrived at the destination

gate 15 minutes or more after its scheduled arrival time. In June 2003, air carriers required to file

data under Part 234 for delayed flights began to provide data indicating the cause of such delay

in five categories: carrier caused, weather, NAS, security, and late arriving flights. These data are

maintained in ASPM, along with a separate breakdown of what carriers identified as NAS caused

delays into the same categories that are reported in OPSNET, using information contained 

in OPSNET.

The ASPM database is the primary data source for the many of the FAA’s operational 

performance metrics in the FAA’s Flight Plan, issued in September 2003. Most of these metrics are

limited to data for flights to and from the OEP 35 airports. Primary metrics include the percent 

of flights on-time, airport arrival capacity at the 35 OEP airports, airport arrival capacity at eight 

congested metropolitan areas, and airport arrival efficiency.

21 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

“The airport runway is the most important mainstream in any town.” ~ Norm Crabtree
3 Development of Airport Capacity

The FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming serves as the principal organization of the FAA

responsible for all Airports program matters pertaining to national airport planning, environmental and

social requirements, airport grants, property transfers, passenger facility charges, and ensuring 

adequacy of the substantive aspects of FAA rulemaking actions relating to these programs. The

Office of System Capacity participates in the planning of capacity strategies for major U.S. airports,

which includes assessing the technical feasibility of new systems and equipment.

This chapter summarizes capacity enhancements that are being achieved through airport

development, major airport construction projects and the analyses necessary to support airport

development. These analyses include airport design team studies and airport capacity benchmarking, as well as quantifying the benefits of potential capacity projects. Chapter 3 also summarizes

other programs and activities affecting airport development, and includes a description of the

resources funding these activities.

3.1 Capacity Enhancement Through Airport Construction Projects

There are two main strategies for enhancing airport capacity: build new runways and maximize the

efficiency of existing runways. In 2003, new runways were completed at Miami International,

Denver International, George Bush Intercontinental, and Orlando International airports. Following 

are some highlights of these projects, which generally can take up to ten years to plan, construct

and commission.

Miami’s Runway 8/26 construction project, completed in September 2003, took 51 months—

15 months for design and 36 for the contract awarding process and construction. It is estimated that

this capital improvement will increase capacity by 20 percent in Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) and 10

percent in Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions. The airport anticipates returning to pre-September

11th traffic levels in 2006. The airport has also invested $161 million in further capacity enhancement for an airport that is challenged by a relatively confining space of 3,200 acres.

Denver opened Runway 16R/34L in 2003, which is the longest commercial runway in North

America, measuring 16,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. The runway project began in 1989, but

the project was stopped in 1995 and did not resume until October 2000. Construction costs were

approximately $167 million. It is anticipated that this runway could increase runway capacity at an

estimated level of 18 percent in VFR and 4 percent in IFR.

George Bush Intercontinental opened its new 9,000-foot runway, 8L/26R, in early 2003 at an

estimated cost of $260 million. The new runway, has the potential to support triple simultaneous

IFR approaches when this procedure is approved by the FAA. The new runway will improve VFR

capacity by 35 percent and IFR capacity by 37 percent. The airport, opened in 1969, operates on

10,000 acres.

Orlando opened its fourth runway in 2003. The runway will enhance efficient airline operations,

by providing a system for simultaneous IFR landings by three aircraft, which is known as “triple 

simultaneous approaches,” expected to provide a capacity gain as high as 23 percent in VFR and

34 percent in IFR. This airport continues construction of a 345-foot above ground level tower, which

will be the tallest air traffic control tower in the U.S.

3.1.1 Capacity Enhancement Through Construction of New Runways and Extensions

A number of the busiest airports have completed new runways or other runway construction 

projects over the past five years. Figure 3-1 shows that ten new runways were opened from

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

24 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

January 1998 to October of 2003. Another 22 construction projects were completed for the 

same period, including 18 runway extensions, 3 reconstructions and 1 realignment. There are 35 

construction projects planned between November 2003 and 2008 shown in Figure 3-2, including

the building of 11 new runways.

Figure 3-1 Completed Runway Construction Projects January 1998 to October 2003

Airport (ID) Year Runway

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) • 1998 17/35

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) • 1998 4L/22R

Milwaukee General Mitchell (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

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

Palm Beach International (PBI) • 2000 9L/27R

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) • 2000 7R/25L

Norman Y. Mineta San José 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

Albany County (ALB) • 2002 10/28

Birmingham (BHM) • 2002 5/23

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) • 2002 9/27

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) • 2002 6L/24R

Dayton International (DAY) • 2002 6R/24L

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) • 2002 18L/36R

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) • 2002 15R/33L

Memphis International (MEM) • 2002 18R/36L

Pensacola Regional (PNS) • 2002 8/26

Sarasota Bradenton (SRQ) • 2002 14/32

Denver International (DEN) • 2003 16R/34L

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) • 2003 8L/26R

Miami International (MIA) • 2003 8/26

25 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

NewExtensionRenovationReconstructionRealignment
Figure 3-2 Runway Construction Projects November 2003 to December 2008

Airport (ID)

Orlando International (MCO) • 17L/35R $203.0 2003 •

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) • 7L/25R $66.0 2003 •

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) • • 12R/30L $61.4 2003

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) • 6L/24R $230.0 2004

Greensboro Piedmont Triad (GSO) • 5L/23R $96.0 2004

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) • 4/22 $11.4 2004

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) • 1/19 $31.5 2004

Louisville International (SDF) • 17R/35L $18.0 2004

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5L/23R $7.0 2004

Albany County (ALB) • 1/19 $7.5 2005

Buffalo Niagara 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

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) • 17/35 $563.0 2005 •

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) • 6/24 $15.0 2005

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) • 10/28 $133.0 2006

Boston Logan International (BOS) • 14/32 $100.0 2006

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) • 6R/24L $40.0 2006

Norfolk International (ORF) • • 5R/23L $120.0 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

Indianapolis International (IND) • 5R/23L $80.0 2008

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) • 18W/36W $187.0 TBD

Dallas-Fort Worth International (DFW) • 18R/36L $400.0 TBD

Manchester (MHT) • 6/24 TBD TBD

See Appendix C for Runway Construction Projects 2009 and Beyond

3.2 Other Strategies For Improving Airport Capacity

In addition to new runway construction projects, the FAA assists airports in meeting peak demand

through a combination of strategies that make better use of existing runways.

Several projects are underway to improve arrival and departure rates at OEP airports. In addition to building new runways, procedures will be evaluated for crossing runway configurations at 18

benchmark airports. Terminal airspace redesigns, planned for most of the benchmark airports and

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

26 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

NewExtensionReconstructionRunway IdentifierEstimated Cost ($M)Planned Operational YearIn Progress
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

metro areas are aimed at improving the transition of arrivals and departures. Traffic management

advisory tools that help in managing the arrival stream will become operational in four sites. Also, the

multi-center capability will be evaluated in the Philadelphia area. An update of operational procedures

is provided in Chapter 4 and Airspace Redesign is summarized in Chapter 5.

3.2.1 Airport Design Team Studies

The Office of System Capacity (ASC) helps to improve system efficiency by identifying and evaluating initiatives with the potential to increase capacity in the NAS. Among its many responsibilities,

ASC supports Airport Capacity Design Teams. These teams evaluate alternatives for increasing

capacity at specific airports that are experiencing or projected to experience significant flight

delays. An airport study is the product of the Airport Capacity Design Team. Capacity studies are

a crucial element in attaining funding for airport development projects. ASC also serves on teams

that investigate other airport capacity enhancements, and participate in air traffic control simulations at the request of local and regional air traffic representatives and foreign airport operators.

3.2.1.1 The Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport Perimeter Taxiway Demonstration

In an effort to reduce arrival and departure delays and the number of active runway crossings 

(with the added benefit of reducing the likelihood of runway incursions), a perimeter taxiway concept

was proposed for DFW. A real-time human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation was conducted on February

10-13, 2003, by a team consisting of the airport, the FAA, and NASA. This demonstration provided

an opportunity to observe and experience the proposed airport improvements with realism and high

fidelity, and generated a considerable amount of valuable data for analysis.

Currently, DFW experiences about 1,700 runway crossings per day, which contribute to arrival

and departure delays and the potential for runway incursions. The primary objective of the simulation was to provide the airlines, air traffic controllers, and pilots and their unions the opportunity to

observe and participate in a demonstration of the proposed airport improvements to gain support of

the perimeter taxiways. The secondary objective was to collect and analyze operational data for the

purposes of deriving descriptive statistics for runway crossings, taxi times, and pilot and controller

transmissions. Overall, the data collected from the participants and the statistics demonstrated that

the perimeter taxiways would improve operations in many areas, including average departure rates,

average outbound taxi duration and associated runway occupancy times, average inbound and 

outbound stop rates and duration times, the number of runway crossings, and the amount of 

controller and pilot communications.

3.2.1.2 The Portland International Airport Study

Portland International Airport is ranked 34 in aircraft operations according to FY 2002 data, and is

expected to experience a 26.6 percent increase in operations by 2010, according to 2001

Terminal Area Forecast baseline data. Recently, the Port of Portland decided to adopt low growth

forecast figures for decisions regarding the timing of future facility enhancements. Using the Port’s

local 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 phase of the study, which was initiated in the fall of 2002, will further analyze the

capacity and delay reduction benefits of the proposed third parallel runway by comparing the 

27 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
centralized and decentralized terminal options along with the reconfiguration of associated taxiways.

The updated study will be completed in the late spring of 2004.

3.2.1.3 Baltimore-Washington International Airport Study

The Baltimore/Washington International Airport Capacity Task Force completed a study to determine when a new runway will be needed at BWI airport. An Airport Master Planning process will

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

study. The task force is now in phase three of the project. In 2003, BWI released an evaluation of

each proposed capacity improvement and simulations were conducted to further evaluate impacts

associated with capacity solutions. In 2004, the task force will update the forecasts, conduct 

further capacity analysis, develop cost estimates and conduct environmental studies.

3.2.1.4 Philadelphia International Airport Simulation Study

The FAA’s Modeling and Analysis Group, ACB-320, of the William J. Hughes Technical Center, has

been tasked to conduct computer simulations at PHL airport to evaluate two proposed scenarios

for runway development. The first involves a parallel concept, which will require the construction of

an additional parallel runway to the existing airfield. The second is a diagonal concept involving the

rotation of the airfield by approximately 30 degrees. Four runways would be constructed in addition

to the relocation of the existing terminal area. Simulation results of the two concepts will be analyzed

and compared. This analysis, which began in 2003, will be presented to PHL for their review in 

late 2004.

3.2.2 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. Since the

original report was published, the number of benchmarked airports has increased to 35 with the

inclusion of the Cleveland, Ft. Lauderdale, Portland and Midway airports. 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. This report was also 

prepared to understand the impact of airline scheduling and the relief that could be provided by

the ATC modernization effort, new controller procedures and ground infrastructure in both the short

and the long term.

Benchmark rates for each airport were derived based on observations of 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 observed and calculated estimates

were compared to historical arrival and departure data to confirm their validity. Two benchmark

rates were calculated for each airport: an optimum rate and a reduced rate. The optimum rate was

defined as the maximum number of aircraft that can be routinely handled using visual approaches

during periods of unlimited ceiling and visibility ̧ when there are no traffic constraints in the en route

system or airport terminal area, and aircraft operate using Visual Flight Rules (VFR). The reduced

rate is defined as the number of aircraft that can be handled during peak periods of poor visibility

when radar is required to ensure separation between aircraft, for the runway configuration most

commonly used in adverse weather, when Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions apply.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

28 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
50 100 150

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

Once the benchmark rates were derived, they were then compared to the air carrier flight

schedules to document how frequently scheduled demand exceeded the benchmark capacity

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 capacity for sustained periods of time, delays are inevitable. When

the report was originally produced, eight airports were defined as pacing airports. Those airports

were selected given their significant passenger delays – where three percent or more of the operations experienced delays in excess of 15 minutes. Those airports included New York LaGuardia,

Newark, New York Kennedy, Chicago O’Hare, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Boston.

The FAA has initiated an update of the Capacity Benchmark Report, scheduled to be complete in 2004. Additional airport configurations are being analyzed for progressively worse weather

conditions. The 2001 benchmark capacity is also being adjusted due to the changes that have

occurred in operating practices of the airlines, operational procedures, and ground infrastructure

improvements. For example, the industry has experienced many changes in growth at secondary

airports, fewer hubs as airlines restructure, and rolling hubs are becoming a standard practice.

Figure 3-3 shows the delay rates per thousand operations at the 8 pacing airports for CY 2000

and CY 2002.

Figure 3-3 Capacity Benchmark Pacing Airports Delay Rate (2000 through 2002)

Boston Logan International (BOS)

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL)

Philadelphia International (PHL)

San Francisco International (SFO)

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD)

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK)

Newark Liberty International (EWR)

New York LaGuardia (LGA)

Source: OPSNET

Of the eight pacing airports, Atlanta was the only airport that experienced an increase in the

delays per thousand operations in 2002 (43.9) as compared to 2000. The 17 percent increase in

the delay rate in ATL (2002 as compared to 2000) was in spite of a 2 percent decrease in operations. The new runway, planned for completion in 2006, is expected to improve Atlanta’s capacity

benchmark substantially. In 2002, Newark’s delays per thousand operations (55.7) was relatively flat

as compared to the delay rate experienced in 2000 and registered the highest delays per operation

of the eight pacing airports.

29 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

2000

2001

2002
ASC has conducted capacity enhancement studies at 30 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 in Figure 3-4 is an

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

Figure 3-4 OPSNET Delay Data for the Pacing Airports

Delays per 1,000 Operations LGA EWR JFK ORD SFO PHL ATL BOS

2000 155.9 56.2 41.8 57.7 51.9 47.5 37.4 48.2

2001 77.0 52.4 38.3 51.9 47.3 42.4 39.4 46.2

2002 34.4 55.7 34.9 54.1 39.9 39.3 43.9 40.7

Operations

2000 392,047 457,182 358,951 908,977 430,554 483,567 913,449 508,283

2001 376,919 445,082 317,746 911,861 387,599 467,183 887,403 471,989

2002 367,656 411,239 301,160 922,787 351,453 467,717 890,923 404,649

Delays per 1,000 Operations LGA EWR JFK ORD SFO PHL ATL BOS

Change 2001 H/(L) than 2000 (51%) (7%) (8%) (10%) (9%) (11%) 5% (4%)

Change 2002 H/(L) than 2001 (27%) 6% (8%) 4% (14%) (7%) 12% (11%)

Change 2002 H/(L) than 2000 (78%) (1%) (17%) (6%) (23%) (17%) 17% (16%)

Operations

Change 2001 H/(L) than 2000 (4%) (3%) (11%) 0% (10%) (3%) (3%) (7%)

Change 2002 H/(L) than 2001 (2%) (8%) (5%) 1% (9%) 0% 0% (14%)

Change 2002 H/(L) than 2000 (6%) (10%) (16%) 2% (18%) (3%) (2%) (20%)

Source: OPSNET

3.2.3 International Initiatives Address Global Capacity Enhancement

In addition to its roles as a focal point for airport capacity analyses and facilitation of strategic planning and performance measurement, ASC also coordinates international cooperative efforts to

improve system capacity and efficiency. ASC is currently spearheading two international forums:

the New Large Aircraft (NLA) Facilitation Group and the International Terminal Benchmark Study.

The New Large Aircraft Facilitation Group meets regularly to discuss issues related to airfield

and operational modifications that may be required to allow the passenger and freighter versions

of the A380 (currently in production) to operate at airports that do not currently meet national or

international standards for such a large aircraft. Participants include representatives from the FAA

and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as aircraft manufacturers, and airport,

airline, and pilot organizations. As the A-380 will fly many trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes,

airports in Australia, Asia, Europe, and the U.S. that are likely to service the A-380 are working to

make sure that they will be able to accommodate it without significant interruptions to other aircraft

operations. Section 3.4.3 provides more information on the NLA Facilitation Group and the status

of A380 airport modification issues.

The International Terminal Benchmark Study is pairing six U.S. terminal control facilities with

facilities at similarly-sized airports in other countries for the purpose of studying the relative cost

and efficiency of providing terminal and approach control services. The terminal facility pairings are:

New Orleans and Dublin, Ireland; San Diego and Auckland; Portland and Copenhagen;

Philadelphia and Frankfurt; Tampa and Sydney, and Dulles and Toronto. This study is a follow-up

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

30 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

on a Eurocontrol study conducted in 2002 that focused on the comparative cost-effectiveness of

en route facilities in Europe and the U.S. That study found that U.S. en route centers are more

cost-effective than their European counterparts, and that U.S. en route controllers can handle more

traffic when working at their maximum throughput. The terminal benchmark study will assist the

U.S. and the other participating countries to better understand the factors that contribute to the

provision of effective and efficient terminal ATC services, and will go beyond the en route study in

its analysis of service cost drivers. The study will be completed in 2004.

3.2.4 Future Airport Capacity Studies

The FAA is now conducting a study entitled “A Look Into the Future: An Analysis of Airport Demand

and Capacity Across the NAS,” to identify airports where additional capacity development may be

necessary. By combining a variety of data sources to estimate capacity with the socio-economic

factors that affect passenger demand, the FAA will develop a comprehensive analysis of future

capacity needs.

For the larger airports—those identified in the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)—multiple 

criteria were used to identify needed capacity. The Annual Service Volume (ASV), simulation modeling, and updated capacity benchmark criteria needed to be in agreement in order for the airport to

be identified as needing additional capacity. For the smaller airports, a simplified approach that relied

on an airfield capacity model and socio-economic information was used.

The socio-economic factors being examined include an analysis of existing forecasts of economic and demographic data by metropolitan area. These forecasts were translated into estimates

of future passenger demand that in turn were used to forecast future operations for those metropolitan areas. The study’s scope goes beyond the OEP airports. However, sufficient funding and

support from the community and political stakeholders are necessary for the study to continue. The

results of the first phase of the study will be published in the 2004 ACE Plan.

3.3 Resources Affecting Airport Development

Federal interest in capital investment is guided by its commitment to ensure safety and security, preserve and enhance capacity, assist small airports, fund noise mitigation, and protect the environment.

Financing airport development projects is challenging in the current environment given

increased operating costs and capital expenditures required to meet safety, security, and capacity

requirements. These increased costs are combined with lower airline revenues and have caused

some airports to defer and/or reduce certain capital expenditures and operating expenses.

Between 2001 and 2005, the FAA estimated airport capital development costs of $9 billion,

annually. This estimate includes only projects eligible for federal funding. Airports Council

International (ACI), a key organization that represents the airport industry, estimated costs of $15

billion, annually, which includes projects that may or may not be eligible for federal funding. Neither

FAA’s nor ACI’s estimate includes funding for the terminal modification projects needed to accommodate the new explosives detection systems required to screen checked baggage. From 1999

through 2001, airports received an average of $12 billion annually for planned capital development.

The primary source of funding capital development was bonds, followed by federal grants and

Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs).4

31 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

4 “Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Financial Outlook is Positive, but the trust fund’s balance would be affected if taxes were suspended,” United States General Accounting Office,

September 2003.
3.3.1 Airport Improvement Program

The FAA administers the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), 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 Airport and Airway Trust 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, the Facilities

and Equipment Program, the Research, Engineering and Development Program, and the 

FAA Operations and Maintenance Programs (allocations vary, usually at 50 percent from the trust

fund and the remainder from general funds).

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.

The FY 2003 request for funding is $3.4 billion in AIP grants, which was $0.1 billion higher

than the previous fiscal year. Under AIR-21, the annual authorized levels for the Airport

Improvement Program, (AIP) increased substantially, as AIP remains a critical source of support for

the nation’s civilian air transportation infrastructure.

Figure 3-5 Airport Improvement Program Funding History ($ in Billions)

Fiscal Year Total Authorized Appropriated

1994 3.0 1.8

1995 2.1 1.5

1996 2.2 1.5

1997 2.3 1.5

1998 2.3 1.7

1999 2.4 2.0

2000 2.5 1.9

2001 3.2 3.2

2002 3.3 3.3

2003 3.4 3.4

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; or

➣ Remaining airports not specifically defined in the act, referred to as GA airports.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

32 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

3.3.2 Passenger Facility Charges

Since 1992, airports have applied to the FAA to implement a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) 

program. PFCs are fees paid by the enplaning passengers as an add-on to airfare. Originally, the

maximum PFC was $3.00 per trip segment. The current maximum PFC is $4.50 per trip segment,

with a cap of $18 for a roundtrip ticket. Every PFC application includes a summary of the projects

that the airport intends to apply the PFCs remitted. Once authorized by the FAA, the PFC funding

is collected by the airlines and remitted to the airport.

The FAA has approved over 300 airports to impose this fee, representing eventual collections

of more than $43.8 billion over the next 40 years. Estimated PFC collections for FY 2003 are $2.1

billion. PFCs are used to finance capital improvements to address safety, capacity, airport access,

and security needs, as well as noise reduction projects. The reduction in passengers has impacted

the amount of funds collected by airports.

3.3.3 User Charges

In addition to airline revenues, there are several other users/tenants at an airport that generate 

revenue. Parking fees are typically the largest revenue source. Airlines carry a large share of airport

expenses, through landing fees, facility rentals, and other costs. With lowered operations by airlines

combined with fewer passengers, the level of revenue generated by airlines has been reduced.

Airports also generate revenue through airport concessions (which include food, beverage, retail and

car rental).

3.3.4 Airport Bonds

Airports rely on the issuance of bonds for a large portion of their capital development. This is particularly true for large and medium hub airports that rely on bonds as the largest source of funding.

There are three classes of bonds issued by airports, which include:

➣ General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs),

➣ Special Facility Bonds, and

➣ Passenger Facility Charge Bonds.

Each type of bond has varying risk based on many factors including the issuing entity (airport

or airline), level of origin and destination passengers, and whether an airport is dominated by a 

single airline. GARBs have a strong credit history since airline deregulation in 1978. These 

tax-exempt bonds are secured by an airport’s future revenues and are issued directly by the airport entity. Used to finance airport facilities (including consolidated rental car facilities, maintenance

hangers, and airport terminal buildings), special facility bonds are obligations of specific airlines (or

other tenants) with the airport being a conduit issuer. Payment is made directly from the airline (or

other tenants) directly to the bond holders. PFC bonds are backed by the passenger facility

charges received, over time, by an airport.5 With the reduction in passengers, less PFC revenue

has been collected which has resulted in narrow margins as compared to the debt service.

33 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

5 “Airline Bankruptcies and Airport Bonds: 2003-2006,” Fitch Ratings, July 21, 2003.
3.3.5 Other Sources of Funding

Airport staff personnel continuously explore alternate revenue generation methods and have

employed innovative ways to generate revenue, reduce operating costs, or eliminate capital expenditures. In addition, private sources of funding may also be available through airport tenants, 

third-party developers and private entities.

3.4 Other Airport Development Activities

In an effort to explore all possibilities to achieve capacity enhancement, the FAA supports other

types of programs that currently show or demonstrate the potential to improve system capacity in

the future.

3.4.1 The Military Airport Program

The Military Airport Program (MAP) is another solution that can enhance airport system capacity and

help to reduce flight delays at a relatively low cost, by converting military airfields to civilian use in or

near major metropolitan areas. MAP is funded through the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program. AIP

funds are used to provide financial assistance for up to five years to the civilian sponsor of military

airfields being converted to, or that have been converted to, civilian or joint-use airfields. MAP funds

may be used for projects not generally funded by AIP that aid in the conversion process for civilian

use. These projects include building or rehabilitating surface parking lots, fuel farms, hangars, utility

systems, access roads, and cargo buildings.

A total of fifteen airports may participate in the program, including one general aviation 

airport. In 2003, three airports were added to the Map Program: Kalaeloa Airport, the former Naval

Air Station Barbers Point, HI is a reliever airport for Honolulu International; Southern California

Logistics Airport, Victorville, CA, is re-designated for a two year term, and Castle Airport, Atwater,

CA, is the general aviation designation, designated for the first time for one year. Other airports that

are currently in the MAP are: Guam International Airport, Guam; Sawyer Airport, Marquette, MI; Mid

America Airport, Belleville, IL; Plattsburgh International Airport, Plattsburgh, NY; Cecil Field,

Jacksonville, FL; Oskaloosa Regional Airport, Valparaiso, FL; Tipton Airport, Odenton, MD; Mather

Airport, Sacramento, CA; March Inland Port, Riverside, CA; and Gray Army Airfield in Killeen, TX.

3.4.2 The Essential Air Service Program

The Essential Air Service Program (EAS) subsidizes air travel to approximately 100 rural communities, since the program was established with the enactment of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act. 

The FAA reauthorization bill, known as Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, has not

yet been approved. The bill contains a $115 million annual funding request for the basic EAS 

program, as well as adding several new pilot programs that will help small airport communities

increase their marketability.

3.4.3 Impact of New Transport Aircraft

The FAA’s New Large Aircraft (NLA) Facilitation Group continues to meet and assess the potential

impact of the Airbus A380. Ongoing issues under review include evaluating 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 (ICAO) to ensure the development of harmonious standards. Airport development and the ability to integrate new capacity in the infrastructure are driven by the unique and varying characteristics of each surrounding airport community.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

34 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

3.4.3.1 Aircraft Design Impacts Airport Design

Fleet composition at airports is becoming more complex. As air traffic continues to recover 

unevenly throughout the NAS, airport terminals must quickly adapt to the surge in commuter aircraft operating with mainline jets, while planning for the very few A380’s expected in the air traffic

system in the near future.

The study of the impact of A380’s on airport design includes the evaluating such factors as

large capacity aircraft requirements and what airports will need to service them, airside infrastructure impacts, airside capacity impacts, landside impacts, pavement design considerations, noise 

considerations and the systems approach (such as the impact on aircraft separation). Costly structural airport facility changes and airline personnel costs include supporting dual-level boarding

gates, ticketing and service areas for handling 555 to 650 passengers, security processing and

apron parking requirements.

A survey was conducted by the General Accounting Office to determine the costs for 14 U.S.

airports making the required modifications to accommodate the A380/A380F.6 While the airports

estimated their collective costs at $2 billion, Airbus responded that their study placed the expense

at $520 million. Some unresolved issues remain between the airports and Airbus, concerning what

contributes to the variation in cost estimates, and under what conditions operational modifications

such as restricting the A380’s to certain taxiways could be employed to avoid large expenditures

on airport upgrades.

Through the FAA-led work groups, a balance can be achieved between minimizing the adaptation costs sustained by airports, the impact on aerodynamic performance sought by aircraft 

manufacturers and the new operational cost-efficiencies needed by airlines. The ultimate benefit is

that as air traffic levels return and surpass 2001 levels, high capacity airports could benefit from

lower flight frequencies resulting from NLA operations, assuming that the passenger demand flows

are historically consistent.

To give a perspective of how the dynamically-changing mix of passenger jet aircraft may

impact airport development, the FAA has forecasted that the fleet will increase from 5,156 aircraft in

2002, to 8,095 by 2014. This group is expected to increase by an average of 21 aircraft per year

(3.5 percent). It is also forecasted that there will be a decrease in the three-engine widebody fleet

(the MD-11, DC10 and L-1011), from 92 aircraft in 2002 to 34 aircraft in 2014. Four-engine widebody aircraft, (the B-747 and A-340) are also expected to decline from 92 aircraft in 2002 to 78 

aircraft in 2014, as two A 380’s are scheduled for delivery in three years.7 In Figure 3-6, wingspan

lengths are portrayed according to aircraft type. The two-engine, widebody aircraft, specifically the

A-300/310/330 and B-767/777 models, is the fastest growing group in the U.S. fleet.

35 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

6 The 14 surveyed airports are: Chicago O’Hare, New York Kennedy, Anchorage, San Francisco, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Indianapolis, Washington Dulles, Memphis, Atlanta, Houston

Intercontinental, Orlando, Miami and Denver.

7 FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2003-2014, FAA-APO-03-1
Figure 3-6 FAA Design Group Aircraft Comparison by Wing Span Length

Design Group Wing Span (ft.) Aircraft Type

I <49’ Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36

II 49’-79’ Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair RJ-100

III 79’-118’ Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus 320

IV 118’-171’ Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A-300

V 171’-214’ Boeing 747, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A-340

VI 214’-262’ A380-800

3.4.3.2 Airbus and Boeing’s Perspectives of the Future

Among the nation’s system of over 500 airports, there are 14 U.S. airports that are planning to make

modifications to accommodate the A380’s by 2010. Airbus is strategizing its aircraft design plans to

meet the need for much larger aircraft serving connections through congested hubs, where landing

slots are a premium. Currently Airbus has 121 firm orders plus 8 commitments, making a total of 129

aircraft, from 11 customers, planning for delivery of the first two A380’s in 2006.

Boeing recently announced that it has elected to apply its new technology to the design of the

7E7, a fuel-efficient conventional jet that would seat 200-300 passengers, have a range of 6,600

nautical miles, and a 186-ft. wing span. Boeing’s projections for a greater demand in point-to-point

service have resulted in the development of the 7E7 jetliner that is due to start commercial flight

operations in 2008. The Dreamliner would use 20 percent less fuel and cost 10 percent less to 

operate than current models. In 2001, Boeing scrapped plans for the 747 Jumbo Jet called the

747X, to build the Sonic Cruiser, which in turn was terminated in 2002 due to the economic downturn and overall drop in air traffic.

CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT CAPACITY

36 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 4 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

“An airplane stands for freedom, for joy, for the power to understand, and to

demonstrate understanding. Those things aren’t destructible.” ~ Richard Bach
4 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, and ultimately give pilots more flexibility in determining their route, 

altitude, speed, departure and landing times.

4.1 Spring/Summer 2003

In 2003 the FAA and airlines continued to work together to improve processes for managing traffic

flow when convective weather disrupts flight schedules. This collaborative effort, referred to as the

Spring/Summer plan, began in the year 2000, and the methods of maintaining smooth operations

during severe weather have been gradually improved over the years. Two key improvements 

related to collaborative decision-making were implemented in 2003.

One improvement is a system that encourages airlines to give up a takeoff time in advance

when an airport is experiencing delays. If another airline uses the returned slot for a flight that is

already delayed 30 minutes or more, the airline that gave up the slot will receive a replacement slot

that it can use for another delayed flight. This system, referred to as Slot Credit Substitution (SCS)

encourages airlines to give up unneeded slots by compensating them for the loss of the slot. When

the FAA knows in advance that an airline is canceling a flight and freeing up a slot, the FAA can

recapture the slot, thus better utilizing that scarce resource. The system also gives airlines more flexibility in compensating for bad weather and keeping important connecting flights closer to schedule.

Last year there were 1.2 million minutes of delay that could have been eliminated if all canceled slots

had been used. In the first few weeks that the slot substitution process was available, it was used

for rescheduling dozens of flights during severe weather. An initial analysis on the use of SCS

between May and June 2003 showed that 4,032 minutes of delay were avoided, an average of 18

minutes of delay per aircraft.

Another improvement to the system for minimizing flight schedule disruptions due to storms is

the implementation of the reroute advisory tool (RAT) graphic display. Previously, airlines had long lists

of computer printouts to identify their affected flights; and flights that could have been rerouted often

were not. The RAT standardizes the format for reroute advisories and provides a list of affected flights

for each reroute. The flight list is provided to system users and FAA facilities to accurately depict what

flights are included in a reroute. This allows system users and facilities common situational awareness for a reroute, and allows system users to participate in the pre-departure phase of the reroute

process. The initial implementation of the RAT was for transcontinental reroutes that have at least one

hour of lead time prior to commencement of the route, which allowed enough time for users to 

participate in the process of route planning, and was subsequently expanded to other routes. RAT

CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

38 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

usage leads to improved coordination of available reroutes, which minimizes the impact of severe

weather and congestion.

4.2 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. Aircraft equipped with a qualified Flight Management System (FMS),

Global Positioning System (GPS), or Distance Measuring Equipment (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.

➣ 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.

➣ 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 5.

4.2.1 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. RNP concepts have been

implemented within the airspace of several countries, as well as some areas of oceanic airspace

(see Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation Minimum in this chapter).

In July 2003 the FAA published the “Roadmap for Performance Based Navigation,” which

describes the FAA’s plan for evolving RNAV and RNP capabilities in the NAS through the year 2020.

In the near term, the FAA will implement a first set of RNAV and RNP procedures for all phases of

flight, and will develop criteria for more advanced RNAV and RNP operations. By 2005, the FAA will

convert some RNAV routes to RNP-2 routes, and will initiate reduction of route spacing by 2006

where feasible. In addition, the FAA is planning the development of RNP departure procedures

39 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
(DPs) and standard terminal arrival routes (STARS), as well as RNP approaches to closely spaced

parallel runways.

4.2.2 Area Navigation Approaches

Of the more than 3,000 commercial and general aviation airports in the United States, approximately

340 have a system such as an instrument landing system (ILS) to guide planes to the runway when

visibility is poor. The FAA is increasing access to more airports in sub-optimal weather by pursuing

an aggressive RNAV approach development schedule. RNAV approaches allow properly equipped

airplanes to safely navigate landings in poor visibility to airports or runways that are not equipped

with an ILS, or to a runway with an ILS that is out of service.

RNAV approaches can have three differing lines of minima. They are the LNAV (lateral 

navigation), LNAV/VNAV (lateral navigation/vertical navigation), and LPV (localizer performance with

vertical guidance).

The LNAV minima is for a non-precision approach that can be conducted with approach-certified GPS or WAAS receivers. As of September 2003, the FAA had published more than 3,400

RNAV approaches with LNAV minima. The LNAV/VNAV minima falls between a conventional non-precision approach and a true precision approach. RNAV approaches with LNAV/VNAV minima have the

lateral accuracy associated with non-precision approaches, but also have a stable, guided, vertical

path similar to an ILS glideslope. RNAV approaches with LNAV/VNAV minima require the aircraft to

be equipped with an approved barometric-VNAV system or a WAAS-certified receiver. The FAA has

published more than 600 RNAV approaches with LNAV/VNAV minima at more than 200 airports.

The RNAV approach with LPV minima provides lateral guidance that is equivalent to or better

than an ILS localizer, and vertical guidance that is only slightly less accurate than an ILS. An important benefit of LPV will be bringing vertically guided instrument procedures to several thousand 

runways that would normally not have a precision or ILS instrument approach, many which serve

general aviation users. The use of LPV can provide near precision minima of 250 feet and 3/4-mile

visibility at qualified airports.

The FAA has established a production plan schedule accessible to the public, which indicates

the Agency’s plan for publication of public Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP’s). 

(See website: http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nfpo/production) Initially the plan was created to

establish a priority of RNAV production, but in the near future will include a production plan for all

new public SIAP’s. By 2010, all the U.S. Part 139 airports (those with commercial flights holding 30

or more passengers), and the other public airports with runways over 5,000 feet will have RNAV

instrument approach procedures. Procedures for the remaining 1,300 public airports with paved 

runways (with runways less than 5,000 feet) will be completed after 2010.

The commissioning of WAAS in July 2003 made several hundred previously published RNAV

approaches available to any properly-equipped user. While the initial benefits of WAAS will primarily

apply to users of airports without an instrumented runway, WAAS offers benefits to the airlines and

other users of the larger airports also. For example, airlines may benefit by WAAS opening additional

runway ends to precision approach. While airlines primarily use airports equipped with an ILS, 

operations at smaller airports that feed into hubs will be made more reliable in adverse weather by

the existence of RNAV approaches that can be flown by WAAS-equipped aircraft, making 

these feeder operations more immune to weather delays, and helping to keep hub operations on

schedule. In addition, many airports have only a single precision ILS providing service to just one

runway. WAAS will make non-ILS runways at the larger airports accessible in low visibility conditions.

CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

40 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

Two manufacturers currently produce WAAS-certified receivers, and several others are working

toward certification.

4.2.3 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. Approximately 40 public-use RNAV’s DPs have been implemented within the

NAS. Many were commissioned by particular airlines and subsequently converted to public use. In

2004, the FAA will publish several RNP-2 and RNP-1 DPs and STARS where a high percentage of

users are adequately equipped and the benefits are substantial, and 30 additional procedures annually in 2005 and 2006. The prioritization and time schedule for implementing these procedures has

yet to be determined. Examples of recently implemented RNAV STARS and DPs are listed below:

➣ Four RNAV STARS and five RNAV DPs at Las Vegas allow efficient paths to and from the

airport that are not dependent on the location of ground-based navigation aids.

Preliminary results indicate that in at least one STAR, the flight distance was reduced by

25-30 nautical miles and in one DP the reduction was 15-20 nautical miles per flight.

➣ An RNAV DP at Boston’s Logan Airport was implemented to reduce noise in environmentally sensitive areas.

➣ An RNAV DP at Newark improves access to departure gates due to reduced interaction

with traffic from adjacent airports, and increases departure throughput.

4.3 Reduced Separation Minimum

Separation standards in a given airspace are determined by the communication, navigation, and

surveillance capabilities available in the specific operating environment. As these capabilities

improve due to technological advances, separation standards, also referred to as separation 

minimums, are being reduced incrementally in various regions of the world. Separation minimums

have been already been reduced in large portions of airspace over land and the oceans, and the

reduction of the vertical separation minimum for U.S. domestic airspace is expected by 2005.

4.3.1 Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

Procedures implemented more than 40 years ago required a 2,000-foot minimum vertical separation

between IFR aircraft operating above Flight Level (FL) 290, but only a 1,000-foot separation below

FL290. The larger separation above FL290 was necessary because the altimetry used at that time

had relatively poor accuracy at higher altitudes. The six flight levels available above FL290 became

congested during peak travel periods. 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 the vertical separation minimum from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet in large portions of the world’s

airspace, increasing the number of available flight levels from 6 to 12.

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,

41 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
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.

4.3.1.1 World-Wide Implementation of the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

RVSM 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). RVSM has also 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.

4.3.2 U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

The final rule on domestic RVSM implementation, published in October 2003, contains an implementation date of January 20, 2005. The new separation standards will apply to the 48 contiguous

states, Alaska, and portions of the Gulf of Mexico, from FL 290-410 inclusive. With few exceptions,

once DRVSM is implemented, aircraft that do not meet DRVSM equipage requirements will not be

permitted between FL290 and FL410. Airplanes that are not yet RVSM-certified when DRVSM goes

into effect will be handled at lower or higher altitudes. Approximately 38 percent of flights that 

operate in U.S. airspace above FL290 are already RVSM compliant. When implemented, DRVSM will

help reduce en route delays and permit greater maneuverability in the vicinity of severe weather, and

will eliminate the need for additional steps to transition aircraft from oceanic airspace, where RVSM

is already in place, to domestic airspace.

4.3.3 Reduced Oceanic Horizontal Separation Minimums

Deficiencies in communications and surveillance capabilities over the ocean have required larger

horizontal separation minimums 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, resulting in shorter flight times. Reduced separation laterally may 

provide space for additional routes, and reduced longitudinal (nose-to-tail) separation will provide

more opportunity to add flights without a delay or speed penalty.

Oceanic lateral separation standards have been reduced from 100 to 50 nautical miles over

much of the Pacific for aircraft that are RNP-10 approved. By 2005, it is expected that oceanic 

lateral and longitudinal separation minimums will be reduced to 30 nautical miles in portions of the

South Pacific, extending to the entire Pacific in future years. 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. These reduced

separation minimums will only apply to aircraft with sufficiently accurate navigation equipment

(RNP-4), controller to pilot data link communication, and enhanced surveillance capabilities 

provided by automatic dependent surveillance.

CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

42 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

4.4 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). In addition, the FAA is developing RNP approaches to closely-spaced parallel runways that do not require the use of a PRM.

4.4.1 Approaches Using a Precision Runway Monitor

The PRM is a surveillance radar with enhanced range and azimuth accuracy that updates 

essential aircraft target information every one second, compared to a 4.8 second update rate for

conventional radar. 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.

The FAA has commissioned PRMs at Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Philadelphia International

Airports. The PRM system at St. Louis is currently use to monitor Localizer Directional Aid (LDA)

approaches to parallel runways spaced at 1,300-feet. PRMs are scheduled for commissioning at

San Francisco and John F. Kennedy in early 2004, Cleveland in early 2005, 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).

Philadelphia began using its PRM for simultaneous approaches to parallel runways spaced

3,000 feet apart in June 2002. Currently, these approaches are permitted only in visual meteorological conditions. In the next phase of operations, scheduled for late 2003, the minimum weather

requirements will be reduced as pilots and controllers gain experience with the procedure. The

SOIA procedure would allow simultaneous approaches to parallel runways spaced from 750 feet

43 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
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. At San

Francisco International Airport (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 at SFO, but the PRM has not yet

been commissioned.

4.4.2 RNP Approaches to Closely Spaced Parallel Runways

The FAA is planning to take advantage of RNAV/RNP capabilities in the terminal area by developing

RNP approaches to closely spaced parallel runways called RNP Parallel Approach Transitions

(RPAT). RPAT procedures will improve access to airports with parallel runways separated by 4,300

feet or less in marginal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) when the airport acceptance rate is

reduced due to discontinued use of simultaneous independent parallel approaches. The RPAT 

procedure would not require use of a PRM. The FAA plans to implement RPAT at three airports in

2004 and four in 2005. Figure 4-1 shows the initial seven airports and the potential arrival rate

increase during marginal weather. Marginal VMC conditions occur from 5 to 20 percent of the time

at these airports.

Figure 4-1 Potential Arrival Rates

Airport Potential Arrival Rate Increase (Aircraft/Hour)

Boston Logan International (BOS) 24

Cleveland Hopkins International ((CLE) 10

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 21

Portland International (PDX) 20

Philadelphia International (PHL) 12

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 14

San Francisco International (SFO) 20

Source: Roadmap for Performance-Based Navigation, July 2003.

CHAPTER 4

OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

44 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 5 AIRSPACE REDESIGN

“The modern airplane creates a new geographical dimension. A navigable

ocean of air blankets the whole surface of the globe. There are no distant

places any longer: the world is small and the world is one.”

~ Wendell Wilkie
5 Airspace Redesign

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. The

processes and systems used to manage air traffic are migrating from navigation constrained by

ground-based navigation aids to the flexibility of a satellite-based navigation system. The FAA’s

approach to redesigning the nation’s airspace is two-pronged. It is implementing systems and 

procedures to allow more free flight capabilities in en route high altitude airspace, and at the same

time is redesigning the airspace surrounding congested airports to improve traffic flow in and out of

the nations busiest airports.

5.1 High Altitude Redesign

Implementation of high-altitude redesign will be evolutionary. It began in the seven northwest en

route centers at FL390 and above in 2003, and will expand to additional centers to the south and

east over the next several years, with functionality expansions and enhancements planned through

2008 and beyond. With each increment, benefits will increase consistent with user equipage. The

focus on high-altitude airspace allows the FAA to begin to implement Free Flight concepts and

deploy new technology and procedures in a controlled environment. As a result, properly equipped

users will begin to achieve the economic benefits of flying their preferred routes and altitudes with

fewer restrictions. Figure 5-1 illustrates the region in which high altitude redesign will first be implemented. Figure 5-2 illustrates the design concepts for the first phase of high-altitude redesign.

Figure 5-1 Initial Implementation of High Altitude Redesigns

CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

46 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

ZSE

ZLC

ZOA

ZDV

ZMP

ZKC

ZAU

ZLA

ZAB

ZFW

ZHU ZMA

ZJX

ZTL

ZME

ZID

ZOB

ZDC

ZNY

ZBW
CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

Figure 5-2 High Altitude Airspace Redesign, Phase I Design Concepts

The primary focus of high altitude redesign is to allow point-to-point navigation utilizing both

predefined waypoints and a grid of reference points not constrained by ground-based navaids. The

predefined waypoints facilitate navigation around Special Use Airspace (SUA), are the basis for

RNAV routes and parallel RNAV routes with tracks separated by as little as 8 nautical miles, and

allow easy and precise definition of points to and from standard departure and arrival procedures.

The points give pilots and controllers the ability to define route segments tactically.

5.1.2 Navigation Reference System Waypoints

The establishment of Navigation Reference System (NRS) waypoints will facilitate RNAV routing and

tactical navigation around storm systems and special use airspace by assigning up to 6,500 waypoints over the 48 contiguous states at every ten minutes of latitude and 1 degree of longitude. In

the first phase, approximately 600 NRS waypoints will be charted in the seven northwest centers,

with approximately 140 of them defined for specific points at which users transition to and from

more structured airspace, and along RNAV routes and SUA avoidance routes. Airspace at FL350

and above will be affected. In 2004 the waypoints will be defined for an additional seven centers.

The system could be expanded globally, and the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) is considering its application elsewhere. The system will utilize a simple, structured naming convention

so the waypoints will be easy to communicate correctly, reducing the likelihood of communication

errors. The FAA has begun to chart NRS waypoints, and trials using the NRS waypoints for flight

planning began in late 2003. Figure 5-3 illustrates the NRS for the U.S. with waypoints at every 30

minutes of latitude and every two degrees of longitude. Figure 5-4 illustrates how the NRS waypoints will allow users to efficiently circumvent storm systems.

47 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

RNAV/Closely-Spaced Parallel RNAV Routes

Additional routes in the same airspace with fewer confliction

between routes

Navigation Reference System

Efficiently defining flight paths – tactical and planned

Non-Restrictive Routing

Providing users increased routing flexibility

ATCAA and SUA Waypoints

Mitigating SUA effects for civilian aviation
Figure 5-3 Navigation Reference System

Figure 5-4 Weather Reroute with NRS

CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

48 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

ZSE=S ZLC=U

ZOA=O

ZLA=L

ZDV=D

ZMP=P

ZKC=K

ZFW=F

ZAB=A

ZHU=H ZMA=R

ZJX=J

ZTL=T ZME=M

ZID=I

ZOB=C ZNY=N

ZDC=W

ZAU=G

Y A C E G I K M O Q

15

90

75

60

45

30

15

90

75

60

S U W Y A C

K I G E C A Y W U S O Q I K M E G

K D 54 W

FIR

Center Identifier

Latitude

Longitude

Waypoints every

30 minutes of latitude,

every 2 degrees longitude

Current Jet Routing 1,620 NM

Current SWAP Routing 1,700 NM

HAR Non-Restrictive Routing 1,590 NM

HAR Re-Routing Using NRS 1,610 NM

Arrival and Departure Procedures

SFO

ORD
CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

5.1.2.1 Waypoints for Navigating Around Special Use Airspace

SUA scheduling tends to be in large time blocks, but the airspace may become available for civil

use during portions of the scheduled time. To help users gain access to information regarding 

airspace availability, the FAA has developed a website that provides a 24-hour advance schedule

of special use airspace availability for pilots to use for flight planning purposes at http://sua.faa.gov.

The site contains waypoints associated with each piece of special use airspace, and provides the

ability to filter the data by altitude. Access to the website and the waypoints will assist users in flight

planning around restricted airspace.

5.1.3 High Altitude RNAV Routes

The use of RNAV will facilitate less restrictive routing than is commonly available with navigation via

radar vectors, allowing efficient routing around active special use airspace and through high-density

corridors. Implementation of parallel RNAV routes will further improve system efficiency, and help to

reduce the need for miles-in-trail restrictions in congested areas.

In September 2003, eleven new published RNAV “Q” routes were implemented at FL390 and

above. “Q” is the ICAO-assigned designator for a published RNAV route in Canada or the U.S.

These new Q routes affect Minneapolis, Seattle, Oakland, and Los Angeles Centers. Several of

these routes are spaced more closely than standard airways, allowing additional routes in the same

airspace. Eventually the Q routes will be available to any RNAV equipped aircraft, but initially 

aircraft will need to be equipped with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) equipment. In 2006

the FAA will convert Q routes to RNP-2, and will reduce route spacing where operationally feasible.

Figure 5-5 illustrates jet routes in the west coast and the high altitude Q routes in the same region.

The graphic shows that routes based on ground based navigational aids are indirect and require

flows to cross and converge. The Q routes will allow additional routes in the same airspace, and

involve fewer conflictions between routes.

Figure 5-5 Jet Routes and High Altitude Q-Routes on the West Coast

49 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003

Pacific Ocean

Routes based on

NAVAID location

Flows that cross and

converge

NV

WA

CA

OR

J589 J189

J603

J5

J92

J85

J126

J501

J143

Pacific Ocean

Q-1

Q-3

Q-7

Q-9

Q-11

Q-13

Q-5

Additional routes in the

same airspace

Less conflictions

between routes

NV

WA

CA

OR
In addition to these high altitude RNAV “Q” routes, RNAV routes with fewer altitude restrictions

are also being implemented in various regions of the country. For example, in the Northwest and

Western Pacific regions, the FAA has developed many advanced RNAV off-airways direct routes

between 19 airports, including Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Las Vegas,

Vancouver, and Portland. The routes are available for flight plan filing by all RNAV equipped turbojet

aircraft, and are filed and flown regularly by airlines and other users. Users file the appropriate DP to

a particular fix, and can fly the RNAV route until the appropriate STAR. Several RNAV routes for RNAV

equipped Propeller aircraft have been implemented in those regions as well.

5.2 Terminal Area Airspace Redesign

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.

FAA airspace planners are using various approaches to increase terminal airspace capacity

and minimize the need for air traffic restrictions, including resectorization, consolidating and expanding terminal airspace, and developing area navigation routes. Sectorization is the process 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.

Airspace redesign initiatives in New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia, Baltimore/Washington,

and Northern California are described below.

5.2.1 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. Routinely, these airports are among the top 10 delayed airports

in the U.S., and complexity and congestion continue to be issues even in spite of the continuing

industry traffic downturn. No new runways are planned in the NY metropolitan area for 10-15 years.

The proximity of these airports to one another results in complex pilot/controller and controller/controller coordination and fragmented arrival and departure corridors. In addition, during

severe weather the airspace in the entire area can be closed off due to lack of alternate routes.

The FAA is analyzing three alternatives to relieve airspace congestion generated by Newark,

Kennedy, LaGuardia, Philadelphia and several regional and general aviation airports. The first two

alternatives address traffic in the airspace currently controlled by the New York TRACON, roughly

a 50-mile radius around the TRACON. The third alternative addresses traffic flow issues by 

combining the NY TRACON and en route center, and significantly expanding the airspace under

terminal control.

The first alternative would make minor adjustments to the existing route structure. The second

alternative, referred to as the Ocean Routing Concept is focused on departure procedures for EWR,

CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

50 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

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. Environmental and operational analyses on these two

alternatives are expected to be complete in late 2003.

The third alternative is referred to as the Integrated Airspace Alternative, or the NY Integrated

Control Complex (NYICC). Under this proposal, the NY TRACON and en route center would be

combined. The NYICC would provide terminal, en route, and oceanic air traffic control services,

and the terminal airspace within the NYICC would be significantly increased. The expansion of 

terminal airspace would enable controllers to control more aircraft. Existing secondary surveillance

radar coverage throughout the area allows terminal separation standards of three miles between 

aircraft instead of the en route standard of 5 miles between aircraft. Terminal procedures also allow

visual separation and more effective staging of arriving aircraft for landing slots as they become available. 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 would include reduced

delays, reduced restrictions, and enhanced operations during severe weather events. A Concept of

Operations for this proposal is in the final stages of development. The proposal is also beginning the

Investment Analysis process, in accordance with Acquisition Management System guidelines.

5.2.2 Potomac Consolidated TRACON

The Potomac Consolidated TRACON (PCT) opened in 2002, and in 2003 the approach control

functions for five area airports were consolidated into the new facility—Washington Dulles

International (IAD), Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA), Baltimore-Washington International

(BWI), Andrews Air Force Base (ADW), and Richmond International (RIC) airports. The PCT has

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 FAA developed four alternative airspace structures for taking advantage of the consolidated TRACON 

airspace. Each of the alternatives entailed a significant redesign of PCT airspace, but required varying degrees of coordination and transfer of control with adjacent facilities. The chosen alternative

uses existing transfer points between en route and TRACON airspace, with a new internal airspace

design. This approach will help resolve air traffic inefficiencies and better handle growth in aviation

demand without excessive delays, but will not significantly affect the airspace structure of ATC

facilities adjacent to PCT airspace and, therefore, does not require major changes in inter-facility

coordination. This alternative will also have the least noise impact on people residing in the study

area. Redesigning the combined airspace will allow arriving aircraft to fly at more fuel-efficient high

altitudes longer, and departing aircraft to be cleared to higher altitudes earlier. The consolidated airspace has already yielded benefits, even before implementing the airspace redesign. The number

of flights canceled or significantly delayed due to summer thunderstorms was substantially less

during the summer of 2003 than in previous years, due to the ease of communication with other

controllers working the DC/Baltimore area airspace.

51 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
5.2.3 Northern California TRACON

In 2003, the FAA completed the transfer of air traffic control responsibilities from four TRACONs in

Northern California—Oakland, Monterey, Sacramento, and Stockton—to the consolidated NCT.

The NCT monitors flights in and out of more than 20 airports. The last phase of the consolidation

plan consists of transitioning portions of Oakland Center en route airspace to NCT. The transition

is expected to be completed by October 2004. Redesign of the Oakland Center airspace prior to

releasing any airspace to NCT will ensure a seamless transition between the terminal and en route

environments.

The FAA’s Office of System Capacity is providing Oakland Center (ZOA) and Northern

California TRACON with analytical and technical support in the design of the airspace necessary

for incorporating portions of the ZOA airspace into the new NCT facility. Current efforts are focused

on analyzing traffic flows for the purposes of evaluating potential resectorization options for the NCT

expansion and Oakland Center re-design.

CHAPTER 5

AIRSPACE REDESIGN

52 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 6 TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC 

CONTROL SYSTEM

“Flying has torn apart the relationship of space and time: it uses our old clock

but with new yardsticks.”~ Charles A. Lindbergh
6 Transformation of the Air Traffic Control System

The National Airspace System is the largest and most complex aviation system in the world. The

FAA’s modernization of this interdependent system is being implemented as an evolutionary

process that will sustain current NAS operations while new technologies are introduced, proven,

and then deployed. The transformation of the FAA’s air traffic control system is a key part of this

modernization. The FAA is undertaking major changes in the infrastructure of the air traffic control

system and at the same time is moving from a centralized command-and-control system to one of

air traffic management in which controllers and pilots have a collaborative working relationship.

A more efficient use of the national airspace is the chief object of the transformation of the

air traffic control system. Airport capacity can be increased with the construction of new airports

and runways at existing airports, but airspace capacity can be increased through the better use 

of existing airspace. The current airspace structure was created by the FAA to ensure the safe

operation of a variety of aircraft, but the constraints of that structure have the effect of restricting

the use of that airspace. Easing those restrictions, while ensuring safety, is the primary goal of air

traffic management.

The previous two chapters focused on changes in how the FAA manages airspace, by

redesigning the existing airspace structure and developing new operational procedures. This chapter shows how the replacement of existing equipment and the introduction of new technologies

enables the implementation of those new structures and procedures.

6.1 Free Flight and The National Airspace System

Free Flight, the organizing principle of the transformation of the air traffic control system, is a

response to increasing demand on that system. Despite decreases in traffic in the last two years,

FAA forecasts call for a gradual return to pre-September 11th levels and a large increase over the

next decade. The existing airspace architecture and management will not be able to handle this

increase in traffic without an increase in delays. Free Flight will give pilots the flexibility to select their

own routes, consistent with safety, bringing substantial benefits, including fuel and time savings,

fewer delays and the more efficient use of airspace. Free Flight calls for limiting pilot flexibility only

in certain situations, such as to ensure separation at high-traffic airports and in congested airspace, or to prevent unauthorized entry into special use airspace. The FAA designed its Free Flight

program to deliver technologies that would benefit passengers, pilots and controllers immediately.

The new software includes the following:

➣ The User Request Evaluation Tool (URET), which gives controllers a 20-minute projection

of flight paths.

➣ The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), which funnels aircraft from high altitudes toward

busy airports.

➣ The Surface Movement Advisor (SMA), which provides controllers and airlines with precise

touchdown times, enabling better management of gates.

➣ Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), which enables the airlines and the FAA to maneuver

aircraft and schedules to reduce congestion and the impact of bad weather.

The Free Flight Phase 1 program has successfully completed the installation of the above

technologies at all of its initial sites and has been expanded to others. The new technologies are

CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

54 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

bringing real and measurable improvements as follows:

➣ With the User Request Evaluation Tool, Memphis and Indianapolis centers are providing

increased direct routings, resulting in savings in aircraft direct operating costs of $1.5 

million per month. In addition, the Indianapolis center has eliminated more than 22 static

restrictions, saving users nearly $1 million per year in fuel costs.

➣ The Traffic Management Advisor provides metered traffic flows to the Dallas/Ft. Worth,

Denver, and Minneapolis airports, resulting in more fuel-efficient traffic flows and increases

of three-to-five percent in peak capacity at these airports.

➣ Northwest Airlines has estimated that the Surface Movement Advisor has helped it avoid

three-to-five diversions a week, especially during inclement weather.

The second part of the program, Free Flight Phase 2, builds on the foundation of Free Flight

Phase 1 and features the expansion of Phase 1 elements, including the national deployment of

URET and TMA. FFP2 will also provide incremental enhancements to URET and TMA during the

period 2003-2005.

6.2 Major Developments in Navigation Systems

The FAA and the aviation community are on the cusp of a revolution in air navigation. The key to

the coming changes is the Global Positioning System (GPS) constellation of satellites that provide

greater accuracy and reliability than current ground-based navigation systems. GPS-based 

navigation systems will overcome the limitations of these ground-based systems. Among the most

promising of the satellite-based navigation systems are the Wide Area Augmentation System, the

Local Area Augmentation System, and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast.

6.2.1 Wide Area Augmentation Systems

The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is a supplement to the basic GPS signal. It provides

a signal-in-space, broadcast from Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites that improve ranging

accuracy, availability, continuity and data integrity. WAAS will support en route navigation, non-precision approaches, and approaches with lateral navigation/vertical navigation operations. WAAS is

expected to provide major benefits to the airlines, the traveling public, and the FAA, which 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 the use of

more economical air routes.

➣ Reduced FAA operating costs through the potential decommissioning of existing groundbased navigation equipment.

➣ Simplified GPS augmentation infrastructure through the introduction of wide area and

interoperability that provides satellite navigation services at a reduced cost.

In January 2003, the FAA accepted WAAS from its primary contractor, eight months ahead of

schedule. Then, the FAA commissioned WAAS on July 10, 2003. Commissioning is the process the

55 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
FAA uses to define the point where a new system is deemed safe and ready for incorporation 

into the NAS. The commissioning deems WAAS reliable for pilots who depend on its use in safetycritical situations. The WAAS commissioning represents a key milestone for the aviation community.

The WAAS milestone is the first step toward opening pilot access to more than 500 

published satellite runway procedures at more than 200 airports. Pending certification of avionics

with vertical navigation capabilities and approval of individual approach procedures, pilots will be

able to navigate as low as 350 feet above the runway under instrument flight rules using satellite

navigation to provide stable vertical guidance. Later this year, a new procedure will be published

for the full capability of WAAS, resulting in approaches down to 250 feet above the runway. WAAS

will allow precision instrument approaches at thousands of runways at airports and airstrips that

have little or no ground-based capability. WAAS will also provide improved en route capabilities

because pilots can fly more direct routes without depending on ground-based navigation aids.

WAAS is also a critical component of Required Navigation Performance (RNP). WAAS can

provide the most stringent RNP for area navigation to all classes of users. As air traffic management becomes more global, WAAS can be applied to the civil aviation infrastructure worldwide,

enabling global safety improvements. Also, with more stringent RNP standards, inefficiencies in 

airspace utilization will be reduced.

The FAA continues to work toward final operational capability for WAAS to include a full complement of WAAS satellites, which will ensure that each receiver sees at least two GEO satellites

at all times throughout the continental U.S. and most of Alaska. WAAS will be incrementally

improved to expand the availability of non-precision approaches and area navigation, increase 

signal redundancy, reduce operational restrictions, and support precision approach operations.

Future phases of WAAS are expected to provide precision approach capability, and potentially

enable the decommissioning of some existing ground-based navigation equipment throughout the

United States. The FAA is also working with Canada and Mexico to expand the WAAS coverage

area to support North American implementation of WAAS.

6.2.2 Local Area Augmentation Systems

In 2003, the FAA awarded a contract for the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), which 

provides for the software and initial hardware design of the Category I LAAS. Phases II and III will

cover the final development and full production of the Category I system.

The Local Area Augmentation System is, like WAAS, a supplement of the global positioning 

system. LAAS will provide highly accurate navigation signals to suitably equipped aircraft. LAAS will

provide Category II/III precision approach and landing capability and accurate navigation signals for

aircraft and vehicles on the airport surface. LAAS should provide the following efficiencies and 

cost savings:

➣ Increased number of instrument approaches, extending all-weather service to more cities

and reduce the traffic complexity resulting from back-course approaches and 

circle-to-land operations.

➣ Lower landing minima, 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 improved safety by reducing

the risk of controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents.

CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

56 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

➣ Increased navigation accuracy and flexibility and improved traffic efficiency by facilitating

more effective NAS configurations and optimized fuel/time navigation solutions.

➣ Reduced infrastructure costs as many surface navigational aids are decommissioned in

favor of space-based systems.

LAAS is intended to complement WAAS. The two navigation 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 Category I precision approach requirements at those locations where WAAS is

unable to meet them. LAAS will also be used to meet the more stringent Category II/III requirements

at selected locations throughout the U.S. LAAS augments GPS by focusing navigation service in

the airport area (a 20-to-30 mile radius). LAAS broadcasts its correction message via a VHF radio

data link from a ground-based transmitter.

The contract for the first phase of the LAAS provides for the software and hardware design of

the Category I LAAS. Category I precision landing provides a level of service in poor weather conditions down to a ceiling of 200 feet and visibility of one-half mile. The first system is scheduled to be

operational by late 2006. Phases II and III will cover the development and full production of the

Category I system. If the Phase II option of the contract is exercised, the operational Low Rate Initial

Production LAAS will be installed in Juneau, Phoenix, Chicago, Memphis, Houston, and Seattle,

each with a single LAAS providing approach guidance for multiple runway ends. Air carriers will use

the six systems to assess operational benefits while in daily service.

The development of the Category I LAAS is a stepping-stone to Category II/III systems. The

FAA is continuing research and development activities on Category II/III LAAS to define high-level

system performance requirements and to mitigate critical technical risk areas. The full economic

benefit for the FAA will come when the FAA is able to eliminate some of the ground-based navigation aids. For the foreseeable future, however, a significant number of navaids will be retained to

provide a robust and redundant navigational capacity.

6.2.3 Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast

The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system broadcasts aviation information

via digital data link between a source and multiple destinations. Aircraft equipped with ADS-B 

avionics broadcast their position, airspeed, altitude, and planned course changes. Receivers on the

ground, as well as ADS-B avionics aboard other aircraft, receive this information. The information can

then be processed and displayed to the controller or the pilot, providing a picture of area traffic. 

The FAA is testing ADS-B and related data link technologies in a government and industry

effort called Safe Flight 21. The Safe Flight 21 initiative focuses on developing suitable avionics,

pilot procedures for air-to-air surveillance of other aircraft, and a compatible ground-based automatic dependent surveillance system for air traffic control facilities. Safe Flight 21 demonstration

projects are underway at two sites:

➣ The FAA is conducting the Alaska Capstone Program to evaluate ADS-B and data link

technologies in western and southeastern Alaska. Commercial aircraft are conducting

passenger, mail, and freight flights using Capstone avionics provided by the FAA.

➣ The FAA is conducting the Ohio River Valley Project to evaluate ADS-B and data link technologies in commercial cargo operations in terminal areas in the Midwest.

57 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
6.2.3.1 Alaska Capstone Program

The Capstone Program was developed by the FAA 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. The FAA

plans to initially demonstrate the benefits of these technologies in Alaska, but it will eventually

extend those technologies to the entire NAS. Although the initial benefits of the Capstone technologies will be to improve safety, the use of GPS-based navigation that is being developed in

Alaska will help expand capacity in the rest of the NAS.

In Phase I of the Capstone Program, the FAA equipped 120 commercial aircraft in a non-radar

environment in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of southwest Alaska with Capstone avionics. The

avionics suite 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. These

avionics enable 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 also installed 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 initial improvements of Capstone have been directed towards pilots conducting Visual

Flight Rule operations. In the future, the FAA plans to certify systems and equipment and develop

enhanced operational procedures for Instrument Flight Rule operations. When this is accomplished,

ADS-B will be able to be used for air traffic control functions just as radar is now used.

In Phase II of the Capstone Program, the FAA will equip approximately 200 aircraft, including

50 helicopters, in southeast Alaska, with Capstone Phase II equipment. Capstone Phase II will also

provide for implementation of an RNAV infrastructure in southeast Alaska using advanced navigation, communication, and surveillance technologies.

Early in 2003, in a demonstration of Capstone Phase II, LAB Flying Services conducted the

first commercial flight of a Capstone-equipped aircraft in southeastern Alaska. Under the authority

of a Special Federal Aviation Regulation, they operated a flight from Juneau International Airport

based solely on GPS navigation. LAB’s Cessna Seneca has been outfitted with the latest version

of the Capstone suite of computer equipment and software to receive satellite communications.

The newest suite of Capstone avionics included the first commercial use of an advanced

Electronic Flight Information System. Its primary flight display features real-time 3-D terrain modeling,

airspeed, groundspeed, altitude, altitude above ground, and many other types of flight information.

A second in-cockpit display features an aeronautical map that includes weather data and air traffic

information. The map displays the flight plan, along with terrain and traffic near the aircraft’s current

altitude. Incorporated into the program is a WAAS capability, which uses satellites and ground-based

receivers for precise navigation. The new equipment will permit aircraft to fly new lower minimum 

en route altitudes, opening up thousands of miles of airspace over some 1,500 nautical miles of

existing routes.

CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

58 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

6.2.3.2 Ohio River Valley Project

The FAA’s 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. This initiative is another step in the 

evolutionary process of bringing emerging technologies into the NAS. 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 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 suitably-equipped 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 Ohio River Valley Project, the FAA has established or modified operational 

concepts and procedures, including departure spacing, runway and final approach occupancy

awareness, and airport surface operational awareness. In addition, the FAA installed a special

Common Automated Radar Terminal 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 Ohio River Valley Project continues, the FAA and industry will share the funding of avionics and ground systems to support on ongoing industry initiatives. These include resolving ADS-B 

technology issues; continuing extensive data collection activities during operational evaluations; and,

developing an integrated cockpit display of terrain, traffic, and weather conditions. Throughout the

project, the FAA will ensure that controllers and both commercial and general aviation pilots are

included in the evaluation of operational enhancements and data link.

6.3 Replacement and Modernization of Air Traffic Control Equipment

Much of the equipment of the FAA’s air traffic control system is aging and needs to be replaced.

As the FAA replaces this older equipment, it will take advantage of the tremendous advances in

computer technology to significantly increase the equipment’s capabilities. The FAA will also ensure

that new equipment will be in an open architecture that can be easily expanded and updated in 

the future. The key near-term replacements programs are: the Standard Terminal Automation

Replacement System, an upgrade of the terminal air traffic control system; the Advanced

59 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Technologies and Oceanic Procedures, the replacement of the oceanic air traffic control system;

and the En Route Automation Modernization, the replacement of the underlying software for the

radar processing computers.

6.3.1 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 capacityconstrained systems at FAA and Department of Defense terminal radar approach control facilities

and associated towers. STARS will work in conjunction with digital radar systems to allow air traffic

controllers to track aircraft within the terminal area. The new equipment and software are based on

a digital platform and provide higher-resolution screens with color capabilities and higher system 

reliability. STARS can also be expanded to meet increased traffic demand and to accommodate new

automation functions.

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 air traffic controllers and the airways facilities maintenance technicians, 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 first full STARS deployment took place at the Philadelphia TRACON on November 17,

2002. The FAA used the STARS system at Philadelphia to control live traffic, which is considered

initial operating capability, but retained the earlier air traffic control system as a backup until the new

system was formally commissioned. The STARS system at Philadelphia has eased capacity limitations in the busy terminal airspace. Philadelphia was running out of capacity to track the hundreds

of flights either heading for or leaving Philadelphia International Airport or flying overhead en route

to different East Coast destinations. STARS is able to track about 750 aircraft simultaneously.

After six months of testing, the FAA commissioned the Philadelphia STARS on June 9, 2003.

The commissioning meant the backup ARTS could be turned off. The commissioning signals the

start of the nationwide deployment schedule and opens the way for rapid commissioning at other

sites. The emphasis is on getting STARS first to the TRACONs with the oldest equipment at the

more than 50 sites nationwide still using the ARTS IIIA system.

STARS is also operational, but not yet commissioned, at Portland, Oregon, Syracuse, New

York, and El Paso, Texas. In addition, 11 other sites have partial installations, with displays only, that

will be upgraded by late 2004. The FAA plans to deploy only seven all-new systems in 2003, down

from the 18 previously scheduled, as the result of budgetary constraints. The final number of sites

is undetermined, since only the first 74 have been approved for the initial phase through 2005.

6.3.2 En Route Automation Modernization Program

In 1999, the computers for the air traffic control system at the 20 domestic centers were finally

withdrawn from service. The Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) Program

replaced the interim computers that had supported the air traffic control system from the 

mid-1980’s. The new system has extremely high reliability, significantly improved maintainability,

and more complete backup than the equipment it replaced.

CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

60 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
CHAPTER 6

TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

The new HOCSR computers will be able to be used until at least 2008, but the primary 

En Route Automation System (the Host Computer System), which receives, processes, coordinates,

distributes, and tracks information on aircraft movements throughout the nation’s airspace, is based

upon the original software. Those programs were written in a computer language that is not widely

used now and therefore are difficult to upgrade to meet new requirements.

The FAA is developing the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) Program to replace

the existing hardware and software in the Host Computer System and its backup, the direct access

radar channel (DARC) and associated interfaces, communications, and support infrastructures.

The Host processes flight radar data, provides communications support, and generates display

data to air traffic controllers. It also connects to air traffic control towers, TRACONs, flight service

stations, adjacent flight information regions, and external organizations. The new ERAM automation

architecture will provide existing functionality and new capabilities to support the NAS architecture

evolution, operational requirements, and information security requirements. ERAM will modernize

the en route environment and infrastructure to provide a system that is modular, expandable, and

supportable. The ERAM contract was awarded in March 2003. The system will be installed in all

centers by 2008. ERAM will also provide:

➣ Safety Alerts using the backup system.

➣ Flexible routing around congestion, weather, and restrictions.

➣ Increased number and type of surveillance sources with improved surface coverage.

➣ Capabilities for incorporating environments.

6.3.3 Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures System

The Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) System will replace the oceanic systems at Anchorage, New York, and Oakland centers, which handle air traffic in international airspace

over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. ATOP will collect, manage, and display oceanic air traffic data,

including electronic flight strip data on the computer displays used by air traffic controllers and integrate capabilities such as flight data processing, and radar data processing. The FAA expects that

ATOP will provide huge benefits to the airlines, which will be able to take advantage of improved

communications and reduced separation and more flexible routing on oceanic routes.

The FAA took delivery of the Oakland Build I system in July 2003 and will proceed to 

conduct tests at the FAA Technical Center to ensure that the system can be used operationally. Site

acceptance and operational tests for Build I will be carried out at Oakland, followed by controller and

technician training and familiarization tests. Initial operating capability will take place in spring 2004

and initial daily use will follow shortly thereafter. Independent operational tests and an evaluation

phase will lead to an in-service decision, probably in late 2004. Build I initial operating capability at

the New York oceanic center will follow thereafter.

In the second phase of the ATOP program, Build II will be delivered to the Anchorage 

oceanic center by September 2004. Retrofits to the other oceanic centers will take place a few

months later. Anchorage will be the first of the oceanic centers to get Build II and will not get the

Build I version. Build II will include integrated radar processing and an improved conflict resolution

probe, both of which are needed for 30-nautical mile separation standards and also incorporate

automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast. FAA has committed to introduce these reduced 

separation standards in the South Pacific by mid-2005.

61 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A AVIATION STATISTICS
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-1 Passenger Enplanements, by Fiscal and Calendar Years (2000, 2001, and 2002)

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 1 39,375,330 38,403,184 36,377,381 39,277,901 37,181,068 37,720,556

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 2 34,153,190 32,861,464 31,036,583 33,845,895 31,529,561 31,706,328

Los Angeles International (LAX) 3 32,332,452 31,501,162 26,262,032 32,167,896 29,365,436 26,911,570

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 4 28,066,194 26,891,403 24,415,967 28,274,512 25,610,562 24,761,105

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 5 18,652,345 18,064,086 16,816,833 18,094,251 17,478,622 17,271,519

Denver International (DEN) 6 18,883,765 18,068,664 16,517,000 18,382,940 17,178,872 16,943,564

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 7 17,530,409 17,215,302 15,987,081 17,425,214 16,633,435 16,600,807

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 8 16,564,385 16,576,594 15,888,306 16,358,035 16,173,551 15,865,479

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 9 17,203,373 16,462,360 15,351,693 16,959,014 15,852,433 15,544,039

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 10 17,873,801 16,698,964 15,166,353 17,326,775 15,819,584 15,525,413

San Francisco International (SFO) 11 19,647,516 17,875,926 14,722,632 19,556,795 16,475,611 14,736,137

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 12 17,144,940 16,521,266 14,297,394 17,212,226 15,497,560 14,553,843

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 13 16,080,974 15,734,725 13,963,236 16,155,437 14,553,815 14,552,411

Miami International (MIA) 14 16,716,291 15,740,006 14,262,340 16,489,341 14,941,663 14,020,686

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 15 14,225,451 13,604,468 13,092,774 13,875,942 13,184,630 12,969,024

Orlando International (MCO) 16 15,136,268 14,483,116 12,710,392 14,831,648 13,622,397 12,921,480

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 17 14,552,733 14,139,923 12,404,296 15,288,493 13,264,751 12,474,566

Philadelphia International (PHL) 18 13,022,732 12,175,642 11,649,324 12,294,051 11,736,129 11,954,469

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 19 11,936,722 11,859,005 11,591,516 11,469,282 11,548,952 11,743,157

Boston Logan International (BOS) 20 13,816,195 12,831,269 10,731,523 13,613,507 11,739,553 11,077,238

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 21 12,567,451 12,342,023 10,490,623 12,697,208 11,352,248 11,076,032

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 22 9,185,962 8,951,201 10,039,090 11,223,966 8,586,907 10,316,170

Honolulu International (HNL) 23 10,511,446 10,150,357 9,108,574 11,174,701 9,810,860 9,406,467

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 24 10,617,714 10,302,083 9,483,542 9,675,681 10,098,665 9,367,499

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 25 9,297,702 9,285,642 8,938,546 9,522,344 8,951,776 8,997,942

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 26 10,520,627 10,183,267 9,304,145 9,871,995 9,939,223 8,975,111

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 27 8,541,532 8,147,642 7,968,172 7,817,173 8,015,055 8,266,788

Chicago Midway (MDW) 28 7,214,205 7,236,415 7,551,934 7,059,520 7,112,784 7,878,438

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 29 8,501,994 8,360,991 7,651,157 9,643,275 8,484,112 7,848,911

Tampa International (TPA) 30 8,200,264 8,102,506 7,563,253 7,969,797 7,901,725 7,726,576

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 31 7,953,273 7,780,769 7,257,285 7,898,360 7,506,320 7,392,389

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 32 7,959,838 7,374,029 5,269,065 7,517,811 6,267,395 6,172,065

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 33 5,821,456 5,623,479 5,802,641 5,196,451 5,566,100 6,164,548

Portland International (PDX) 34 6,553,125 6,438,633 5,901,867 6,754,514 6,168,103 5,978,025

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 35 6,886,249 6,309,826 5,196,525 6,170,384 5,981,440 5,248,193

Memphis International (MEM) 36 6,234,454 5,876,534 5,040,988 5,684,619 5,560,524 5,231,998

Kansas City International (MCI) 37 5,888,791 5,879,219 5,288,917 5,903,296 5,614,347 5,161,518

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 38 6,745,903 5,924,679 5,283,887 6,269,516 5,633,495 5,146,975

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 39 5,178,299 4,943,132 5,169,232 5,135,591 4,706,307 4,607,290

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 40 4,900,382 4,947,243 4,562,282 4,936,271 4,767,533 4,598,838

Sacramento International (SMF) 41 3,977,530 4,097,754 4,126,102 3,979,043 4,021,102 4,260,514

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 42 5,135,074 4,968,382 4,129,284 5,191,077 4,890,606 4,198,873

Nashville International (BNA) 43 4,498,272 4,358,463 3,980,505 4,479,909 4,209,465 4,009,959

64 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Enplanements Table A-1 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 44 3,803,407 3,787,262 3,832,501 3,914,051 3,688,304 3,968,978

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 45 4,239,410 4,265,788 3,829,712 4,354,609 4,128,980 3,819,306

Indianapolis International (IND) 46 3,848,584 3,750,829 3,393,298 3,833,975 3,595,425 3,411,978

Port Columbus International (CMH) 47 3,499,475 3,402,615 3,206,361 3,441,286 3,296,013 3,283,639

San Antonio International (SAT) 48 3,552,109 3,434,758 3,161,931 3,528,955 3,313,545 3,224,764

Bradley International (BDL) 49 3,630,661 3,571,026 3,167,363 3,651,943 3,416,243 3,221,081

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 50 3,877,600 3,591,420 3,173,554 3,648,600 3,428,202 3,186,381

Ontario International (ONT) 51 3,386,558 3,259,334 3,038,100 3,197,795 3,168,975 3,092,677

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 52 3,177,486 3,149,546 2,985,124 3,148,780 3,095,899 2,973,093

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 53 3,707,856 3,552,296 2,822,588 3,596,052 3,352,083 2,815,907

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 54 3,145,347 2,983,348 2,769,339 3,089,592 2,825,473 2,779,197

Palm Beach International (PBI) 55 2,895,252 2,979,195 2,671,845 2,928,658 2,954,015 2,716,514

Kahului (OGG) 56 2,930,601 2,869,392 2,595,693 2,999,863 2,777,692 2,663,824

T.F. Green (PVD) 57 2,688,902 2,767,789 2,630,373 2,684,204 2,751,762 2,662,721

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 58 2,526,879 2,688,420 2,460,091 2,574,322 2,596,005 2,551,187

Jacksonville International (JAX) 59 2,615,286 2,610,899 2,408,114 2,616,211 2,523,809 2,462,399

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 60 1,977,515 2,035,781 1,895,745 2,503,138 2,419,261 2,388,563

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 61 2,449,620 2,322,699 2,245,609 2,380,531 2,250,685 2,305,747

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 62 2,824,584 2,498,416 2,161,567 2,732,837 2,388,923 2,170,828

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 63 2,517,454 2,325,775 2,006,761 2,140,002 2,204,087 2,060,710

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 64 1,899,827 1,802,980 1,735,032 1,861,057 1,773,894 1,747,320

Louisville International (SDF) 65 1,996,612 1,950,543 1,735,018 1,974,269 1,876,499 1,740,526

Norfolk International (ORF) 66 1,531,236 1,485,273 1,683,310 1,518,552 1,478,687 1,731,105

Tucson International (TUS) 67 1,792,763 1,805,592 1,651,940 1,804,086 1,749,560 1,677,341

Manchester (MHT) 68 1,580,791 1,600,848 1,626,494 1,568,860 1,599,062 1,647,797

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 69 1,760,822 1,729,672 1,517,836 1,739,169 1,675,889 1,579,179

El Paso International (ELP) 70 1,685,686 1,616,621 1,433,423 1,678,287 1,544,734 1,452,631

Tulsa International (TUL) 71 1,715,020 1,668,810 1,429,770 1,737,672 1,627,293 1,450,242

Albany County (ALB) 72 1,343,034 1,512,482 1,374,241 1,407,092 1,463,632 1,448,263

Birmingham (BHM) 73 1,555,779 1,559,770 1,384,082 1,538,007 1,505,133 1,405,395

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 74 1,531,207 1,471,811 1,360,629 1,524,458 1,425,007 1,380,227

Guam International (GUM) 75 1,648,783 1,657,127 1,316,366 1,665,676 1,489,164 1,375,996

Spokane International (GEG) 76 1,560,577 1,468,964 1,337,035 1,534,342 1,423,624 1,354,085

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 77 1,395,692 1,402,775 1,228,483 1,402,168 1,317,519 1,262,124

Lihue (LIH) 78 1,385,839 1,335,368 1,236,398 1,413,454 1,342,287 1,238,972

Kona International (KOA) 79 1,347,671 1,286,032 1,185,676 1,352,606 1,235,893 1,200,897

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 80 1,202,157 1,207,456 1,115,324 1,218,403 1,132,597 1,176,736

Richmond International (RIC) 81 1,309,985 1,285,536 1,119,205 1,330,487 1,187,681 1,168,023

Dayton International (DAY) 82 1,166,726 1,128,856 1,076,444 1,164,032 1,070,456 1,144,295

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 83 1,296,442 1,253,209 1,101,456 1,276,145 1,211,753 1,101,623

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 84 1,209,120 1,110,323 1,020,729 1,205,552 1,050,344 1,038,027

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 85 1,205,402 1,040,475 945,290 1,120,686 1,009,919 961,601

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 86 950,164 943,620 917,852 960,640 906,768 960,482

65 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Enplanements Table A-1 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 87 1,071,752 992,105 913,980 1,060,746 936,450 945,066

Savannah International (SAV) 88 866,483 875,158 820,319 879,821 836,791 846,683

Des Moines International (DSM) 89 830,105 823,367 803,147 843,290 789,715 846,301

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 90 826,841 828,260 757,759 843,787 786,326 788,811

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 91 668,869 693,911 720,398 673,451 675,034 759,506

Hilo International (ITO) 92 748,066 718,594 664,925 791,398 714,537 712,162

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 93 335,225 297,130 504,845 335,225 297,130 708,686

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 94 876,715 757,743 673,787 863,539 705,607 693,351

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 95 792,339 750,723 663,502 788,807 701,606 688,061

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 96 527,490 518,273 635,090 524,811 520,953 665,881

Harrisburg International (MDT) 97 655,656 584,258 604,146 644,180 556,672 652,552

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 98 454,579 564,244 649,384 508,092 645,944 648,144

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 99 584,014 557,382 580,606 584,160 527,062 635,839

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 100 665,566 665,166 607,632 668,098 625,591 623,093

Total Top 100 673,076,230 650,089,843 594,939,494 667,642,166 622,126,471 607,101,027

66 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-2 Aircraft Operations, by Fiscal and Calendar Years (2000, 2001, and 2002)

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 1 906,326 927,896 901,703 908,977 911,861 922,787

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 2 922,016 898,899 882,407 913,449 887,403 890,923

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 3 875,673 835,748 762,371 865,777 802,587 777,386

Los Angeles International (LAX) 4 781,418 783,160 637,588 783,684 738,679 644,854

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 5 624,261 627,561 577,820 638,757 606,666 590,329

Denver International (DEN) 6 520,882 526,204 495,104 528,604 507,826 509,477

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 7 524,261 512,102 497,934 522,253 501,252 507,322

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 8 535,935 513,679 491,205 521,300 498,970 498,037

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 9 561,123 540,966 490,663 554,580 523,039 497,564

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 10 485,191 390,306 473,084 477,844 386,388 485,156

Philadelphia International (PHL) 11 484,963 475,577 467,160 483,567 467,183 467,717

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 12 483,806 489,987 458,649 490,568 477,367 462,255

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 13 458,697 471,731 465,246 460,370 471,155 459,488

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 14 489,529 486,503 453,302 484,224 478,947 451,804

Miami International (MIA) 15 516,009 489,058 442,358 516,545 469,871 445,635

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 16 449,168 452,696 439,360 448,181 451,180 424,977

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 17 458,677 462,202 407,730 457,182 445,082 411,239

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 18 369,343 363,682 401,491 366,933 370,282 406,994

Boston Logan International (BOS) 19 510,113 499,474 405,370 508,283 471,989 404,649

Memphis International (MEM) 20 381,746 398,451 393,858 386,335 393,925 398,479

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 21 495,717 430,082 401,750 479,931 424,150 392,179

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 22 412,048 385,742 377,073 387,864 384,987 376,335

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 23 368,713 393,027 382,998 371,784 397,557 373,277

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 24 478,558 403,399 374,216 449,050 395,653 371,579

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 25 378,018 404,206 354,218 392,047 376,919 367,656

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 26 444,630 423,903 361,814 445,677 400,670 364,671

San Francisco International (SFO) 27 437,763 407,040 350,133 430,554 387,599 351,453

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 28 413,191 362,014 350,974 379,399 358,508 350,913

Honolulu International (HNL) 29 343,296 339,987 316,089 345,496 326,994 323,726

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 30 319,235 304,988 304,608 317,763 300,166 309,225

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 31 309,516 328,428 310,281 315,348 323,771 305,013

Chicago Midway (MDW) 32 301,879 280,527 293,076 298,437 276,520 303,837

Orlando International (MCO) 33 367,367 342,315 303,328 366,278 326,456 302,843

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 34 358,977 340,459 291,021 358,951 317,746 301,160

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 35 287,094 299,773 275,473 292,462 290,124 280,603

Portland International (PDX) 36 321,114 304,896 277,400 317,477 293,902 278,406

Tucson International (TUS) 37 259,906 258,031 265,733 250,943 261,800 272,568

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 38 336,635 305,299 264,075 331,899 291,714 262,108

Port Columbus International (CMH) 39 235,538 243,203 253,325 238,011 243,201 255,630

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 40 232,555 238,200 255,137 233,173 241,673 254,568

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 41 254,900 248,111 247,824 251,391 247,173 247,917

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 42 259,106 249,823 239,732 256,787 243,849 243,910

Tampa International (TPA) 43 277,888 269,948 245,225 278,632 260,859 243,625

67 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Operations Table A-2 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 44 295,649 293,995 239,091 296,434 273,687 240,362

San Antonio International (SAT) 45 255,622 234,423 236,189 246,200 236,102 234,261

Nashville International (BNA) 46 249,145 241,280 233,392 248,135 237,139 233,163

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 47 299,237 363,682 228,447 299,844 272,299 223,199

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 48 230,677 199,364 227,869 220,739 206,221 218,166

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 49 229,617 232,430 223,063 238,239 226,591 218,053

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 50 203,863 224,575 216,618 212,635 220,439 217,359

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 51 344,092 328,340 180,743 342,790 270,145 216,753

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 52 225,426 214,549 212,232 221,855 211,512 216,050

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 53 208,894 213,080 201,604 207,916 206,848 206,605

Indianapolis International (IND) 54 259,861 257,295 206,906 259,860 245,439 206,132

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 55 223,177 212,995 214,341 217,945 216,652 204,007

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 56 245,931 210,050 201,425 236,903 205,976 203,137

Kansas City International (MCI) 57 219,388 215,833 195,110 218,194 209,833 191,981

Palm Beach International (PBI) 58 209,241 223,406 187,159 214,327 212,640 189,805

Tulsa International (TUL) 59 204,940 195,669 194,020 198,970 199,533 189,136

Louisville International (SDF) 60 180,819 177,642 177,336 181,535 175,852 177,489

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 61 180,547 173,476 178,357 174,802 176,067 177,203

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 62 164,068 172,241 172,089 160,083 176,499 169,437

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 63 174,892 164,390 164,206 171,010 164,741 167,730

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 64 162,867 159,832 160,688 160,730 159,705 161,912

Sacramento International (SMF) 65 152,205 151,613 155,747 149,969 151,642 158,202

Kahului (OGG) 66 176,156 165,832 156,086 174,855 160,324 157,868

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 67 151,965 147,689 151,670 148,596 149,342 149,323

Ontario International (ONT) 68 153,396 157,448 149,143 155,026 154,900 148,714

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 69 167,016 162,507 149,061 167,502 157,326 148,080

Bradley International (BDL) 70 176,629 170,322 147,117 169,736 165,029 146,592

Birmingham (BHM) 71 154,143 149,996 145,877 153,917 148,869 146,535

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 72 185,180 173,371 150,953 178,930 168,868 145,509

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 73 151,589 142,119 144,585 149,873 139,663 145,036

Albany County (ALB) 74 145,889 148,233 146,827 144,761 148,331 144,877

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 75 178,173 147,163 142,910 167,879 143,973 143,710

T.F. Green (PVD) 76 157,228 148,800 144,655 155,545 148,336 141,774

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 77 162,380 172,294 136,785 165,334 161,019 138,165

Richmond International (RIC) 78 143,341 148,993 135,683 149,918 144,902 133,269

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 79 116,932 117,058 130,172 117,791 116,501 130,794

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 80 134,703 124,429 129,453 125,755 128,555 129,498

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 81 141,793 146,047 133,659 140,291 145,751 128,460

Norfolk International (ORF) 82 133,482 120,438 127,883 133,856 119,320 126,465

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 83 140,394 127,903 125,910 136,465 126,224 125,622

Dayton International (DAY) 84 148,085 135,992 124,637 145,123 131,651 124,892

Jacksonville International (JAX) 85 149,705 142,561 125,250 148,797 134,572 124,820

Kona International (KOA) 86 91,306 105,510 121,244 97,974 107,813 123,704

68 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Operations Table A-2 continued

Fiscal Year Calendar Year

Airport (ID) Rank 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 87 140,021 131,638 120,956 136,129 125,499 123,499

El Paso International (ELP) 88 141,768 129,438 125,766 140,618 126,545 122,989

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 89 137,526 138,607 122,809 138,641 133,550 122,342

Des Moines International (DSM) 90 129,896 121,469 118,456 127,668 118,068 120,515

Savannah International (SAV) 91 112,449 110,104 115,170 112,614 109,047 114,318

Spokane International (GEG) 92 119,210 111,739 107,257 117,759 110,314 108,029

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 93 109,179 111,968 105,781 106,252 112,043 102,630

Lihue (LIH) 94 112,198 108,013 102,295 113,842 103,654 102,430

Hilo International (ITO) 95 116,375 103,169 92,127 115,536 96,238 97,540

Manchester (MHT) 96 107,545 109,232 93,706 106,086 106,633 92,271

Harrisburg International (MDT) 97 80,266 77,781 74,220 79,295 75,458 74,462

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 98 76,497 77,616 73,496 77,376 75,779 74,152

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 99 68,541 70,092 65,389 70,378 68,201 66,572

Guam International (GUM) 100 60,149 65,467 52,858 63,389 58,405 54,396

Total Top 100 28,824,044 28,090,481 26,336,384 28,619,389 27,309,908 26,490,268

69 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-3 Passenger Enplanements, 2002 and Forecast 2014

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 1 504,845 2,165,332 328.9%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 2 7,651,157 14,909,995 94.9%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 3 5,802,641 10,799,542 86.1%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 4 5,196,525 9,365,475 80.2%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 5 7,551,934 13,570,661 79.7%

Manchester (MHT) 6 1,626,494 2,905,013 78.6%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 7 15,351,693 27,095,726 76.5%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 8 13,963,236 23,793,342 70.4%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 9 7,968,172 13,505,162 69.5%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 10 2,460,091 4,124,037 67.6%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 11 15,166,353 25,171,789 66.0%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 12 10,039,090 16,339,419 62.8%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 13 11,649,324 18,768,263 61.1%

Spokane International (GEG) 14 1,337,035 2,135,353 59.7%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 15 945,290 1,509,429 59.7%

Birmingham (BHM) 16 1,384,082 2,204,629 59.3%

Denver International (DEN) 17 16,517,000 25,960,909 57.2%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 18 757,759 1,179,320 55.6%

T.F. Green (PVD) 19 2,630,373 4,090,873 55.5%

Orlando International (MCO) 20 12,710,392 19,746,244 55.4%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 21 5,269,065 8,179,403 55.2%

Ontario International (ONT) 22 3,038,100 4,715,356 55.2%

Louisville International (SDF) 23 1,735,018 2,690,746 55.1%

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 24 15,888,306 24,578,670 54.7%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 25 15,987,081 24,705,736 54.5%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 26 3,173,554 4,894,979 54.2%

Guam International (GUM) 27 1,316,366 2,029,981 54.2%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 28 31,036,583 47,720,148 53.8%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 29 9,483,542 14,578,543 53.7%

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 30 24,415,967 37,493,680 53.6%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 31 14,297,394 21,874,869 53.0%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 32 36,377,381 55,457,929 52.5%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 33 1,360,629 2,069,395 52.1%

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 34 917,852 1,383,906 50.8%

Memphis International (MEM) 35 5,040,988 7,587,171 50.5%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 36 3,832,501 5,765,433 50.4%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 37 1,895,745 2,844,492 50.0%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 38 16,816,833 25,203,755 49.9%

Bradley International (BDL) 39 3,167,363 4,738,197 49.6%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 40 720,398 1,075,600 49.3%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 41 26,262,032 39,078,206 48.8%

San Francisco International (SFO) 42 14,722,632 21,903,514 48.8%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 43 4,129,284 6,095,485 47.6%

70 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-3 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 44 2,245,609 3,313,024 47.5%

Norfolk International (ORF) 45 1,683,310 2,477,904 47.2%

Indianapolis International (IND) 46 3,393,298 4,992,531 47.1%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 47 11,591,516 16,897,699 45.8%

San Antonio International (SAT) 48 3,161,931 4,598,174 45.4%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 49 1,228,483 1,785,800 45.4%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 50 7,257,285 10,471,602 44.3%

Sacramento International (SMF) 51 4,126,102 5,943,857 44.1%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 52 673,787 968,176 43.7%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 53 2,408,114 3,454,427 43.4%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 54 10,731,523 15,391,079 43.4%

Nashville International (BNA) 55 3,980,505 5,648,933 41.9%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 56 2,985,124 4,231,408 41.7%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 57 2,671,845 3,786,738 41.7%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 58 5,283,887 7,480,847 41.6%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 59 1,020,729 1,442,198 41.3%

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 60 649,384 912,849 40.6%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 61 2,769,339 3,855,110 39.2%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 62 5,169,232 7,159,876 38.5%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 63 4,562,282 6,303,290 38.2%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 64 1,735,032 2,396,222 38.1%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 65 8,938,546 12,316,344 37.8%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 66 13,092,774 18,013,906 37.6%

Portland International (PDX) 67 5,901,867 8,056,238 36.5%

Tampa International (TPA) 68 7,563,253 10,267,492 35.8%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 69 10,490,623 14,060,361 34.0%

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 70 2,006,761 2,681,895 33.6%

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 71 663,502 884,135 33.3%

Miami International (MIA) 72 14,262,340 18,952,970 32.9%

Tucson International (TUS) 73 1,651,940 2,194,217 32.8%

Richmond International (RIC) 74 1,119,205 1,465,999 31.0%

Honolulu International (HNL) 75 9,108,574 11,928,946 31.0%

Kahului (OGG) 76 2,595,693 3,369,791 29.8%

Harrisburg International (MDT) 77 604,146 779,721 29.1%

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 78 635,090 818,476 28.9%

Savannah International (SAV) 79 820,319 1,056,174 28.8%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 80 607,632 777,816 28.0%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 81 1,115,324 1,409,886 26.4%

Kona International (KOA) 82 1,185,676 1,477,813 24.6%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 83 3,829,712 4,739,445 23.8%

Des Moines International (DSM) 84 803,147 991,083 23.4%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 85 2,161,567 2,650,372 22.6%

El Paso International (ELP) 86 1,433,423 1,747,521 21.9%

71 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-3 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 87 1,517,836 1,823,250 20.1%

Kansas City International (MCI) 88 5,288,917 6,313,736 19.4%

Albany County (ALB) 89 1,374,241 1,620,192 17.9%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 90 2,822,588 3,318,604 17.6%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 91 3,206,361 3,726,752 16.2%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 92 913,980 1,041,163 13.9%

Dayton International (DAY) 93 1,076,444 1,225,193 13.8%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 94 1,101,456 1,250,746 13.6%

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 95 580,606 648,701 11.7%

Hilo International (ITO) 96 664,925 730,210 9.8%

Tulsa International (TUL) 97 1,429,770 1,504,152 5.2%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 98 9,304,145 9,381,673 0.8%

Lihue (LIH) 99 1,236,398 1,202,800 -2.7%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 100 12,404,296 9,549,690 -23.0%

Total Top 100 594,939,494 883,494,914 48.5%

72 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-4 Aircraft Operations, 2002 and Forecast 2014

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 1 458,649 681,231 48.5%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 2 497,934 729,738 46.6%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 3 490,663 718,643 46.5%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 4 473,084 690,813 46.0%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 5 180,743 263,451 45.8%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 6 882,407 1,264,497 43.3%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 7 291,021 413,123 42.0%

Memphis International (MEM) 8 393,858 558,858 41.9%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 9 73,496 103,328 40.6%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 10 228,447 319,678 39.9%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 11 401,750 560,289 39.5%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 12 216,618 300,999 39.0%

Denver International (DEN) 13 495,104 687,822 38.9%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 14 304,608 422,979 38.9%

Kona International (KOA) 15 121,244 167,869 38.5%

Ontario International (ONT) 16 149,143 206,404 38.4%

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 17 762,371 1,047,699 37.4%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 18 160,688 220,022 36.9%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 19 401,491 549,001 36.7%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 20 275,473 371,521 34.9%

Orlando International (MCO) 21 303,328 408,812 34.8%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 22 491,205 656,773 33.7%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 23 407,730 544,928 33.6%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 24 901,703 1,201,248 33.2%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 25 293,076 388,508 32.6%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 26 577,820 760,122 31.5%

Sacramento International (SMF) 27 155,747 204,497 31.3%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 28 212,232 277,557 30.8%

San Antonio International (SAT) 29 236,189 308,094 30.4%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 30 361,814 471,704 30.4%

Manchester (MHT) 31 93,706 122,154 30.4%

San Francisco International (SFO) 32 350,133 455,575 30.1%

Kahului (OGG) 33 156,086 202,107 29.5%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 34 201,604 260,973 29.4%

Hilo International (ITO) 35 92,127 119,254 29.4%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 36 310,281 400,301 29.0%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 37 637,588 818,565 28.4%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 38 149,061 191,061 28.2%

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 39 136,785 174,406 27.5%

Portland International (PDX) 40 277,400 353,259 27.3%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 41 374,216 469,096 25.4%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 42 467,160 585,218 25.3%

Spokane International (GEG) 43 107,257 133,108 24.1%

73 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-4 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 44 255,137 315,350 23.6%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 45 142,910 176,276 23.3%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 46 187,159 230,698 23.3%

Bradley International (BDL) 47 147,117 180,506 22.7%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 48 239,091 293,336 22.7%

Nashville International (BNA) 49 233,392 285,839 22.5%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 50 122,809 149,273 21.5%

Indianapolis International (IND) 51 206,906 251,441 21.5%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 52 125,250 151,827 21.2%

Louisville International (SDF) 53 177,336 214,864 21.2%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 54 465,246 557,717 19.9%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 55 164,206 196,360 19.6%

Guam International (GUM) 56 52,858 62,994 19.2%

Honolulu International (HNL) 57 316,089 375,272 18.7%

T.F. Green (PVD) 58 144,655 171,626 18.6%

Birmingham (BHM) 59 145,877 171,141 17.3%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 60 201,425 235,878 17.1%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 61 405,370 474,684 17.1%

Albany County (ALB) 62 146,827 171,856 17.0%

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 63 65,389 76,486 17.0%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 64 264,075 307,185 16.3%

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 65 350,974 403,310 14.9%

Tampa International (TPA) 66 245,225 281,502 14.8%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 67 120,956 138,550 14.5%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 68 354,218 405,537 14.5%

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 69 130,172 148,690 14.2%

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 70 125,910 143,728 14.2%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 71 253,325 287,158 13.4%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 72 129,453 146,661 13.3%

Savannah International (SAV) 73 115,170 130,118 13.0%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 74 377,073 424,317 12.5%

Tucson International (TUS) 75 265,733 295,068 11.0%

Kansas City International (MCI) 76 195,110 216,471 10.9%

Norfolk International (ORF) 77 127,883 141,386 10.6%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 78 439,360 485,092 10.4%

Richmond International (RIC) 79 135,683 149,602 10.3%

Miami International (MIA) 80 442,358 487,423 10.2%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 81 239,732 260,400 8.6%

Dayton International (DAY) 82 124,637 135,314 8.6%

Harrisburg International (MDT) 83 74,220 80,578 8.6%

Lihue (LIH) 84 102,295 110,153 7.7%

Des Moines International (DSM) 85 118,456 127,302 7.5%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 86 133,659 141,979 6.2%

74 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-4 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2002 2014 Change from 2002

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 87 144,585 153,149 5.9%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 88 178,357 188,629 5.8%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 89 172,089 179,912 4.5%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 90 247,824 259,041 4.5%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 91 105,781 110,416 4.4%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 92 150,953 156,761 3.8%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 93 223,063 228,920 2.6%

El Paso International (ELP) 94 125,766 127,611 1.5%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 95 151,670 153,129 1.0%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 96 227,869 229,500 0.7%

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 97 214,341 213,400 -0.4%

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 98 382,998 379,168 -1.0%

Tulsa International (TUL) 99 194,020 190,853 -1.6%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 100 453,302 370,942 -18.2%

Total Top 100 26,336,384 32,917,664 25.0%

75 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-5 Change in Enplanements from 2001 to 2002

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

Los Angeles International (LAX) 1 3,150,162 26,262,032 733.7%

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 2 297,130 504,845 69.9%

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 3 454,579 649,384 42.9%

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 4 520,953 635,090 21.9%

Norfolk International (ORF) 5 1,485,273 1,683,310 13.3%

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 6 8,951,201 10,039,090 12.2%

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 7 527,062 580,606 10.2%

Harrisburg International (MDT) 8 556,672 604,146 8.5%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 9 4,943,132 5,169,232 4.6%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 10 7,236,415 7,551,934 4.4%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 11 693,911 720,398 3.8%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 12 5,623,479 5,802,641 3.2%

Manchester (MHT) 13 1,600,848 1,626,494 1.6%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 14 3,787,262 3,832,501 1.2%

Sacramento International (SMF) 15 4,097,754 4,126,102 0.7%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 16 8,147,642 7,968,172 -2.2%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 17 11,859,005 11,591,516 -2.3%

Des Moines International (DSM) 18 823,367 803,147 -2.5%

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 19 943,620 917,852 -2.7%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 20 2,322,699 2,245,609 -3.3%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 21 9,285,642 8,938,546 -3.7%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 22 13,604,468 13,092,774 -3.8%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 23 1,802,980 1,735,032 -3.8%

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 24 16,576,594 15,888,306 -4.2%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 25 12,175,642 11,649,324 -4.3%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 26 705,607 673,787 -4.5%

Dayton International (DAY) 27 1,128,856 1,076,444 -4.6%

T.F. Green (PVD) 28 2,767,789 2,630,373 -5.0%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 29 3,149,546 2,985,124 -5.2%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 30 38,403,184 36,377,381 -5.3%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 31 32,861,464 31,036,583 -5.6%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 32 3,402,615 3,206,361 -5.8%

Savannah International (SAV) 33 875,158 820,319 -6.3%

Tampa International (TPA) 34 8,102,506 7,563,253 -6.7%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 35 7,780,769 7,257,285 -6.7%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 36 16,462,360 15,351,693 -6.7%

Ontario International (ONT) 37 3,259,334 3,038,100 -6.8%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 38 2,035,781 1,895,745 -6.9%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 39 18,064,086 16,816,833 -6.9%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 40 17,215,302 15,987,081 -7.1%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 41 2,983,348 2,769,339 -7.2%

Lihue (LIH) 42 1,335,368 1,236,398 -7.4%

Hilo International (ITO) 43 718,594 664,925 -7.5%

76 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-5 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 44 1,471,811 1,360,629 -7.6%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 45 1,207,456 1,115,324 -7.6%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 46 2,610,899 2,408,114 -7.8%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 47 4,947,243 4,562,282 -7.8%

Kona International (KOA) 48 1,286,032 1,185,676 -7.8%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 49 992,105 913,980 -7.9%

San Antonio International (SAT) 50 3,434,758 3,161,931 -7.9%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 51 10,302,083 9,483,542 -7.9%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 52 1,110,323 1,020,729 -8.1%

Portland International (PDX) 53 6,438,633 5,901,867 -8.3%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 54 8,360,991 7,651,157 -8.5%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 55 2,688,420 2,460,091 -8.5%

Tucson International (TUS) 56 1,805,592 1,651,940 -8.5%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 57 828,260 757,759 -8.5%

Denver International (DEN) 58 18,068,664 16,517,000 -8.6%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 59 10,183,267 9,304,145 -8.6%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 60 665,166 607,632 -8.6%

Nashville International (BNA) 61 4,358,463 3,980,505 -8.7%

Spokane International (GEG) 62 1,468,964 1,337,035 -9.0%

Albany County (ALB) 63 1,512,482 1,374,241 -9.1%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 64 1,040,475 945,290 -9.1%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 65 16,698,964 15,166,353 -9.2%

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 66 26,891,403 24,415,967 -9.2%

Miami International (MIA) 67 15,740,006 14,262,340 -9.4%

Indianapolis International (IND) 68 3,750,829 3,393,298 -9.5%

Kahului (OGG) 69 2,869,392 2,595,693 -9.5%

Kansas City International (MCI) 70 5,879,219 5,288,917 -10.0%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 71 4,265,788 3,829,712 -10.2%

Honolulu International (HNL) 72 10,150,357 9,108,574 -10.3%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 73 2,979,195 2,671,845 -10.3%

San Francisco International (SFO) 74 16,475,611 14,722,632 -10.6%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 75 5,924,679 5,283,887 -10.8%

Louisville International (SDF) 76 1,950,543 1,735,018 -11.0%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 77 15,734,725 13,963,236 -11.3%

Birmingham (BHM) 78 1,559,770 1,384,082 -11.3%

Bradley International (BDL) 79 3,571,026 3,167,363 -11.3%

El Paso International (ELP) 80 1,616,621 1,433,423 -11.3%

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 81 750,723 663,502 -11.6%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 82 3,591,420 3,173,554 -11.6%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 83 1,253,209 1,101,456 -12.1%

Orlando International (MCO) 84 14,483,116 12,710,392 -12.2%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 85 1,729,672 1,517,836 -12.2%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 86 14,139,923 12,404,296 -12.3%

77 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-5 continued

Changes in Enplanements (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 87 1,402,775 1,228,483 -12.4%

Richmond International (RIC) 88 1,285,536 1,119,205 -12.9%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 89 16,521,266 14,297,394 -13.5%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 90 2,498,416 2,161,567 -13.5%

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 91 2,325,775 2,006,761 -13.7%

Memphis International (MEM) 92 5,876,534 5,040,988 -14.2%

Tulsa International (TUL) 93 1,668,810 1,429,770 -14.3%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 94 12,342,023 10,490,623 -15.0%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 95 12,831,269 10,731,523 -16.4%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 96 4,968,382 4,129,284 -16.9%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 97 6,309,826 5,196,525 -17.6%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 98 3,552,296 2,822,588 -20.5%

Guam International (GUM) 99 1,657,127 1,316,366 -20.6%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 100 7,374,029 5,269,065 -28.5%

Total Top 100 620,121,501 594,939,494 -4.1%

78 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-6 Change in Operations from 2001 to 2002

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

Greater Cincinnati International (CVG) 1 390,306 473,084 21.2%

Kona International (KOA) 2 105,510 121,244 14.9%

Colorado Springs Municipal (COS) 3 199,364 227,869 14.3%

Pensacola Regional (PNS) 4 117,058 130,172 11.2%

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 5 363,682 401,491 10.4%

Albuquerque International (ABQ) 6 238,200 255,137 7.1%

Norfolk International (ORF) 7 120,438 127,883 6.2%

Savannah International (SAV) 8 110,104 115,170 4.6%

Chicago Midway (MDW) 9 280,527 293,076 4.5%

Port Columbus International (CMH) 10 243,203 253,325 4.2%

Madison/Dane County Regional (MSN) 11 124,429 129,453 4.0%

Tucson International (TUS) 12 258,031 265,733 3.0%

Little Rock Adams Field (LIT) 13 173,476 178,357 2.8%

Sacramento International (SMF) 14 151,613 155,747 2.7%

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) 15 147,689 151,670 2.7%

Reno Tahoe International (RNO) 16 142,119 144,585 1.7%

San Antonio International (SAT) 17 234,423 236,189 0.8%

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) 18 212,995 214,341 0.6%

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (BUR) 19 159,832 160,688 0.5%

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) 20 172,241 172,089 -0.1%

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 21 164,390 164,206 -0.1%

Houston William B. Hobby (HOU) 22 248,111 247,824 -0.1%

Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) 23 304,988 304,608 -0.1%

Louisville International (SDF) 24 177,642 177,336 -0.2%

Tulsa International (TUL) 25 195,669 194,020 -0.8%

Albany County (ALB) 26 148,233 146,827 -0.9%

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) 27 214,549 212,232 -1.1%

Memphis International (MEM) 28 398,451 393,858 -1.2%

Charlotte-Douglas International (CLT) 29 471,731 465,246 -1.4%

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) 30 127,903 125,910 -1.6%

Philadelphia International (PHL) 31 475,577 467,160 -1.8%

Hartsfield Atlanta International (ATL) 32 898,899 882,407 -1.8%

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 33 385,742 377,073 -2.2%

Des Moines International (DSM) 34 121,469 118,456 -2.5%

Orlando Sanford (SFB) 35 393,027 382,998 -2.6%

Birmingham (BHM) 36 149,996 145,877 -2.7%

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) 37 512,102 497,934 -2.8%

T.F. Green (PVD) 38 148,800 144,655 -2.8%

Chicago O’Hare International (ORD) 39 927,896 901,703 -2.8%

El Paso International (ELP) 40 129,438 125,766 -2.8%

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) 41 147,163 142,910 -2.9%

Pittsburgh International (PIT) 42 452,696 439,360 -2.9%

Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB) 43 362,014 350,974 -3.0%

79 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-6 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

Nashville International (BNA) 44 241,280 233,392 -3.3%

Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS) 45 224,575 216,618 -3.5%

Spokane International (GEG) 46 111,739 107,257 -4.0%

Long Island MacArthur/Islip (ISP) 47 232,430 223,063 -4.0%

Dallas-Love Field (DAL) 48 249,823 239,732 -4.0%

San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International (SJU) 49 210,050 201,425 -4.1%

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 50 513,679 491,205 -4.4%

Ontario International (ONT) 51 157,448 149,143 -5.3%

Lihue (LIH) 52 108,013 102,295 -5.3%

Fort Myers Southwest Florida Regional (RSW) 53 77,616 73,496 -5.3%

San Diego International Lindbergh Field (SAN) 54 213,080 201,604 -5.4%

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) 55 328,428 310,281 -5.5%

Portland International Jetport (PWM) 56 111,968 105,781 -5.5%

Kahului (OGG) 57 165,832 156,086 -5.9%

Denver International (DEN) 58 526,204 495,104 -5.9%

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 59 489,987 458,649 -6.4%

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 60 430,082 401,750 -6.6%

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 61 70,092 65,389 -6.7%

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) 62 486,503 453,302 -6.8%

Honolulu International (HNL) 63 339,987 316,089 -7.0%

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 64 403,399 374,216 -7.2%

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 65 627,561 577,820 -7.9%

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 66 299,773 275,473 -8.1%

Charleston AFB International (CHS) 67 131,638 120,956 -8.1%

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) 68 162,507 149,061 -8.3%

Dayton International (DAY) 69 135,992 124,637 -8.3%

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) 70 146,047 133,659 -8.5%

Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) 71 835,748 762,371 -8.8%

Richmond International (RIC) 72 148,993 135,683 -8.9%

Portland International (PDX) 73 304,896 277,400 -9.0%

Tampa International (TPA) 74 269,948 245,225 -9.2%

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) 75 540,966 490,663 -9.3%

Miami International (MIA) 76 489,058 442,358 -9.5%

Kansas City International (MCI) 77 215,833 195,110 -9.6%

Hilo International (ITO) 78 103,169 92,127 -10.7%

Orlando International (MCO) 79 342,315 303,328 -11.4%

Greensboro Piedmont Triad International (GSO) 80 138,607 122,809 -11.4%

Newark Liberty International (EWR) 81 462,202 407,730 -11.8%

Jacksonville International (JAX) 82 142,561 125,250 -12.1%

New York LaGuardia (LGA) 83 404,206 354,218 -12.4%

Greater Rochester International (ROC) 84 173,371 150,953 -12.9%

Cleveland Hopkins International (CLE) 85 305,299 264,075 -13.5%

Bradley International (BDL) 86 170,322 147,117 -13.6%

80 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX A

AVIATION STATISTICS

Table A-6 continued

Changes in Operations (Fiscal Year)

Airport (ID) Rank 2001 2002 Change from 2002

San Francisco International (SFO) 87 407,040 350,133 -14.0%

Manchester (MHT) 88 109,232 93,706 -14.2%

New York John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 89 340,459 291,021 -14.5%

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 90 423,903 361,814 -14.6%

Palm Beach International (PBI) 91 223,406 187,159 -16.2%

Los Angeles International (LAX) 92 783,160 637,588 -18.6%

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) 93 293,995 239,091 -18.7%

Boston Logan International (BOS) 94 499,474 405,370 -18.8%

Guam International (GUM) 95 65,467 52,858 -19.3%

Indianapolis International (IND) 96 257,295 206,906 -19.6%

Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) 97 172,294 136,785 -20.6%

Norman Y. Mineta San José International (SJC) 98 363,682 228,447 -37.2%

Harrisburg International (MDT) 99 121,469 74,220 -38.9%

Ronald Reagan National (DCA) 100 328,340 180,743 -45.0%

Total Top 100 28,134,169 26,336,384 -6.4%

81 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX B 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 B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-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 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 C C 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 Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01 R

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 N C R

Memphis International (MEM) – Update Study 97 R N 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 N R R

84 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

New RunwayConstruct 3rd Parallel RunwayConstruct 4th Parallel RunwayRelocate RunwayNew TaxiwayRunway ExtensionTaxiway ExtensionAngled Exits/Improved StagingHolding Pads/Improved StagingTerminal Expansion

APPENDIX B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-1 continued

Region Airport (ID)

ASO Orlando International (MCO) 90 C 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

85 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Install/Upgrade ILSInstall/Upgrade RVRsInstall/Upgrade LightingInstall/Upgrade VORUpgrade Terminal Approach RadarInstall ASDEInstall/Upgrade PRMNew ATCWake Vortex Advisory System

APPENDIX B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-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 R

ACE 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 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 Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01 R

Portland International (PDX) 96 C

Salt Lake City International (SLC) 91 C C C C R C

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 R

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

86 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-2 continued

Region Airport (ID)

ASO Orlando International (MCO) 90 R R C 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) 87Capacity Enhancement Plan Year

Install/Upgrade ILSInstall/Upgrade RVRsInstall/Upgrade LightingInstall/Upgrade VORUpgrade Terminal Approach RadarInstall ASDEInstall/Upgrade PRMNew ATCWake Vortex Advisory System

87 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
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 B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-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 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 C

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 N

ANM Boise Air Terminal (BOI) 01

Portland International (PDX) 96 N N 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 R 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

88 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX B

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Table B-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 N 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 N R

AWP Honolulu International (HNL) 92 R C

Las Vegas McCarran International (LAS) 94 R N 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 Capacity Enhancement Plan Year Airspace Restructure/Analysis IFR Approach Procedures Departure Sequencing

Reduced Separations BTW ArrivalsIntersecting Operations with Wet RunwaysExpand TRACON/Establish TCASegregate TrafficDe-peak Airline SchedulesEnhance Reliever and GA Airport System

89 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX C RUNWAY PROJECTS 2009 AND BEYOND
APPENDIX C

RUNWAY PROJECTS 2009 AND BEYOND

Table C-1 Runways Planned, Proposed, or Currently Under Construction at the 100 Busiest Airports for 2009 and Beyond

Runway Estimated Planned

Airport (ID) New Extension Identifier Cost ($M) Operational Year In Progress

Omaha Eppley Airfield (OMA) • 14L/32R $10.8 2005

Washington Dulles International (IAD) • 1W/19W $200.0 2008

Wichita Mid-Continent (ICT) • 1R/19L $10.0 2009

Jacksonville International (JAX) • 7R/25L $50.0 2009

Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) • 3R/21L $65.0 2010

Hilo International (ITO) • 8/26 $25.0 2010

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 13/31 $11.2 2010

Tulsa International (TUL) • 18/36 $115.0 2010

Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) • 10R/28L $600.0 2012

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17/35 $13.0 2012

Tampa International (TPA) • 17/35 $89.2 2012

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17R/35L $8.0 2014

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World (OKC) • 17L/35R $8.0 2014

Boise Air Terminal (BOI) • 10R/28L TBD 2015

Denver International (DEN) • 8L/26R $285.0 2015

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International (MSY) • 18/36 $452.0 2015

Savannah International (SAV) • 9L/27R $20.0 2020

Nashville International (BNA) • 2E/20E TBD TBD

Charlotte/Douglas International (CLT) • 18W/36W $187.0 TBD

Port Columbus International (CMH) • 10S/28S TBD TBD

Dayton International (DAY) • 6L/24R TBD TBD

Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International (GRR) • 8L/26R TBD TBD

Washington Dulles International (IAD) • 12R/30L TBD TBD

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) • 9R/27L TBD TBD

Indianapolis International (IND) • 5R/23L $125.0 TBD

Kansas City International (MCI) • 1L/19R $12.0 TBD

Orlando International (MCO) • 17R/35L TBD TBD

Milwaukee General Mitchell International (MKE) • 7/25 TBD TBD

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) • 5R/23L TBD TBD

Raleigh-Durham International (RDU) • 5W/23W TBD TBD

Richmond International (RIC) • 16/34 $45.0 TBD

San Antonio International (SAT) • 12N/30N $400.0 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

Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) • 14L/32R $10.0 TBD

Lambert St. Louis International (STL) • 12R/30L TBD TBD

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) • 10L/28R $55.0 TBD

Syracuse Hancock International (SYR) • 10R/28L TBD TBD

Tampa International (TPA) • 17/35 $150.0 TBD

Tampa International (TPA) • 9/27 TBD TBD

Tampa International (TPA) • 18L/36R TBD TBD

92 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX C

RUNWAY PROJECTS 2009 AND BEYOND

Table C-1 continued

Runway Estimated Planned

Airport (ID) New Extension Identifier Cost ($M) Operational Year In Progress

Tucson International (TUS) • 11R/29L $40.0 TBD

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5L/23R TBD TBD

Knoxville McGhee-Tyson (TYS) • 5R/23L TBD TBD

93 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

ABQ Albuquerque International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

ALB Albany County Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

ANC Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport . . . . . . . 99

ATL Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 100

AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 101

BDL Bradley International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

BHM Birmingham Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

BNA Nashville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

BOI Boise Air Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

BOS Boston Logan International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

BUF Buffalo Niagara International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 107

BUR Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 108

BWI Baltimore-Washington International Airport . . . . . . . 109

CHS Charleston International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

CLE Cleveland Hopkins International Airport . . . . . . . . . 111

CLT Charlotte/Douglas International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 112

CMH Port Columbus International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

COS Colorado Springs Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

CVG Greater Cincinnati International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 115

DAL Dallas-Love Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

DAY Dayton International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

DCA Ronald Reagan National Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

DEN Denver International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 120

DSM Des Moines International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport . . . . . . . 122

ELP El Paso International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

EWR Newark Liberty International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport . . . . 125

GEG Spokane International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

GRR Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International . . . . . . . 127

GSO Greensboro Piedmont Triad International Airport . . . . 128

GSP Greenville-Spartanburg International . . . . . . . . . . . 129

GUM Guam International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

HNL Honolulu International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

HOU Houston William P. Hobby Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

IAD Washington Dulles International Airport . . . . . . . . . 133

IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 134

ICT Wichita Mid-Continent Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

IND Indianapolis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

ISP Islip Long Island MacArthur Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

ITO Hilo International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

JAX Jacksonville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

JFK New York John F. Kennedy International Airport . . . . 140

KOA Kona International Airport at Keahole . . . . . . . . . . . 141

LAS Las Vegas McCarran International Airport . . . . . . . . 142

LAX Los Angeles International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

LGA New York LaGuardia Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

LGB Long Beach Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

LIH Lihue Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

LIT Little Rock Adams Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

MCI Kansas City International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

MCO Orlando International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

MDT Harrisburg International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

MDW Chicago Midway Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

MEM Memphis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

MHT Manchester Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

MIA Miami International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

MKE Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport . . . . 155

MSN Madison/Dane County Regional Airport . . . . . . . . . 156

MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport . . . . . . . . 157

MSY Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport . . 158

OAK Metropolitan Oakland International Airport . . . . . . . . 159

OGG Kahului Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

OKC Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport . . . . . . . . 161

OMA Omaha Eppley Airfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

ONT Ontario International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 164

ORF Norfolk International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

PBI Palm Beach International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

PDX Portland International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

PHL Philadelphia International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport . . . . . . . . 169

PIT Greater Pittsburgh International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 170

PNS Pensacola Regional Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

PVD T.F. Green Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

PWM Portland International Jetport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

RDU Raleigh-Durham International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 174

RIC Richmond International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

RNO Reno Tahoe International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

ROC Greater Rochester International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 177

RSW Fort Myers Southwest Florida International Airport . . 178

SAN San Diego International Lindbergh Field . . . . . . . . . 179

SAT San Antonio International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

SAV Savannah International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

SDF Louisville International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

SEA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . 183

SFB Orlando-Sanford Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

SFO San Francisco International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

SJC Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport . . . 186

SJU San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport . . . 187

SLC Salt Lake City International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

SMF Sacramento International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

SNA John Wayne Airport-Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . 190

STL Lambert St. Louis International Airport . . . . . . . . . . 191

SYR Syracuse Hancock International Airport . . . . . . . . . 192

TPA Tampa International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

TUL Tulsa International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

TUS Tucson International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

TYS Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

96 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

52 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

2.9

260

230

NM

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,148,780 3,095,899 2,973,093 233,173 241,673 254,568

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

97 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

72 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

150

145

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,407,092 1,463,632 1,448,263 144,761 148,331 144,877

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

98 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

60 Enplanements Operations

2.6

(M) (K)

2.3

320

300

AK

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,503,138 2,419,261 2,388,563 317,763 300,166 309,225

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

99 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

1 Enplanements Operations

40

(M) (K)

35

920

870

GA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

39,277,901 37,181,068 37,720,556 913,449 887,403 890,923

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

100 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

50 Enplanements Operations

3.8

(M) (K)

3.3

240

200

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,648,600 3,428,202 3,186,381 212,635 220,439 217,359

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

101 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

49 Enplanements Operations

3.8

(M) (K)

3.3

180

150

CT

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,651,943 3,416,243 3,221,081 169,736 165,029 146,592

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

102 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

73 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

160

145

AL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,538,007 1,505,133 1,405,395 153,917 148,869 146,535

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 was completed by 2002.

The total estimated cost is $17 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

103 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

43 Enplanements Operations

4.6

(M) (K)

4.1

250

235

TN

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

4,479,909 4,209,465 4,009,959 248,135 237,139 233,163

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

104 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

74 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

180

160

ID

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,524,458 1,425,007 1,380,227 171,010 164,741 167,730

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

28

28L

28R

10R

10L

BOI – Boise Air Terminal

The eastern 5,000 ft. of runway 9/27 was constructed and completed July 2002 for military training of short-field landings. Future long-term

plans are for a total runway length of 13,000 ft. to the west. Runway 9/27 is located 5,400 ft. south of the existing runway 10R/28L.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

105 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

20 Enplanements Operations

14

(M) (K)

11

520

440

MA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

13,613,507 11,739,553 11,077,238 508,283 471,989 404,649

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

106 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

63 Enplanements Operations

2.4

(M) (K)

2.0

170

135

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,140,002 2,204,087 2,060,710 165,334 161,019 138,165

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

23

14

5

32

BUF – Buffalo Niagara 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

107 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

61 Enplanements Operations

2.4

(M) (K)

2.2

170

155

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,380,531 2,250,685 2,305,747 160,730 159,705 161,912

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

108 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

24 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

9

340

310

MD

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

9,675,681 10,098,665 9,367,499 315,348 323,771 305,013

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 Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) Capacity Task Force.

The BWI Capacity Enhancement Plan (CEP) is projected for release in 2003. 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

109 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

90 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.8

140

120

SC

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

843,787 786,326 788,811 136,129 125,499 123,499

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

110 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

38 Enplanements Operations

6.4

(M) (K)

5.3

340

280

OH

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

6,269,516 5,633,495 5,146,975 331,899 291,714 262,108

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

10

28

6L

6R

24L

24R

CLE – Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

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. Runway 18/36 has been decommissioned and construction on the North end of the terminal is complete.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

111 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

19 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

11

480

440

NC

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

11,469,282 11,548,952 11,743,157 460,370 471,155 459,488

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

112 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

47 Enplanements Operations

3.6

(M) (K)

3.2

260

230

OH

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,441,286 3,296,013 3,283,639 238,011 243,201 255,630

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

10C

28C

28R

10L

10R

28L

Control

Tower

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, and no project cost

estimates are available.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

113 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

84 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.1

240

210

CO

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,205,552 1,050,344 1,038,027 220,739 206,221 218,166

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

114 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

22 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

9

500

410

KY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

11,223,966 8,586,907 10,316,170 477,844 386,388 485,156

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

115 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

53 Enplanements Operations

3.8

(M) (K)

2.9

260

240

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,596,052 3,352,083 2,815,907 256,787 243,849 243,910

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

116 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

82 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

1.0

160

130

OH

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,164,032 1,070,456 1,144,295 145,123 131,651 124,892

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.; and an additional extension to Runway 6R end to provide a total length of 11,000 ft. Currently these projects are under

Airspace review and an EIS study is underway.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

117 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

32 Enplanements Operations

8

(M) (K)

6

360

260

VA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

7,517,811 6,267,395 6,172,065 342,790 270,145 216,753

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

118 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

6 Enplanements Operations

19

(M) (K)

17

540

510

CO

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

18,382,940 17,178,872 16,943,564 528,604 507,826 509,477

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, which is 16,000 feet, was completed in fall of 2003 at a cost of $170.3 million. Other airfield improvements anticipated

to be completed by 2008 include: parallel Taxiway L and high-speed exit Taxiways P5, B5, B6, R5, and F7.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

119 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

4 Enplanements Operations

30

(M) (K)

25

880

790

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

28,274,512 25,610,562 24,761,105 865,777 802,587 777,386

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 and 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

120 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

89 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.8

140

120

IA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

843,290 789,715 846,301 127,668 118,068 120,515

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

121 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

10 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

16

560

510

MI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

17,326,775 15,819,584 15,525,413 554,580 523,039 497,564

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

10

4L

9R

15

3R

21C

21L

27R

27L

22R

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

122 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

70 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.4

150

125

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,678,287 1,544,734 1,452,631 140,618 126,545 122,989

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

123 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

12 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

15

460

410

NJ

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

17,212,226 15,497,560 14,553,843 457,182 445,082 411,239

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

124 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

27 Enplanements Operations

9

(M) (K)

7

300

280

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

7,817,173 8,015,055 8,266,788 292,462 290,124 280,603

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

125 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

76 Enplanements Operations

1.6

(M) (K)

1.4

120

110

WA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,534,342 1,423,624 1,354,085 117,759 110,314 108,029

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

126 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

86 Enplanements Operations

1.0

(M) (K)

0.9

140

125

MI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

960,640 906,768 960,482 136,465 126,224 125,622

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

17

8L

8R

35

26R

26L

GRR – Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford International 

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 beyond the 20-year planning period and no

cost estimates are available.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

127 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

77 Enplanements Operations

1.5

(M) (K)

1.2

140

120

NC

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,402,168 1,317,519 1,262,124 138,641 133,550 122,342

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

128 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

95 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.7

75

65

SC

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

788,807 701,606 688,061 70,378 68,201 66,572

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

129 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

75 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.5

70

55

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

GUAM

1,665,676 1,489,164 1,375,996 63,389 58,405 54,396

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

130 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

23 Enplanements Operations

12

(M) (K)

10

350

325

HI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

11,174,701 9,810,860 9,406,467 345,496 326,994 323,726

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

131 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

45 Enplanements Operations

4.4

(M) (K)

3.7

255

245

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

4,354,609 4,128,980 3,819,306 251,391 247,173 247,917

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

132 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

29 Enplanements Operations

10

(M) (K)

8

490

410

VA

9,643,275 8,484,112 7,848,911 479,931 424,150 392,179

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

133 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

8 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

500

470

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

16,358,035 16,173,551 15,865,479 490,568 477,367 462,255

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 Intercontinental Airport

An $85 million, 4,000-ft. extension to Runway 15R/33L was completed in 2002. In 2003, a new Runway 8L/26R 9,000 ft parallel to, and north

of, the existing Runway 8/26 was completed. 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

134 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

99 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.5

225

205

KS

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

584,160 527,062 635,839 217,945 216,652 204,007

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

14

1L

32

1R

19R 19L

ICT – Wichita Mid-Continent Airport

A 1,400-foot runway extension for Runway 1R is expected to be completed in 2009. The estimated cost is $10 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

135 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

46 Enplanements Operations

4

(M) (K)

3

265

215

IN

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,833,975 3,595,425 3,411,978 259,860 245,439 206,132

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). The estimated project cost is approximately $125 million, and the expected operational date is beyond 2015. 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

136 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

85 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

1.0

240

210

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,120,686 1,009,919 961,601 238,239 226,591 218,053

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

137 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

92 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.7

120

100

HI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

791,398 714,537 712,162 115,536 96,238 97,540

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

138 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

59 Enplanements Operations

2.8

(M) (K)

2.4

160

130

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,616,211 2,523,809 2,462,399 148,797 134,572 124,820

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. An EIS study is scheduled for 2005. Construction is scheduled to

begin in 2008, with completion expected in 2009. The estimated cost of construction is $50 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

139 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

13 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

380

320

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

16,155,437 14,553,815 14,552,411 358,951 317,746 301,160

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

140 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

79 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.2

130

95

HI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,352,606 1,235,893 1,200,897 97,974 107,813 123,704

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

141 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

7 Enplanements Operations

18

(M) (K)

16

540

490

NV

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

17,425,214 16,633,435 16,600,807 521,300 498,970 498,037

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

142 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

3 Enplanements Operations

34

(M) (K)

29

800

690

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

32,167,896 29,365,436 26,911,570 783,684 738,679 644,854

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

143 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

21 Enplanements Operations

13

(M) (K)

11

400

370

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

12,697,208 11,352,248 11,076,032 392,047 376,919 367,656

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

144 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

93 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.4

390

345

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

335,225 297,130 708,686 379,399 358,508 350,913

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

7R

7L

12

30

34L

16R

16L

25R

34R

25L

LGB – Long Beach 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

145 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

78 Enplanements Operations

1.5

(M) (K)

1.3

120

100

HI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,413,454 1,342,287 1,238,972 113,842 103,654 102,430

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

146 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

83 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.1

180

170

AR

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,276,145 1,211,753 1,101,623 174,802 176,067 177,203

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

18

36

4L 4R

22R

22L

LIT – Little Rock Adams 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

147 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

37 Enplanements Operations

6

(M) (K)

5

220

200

MO

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

5,903,296 5,614,347 5,161,518 218,194 209,833 191,981

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 12L/19R, estimated to cost $12.2 million, is not planned until after 2014.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

148 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

16 Enplanements Operations

15

(M) (K)

13

380

320

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

14,831,648 13,622,397 12,921,480 366,278 326,456 302,843

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

1 2

3 4 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 opened for operations in December

2003. The cost of the runway is $203 million. It will be located 4,300 feet east of existing Runway 17R/35L which has a 1,500-ft. extension

planned to prevent aircraft from obstructing the Runway 17R approach. The new Air Traffic Control Tower has been recently commissioned and

is one of the tallest towers in the nation. The first of two north crossfield taxiways and a forth airside passenger terminal located in the North

Terminal Complex area were completed in 2000. The first phase of the South Terminal Complex is now in the design stage.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

149 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

97 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.5

130

90

PA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

644,180 556,672 652,552 127,668 118,068 74,462

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

13

31

MDT – Harrisburg 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

150 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

28 Enplanements Operations

8

(M) (K)

7

320

270

IL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

7,059,520 7,112,784 7,878,438 298,437 276,520 303,837

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

151 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

36 Enplanements Operations

5.8

(M) (K)

5.3

400

380

TN

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

5,684,619 5,560,524 5,231,998 386,335 393,925 398,479

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

The reconstruction of Runway 18R/36L was completed in September 2002 at a cost of $43 million. All three (3) parallels have been built 

or reconstructed since 1997.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

152 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

68 Enplanements Operations

1.7

(M) (K)

1.6

110

95

NH

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,568,860 1,599,062 1,647,797 106,086 106,633 92,271

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

153 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

14 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

14

520

460

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

16,489,341 14,941,663 14,020,686 516,545 469,871 445,635

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

154 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

54 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

2.7

230

205

WI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,089,592 2,825,473 2,779,197 221,855 211,512 216,050

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

155 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

91 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.6

130

125

WI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

673,451 675,034 759,506 125,755 128,555 129,498

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

156 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

9 Enplanements Operations

17

(M) (K)

15

540

490

MN

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

16,959,014 15,852,433 15,544,039 522,253 501,252 507,322

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

157 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

40 Enplanements Operations

5.0

(M) (K)

4.5

170

150

LA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

4,936,271 4,767,533 4,598,838 167,502 157,326 148,080

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

Commissioning of Runway 18/36 is proposed for early 2015. Taxiway G construction is complete. Once Runway 10L/28R is complete,

Runway 6/24 will be decommissioned. Taxiway U and the aircraft holding apron should be completed in early 2004. Our ongoing planning

efforts may change some terminal and apron elements shown on the Airport Diagram. However, the existing Airport Diagram should (with the

changes reflecting Taxiway G, Taxiway U and the holding pad) continue to be used. Once these efforts are complete, we will amend the Airport

Diagram accordingly.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

158 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

33 Enplanements Operations

6.2

(M) (K)

5.2

460

390

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

5,196,451 5,566,100 6,164,548 449,050 395,653 371,579

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

159 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

56 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.7

180

160

HI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,999,863 2,777,692 2,663,824 174,855 160,324 157,868

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

160 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

69 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.6

180

160

OK

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,739,169 1,675,889 1,579,179 160,083 176,499 169,437

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

161 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

64 Enplanements Operations

2.0

(M) (K)

1.7

180

140

NE

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,861,057 1,773,894 1,747,320 167,879 143,973 143,710

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 feet at an estimated cost of $10.8 million, is expected to be completed in 2005.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

162 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

51 Enplanements Operations

3.2

(M) (K)

3.1

160

150

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,197,795 3,168,975 3,092,677 155,026 154,900 148,714

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

163 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

2 Enplanements Operations

35

(M) (K)

32

925

900

IL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

33,845,895 31,529,561 31,706,328 908,977 911,861 922,787

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

164 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

Enplanements Operations

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000

66

1.8

(M) (K)

1.5

140

110

VA

1,518,552 1,478,687 1,731,105 133,856 119,320 126,465

N

Terminals

Control

Tower

14

5L

32

5R9

23L

23R

ORF – Norfolk International Airport

A new parallel Runway 5R/23L will be constructed between 2004 and 2006 at a cost of $120 million. An Environmental Review is 

currently underway.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

165 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

55 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.5

220

190

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,928,658 2,954,015 2,716,514 214,327 212,640 189,805

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

166 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

34 Enplanements Operations

7

(M) (K)

6

320

270

OR

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

6,754,514 6,168,103 5,978,025 317,477 293,902 278,406

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 

five 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

167 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

18 Enplanements Operations

13.0

(M) (K)

11.5

500

470

PA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

12,294,051 11,736,129 11,954,469 483,567 467,183 467,717

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

A major terminal expansion project, including the 13 International Terminal A-West opened in May of 2003, at a cost of $687 million. An

extension of approximately 1,040 feet is planned for Runway 17/35 (currently 5,460 feet), and an expansion to Concourse E is currently

underway. Additionally, the ongoing master plan has identified a number of potential longer-term airfield development/expansion alternatives.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

168 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

5 Enplanements Operations

19

(M) (K)

17

660

560

AZ

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

18,094,251 17,478,622 17,271,519 638,757 606,666 590,329

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

Resurfacing of runway 7L/25R in concrete at a cost of $66 million scheduled to be completed in 2003. Terminal 4, N1 Concourse apron infill

project completed in 2003, along with demolition of ARFF Station 19. Two new ARFF stations 19 and 26 construction completed fall 2002.

New ATCT east of Terminal 3 groundbreaking fall 2003 with scheduled completion mid-2005 at a cost of $54 million. International pedestrian

walkway project to be completed fall 2003 at a cost of $16.2 million. Consolidation rental car facility west of Airport is in design and development stages with on-site construction beginning end if 2003, completion in late 2005, at a cost of $252 million. Initial design stages of 

automated people mover $700 million project schedule for completion 2011. Proposed future reconstruction of Taxiway Sierra bridge.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

169 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

26 Enplanements Operations

10

(M) (K)

9

460

430

PA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

9,871,995 9,939,223 8,975,111 448,181 451,180 424,977

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

170 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

96 Enplanements Operations

0.8

(M) (K)

0.4

135

115

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

524,811 520,953 665,881 117,791 116,501 130,794

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

8

35

17

26

PNS – Pensacola 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

171 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

57 Enplanements Operations

3.0

(M) (K)

2.5

160

140

RI

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,684,204 2,751,762 2,662,721 155,545 148,336 141,774

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

5L

5R

34

16

23L

23R

PVD – T.F. Green Airport

Runway 5L/23R is planned to be decommissioned during June of 2003. It will be utilized as full length taxiway. 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

172 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

100 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.6

115

105

ME

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

668,098 625,591 623,093 106,252 112,043 102,630

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

173 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

42 Enplanements Operations

6

(M) (K)

4

300

250

NC

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

5,191,077 4,890,606 4,198,873 296,434 273,687 240,362

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

174 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

81 Enplanements Operations

1.4

(M) (K)

1.2

160

135

VA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,330,487 1,187,681 1,168,023 149,918 144,902 133,269

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

175 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

62 Enplanements Operations

3

(M) (K)

2

160

140

NV

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,732,837 2,388,923 2,170,828 149,873 139,663 145,036

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

176 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

80 Enplanements Operations

1.3

(M) (K)

1.1

180

150

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,218,403 1,132,597 1,176,736 178,930 168,868 145,509

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

177 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

58 Enplanements Operations

2.6

(M) (K)

2.5

80

75

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

2,574,322 2,596,005 2,551,187 77,376 75,779 74,152

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

24

6

6R

24L

RSW – Fort Myers Southwest Florida International Airport

Planning is ongoing for a new 9,100 ft. parallel Runway 6R/24L, 5,385 ft. or more southeast of Runway 6/24. Construction is expected to

begin in 2010. The new runway should be operational by 2012. The estimated cost of the project is $120 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

178 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

31 Enplanements Operations

8.0

(M) (K)

7.5

210

205

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

7,898,360 7,506,320 7,392,389 207,916 206,848 206,605

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminals

1

2

Control

Tower

9

27

SAN – San Diego International Lindbergh 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

179 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

48 Enplanements Operations

3.6

(M) (K)

3.3

260

230

TX

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,528,955 3,313,545 3,224,764 246,200 236,102 234,261

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

180 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

88 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.8

116

108

GA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

879,821 836,791 846,683 112,614 109,047 114,318

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

181 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

65 Enplanements Operations

2.0

(M) (K)

1.8

190

175

KY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,974,269 1,876,499 1,740,526 181,535 175,852 177,489

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Terminal

Control

Tower

11

29

35R

17R

17L

35L

SDF – Louisville International Airport

Runway 17R/35L will be extended on both ends for a total extension length of 1890 feet. The project will start in 2003 and be complete 

late 2004, at a cost of $18 million.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

182 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

15 Enplanements Operations

14

(M) (K)

13

480

390

WA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

13,875,942 13,184,630 12,969,024 445,677 400,670 364,671

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

183 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

98 Enplanements Operations

0.7

(M) (K)

0.5

400

350

FL

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

508,092 645,944 648,144 371,784 397,557 373,277

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

184 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

11 Enplanements Operations

20

(M) (K)

16

440

370

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

19,556,795 16,475,611 14,736,137 430,554 387,599 351,453

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

185 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

35 Enplanements Operations

6.4

(M) (K)

5.4

320

250

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

6,170,384 5,981,440 5,248,193 299,844 272,299 223,199

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

A

B

C

Terminals

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

186 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

39 Enplanements Operations

5.2

(M) (K)

4.7

240

190

PR

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

5,135,591 4,706,307 4,607,290 236,903 205,976 203,137

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

187 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

25 Enplanements Operations

10

(M) (K)

9

420

370

UT

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

9,522,344 8,951,776 8,997,942 366,933 370,282 406,994

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

188 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

41 Enplanements Operations

4.4

(M) (K)

3.9

160

150

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,979,043 4,021,102 4,260,514 149,969 151,642 158,202

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

189 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

44 Enplanements Operations

4.0

(M) (K)

3.5

400

370

CA

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

3,914,051 3,688,304 3,968,978 387,864 384,987 376,335

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

190 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

17 Enplanements Operations

16

(M) (K)

13

500

450

MO

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

15,288,493 13,264,751 12,474,566 484,224 478,947 451,804

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

There are no new runway or runway extension projects planned, proposed, or currently under construction in this airport’s Master Plan, which

includes a planning period from 1995 to 2015.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

191 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

87 Enplanements Operations

1.2

(M) (K)

0.9

150

130

NY

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,060,746 936,450 945,066 140,291 145,751 128,460

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

15

33

10L

10R

28R

28L

Control Terminal

Tower

SYR – Syracuse Hancock International Airport

An extension of Runway 10/28 is under consideration. Capacity analysis and needs studies are in process. If this project were undertaken,

the runway would be extended 2,000 feet to an ultimate length of 11,000 ft. A parallel runway also remains under consideration. The new

runway would be 9,000 ft. long, separated from existing Runway 10/28 by 3,400 ft. It would provide independent parallel IFR operations,

doubling hourly IFR arrival capacity.

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

192 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

30 Enplanements Operations

8.0

(M) (K)

7.5

280

250

FL

CY 99 CY 00 CY 01 CY 99 CY 00 CY 01

7,969,797 7,901,725 7,726,576 278,632 260,859 243,625

0 500

1,000 5,000 ft

3,000 N

Control

Tower

9

17

35

27

18R

36L

36R

18L

TPA – Tampa International Airport

New Runway and associated Taxiway improvements $89.2 million (proposed; to be reviewed in 2004 master plan update). Runway 18L 

extension (proposed post 2020; to be reviewed in master plan update 2004). Runway 27 extension (proposed post 2020; to be reviewed

in master plan update 2004). Runway 18R/36L angles exit at W5 and 36L holding pad $8.8 million (underway). Runway 18R CAT II ILS 

$3.4 million (underway).

Proposed Runway and

Runway Extension

Proposed Construction

Proposed Building

Construction

193 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

71 Enplanements Operations

1.8

(M) (K)

1.5

210

190

OK

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,737,672 1,627,293 1,450,242 198,970 199,533 189,136

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

194 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

67 Enplanements Operations

1.9

(M) (K)

1.7

275

250

AZ

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

1,804,086 1,749,560 1,677,341 250,943 261,800 272,568

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

195 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT LAYOUTS FOR THE TOP 100 AIRPORTS

94 Enplanements Operations

0.9

(M) (K)

0.7

155

145

TN

CY 00 CY 01 CY 02 CY 00 CY 01 CY 02

863,539 705,607 693,351 148,596 149,342 149,323

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

196 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX E ACRONYM LISTING
ACE Aviation Capacity Enhancement

ACI Airports Council International

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast

AIP Airport Improvement Program

AIR-21 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century

AOZ Free Flight Program Office

ARS Air Traffic Systems Requirement Services

ARTCCs Air Route Traffic Control Centers

ARTS Automated Radar Terminal Systems

ASC Office of System Capacity

ASMs Available Seat Miles

ASPM Aviation System Performance Metrics

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATO Air Traffic Organization

ATOP Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures

ATS Air Traffic Services

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CAA Cargo Airline Association

CARF Central Altitude Reservation Function

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CEP Capacity Enhancement Plan

CY Calendar Year

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DPs Departure Procedures

DRVSM Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

EAS Essential Air Service

EASE Expedited Aviation System Enhancement 

ERAM En Route Automation Modernization

ETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FIR Flight Information Region

FL flight level

FMS Flight Management System

FY Fiscal Year

GA General Aviation

GARBs General Airport Revenue Bonds

GEO Geostationary Earth Orbit

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

GPS Global Positioning System

GRADE Graphical Airspace Design Environment

HITL Human In The Loop

HOCSR HOST and Oceanic Computer System Replacement

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IFR Instrument Flight Rule

APPENDIX E

ACRONYM LISTING

198 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX E

ACRONYM LISTING

ILS Instrument Landing System

LAAS Local Area Augmentation System

LDA Localizer Directional Aid

LAHSO Land and Hold Short Operations

LNAV Lateral Navigation

LPV Lateral with Precise Verticals

MAP Military Airport Program

NAS National Airspace System

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NLA New Large Aircraft

PRM Notice of Proposal Rulemaking

NRS Navigation Reference System

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NYICC New York Integrated Control Complex

OEP Operational Evolution Plan

OMB Office of Management and Budgets

OOOI Out, Off, On and In

OPSNET FAA’s Operations Network

PCT Potomac Consolidated TRACON

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

PFCs Passenger Facility Charges

PRM Precision Runway Monitor

RAT Reroute Advisory Tool

RPAT RNP Parallel Approach Transitions

RJs Regional Jets

RNAV Advanced Area Navigation

RNP Required Navigational Performance 

RTMs Revenue Ton-Miles

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

SCT Southern California TRACON

SIAP Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

SOIA Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches

STARs Standard Terminal Arrival Routes

SUA Special Use Airspace

TMA Traffic Management Advisor

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control facility

URET User Request Evaluation Tool

VFR Visual Flight Rule

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VNAV Vertical Navigation

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System

WAN Wide Area Network

WATRS West Atlantic Route System

199 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX F 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.

Eileen Cave Excelling Creative Concepts, L.L.C.

Hyattsville, Maryland

Holland McKenna McKenna Associates

Silver Spring, Maryland

Marlene Mandel QED Consulting, L.L.C.

Arlington, VA

Kate Igoe Permissions Archivist

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC

Kristine L. Kaske Photo Archivist

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC

Dave Burgevin Museum Specialist, Photographic Archives, Image Sales

Smithsonian Photographic Services

Washington, DC

Photo Credits

Cover (left to right)

Left side view of the 1900 Wright glider before installation of forward horizontal control 

surface, flying as a kite, tipped forward; Kitty Hawk Lifesaving Station and Weather Bureau

buildings in background to the left – 1900

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00556 (digital file

from original) LC-W851-96 (b&w film copy negative)]

Rear view of Wilbur making a right turn in glide from No.2 Hill, right wing tipped close to

the ground – 1902 October 24

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00598 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-7 (b&w film copy negative)]

APPENDIX F

CREDITS

202 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX F

CREDITS

Orville Wright, age 34, head and shoulders, with mustache – 1905

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00680 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-89 (b&w film copy negative)]

Wilbur Wright, age 38, head and shoulders, about 1905; one of the earliest published 

photographs of him – 1905

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00683 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-92 (b&w film copy negative)]

Wilbur gliding down steep slope of Big Kill Devil Hill; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina – 1902 Oct 10

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00602 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-11 (b&w film copy negative)]

First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35am; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina – 1903 Dec 17

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00626 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-35 (b&w film copy negative)]

Cover (flap)

Wilbur Wright in flight from Governor’s Island – 1909 Sept 29

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-3b25548 (digital file

from original) LC-USZ62-78454 (b&w film copy negative)

Page iv

Side view of glider flying as a kite near the ground, Wilbur at left and Orville at right, glider

turned forward to right and tipped downward – 1901

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00580 (digital file

from original) LC-W851-121 (b&w film copy negative)

203 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Page 2

Three-quarter left rear view of glider in flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina – 1911

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00699 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-108 (b&w film copy negative)]

Page 12

Katharine Wright, wearing a leather jacket, cap, and goggles, aboard the Wright Model HS airplane with Orville – 1915

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00588 (digital file

from original) LC-W851-129 (b&w film copy negative)]

Page 24

Close-up view of machine on launching track at Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio – 1904 June

or July

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00618 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-27 (b&w film copy negative)]

Page 38

Close-up view of airplane, including the pilot and passenger seats – 1911

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00691 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-100 (b&w film copy negative)]

Page 46

Wireless operator in conversation with plane in flight, conducting his conversation at the time

and for the length of time permitted by the special synchronized clocks of United Airlines.

National Air and Space Museum (NASM Videodisc No. 2A-34452), Smithsonian Institution

Page 54

Right front view of glider in flight – 1911

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ppprs-00692 (digital file

from original) LC-W861-101 (b&w film copy negative)]

APPENDIX F

CREDITS

204 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
APPENDIX F

CREDITS

Appendix D Divider – First Row (left to right)

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport

Austin Municipal Airport Terminal – 1938 October 26

Austin History Center (AF-Municipal Airport, M8600 (1) - PICA 03770), Austin Public Library

Port Columbus International Airport

Appendix D Divider – Second Row (left to right)

Dayton International Airport

Air traffic controllers tracking airplanes on a radarscope, Washington Air Route Traffic

Control Center in Washington, D.C. – 1955

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

American Airlines DC-6 being marshalled on the L.C. Smith Terminal Ramp – late 1950s.

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Appendix D Divider – Third Row (left to right)

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport ticketing – Mid 1970s

Las Vegas McCarran International Airport

Kansas City International Terminal

Kansas City International Airport

205 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Appendix D Divider – Third Row continued

Dedication ceremony for Wisconsin Central Airlines’ first flight to Madison

Madison/Dane County Regional Airport, WHi(N48)4080

Appendix D Divider – Fourth Row (left to right)

Sky Harbor Airport – 1930

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Air traffic controller with light gun

T.F. Green Airport

Old United Airlines Airport at Reno, Nevada

Reno Tahoe International Airport

Appendix D Divider – Fifth Row (left to right)

Some of the old-time local barnstormers

John Wayne Airport - Orange County

Old terminal

Sarasota Bradenton Airport

Pilots deliver the mail

Syracuse Hancock International Airport

APPENDIX F

CREDITS

2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003 206
APPENDIX F

CREDITS

Back Cover (left to right)

Curtiss JN-4

The Curtiss JN-4 was the type of aircraft flown by pioneer aviator Bessie Coleman – 1920

Smithsonian Institution, Negative #86-6177

Bessie Coleman

Smithsonian Institution, Negative #80-12873

Charles A. Lindbergh with the “Spirit of St. Louis” prior to his transatlantic flight. New York.

Circa May 17, 1927

Lindbergh Picture Collection (3143), Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library

Ryan NYP “Spirit of St. Louis” equipped with 220 HP Wright Whirlwind engine

Loftin Collection (Spirit of St. Louis), NASA Langley Research Center, #EL-2001-00026

Amelia Earhart

Smithsonian Institution, Negative #2004-11247

First Cadets, Tuskegee

In 1941 the first group of black cadets to earn their wings at Tuskegee Army Air Field 

gather alongside a Vultee BT-13 trainer. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. (middle) became the first

black general in the U.S. Air Force in 1954.

Smithsonian Institution, Negative #99-15437

207 2003 ACE PLAN

Centennial of Flight 1903-2003
Man is both determined and self-determining

~ Stein and Vidichon