An Analysis of Airports and 

Metropolitan Area Demand 

and Operational Capacity 

in the Future

May 2007

The MITRE Corporation

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development 

 HQ-009107.indd

2007- 2025

 the 

System

Capacity Needs in

National Airspace 

Federal Aviation

Administration
 

Office of the Administrator 800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

 

May 2007 

Thanks for your interest in America’s airports. 

Throughout these pages, we’ve got a good story to tell about the 

efforts to expand capacity at our most bustling facilities. Congestion is 

binding many of them. Come read what the FAA and airports around 

the country are doing to break that grip and keep the planes moving. 

We’ve taken a frank look at where the capacity hot spots are going to 

be with this latest study, our first update to a situation we initially 

examined three years ago. I’m pleased to report that progress has 

been made since we issued the report in 2004. Since that time six new 

runways at the Nation’s largest airports have opened. In fact, 14 new 

runways have opened since 2000. 

This latest endeavor gives us even better insight into where those 

choke points are today, and where they’re going to be tomorrow. With 

a better understanding, we can work with communities large and small 

to determine what the next steps are going to be. 

Our data indicate that many existing airports will need to be expanded 

to meet future demand. The metropolitan areas that have traditionally 

driven aviation demand will continue to do so. Unfortunately, we have 

metropolitan areas on both coasts with critical capacity problems that 

are becoming more chronic. In the last 40 years, two new major 

commercial service airports have opened in the United States, DallasFort Worth and Denver International. We may need to add as many as 

four more in the next 20 or 30 years. Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas and 

San Diego are among the likely candidates. 

Is all of this construction boosting capacity? Absolutely. We now have 

hundreds of thousands of takeoffs and landings we didn’t have just a 

few years ago. Is it going to be enough down the road? No. We’ve got 

to do more. This study confirms it. 

While we have taken some airports off our watch list because of the 

strides they’re making, there’s still a significant number out there that 

are going to need more capacity in the years ahead. 

Improvement plans must continue to move forward to avoid a repeat 

of 2006. That was a record year for delays, with more than 490,000 

flights that didn’t make it on time. Truth is, 2007 isn’t looking any 

better. 
In addition to building new runways and airports, we need to expand 

regional planning in key areas of our country and examine the role of 

congestion management measures in the few locations where 

expanding airport capacity is unlikely. 

We’ve already got 18 of our biggest airports back to pre-9/11 levels. 

We’re projecting that we’ll add four more to the list – Baltimore, 

Detroit, Newark and Phoenix – in just the next couple of years. 

With this report, we also looked at how some of the transformational 

concepts of the NextGen air traffic system might help alleviate 

congestion at the busiest 35 airports, and the news was very 

encouraging. Every single one of them experienced a drop in delays. 

The anticipated benefits of NextGen are critically important as 

efficiency enhancements for airports with planned runway 

improvements and even more so for airports in the National Airspace 

System where geographic and other constraints prevent physical 

expansion of the airfield. In addition, NextGen is critical to handling 

traffic volume and ensuring smooth, high capacity aircraft flows 

between airports. It also enhances our ability to meet our capacity 

requirements in ways that cause less harm to the environment and 

less disturbance to our neighbors – so the expansion of the airspace is 

beneficial to everyone. 

I invite you to keep reading what we have in store to relieve airport 

congestion. Local communities and the FAA will continue to stay hard 

at it. This study will keep us one step ahead of the curve, and let me 

assure you, remain there. 

Marion C. Blakey 

Administrator
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE FACT 1? ............................................................................2

NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (NEXTGEN)........................................................ 2

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ....................................................................................................... 3

NEW RUNWAYS AND EXTENSIONS............................................................................................. 3

UPDATED FORECAST DATA ..................................................................................................... 3

REVISED TIMEFRAMES AND EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 4

PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS....................................................................................................... 4

ADDITIONAL DATA AND REFINED METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 4

COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AIRPORTS................................................................5

FINDINGS OF THE FACT 2 STUDY ..................................................................................6

CAPACITY NEEDS IN 2007 ..................................................................................................... 8

CAPACITY NEEDS IN 2015 ..................................................................................................... 9

CAPACITY NEEDS IN 2025 ................................................................................................... 14

AIRPORTS WITH CAPACITY OR DELAY CONSTRAINTS TO BE MONITORED IN THE 

NEAR TERM...................................................................................................................20

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................21

APPENDIX A: STUDY AIRPORTS...................................................................................24

APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN AREAS AND ASSOCIATED AIRPORTS..........................25

APPENDIX C: PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................26

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY......................................................................................28

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 28

MODELING FUTURE AIRPORT DEMAND..................................................................................... 28

MODELING CURRENT AND FUTURE AIRPORT CAPACITY ................................................................. 30

IDENTIFYING AIRPORTS NEEDING ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.............................................................. 33

EVALUATING CAPACITY NEEDS IN METROPOLITAN AREAS .............................................................. 37

IN CLOSING ..................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX E: COMPARING THE FACT 1 AND FACT 2 FINDINGS..................................40

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page i May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Capacity 2007 .......................... 8

Figure 2 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional Capacity in 2015 after 

Planned Improvements ...........................................................................10

Figure 3 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional Capacity in 2015 if 

Planned Improvements Do Not Occur ........................................................10

Figure 4 Total Queue Delay at the 56 Airports with and without NextGen 

Improvements (2025) .............................................................................15

Figure 5 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Capacity in 2025 after Planned 

Improvements .......................................................................................16

Figure 6 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Capacity in 2025 if Planned 

Improvements Do Not Occur ....................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Comparison to FACT 1 Results for 2003.................................................. 9

Table 2 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional Capacity in 2015 after 

and without Planned Improvements ..........................................................11

Table 3 Comparison to FACT 1 Results for 2013 after Planned Improvements ........13

Table 4 Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional Capacity in 2025 after 

and without Planned Improvements ..........................................................17

Table 5 Comparison to FACT 1 Results for 2020 after Planned Improvements ........19

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page ii May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

INTRODUCTION 

In 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) convened a team to begin the 

Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT). The team was led by the FAA’s Airports 

organization (ARP) and included representatives from the Air Traffic Organization 

(ATO) and the MITRE Corporation’s Center for Advanced Aviation System 

Development (CAASD). FACT is an assessment of the future capacity of the Nation’s 

airports and metropolitan areas. Its goal is to determine which airports and 

metropolitan areas have the greatest need for additional capacity. By embarking on 

this initiative, the FAA wanted to assure that the long-term capacity of the U.S. 

aviation system matched forecasts of demand. 

This document is the first update to the original study, Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System, An Analysis of Airport and Metropolitan Area Demand and 

Operational Capacity in the Future (FACT 1), published in 2004. This update is called 

FACT 2. In response to comments received about the original study, the FACT 2 

report provides more transparency in the methodology and analysis. It includes 

updated data, revised timeframes, and refined analytical methods. Further, specific 

results and assumptions were shared with those airports identified from the analysis 

to gather additional input that might impact the findings. 

Both FACT studies began with an analysis of 291 commercial service airports (the 35 

airports, primarily the Nation’s large hubs, contained in the Operational Evolution 

Plan (OEP)1, and an additional 256 commercial service airports) as well as 223 

metropolitan areas across the county. Based on this initial analysis, the team 

identified 56 airports for more detailed study (the 35 OEP airports and 21 non-OEP 

airports). The non-OEP airports were identified using conservative assumptions about 

fleet mix and airport operations to estimate potential capacity constraints at the 

individual airport or within a metropolitan area. The same 56 airports were analyzed 

in both FACT studies. Appendix A provides a list of these airports. The study also 

identified multiple metropolitan areas, described in Appendix B, which may also face 

potential capacity constraints. 

Traffic in the National Airspace System (NAS) was modeled using projections of 

future enplanements and operations from two different sources: the FAA’s Terminal 

Area Forecast (TAF) and CAASD’s experimental model of origin and destination 

traffic. The TAF assesses traffic on an airport-by-airport basis based on the economic 

and demographic characteristics of the airport metropolitan area. 

CAASD’s model also assesses traffic based on economic and demographic trends. 

Unlike the TAF, however, the CAASD model produces forecasts of traffic for individual 

pairs of origin and destination metropolitan areas. Socio-economic trend information, 

including changes in demographics, income, market power, and other factors, were 

considered as part of this analysis. Passenger demand was estimated as originating 

in, or traveling to, a metropolitan area rather than just a specific airport. This 

passenger demand was then translated into airport operations through a route 

selection process (direct or via a third airport) and by determining the correct aircraft 

 

1

 The OEP is now known as the Operational Evolution Partnership—the FAA's plan for implementing the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) vision cast by the multi-agency Joint Planning and 

Development Office. OEP is an expansion of the existing Operational Evolution Plan—the agency's chief 

capacity-enhancement document since 2001—and has become the agency's “one plan” for providing 

continuity between what is and what is to come. This plan is specifically for FAA and the capabilities the 

agency is responsible for contributing to NextGen. The OEP already has cross-agency and community support 

and has a proven monitoring process in place. The new OEP will harmonize existing FAA plans and concepts 

and will provide a tangible foundation against which the agency and our partners can chart the future. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 1 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

fleet necessary to handle the passenger traffic. This additional estimate of future 

traffic levels was then utilized as part of the demand/capacity analysis (see Appendix 

D for a detailed explanation of the methodology used in this analysis). 

The FACT 2 analysis identified a significant number of U.S. airports that can be 

expected to require additional capacity in the future if demand reaches forecast 

levels. This finding not only highlights the importance of moving forward with current 

improvement plans, and keeping such plans on schedule, but seeking new solutions 

to add even more capacity than is currently planned. 

WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE FACT 1? 

The FAA has undertaken an update to the FACT 1 analysis in order to identify 

airports that may have capacity needs in the future, even after accounting for their 

enhancement plans. The update includes new forecasts, enhanced capacity plans, 

improved criteria and a modified methodology. In addition, the FAA tracks the 

performance of the NAS, analyzes current trends, estimates future performance, 

identifies airports and airspace where performance enhancements may be necessary, 

and works with the local communities to address their current and future capacity 

and enhancement needs. 

Through these efforts and together with the detailed modeling, a set of airports and 

metropolitan areas needing improvements, both now and in the future, were 

identified. By completing an analysis, such as FACT 2, the FAA has the broadest 

understanding of future airport capacity needs in the coming years. 

This section identifies several changes made to the FACT process since the 

publication of the original FACT report. 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

The FACT 1 analysis revealed that many of our hub airports and their associated 

metropolitan areas could be expected to experience capacity constraints (i.e. 

unacceptable levels of delay) by 2013 and 2020, even if the planned improvements 

envisioned at that time were completed. The underlying message was that additional 

efforts beyond those already identified would be needed to increase the capacity of 

our National Airspace System (NAS). A similar message was included in the FAA’s 

2003 Reauthorization Plan and resulted in the formation of the Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO). Congress charged the JPDO with creating and carrying 

out an integrated plan for NextGen. A key objective of FACT 2 is to begin to study 

the benefits of some initial NextGen concepts and how they might provide additional 

airport capacity, and thereby reduce delays, through enhanced air traffic control 

(ATC) techniques and technologies. 

A meeting was held in July 2006 between FACT team members and JPDO personnel 

to identify a few initial NextGen concepts that could be modeled in the FACT analysis. 

Some of these measures included a revision of separation standards, independent 

operations on parallel runways spaced more closely than possible today, reduction of 

in-trail wake vortex separation requirements and use of equivalent visual techniques. 

NextGen is a broad set of concepts and investments that address every aspect of the 

NAS, therefore the JPDO analyses of NextGen impacts result in a wide range of 

benefits that extend beyond the impact of runway improvements. 

The FACT 2 study examines a limited set of NextGen concepts that focus on capacity 

improvements for airborne operations in the airport vicinity; it did not include 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 2 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

NextGen concepts for en route or oceanic operations, or changes to operations on 

the airport surface. Initial benefits of the airport capacity concepts are presented in 

this document. Even greater benefits beyond what was modeled in the study would 

be expected once full NextGen concepts are analyzed. 

Stakeholder Feedback 

Another key objective of this update is to apply important feedback received from 

industry stakeholders about the FACT 1 study. An Industry Stakeholder Roundtable 

meeting was held in September 2005 to explain the FACT methodology and criteria, 

discuss changes in the aviation industry since the release of the first study, and 

solicit feedback on what could be done differently in the FACT 2 analysis. The 

industry panel, which included representatives from aviation associations, 

consultants, and local airport operators, found the FACT methodology was sound and 

the report shows promise as a tool for strategic planning at both the national and 

local levels. Suggestions for improvements included providing more detail about the 

analytical results, incorporating more specific local airport usage and fleet mix data 

for the non-OEP airports, and using the same methodology and criteria for all studied 

airports (OEP and non-OEP). 

The FACT 2 team gathered operational data for the airports through surveys to local 

air traffic controllers and regional FAA personnel and, in some instances, 

conversations with airport operators. Much of this data was used to further define 

airfield capacities, particularly at the non-OEP airports. Based on the feedback 

received from industry stakeholders, as well as the new data and input from the 

JPDO, the FACT methodology and criteria were revised accordingly. 

New Runways and Extensions 

Since the first FACT report was published, six new runways have opened at ATL, 

BOS, CVG, LAX, MSP, and STL2. At other airports, key runway projects have been 

approved and are scheduled to open by 2010, including new runways or extensions 

at CLT, IAD, LAX, ORD, PHL, and SEA. For example, Runway 17/35 at PHL is being 

extended, an end-around taxiway was completed at ATL, and another is under 

construction at DFW. Most significantly, the O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP), a 

complete reconfiguration of the runways at ORD, has been approved and 

construction has begun. Runway improvements have been proposed at other 

airports, as well, and numerous site-specific studies are underway. 

Updated Forecast Data 

The FACT analysis uses two different forecasts of future traffic levels: the FAA’s 

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)3 and CAASD’s Future Air Traffic Estimator4 (FATE) 

forecast. The original FACT study was based on the TAF released in 2003; the FACT 2 

study used the TAF released in March 2006. As the economy and the aviation 

industry have recovered from the decline following September 11, 2001, patterns of 

airport activity have changed. Thus, the two TAF forecasts show different traffic 

levels and patterns. Similarly, the FATE forecast was updated and refined since the 

first FACT report to reflect these and other changes. 

 

2

 This report identifies airports with their three-letter FAA location identifiers. For a complete list, see 

Appendix A. 3

 The FAA updates the TAF every year. 

4

 Bhadra, D. et.al., “Future Air Traffic Timetable Estimator”, Journal of Aircraft, Volume 42, Number 2, 

pp.320-328, March-April 2005. The name of the model has been changed to reflect improvements since 

the first FACT study was conducted. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 3 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Revised Timeframes and Expected Improvements 

The FACT estimates of future capacity needs incorporate the best available 

information about planned improvements to the air traffic management (ATM) 

system, as well as runway and airport improvements. FACT 2 is consistent with OEP, 

version 8.0 (OEP v8.0),5 which was released in May 2006 and extends to the year 

2015. 

Planning for the time period beyond the end of the OEP has also progressed since the 

release of the first FACT study. In recent years, the JPDO has brought together the 

FAA, NASA, the Department of Defense, other government organizations, and 

members of the aviation community to develop operational concepts. To harmonize 

with the time horizons of the OEP and NextGen, the mid- and long-term planning 

periods for FACT 2 have been aligned to 2015 and 2025, respectively. 

Planned Improvements 

The FACT 2 analysis includes planned improvements affecting runway capacity for 

two future planning periods, 2015 and 2025. The planned improvements include the 

following (Appendix C contains a list of planned improvements by airport modeled in 

this analysis): 

• New or Extended Runways. New or extended runways were included as 

planned improvements. The OEP v8.0 and airport-specific planning documents 

were used to incorporate the runway improvements in either the 2015 or 

2025 planning period. 

• New or Revised ATC Procedures. If a new or revised ATC procedure was 

listed in the OEP v8.0 or defined by the FACT 2 analysis as consistent with a 

NextGen concept, it was modeled as an improvement in this study. However, 

the modeled improvements that were consistent with NextGen concepts were 

applied only to the 35 OEP airports plus one non-OEP airport6 and then only 

in the 2025 planning scenario. This decision was made in conjunction with the 

JPDO because the NextGen concepts are still in the early planning stages. As 

the NextGen concepts are further developed, it is reasonable to assume the 

ATC benefits will be realized throughout most of the NAS. 

• Airspace Redesign. Improvements derived from the redesign of the airspace 

surrounding an airport were included in the 2015 or 2025 scenario based on 

the best information available. The redesign itself was not performed as part 

of this analysis. 

• Other Assumptions. The FACT 2 analysis assumed existing environmental 

restrictions that impact runway capacity, such as noise abatement 

procedures, would continue through the FACT planning periods. Planned 

taxiway, terminal, or ground access improvements were not included in this 

analysis because they were outside the scope of the models used. 

Additional Data and Refined Methodology 

The FACT 2 study includes additional airport data, especially for the non-OEP 

airports, and refined analytical methods. The first FACT study focused on detailed 

analysis of the 35 OEP airports and a less detailed analysis for the other 256 airports 

 

5

 The first FACT study referenced OEP, version 5.0 6

 Because OAK already had known capacity constraints, new or revised ATC procedures were applied at 

that location as well. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 4 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

analyzed. Because of limited availability of data for non-OEP airports at the time, 

conservative assumptions were used to estimate the capacity of the 256 non-OEP 

airports. Based on these conservative assumptions, 21 non-OEP airports were 

identified in FACT 1 as having the potential to be either capacity constrained or were 

within a known capacity constrained metropolitan area. This updated study includes 

Annual Service Volumes (ASVs) and detailed benchmark-type capacities for the same 

21 non-OEP airports identified in FACT 1. These analyses revealed, in many cases, 

that the non-OEP airports made more effective use of their runways than had 

originally been assumed, had plans for runway construction that had not been 

factored into the original analysis, or had different ATC procedures than those 

previously used. As a result, this updated study shows that some of the non-OEP 

airports have higher capacities than originally presumed and thus less need for 

additional capacity. 

By using the same approach for calculating ASVs and benchmark capacities at the 56 

airports, all the airports could be evaluated with the same criteria. Previously, criteria 

for the non-OEP airports were less stringent, and so more of these airports were 

judged to be capacity constrained in the future. The methodology and criteria used in 

the original study has since been refined and, in the FACT 2 analysis, the following 

metrics were applied to all 56 airports: 

• ASV Ratio: the ratio of future demand to the Annual Service Volume for the 

airport, where the ASV is based on a 7-minute average delay per operation 

(arrival and departure) 

• Scheduled Arrival Delay: the average delay per arrival operation at the 

airport as calculated by a simulation of daily traffic across the NAS 

• Arrival Queue Delay: the average delay while waiting to land after arriving 

at an airport 

• Departure Queue Delay: the average delay while waiting to depart, caused 

by factors at the departure airport 

• Local Delay: The proportion of the delay that is due to local factors (as 

opposed to propagation from other airports) 

To apply the above metrics uniformly to all 56 airports, assumptions were made 

about airport operations and individual facilities, common to a system-wide modeling 

process. To better understand the initial results, the team conducted a validation 

phase. The purpose of the validation was to ensure the operational data was 

accurate and the assumptions made were reasonable and consistent with observed 

current conditions. This additional step allowed the FACT team to incorporate 

additional information into the FACT analysis. Appendix D explains these and 

additional criteria in more detail. 

COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AIRPORTS 

In February and March 2007, the FACT 2 analysis was coordinated with each of the 

airports identified as needing additional capacity in the future and with airports that 

were identified in FACT 1 but not FACT 2, some 24 airports in total. Each airport 

sponsor was provided the assumptions used in the analysis as well as the preliminary 

results for each facility. In most cases, the airport sponsor agreed with the FACT 2 

assumptions. Others thought the analysis might have under- or overestimated the 

airfield capacity based on changes to operating procedures or reduced constraints. In 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 5 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

such cases, further investigation was performed and adjustments were made as 

appropriate. 

Although each airport coordination meeting was different, there were a few 

important issues raised by a number of the airport sponsors. 

• An airport’s runways are not necessarily the limiting capacity factor.

Often, taxiways and terminal gates can limit the annual number of operations 

more than runway capacity by itself. However, the present analysis did not 

consider potential limitations imposed by the taxiway or terminal 

infrastructure. 

• Airspace limitations also impact capacity. The ability of the airspace 

around many of the airports to accommodate more arrivals and departures 

may be limited, especially where there are several major airports in the same 

area (Southern California, Northern California, Chicago, New York, 

Philadelphia, and Southern Florida). Enroute airspace congestion may also 

impose departure delays. In other cases, operational flexibility may be 

affected by nearby military airspace or environmentally sensitive areas. 

FINDINGS OF THE FACT 2 STUDY 

Although the FACT 1 and FACT 2 findings were consistent in many important ways, 

they were not identical. For instance, because of a decline in the number of small 

and medium hub airports expected to face capacity issues once planned 

improvements are implemented, the FACT 2 analysis found the total number of 

airports and metropolitan areas needing additional capacity beyond what is currently 

planned was lower than reported in FACT 1. The FACT 2 analysis also identified a 

greater number of large hub airports that will need additional capacity beyond what 

is currently planned. Not surprisingly, FACT 2 also found that many of our country’s 

largest and fastest growing metropolitan areas will need to boost capacity. 

Some of the differences between FACT 1 and FACT 2 were the direct and very 

positive result of implemented or planned capacity improvements at all sizes of 

airports studied, such as the construction or extension of runways and enhanced air 

traffic control procedures. Other variances reflected changes in traffic forecasts, 

improved methodology, and a better understanding of operations at several affected 

airports. 

Recognizing that this study focuses on airfield capacity, new runways typically 

provide the greatest capacity enhancement in the airport environment, and more will 

be needed to manage delays throughout the NAS. Some communities, however, are 

constrained from building runways or implementing other airfield projects to enhance 

capacity. In such cases, NextGen, which includes various technology advancements 

planned to transform how we move people and goods, will be required to provide 

solutions for additional capacity. The initial NextGen concepts modeled in this study 

for the 2025 scenario show a reduction in certain delays throughout the NAS (see 

“Capacity Needs in 2025” below). Air traffic management improvements, such as 

those initially defined by the OEP and JPDO (e.g. reduced runway spacing), will help 

reduce delays. However, research on these air traffic management improvements, 

such as reduced separation between aircraft or closer runway spacing at airports, is 

still required to determine their characteristics and feasibility. 

Because of time and resource limitations, and because it was necessary to use a 

common set of criteria for each airport studied, it was not possible to model all 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 6 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

aspects of an operation at each individual airport. For example, some airports may 

have taxiway limitations that cause significant operational restrictions on the surface. 

Others may have many different runway configurations used throughout the year. 

However, the FACT 2 analysis did not consider surface constraints, and the systemwide modeling was limited to the three most common runway configurations (as 

determined by select weather conditions). In both cases, the performance of an 

individual airport may not be fully represented, and some future problems may not 

be captured or identified. Although a study such as FACT 2 is good at identifying 

likely areas where improvements are necessary, the limitations discussed above do 

influence the overall results. 

The FACT 2 analysis should be considered in combination with studies being 

prepared for specific airports. These studies are focused specifically at the airports of 

interest and may be more detailed and take into consideration additional constraints 

not accounted for in the FACT 2 report. Furthermore, inclusion of a project for which 

there is an ongoing EIS should not be construed as pre-determination of approval by 

the FAA, but rather as a “what-if” assessment of potential benefit. Environmental 

restrictions, where they presently exist, were assumed to continue unchanged. 

When interpreting the results of this report and comparing them to the findings of 

FACT 1 or site-specific studies, it is important to keep the purpose of the FACT 

process and the changes made since FACT 1 in mind. FACT is a system-wide 

analysis. It is intended to provide the FAA with data about the timing and need for 

infrastructure improvements at the national level for agency planning purposes. The 

FACT analysis cannot replace site-specific studies that might examine capacity issues 

in much greater detail and are thus more accurate reflections of the situation at a 

particular location or within a specific regional system. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 7 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Capacity Needs in 2007 

The FACT 2 analysis identified four airports and one metropolitan area7 that currently 

need additional capacity. These airports and metropolitan area are shown on Figure 

1 and listed in Table 1. 

Figure 1 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Capacity 2007 

4 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2007

1 metro area that needs 

additional capacity in 2007

The FACT 2 study identified the New York Metropolitan Area as well as EWR and LGA 

as needing additional capacity in 2007. Both airports have experienced high delays 

for a considerable length of time. The redesign of the airspace should help, but will 

not provide a long-term solution as demonstrated by the 2015 and 2025 analyses. 

Additional capacity within the New York Metropolitan Area is needed. 

Although ORD is shown as needing additional capacity in 2007, the completion of the 

O’Hare Modernization Program will reduce delays to the point that the airport will not 

be capacity constrained in the future. The Chicago Metropolitan Area was not 

identified as needing additional capacity in 2007 due to the capacity provided by 

other local airports8. 

Table 1 provides a comparison of the 2003 (FACT 1) and 2007 (FACT 2) study 

results. The comparison shows several airports and metropolitan areas that continue 

to have capacity problems, as well as those airports that would not be constrained if 

the planned improvements are implemented (this comparison is shown graphically in 

Appendix E). 

 

7

 The FACT 2 study assessed the combined capacity of the airports within a metropolitan area that 

currently accommodates at least 5 percent of the local Origin and Destination (O&D) traffic, or 500,000 

annual passengers (see metropolitan area methodology in Appendix D). 8

 The Chicago Metropolitan Area includes GYY, MDW, MKE, ORD, and RFD to be consistent with the EIS 

metropolitan definition used for the OMP. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 8 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2003 

(FACT 1) 

2007 

(FACT 2)

⊕ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

⊗ Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) 3 

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

z O’Hare International (ORD) 3 3

⊗ Philadelphia International (PHL) 3

Total 5 4 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2003 

(FACT 1)

2007 

(FACT 2)

⊗ Atlanta 3

⊕ New York 3

Table 1 

Comparison to FACT 

1 Results for 2003 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer identified as 

needing additional capacity 

Total 1 1 

Three airports were identified in the 2003 (FACT 1) and 2007 

(FACT 2) studies as being capacity constrained (z). Both LGA and 

EWR experience significant delays and will continue to do so until 

additional capacity is added. However, geographic and airspace 

constraints will make this difficult. ORD was also identified in 

both studies. However, the O’Hare Modernization Program is 

underway and new runways are expected to open within the next 

few years. 

Two airports were identified in FACT 1 that are not listed in the 

FACT 2 study (⊗). ATL recently opened a new runway adding 

additional capacity. PHL was not identified as capacity 

constrained in the 2007, yet the airport experienced significant 

levels of delay in the latter half of 2006. Some of the delays at 

PHL were due to airspace congestion and operational issues that 

were not captured by the FACT analysis. 

Capacity Needs in 2015 

The capacity needs in the 2015 mid-term planning period were estimated in two 

ways: (1) assuming the planned ATC and runway improvements are completed by 

2015 and (2) assuming continued demand growth but no new capacity 

improvements to the existing system. By comparing the two scenarios, it is possible 

to identify where additional capacity will be needed in the future, what effect the 

improvements that are currently underway or in the planning process will have on 

future capacity needs, and where new planning efforts will be needed to provide 

even greater capacity beyond what is currently in the construction or planning 

process. The results are shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3 and listed in Table 2. The 

results are also compared to the FACT 1 results in Table 3. 

The planned improvements for 2015 included new or extended runways, new or 

revised ATC procedures, airspace redesign, and improved ATC technology. ATC 

procedures and technology are consistent with OEP v8.0. Likewise, runway 

improvements at the 35 OEP airports were considered if they appeared in the OEP. 

Other runway improvements were considered if the available information indicated 

they were likely to be completed by 2015 (Appendix C contains a listing of the 

detailed improvements modeled in 2015). 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 9 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Figure 2 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Additional 

Capacity in 

2015 after 

Planned 

Improvements 

By adding the additional capacity gained from the planned 

improvements expected by 2015 to the 2007 capacity and measuring 

this against the forecast demand for 2015, the FACT 2 analysis identified 

six airports and four metropolitan areas that will need additional 

capacity beyond what is already planned (See Table 2). 

6 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2015

4 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2015

Figure 3 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Additional 

Capacity in 

2015 if 

Planned 

Improvements 

Do Not Occur 

Measuring the 2007 capacity against the forecast demand for the 2015 

mid-term planning period reveals that 18 airports and seven 

metropolitan areas will need additional capacity if the existing airfield 

configurations remain constant without any capacity enhancements (see 

Table 2). 

18 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2015

7 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2015

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 10 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity After Planned 

Improvements 

Without 

Planned 

Improvements

Charlotte Douglas International (CLT) 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l (FLL) 

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 

John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA)  

LaGuardia (LGA)  

Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB)  

McCarran International (LAS) 

Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK)  

Midway Airport (MDW) 

Newark Liberty International (EWR)  

O’Hare International (ORD) 

Palm Beach International (PBI) 

Philadelphia International (PHL)  

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 

T.F. Green (PVD) 

Tucson International (TUS) 

William P. Hobby (HOU) 

Total 6 18 

Table 2 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Additional 

Capacity in 2015 

after and without 

Planned 

Improvements 

Metropolitan Areas Needing 

Additional Capacity 

After Planned 

Improvements 

Without 

Planned 

Improvements

Charlotte 

Chicago  

Las Vegas 

Los Angeles  

New York  

Philadelphia  

San Francisco  

Total 4 7 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 11 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Needed Capacity beyond what is Currently Planned for 2015 

By adding the additional capacity gained from the planned improvements expected 

by 2015 to the 2007 capacity and measuring this against the forecast demand for 

2015, the FACT 2 analysis identified six airports and four metropolitan areas that will 

need additional capacity beyond what is already planned (see Figure 2 and Table 2)9. 

• EWR and LGA: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is planning to 

assume operation of Stewart International Airport (SWF), about 55 miles 

north of New York City, to expand air service to the New York Metropolitan 

Area. It is too early to determine whether this will result in a sufficient 

reduction in delays to avoid the need for additional capacity enhancements 

within the New York Metropolitan Area. It is likely, however, that additional 

capacity enhancements will still be needed at both airports. 

• PHL: An EIS for the complete reconfiguration of its airfield is currently being 

prepared. However, because the final alternative for this extensive project 

has not been identified, new capacity information was not available for this 

study. Therefore, the proposed airfield reconfiguration was not included in the 

2015 analysis. 

• OAK: Geographic, terrain, and airspace issues continue to constrain airports 

like OAK. These issues limit the airport’s ability to add additional runway 

capacity. A regional solution in conjunction with other airports in the Bay Area 

may be needed. 

• LGB and SNA: Both airports have operational and noise restrictions that limit 

the number of operations at each facility. If these restrictions remain in place, 

the operational levels forecasted for these airports in 2015 will likely not be 

reached. Thus, the actual future delays will likely be less than the criteria 

established for this analysis. However, this may mean that significant demand 

will go unsatisfied. 

• Based on the six airports identified in the 2015 mid-term planning period, the 

metropolitan areas surrounding these airports were assessed. The analysis 

found that four metropolitan areas did not have sufficient capacity to meet 

the anticipated demand in 2015: Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and 

San Francisco. 

Table 3 provides a comparison of the 2013 (FACT 1) and 2015 (FACT 2) study 

results. The comparison shows several airports and metropolitan areas that continue 

to have capacity problems even with changing forecasts and modified evaluation 

criteria, as well as those airports that would not be constrained if the planned 

improvements are implemented (this comparison is shown graphically in Appendix E). 

 

9

 Capacity and delay estimates are specific to the planning years identified (i.e. 2007, 2015, and 2025). 

Intermediate years were not analyzed. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 12 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2013 

(FACT 1) 

2015 

(FACT 2)

⊗ Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ) 3

⊗ Bob Hope (BUR) 3

⊗ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

⊗ John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 3

z John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 3 3

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB) 3 3

z Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

⊗ O’Hare International (ORD) 3

⊗ Palm Beach International (PBI) 3

z Philadelphia International (PHL) 3 3

⊗ San Antonio International (SAT) 3

⊗ Tucson International (TUS) 3

⊗ William P. Hobby (HOU) 3

Total 15 6 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2013 

(FACT 1)

2015 

(FACT 2)

⊗ Austin-San Antonio 3

⊗ Chicago 3

z Los Angeles 3 3

z New York 3 3

⊕ Philadelphia 3

z San Francisco 3 3

⊗ South Florida 3

⊗ Tucson 3

Table 3 

Comparison to FACT 1 

Results for 2013 after 

Planned 

Improvements 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer identified as 

needing additional capacity 

Total 7 4 

Six airports were identified in both 2013 and 2015 (z). Not 

surprisingly, these are located within high-traffic areas in the 

Northeast and west coast areas. While it is clear that additional 

capacity is needed in these areas, existing geography, terrain, 

and airspace constraints may make potential solutions difficult to 

implement. 

Some of the airports that were listed in FACT 1 but are not listed 

in FACT 2 (⊗) have initiated plans to enhance capacity and 

improve airfield operations since FACT 1. If implemented, these 

plans will reduce the number of capacity constrained airports. 

Airports and Metropolitan Areas Adding Capacity by 2015 

A comparison of the airports needing additional capacity with and without planned 

improvements in 2015 reveals that 12 airports come off the list of capacity 

constrained airports if the planned improvements are completed; the planned 

improvements for each airport are as follows: 

• The redesign of the terminal airspace in the New York and Chicago areas will 

reduce current operational constraints at JFK and MDW resulting in additional 

airfield capacity. 

• Improved threshold delivery accuracy (i.e. RNAV arrival routes) will enhance 

the arrival capacity at LAS. 

• New runways will improve airfield capacity at ORD and CLT. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 13 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

• Various airfield improvements planned for FLL, HOU, IAH, PBI, PVD, SAT, and 

TUS will improve airport capacity. Site-specific studies are underway to 

evaluate these improvements. 

Capacity Needs in 2025 

The capacity needs in the 2025 long-term planning period were estimated assuming 

(1) that the planned improvements will be completed by 2025; and (2) the demand 

will continue to grow with no capacity improvements added to the existing system. 

The planned improvements for 2025 included new or extended runways, new or 

revised ATC procedures, airspace redesign, and improved ATC technology. ATC 

procedures and technology are consistent with the assumed NextGen concepts 

(Appendix C contains a listing of the detailed improvements modeled in 2025). 

A key difference between the 2015 analysis and the 2025 analysis is the addition of 

NextGen improvements and how these improvements might reduce delay at the 

studied airports. 

Benefits of NextGen 

NextGen refers to an initiative started in 2003 to transform the U.S. air transportation 

system by 2025. In contrast to today’s system, NextGen will be more flexible, resilient, 

scalable, and adaptive as well as highly automated. Aircraft will be able to use 

information technology in a more robust way, with enhanced capabilities in the 

cockpit, better navigation and landing capabilities, and far more comprehensive and 

accurate knowledge of weather and traffic conditions. 

The JPDO identified eight “key capabilities” that will play a major role in the future 

air system: 

• Network Enabled Information Access 

• Performance Based Services 

• Weather Assimilated Into Decision Making 

• Layered, Adaptive Security 

• Broad Area Precision Navigation 

• Airport Trajectory-Based Operations 

• Equivalent Visual Operations 

• Super Density Operations 

The improvements that were modeled in FACT 2 were based on the concepts for 

Equivalent Visual Operations and Super Density Operations, thus the modeled 

improvements represent a subset of the overall NextGen concept that deal with 

capacity. These procedural improvements might be enabled by other key capabilities, 

such as Precision Navigation or Performance Based Services, but many of the 

important features of NextGen were not directly addressed by this analysis. FACT 2 

therefore should not be viewed as a comprehensive analysis of all the NextGen 

improvements. As NextGen concepts are still being developed, actual operations in 

2025 may be different from those analyzed. Some improvements may be added, 

others removed, and still others modified or changed in some way. As the NextGen 

assumptions are refined over the years, this analysis can be updated to account for 

the most recent plans at that time. 

In the 2025 scenario, ATC enhancements consistent with NextGen were modeled at 

all 35 OEP airports plus OAK. For this study, it was assumed the NextGen 

technologies and procedures would first be implemented at the busiest or most 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 14 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

delayed airports10. Runway improvements expected at all the airports were also 

modeled. Nevertheless, these NextGen concepts produced quantifiable delay 

reductions at nearly all 56 airports included in this study, either directly or by 

reducing delays at the airport that flights are going to or coming from. 

Two scenarios were used to estimate the benefits of NextGen within the limited 

parameters of this analysis: arrival and departure queue delay and schedule arrival 

delay. Queue delay was estimated by first modeling the 56 airports with the 2015 

ATC improvements plus all new runways expected to be opened by 2025. Then the 

same scenario was modeled again, but with NextGen concepts for the terminal area 

and airport ATC procedures. This subset of the overall NextGen concept had a 

significant effect on airport delays. Looking at the arrival and departure queue delay 

in the simulation (the delay incurred waiting to land or take off at the airport), the 

addition of the NextGen improvements reduced the total minutes of queue delay at 

the 56 airports by 25 to 35 percent (see Figure 4). 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Departure Arrival Departure Arrival

Good Weather Bad Weather

Reduction due to NextGen Figure 4 

Total Queue 

Delay at the 

56 Airports 

with and 

without 

NextGen 

Improvements 

(2025)

Although only a subset of the NextGen capacity improvements were analyzed in 

FACT 2, the benefits they provide are nonetheless significant. These benefits are 

important efficiency improvements for airports with planned runway improvements 

as well as for airports where geographic and other constraints prevent physical 

expansion of the airfield. 

Building on these initial findings, the JPDO will continue to analyze the benefit 

potential for the complete set of NextGen solutions and integrate these results with 

the FACT analysis as the NextGen plans mature. The JPDO anticipates that NextGen 

will provide significant improvements in capacity system-wide, allowing for 

significant efficiency improvements at runways, and better system-wide flow 

management that may result in fewer airports requiring additional runway capacity 

in the 2025 timeframe. Likewise, improvements that will improve weather prediction 

and system response to weather events will translate to improvements in the 

reliability of airport capacity. 

The FACT 2 results for the 2025 planning period, with and without the planned 

improvements follow. 

 

10 The NextGen JPDO analysis is not limited only to the busiest or most delayed airports. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 15 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Figure 5 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Capacity in 

2025 after 

Planned 

Improvements

After including the additional capacity gained from the planned 

improvements expected by 2025 (including assumed NextGen concepts) 

to the 2007 capacity and measuring this against the forecast demand for 

2025, the FACT 2 analysis still identified 14 airports and eight 

metropolitan areas that will need additional capacity beyond what is 

currently planned (see Table 4). This analysis shows why additional 

solutions such as new runways, new airports, regional emphasis, 

congestion management, multi-modal planning, and NextGen are so 

important. 

14 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2025

8 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2025

Figure 6 

Airports and 

Metropolitan 

Areas Needing 

Capacity in 

2025 if 

Planned 

Improvements 

Do Not Occur

Measuring the 2007 capacity against the forecast demand for the 2025 

mid-term planning period reveals that 27 airports and 15 metropolitan 

areas will need additional capacity if the existing airfield configurations 

remain constant without any capacity improvements (see Table 4). This 

analysis underscores the importance of implementing the current 

planned improvements in order to avoid capacity shortfalls in the future.

27 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2025

15 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2025

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 16 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional 

Capacity 

After Planned 

Improvements 

Without 

Planned 

Improvements

Boston Logan International (BOS) 

Charlotte Douglas International (CLT) 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Int’l (FLL)  

George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Int’l (ATL)  

John F. Kennedy International (JFK)  

John Wayne-Orange County (SNA)  

LaGuardia (LGA)  

Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB)  

Los Angeles International (LAX) 

McCarran International (LAS)  

Metropolitan Oakland Int’l (OAK)  

Midway Airport (MDW)  

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l (MSP) 

Newark Liberty International (EWR)  

O’Hare International (ORD) 

Palm Beach International (PBI) 

Philadelphia International (PHL)  

Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX)  

San Antonio International (SAT) 

San Diego International (SAN)  

San Francisco International (SFO)  

Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) 

T.F. Green (PVD) 

Tucson International (TUS) 

Washington Dulles International (IAD) 

William P. Hobby (HOU) 

Total 14 27 

Metropolitan Areas Needing 

Additional Capacity 

After Planned 

Improvements 

Without 

Planned 

Improvements

Atlanta  

Charlotte 

Chicago 

Houston 

Las Vegas  

Los Angeles  

Minneapolis-St. Paul 

New York  

Philadelphia  

Phoenix  

Seattle 

San Diego  

San Francisco  

South Florida 

Washington-Baltimore 

Table 4 

Airports and 

Metropolitan Areas 

Needing Additional 

Capacity in 2025 

after and without 

Planned 

Improvements 

Total 8 15 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 17 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Needed Capacity beyond what is Currently Planned for 2025 

The FACT 2 analysis identified 14 airports and eight metropolitan areas that will need 

additional capacity beyond what is already planned (see Figure 6 and Table 4)11. Six 

of these airports and four metropolitan areas are a continuation of the additional 

capacity needs identified in the 2015 scenario. The remaining eight airports and four 

metropolitan areas that will need additional capacity beyond what is currently 

planned for 2025 include: 

• ATL: While ATL should be lauded for the increased capacity added by its new 

runway and end-around taxiway, the metropolitan area is expected to need 

additional capacity improvements to meet forecast demand for 2025. 

• FLL: The airport is in the process of preparing an EIS for needed runway 

enhancements. However, more capacity may be needed by 2025 if demand 

continues to increase as forecast. 

• JFK: Although the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is planning to 

assume the operation of Stewart International Airport north of New York City, it 

is too early to determine whether this will offset the need for additional capacity 

enhancements. Additional options to increase capacity should be considered. 

• LAS: Local plans indicate that LAS will exceed its operational capacity before the 

2025 planning period. Fortunately, plans are progressing for a new secondary 

commercial airport for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area to supplement LAS. The 

new airport was not included in the FACT analysis as many of the details are still 

being assessed in an ongoing EIS. 

• MDW: The O’Hare Modernization Program may help offset some of the additional 

activity forecast for MDW, but additional solutions may be needed as well, 

including a new airport that is now being considered. 

• PHX: Additional runway capacity will be needed if demand continues to grow as 

forecast. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department is working with Williams 

Gateway Airport (IWA), in nearby Mesa, to increase the use of this airport for 

scheduled commercial service. 

• SAN and SFO: Geographic, terrain, airfield, and airspace issues continue to 

constrain airports like SAN and SFO. SAN is continuing to investigate capacity 

enhancements and estimates the airport will exceed its operational capacity 

before the 2025 planning period. SFO has similar constraints and is participating 

in a regional planning effort to address capacity needs within the Bay Area. 

• The four metropolitan areas that face capacity constraints, in addition to those 

identified in 2015, are Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego. 

A comparison of the 2020 (FACT 1) and 2025 (FACT 2) study results is provided in 

Table 5. A graphic comparison is provided in Appendix E. 

 

11 Capacity and delay estimates are specific to the planning years identified (i.e. 2007, 2015, and 2025). 

Intermediate years were not analyzed. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 18 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2020 

(FACT 1) 

2025 

(FACT 2)

⊗ Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ) 3

⊗ Birmingham International (BHM) 3

⊗ Bob Hope (BUR) 3

⊗ Bradley International (BDL) 3

⊕ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

z Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) 3 3

⊕ John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 3

z John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 3 3

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB) 3 3

⊗ Long Island MacArthur International (ISP) 3

z McCarran International (LAS) 3 3

z Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 3 3

z Midway Airport (MDW) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

⊗ Ontario International (ONT) 3

⊕ Philadelphia International (PHL) 3

⊕ Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 3

⊗ San Antonio International (SAT) 3

⊕ San Diego International (SAN) 3

⊕ San Francisco International (SFO) 3

⊗ T.F. Green (PVD) 3

⊗ Tucson International (TUS) 3

⊗ William P. Hobby (HOU) 3

Total 18 14 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2020 

(FACT 1)

2025 

(FACT 2)

z Atlanta 3 3

⊗ Austin-San Antonio 3

⊗ Birmingham 3

z Las Vegas 3 3

z Los Angeles 3 3

z New York 3 3

⊕ Philadelphia 3

⊕ Phoenix 3

⊕ San Diego 3

z San Francisco 3 3

⊗ Tucson 3

Table 5 

Comparison to FACT 1 

Results for 2020 after 

Planned 

Improvements 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer identified as 

needing additional capacity 

Total 8 8 

Eight airports were identified in both 2020 and 2025 (z). Airports 

in the northeast and west coast continue to have capacity 

constraints. By 2025, however, high-traffic airports in the South, 

Midwest, and West will also experience capacity constraints. 

Many of the airports that were listed in FACT 1 but are not listed 

in FACT 2 (⊗) have now initiated plans to enhance capacity and 

improve airfield operations. Others will need to gauge future 

growth to estimate needed improvements.

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 19 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports and Metropolitan Areas Adding Capacity by 2025 

A comparison of the airports needing additional capacity with and without planned 

improvements in 2025 reveals that 13 airports come off the list of capacity 

constrained airports if the planned improvements are completed; these are as 

follows: 

• IAD, ORD, and SEA have runway construction projects underway that will 

reduce delays by 2025. 

• CLT plans to start construction on a new runway in 2008. 

• MSP will benefit from ATC improvements and reduced delays at other 

airports. 

• Delays at BOS, ORD, and LAX, and many other airports, are expected to 

decrease due to the assumed NextGen improvements used in this analysis. 

• FLL, HOU, IAH, PBI, PVD, SAT, and TUS all have environmental studies 

underway to provide airfield capacity improvements. 

AIRPORTS WITH CAPACITY OR DELAY CONSTRAINTS 

TO BE MONITORED IN THE NEAR TERM 

The FAA believes the criteria used in this study have appropriately identified 

locations where additional capacity enhancements will be required. However, any 

study that attempts to identify future capacity constraints may not capture all the 

dynamics associated with the aviation industry and growth in demand. While the 

criteria provide a useful filter for determining the most significant capacity needs, the 

FACT methodology is not intended to identify and assess all airport capacity needs. 

Therefore, the findings in this report should not be considered a substitute for more 

detailed regional and airport-specific capacity studies. Such detailed studies should 

be conducted to confirm the FACT 2 findings and provide a more thorough 

understanding of issues existing at particular airports. The FAA acknowledges that 

airports not identified in this study may still face capacity or other operational issues 

that will require future airport enhancements or that listed airports may become 

capacity constrained earlier than this analysis indicates. 

Because the aviation industry is constantly changing, and some changes can be 

significant and swift, those airports that met several, but not all, of the criteria used 

in this analysis should be monitored to gauge the effects of potential changes on 

future delay. Considering the long lead time required to implement capacity 

enhancements, it is important to monitor those airports within the near term (2007 

to 2015) as changes could expedite the need for additional capacity. Airports that 

almost meet the modeling criteria in the 2015 planning period after planned 

improvements, and thus should be monitored in the short term, are as follows: 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 20 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports to be Monitored Between 2007 and 2015 

• Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International (BWI) 

• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) 

• McCarran International (LAS) 

• Midway International (MDW) 

• San Antonio International (SAT) 

• San Diego International (SAN) 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The FACT 2 analysis identified airports that will need additional capacity in two future 

time periods, 2015 and 2025. This assessment was based on current demand 

forecasts, plans for new or extended runways, and proposals for runway and ATC 

system improvements. 

Six new runways have been commissioned at some of the busiest airports in the 

United States. since the FACT 1 report was published in 2004, which has helped to 

reduce the need for additional capacity in the future. Also, local airport authorities in 

several cities have responded to the findings of FACT 1 by advancing improvement 

plans for their airports. Several new runways are on the drawing boards and are 

expected to be open for traffic before 2015. 

Forecasts of future demand have also changed since the FACT 1 report was 

published, with higher forecasts for some airports and significantly lower forecasts 

for others. These differences, plus the effect of two to five more years of traffic 

growth, should be kept in mind when comparing FACT 2 results to FACT 1. 

In this study, 18 airports around the country are identified as needing additional 

capacity by 2015, and 27 by 2025, if the airport system remains the same as it is 

today without the planned improvements. The various improvements considered by 

this study, ranging from runways under construction to concepts for the future ATC 

system, would reduce these numbers from 18 to 6 in 2015, and from 27 to 14 in 

2025. There would be significant reductions in delay levels at all 35 OEP airports and 

most of the non-OEP airports studied, even those still identified as capacityconstrained. As in FACT 1, the FACT 2 results indicate that current improvement 

plans at many airports must continue to move forward to avoid even worse capacity 

shortfalls. 

Meeting the future capacity needs of the Nation’s airports will require innovative 

approaches, as well as continued emphasis on airport expansion and technological 

improvements. The following are some of the approaches that have been identified 

by the FAA for further investigation: 

• New Runways. Clearly, the most direct response to an expected capacity 

limitation is the expansion of existing airports to meet forecast demand but 

this is rarely a straightforward process, especially near major population 

centers. Although there have been several initiatives to streamline the airport 

project development process, there is still a considerable amount of lead-time 

necessary to implement planned airport capacity improvements. Master 

planning, environmental studies, and land acquisition need to be conducted 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 21 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

as far in advance as possible to reduce the time and expense associated with 

moving a project through the development process. 

• New Commercial Service Airports. In the past forty years, two new major 

commercial service airports have been built in the United States, DEN and 

DFW. There is likely to be a need for as many as four more major commercial 

service airports across the country during the next two to three decades in 

regions where existing commercial service airports are constrained from 

additional development but air travel demand is expected to exceed available 

capacity. New supplemental or replacement commercial service airports may 

be needed. Among the metropolitan areas where new airports are being 

considered, or might be considered, are Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, and San 

Diego. 

• Regional Solutions. Studies of regional traffic and development alternatives 

have been used to analyze specific air travel behavior within defined regions 

that experience significant congestion, including San Francisco, the Los 

Angeles basin, New York, and Boston. Several of these regions have ongoing 

study efforts in place. These initiatives should continue, and may need 

additional emphasis. 

• Congestion Management. Fortunately, we can add capacity to solve most 

of our problems. However, in some cases runway construction may not be a 

viable alternative. Today, LGA is a good example. In the next 10 years, the 

San Francisco Bay area will serve as an additional example of a capacityconstrained metropolitan area where runway construction may not be an 

option. In these cases, demand management, regulatory or economic 

solutions, and other market mechanisms may need to be investigated. 

• High-Density Corridors and Multi-Modal Planning. Even with the planned 

improvements, the FACT 2 analysis identified significant and chronic capacity 

problems on the east and west coasts. The impact of these capacity problems 

is manifested as delays throughout the system. Weather, peak travel periods, 

and other factors will exacerbate the problem. The demand for travel in these 

high-density corridors may require consideration of high-speed ground modes 

as well as short-haul air travel. For example, it would be useful to know the 

impact of short-haul travel between SAN, SFO, LAX, LAS, and PHX. In order 

to adequately plan for airport and multi-modal transportation improvements 

and infrastructure investment needed to satisfy this corridor-level travel 

demand, it will be necessary to better understand the travel behavior and 

options for accommodating demand in the country’s busiest travel corridors. 

The Board of Governors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) 

has unanimously approved undertaking an FAA suggested study to examine 

multi-modal travel behavior and the impact of travel demand on high-density 

travel corridors linking mega-regions on the east and west coasts. The 

National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board (TRB) 

administers the ACRP and is pursing this as a quick response study. TRB 

expects to award a contract for the study in the summer of 2007. 

• NextGen. An attempt was made in this study to simulate the impact of 

certain NextGen concepts on airport operations. Although FACT 2 did not 

model airspace and enroute changes, the results provide a glimpse of the 

potential benefit of implementing NextGen throughout the NAS. Forecast 

delay reductions varied by airport, but all 35 OEP airports saw benefits, and 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 22 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

some experienced significant delay reduction. These findings indicate that the 

FAA should move forward aggressively to develop the NextGen concepts, 

assess system benefits and costs, and identify appropriate methods of 

financing the improvements. ATC improvements of NextGen are especially 

relevant at capacity-constrained airports where runway expansion or new 

runway construction is not an option. 

This study has identified a number of airports where additional capacity will be 

needed to handle expected future demand. The solution at each airport will be 

different, and can only be identified through consideration of local factors and 

concerns. The FAA is prepared to work with local airport operators to address their 

capacity and demand issues and to seek innovative approaches to their needs. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 23 May 2007 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

APPENDIX A: STUDY AIRPORTS 

The following is a listing of the 56 airports included in this analysis: 

OEP ID Airport Name 

ABQ Albuquerque International Sunport 

 ATL Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

AUS Austin Bergstrom International 

BDL Bradley International 

BHM Birmingham International 

 BOS Logan International 

BUR Bob Hope 

 BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall 

 CLE Cleveland Hopkins International 

 CLT Charlotte Douglas International 

 CVG Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 

 DCA Ronald Reagan Washington National 

 DEN Denver International 

 DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International 

 DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International 

 EWR Newark Liberty International 

 FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

GYY Gary Chicago International 

 HNL Honolulu International 

HOU William P. Hobby 

HPN Westchester County 

 IAD Washington Dulles International 

 IAH George Bush Intercontinental 

ISP Long Island MacArthur International 

 JFK John F. Kennedy International 

 LAS McCarran International 

 LAX Los Angeles International 

 LGA LaGuardia 

LGB Long Beach-Daugherty Field 

 MCO Orlando International 

 MDW Midway International 

 MEM Memphis International 

 MIA Miami International 

MKE General Mitchell International 

 MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International 

 OAK Metropolitan Oakland International 

ONT Ontario International 

 ORD O’Hare International 

PBI Palm Beach International 

 PDX Portland International 

 PHL Philadelphia International 

 PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International 

 PIT Pittsburgh International 

PVD T.F. Green 

RFD Chicago Rockford International 

 SAN San Diego International 

SAT San Antonio International 

 SEA Seattle-Tacoma International 

 SFO San Francisco International 

SJC Mineta San José International 

 SLC Salt Lake City International 

SNA John Wayne-Orange County 

STL Lambert-St. Louis International 

SWF Stewart International 

 TPA Tampa International 

TUS Tucson International 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 24 May 2007 

Appendix A 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN AREAS AND 

ASSOCIATED AIRPORTS 

The following is a list of the metropolitan areas and their associated commercial 

airports that were referenced in this report. 

Atlanta ATL Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Charlotte CLT Charlotte Douglas International 

Chicago12 GYY Gary Chicago International 

MDW Midway International 

MKE General Mitchell International 

ORD O’Hare International 

RFD Chicago Rockford International 

Houston HOU William P. Hobby 

IAH George Bush Intercontinental 

Los Angeles BUR Bob Hope 

LGB Long Beach-Daugherty Field 

LAX Los Angeles International 

ONT Ontario International 

PSP Palm Springs International 

SNA John Wayne-Orange County 

Las Vegas LAS McCarren International 

Minneapolis-St. Paul MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International 

New York EWR Newark Liberty International 

ISP Long Island MacArthur International 

JFK John F. Kennedy International 

LGA LaGuardia 

Philadelphia PHL Philadelphia International 

Phoenix PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International 

San Diego SAN San Diego International 

San Francisco OAK Metropolitan Oakland International 

SFO San Francisco International 

SJC Mineta San José International

Seattle SEA Seattle-Tacoma International 

South Florida FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 

MIA Miami International 

PBI Palm Beach International 

Washington-Baltimore BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall 

DCA Ronald Reagan Washington National 

IAD Washington Dulles International 

 

12 GYY, MKE, and RFD airports were added to the Chicago Metropolitan Area in order to be consistent with 

the EIS metropolitan area definition used for the OMP. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 25 May 2007 

Appendix B 
APPENDIX C: PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 

Figure C1 - Capacity Assumptions–OEP Airports: Detailed Improvements Modeled in 2015 and 2

ATL

BOS

BWI

CLE

CLT

CVG

DCA

DEN

DFW

DTW

EWR

FLL

HNL

IAD

IAH

JFK

LAS

LAX

LGA

MCO

MDW

MEM

MIA

MSP

ORD

PDX

PHL

PHX

PIT

SAN

Reduced Separation Standards-- use visual separation in MMC -- use 2/3/4/5 NM in IMC

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x* x x x x ◊*

x

xxxxxxxxx

Improved threshold delivery accuracy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊1.5 NM Departure/Arrival separation (IMC) -- spacing < 2500 ft or same runway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxIndependent parallel approaches (IMC) -- spacing 2500-4299 ft x ▲ xx Triple indep. parallel approaches (IMC) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ x ◊ ▲ ◊ ◊ "Mixed triple" independent/dependent parallel approaches (IMC) xPaired approaches, e.g. SOIA -- MMC (spacing 700-2499 ft) x ◊ ▲ ◊ x x x ◊ -- IMC (spacing 1200-2499 ft) xDependent Approaches -- MMC/IMC (700-2500 ft spacing)-- 1.5 NM diagonal behind Small, Large-- wake vortex sep behind B757/Heavy

x x x x 

LAHSO (all weather) if >7000 ft to intersection ▲ xx xSimultaneous Converging Approaches (IMC)

x x

Standard Departure/Departure separations (no departure constraints) x x ◊ x x x Independent parallel departures (IMC) -- no wake vortex separation behind Small/Large (700-2500 ft spacing)

x x x x 

New/extended runways (since 2002) ▲ ◊ x ▲ x ▲ ▲

x

▲

x ◊ ◊

x

▲

x

▲ ▲▲ ◊◊ 

▲ Included in 2006 capacity x*

◊ 2015 capacity improvement ◊*x 2025 capacity improvement 

 Visual separations applied in VMC (2015) Visual separations applied in VMC and MMC (2025)

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 26 May 2007

 Appendix C
Figure C2 - Capacity Assumptions–Non-OEP Airports: Detailed Improvements Modeled in 2015 a

ABQ

AUS

BDL

BHM

BUR

GYY

HOU

HPN

ISP

LGB

MKE

OAK

ONT

PBI

PVD

RFD

SAT

SJC

SNA

SWF

TUS

Reduced Separation Standards-- use visual separation in MMC -- use 2/3/4/5 NM in IMC

x

Improved threshold delivery accuracy x1.5 NM Departure/Arrival separation (IMC) -- spacing < 2500 ft or same runway xIndependent parallel approaches (IMC) -- spacing 2500-4299 ftTriple independent parallel approaches (IMC)"Mixed triple" independent/dependent parallel approaches (IMC)Paired approaches, e.g. SOIA -- MMC (spacing 700-2499 ft) x-- IMC (spacing 1200-2499 ft)Dependent Approaches -- MMC/IMC (700-2500 ft spacing)-- 1.5 NM diagonal behind Small, Large-- wake vortex sep behind B757/Heavy

x

LAHSO (all weather) if >7000 ft to intersectionSimultaneous Converging Approaches (IMC) xStandard Departure/Departure separations (no departure constraints)Independent parallel departures (IMC) -- no wake vortex separation behind Small/Large (700-2500 ft spacing)

x

New/extended runways (since 2002) x ◊ ◊ x ◊

◊ 2015 capacity improvement 

x 2025 capacity improvement 

Note: 2025 ATM improvements are assumed only for airports that would otherwise be capacity constrained.

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 27 May 2007

 Appendix C
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY 

Introduction 

The FACT 2 study required extensive amounts of information and detailed analysis. 

Forecasts of future traffic levels were needed, based on growth in populations, 

economic activity, and traffic demand. An understanding of current operations as 

well as the amount of capacity provided at individual airports was necessary. In 

addition, the FACT study looked at the effect of new technologies, airspace, and 

runways on operations and capacity. This Appendix documents the approach used for 

modeling future demand and capacity, and describes the criteria used to identify 

airport and metropolitan areas as capacity constrained. 

The modeling process described herein produced an initial list of airports needing 

additional capacity in the mid- and long-term future (2015 and 2025). Recognizing 

that a system-wide modeling process provides only limited information about specific 

airport operations and individual facilities, the initial findings of the modeling process 

were then augmented with information obtained through a validation process. The 

purpose of the validation was to ensure the operational data was accurate and the 

assumptions made were reasonable and consistent with observed current conditions. 

The validation process involved a review of the modeling assumptions and 

preliminary outputs with airport operators, and in some instances, with air traffic 

control personnel. The validation process also involved a review of appropriate 

sections of Federal decision documents and associated analyses, such as master 

plans, airport capital improvement plans, and environmental studies. As a result, 

airports such as HOU, IAH, PBI, PVD, SAT and TUS were identified after examining 

the FACT 1 and FACT 2 results together with previous airport site-specific modeling 

and data gathered through the validation process. Planned improvements for these 

airports were assessed using a combination of systemwide and site-specific 

modeling. 

Information gathered from these Federal findings and/or commitments was used in 

addition to the modeling as these documents are often the most reliable source of 

information about the timing and need for planned improvements. This additional 

step allowed the FACT team to incorporate additional information the models were 

not designed to provide. In total, this process served as a proof-of-concept 

validation. 

The final list of airports identified in this report as capacity constrained was 

developed based on the results of the modeling and validation process, as well as 

those airports already known to have capacity issues in the future. 

Modeling Future Airport Demand 

For this study, two different estimates of future operations were used: the FAA’s 

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), and CAASD’s Future Air Traffic Estimator (FATE). Both 

are described below. 

Terminal Area Forecast 

The principal forecast of future operations was the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), 

prepared by the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO). The TAF makes 

projections of future enplanements and operations on an airport-by-airport basis. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 28 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Several key inputs into the TAF are forecasts of local economic and demographic 

growth, local fares, and assumptions about dominant carrier behavior. 

This analysis used the 2005 TAF, published by the FAA in March 2006. This was the 

current version at the time the analysis was performed. 

Forecasted traffic levels in the TAF at the 56 study airports were used to develop a 

daily “schedule” for all flights in the NAS. This demand schedule was then used as an 

input into a simulation model that produced delay estimates. The annual demand 

forecasts in the TAF were also compared directly with future estimates of annualized 

airport capacity. 

Future Air Traffic Estimator 

As a secondary source of information, this analysis also considered demand 

estimates produced by CAASD’s experimental bottom-up model of origin and 

destination (O&D) traffic.13 This socio-economic model, known as the Future Air 

Traffic Estimator (FATE), is based on the economic and demographic characteristics 

of individual pairs of origin-destination metropolitan areas. This is a different 

approach than that taken by the TAF, as it estimates the amount of passenger traffic 

between metropolitan areas rather than estimating demand at individual airports. 

Population, income, and market structure all influence passenger demand, as does a 

host of other factors. Inputs to the model include socio-economic forecasts from the 

consultancy Global Insight,14 as well as historical data on O&D traffic from the 

Department of Transportation15. 

As shown in Figure D1, the FATE socio-economic model begins by forecasting O&D 

passengers between metropolitan areas. Then, for each origin-destination pair, 

passengers are allocated among available routes, taking into account the existing air 

carrier network structure. Note that if there are multiple airports within a 

metropolitan area, passengers are assigned to one of them as part of this “airport 

choice” process. This process is then repeated for all O&D pairs in the conterminous 

United States. 

At this point, there is an estimate of future passenger demand between individual 

airport pairs, including those passengers connecting through hubs, based on a “route 

choice model”. In order to translate the passenger forecasts into operation forecasts, 

aircraft must be assigned to each airport pair. The size of the aircraft assigned 

depends on the distance to be flown and the total number of passengers. Additional 

operations are also incorporated to include international, charter, general aviation, 

military, and cargo traffic. 

The output of the model is a set of forecasts of daily and annual passengers and 

operations between every airport pair in the conterminous United States. 

 

13 Bhadra, D. et al., Future Air Traffic Timetable Estimator, Journal of Aircraft, Volume 42, Number 2, pp. 

320-328, March-April 2005. The name of the model has been changed to reflect improvements since the 

first FACT study was performed. 14 Global Insight is a consulting firm providing economic and financial data and forecasts. For more 

information, see http://www.globalinsight.com. 15 For more information, see http://www.transtats.bts.gov.

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 29 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Finally, passengers are 

assigned to flights. 

Aircraft choice is based on 

segment characteristics

Finally, passengers are 

assigned to flights. 

Aircraft choice is based on 

segment characteristics

Starting with socio – economic 

forecasts from Global Insight, 

we estimate passenger demand 

by metropolitan area pair

Starting with socio – economic 

forecasts from Global Insight, 

we estimate passenger demand 

by metropolitan area pair

Passengers are then allocated 

to local and connecting airports 

based on historical patterns

Passengers are then allocated 

to local and connecting airports 

based on historical patterns

Finally, passengers are 

assigned to flights. 

Aircraft choice is based on 

segment characteristics

Finally, passengers are 

assigned to flights. 

Aircraft choice is based on 

segment characteristics

Starting with socio – economic 

forecasts from Global Insight, 

we estimate passenger demand 

by metropolitan area pair

Starting with socio – economic 

forecasts from Global Insight, 

we estimate passenger demand 

by metropolitan area pair

Passengers are then allocated 

to local and connecting airports 

based on historical patterns

Passengers are then allocated 

to local and connecting airports 

based on historical patterns

Figure D1 – Future Air Traffic Estimator (FATE) Model 

The FATE model was used to generate annual counts of airport operations in 2015 

and 2025 based on actual traffic data from selected dates in 2003 and 2004. The 

FATE forecasts were helpful in validating the results obtained with the TAF. 

Modeling Current and Future Airport Capacity 

Assessing an airport’s capacity requires a comprehensive understanding of its 

present-day operations and limitations, as well as some assumptions about how the 

major characteristics influencing capacity are expected to change over time. One 

methodology for doing this is found in the 2004 Airport Capacity Benchmark 

Report16, which provides a set of hourly arrival and departure rates under various 

weather conditions. This information can then be used as an input into other models, 

which in turn produce well-defined measures of airport performance (primarily 

average delays) under given assumptions. 

Modeling Current Capacity 

The FACT 2 analysis updated and enhanced the benchmark capacities reported in the 

2004 benchmark report in several ways: 

• Twenty-one non-OEP airports17 identified in the original FACT report had not 

previously been benchmarked in a manner similar to the 35 OEP airports. 

Much more detailed analyses, including the use of surveys and modeling for 

 

16 Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2004, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, The MITRE Corporation Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, October 

2004. See http://www.faa.gov/events/benchmarks/2004download.htm. 17 ABQ, AUS, BDL, BHM, BUR, GYY, HPN, HOU, ISP, LGB, MKE, OAK, ONT, PBI, PVD, RFD, SAT, SJC, SNA, 

SWF, and TUS. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 30 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

each facility, were completed for these non-OEP airports. Benchmarks were 

calculated at each facility for three weather conditions: VMC, MMC, and IMC. 

• Present-day capacities at the 35 OEP airports were updated to include any 

enhancements implemented at the airports since the 2004 benchmark 

analysis was completed, such as new runways or new operational procedures. 

To produce the capacity estimates necessary for the FACT analysis, the team utilized 

the Enhanced Airfield Capacity Model (E-ACM), a MITRE-developed update to the 

widely used FAA Airfield Capacity Model18. The E-ACM calculates the average number 

of arrivals and departures that can be expected during busy periods at an airport 

based on air traffic control (ATC) procedures, including separation minima, and the 

probabilistic characteristics of aircraft performance. 

One input to the E-ACM is the mix of weight classes (e.g., Small, Large, and Heavy) 

for the aircraft using the airport. For the purpose of running the E-ACM, the fleet mix 

at each airport today was assumed to continue in the future. That is, no fleet mix 

changes were estimated as part of the capacity analysis. However, both estimates of 

future demand used in this report, TAF and FATE, allowed changes to the fleet mix to 

occur in future time periods. 

Benchmark capacities were calculated for only one airport configuration in each 

weather condition, the one most commonly used. This information was obtained from 

reported configuration data as well as through the use of survey responses from 

each individual facility. Although other configurations with less capacity might 

significantly affect annual performance, this would not be reflected in the benchmark 

results. 

Finally, the calculated capacities were compared to historical data and were reviewed 

by the individual facilities in an attempt to assure that they were accurate 

approximations of actual airport operations. Capacities were recalculated in several 

cases based on updated information provided by the facilities. 

Modeling Future Capacity 

With 2007 as the present-day baseline, the FACT analysis formulated a set of 

assumptions about what capacity-enhancing changes could be reasonably expected 

in the future. The assumed improvements include changes such as new runways, 

technologies, or ATC procedures as well as airspace redesign. In its examination of 

future capacity requirements, the FACT analysis focused on the years 2015 and 

2025. 

The 2004 benchmark report had estimated future capacity at the 35 OEP airports in 

the year 2013 based on the FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), version 5.0. The 

FACT 2 study developed capacities for 2015 that included the enhancements 

described in the updated OEP version 8.019. 

 

18 For more information on the FAA model, see Swedish, W. J., February 1981, Upgraded FAA Airfield 

Capacity Model—Volume I: Supplemental User’s Guide, MTR-81W016, Vol. I, The MITRE Corporation, 

McLean, VA. 19 Operational Evolution Plan, Federal Aviation Administration, May 2006. 

 See http://www.faa.gov/programs/oep/v8/Executive%20Summary/Executive%20Summary%20v8.pdf. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 31 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

The 2015 evaluation assumed that all new runways and airspace, technology, and 

procedural improvements outlined in the FAA’s OEP v8.0 would be implemented at 

the top 35 airports and would provide the expected benefits. In addition, the O’Hare 

Modernization Program20 (OMP) and an extension to Runway 9R/27L at FLL were 

assumed to be completed by 2015. 

It is important to note that not every proposed runway project is included in the 

OEP. For example, OEP v8.0 did not include all new runways included in the OMP21

for ORD because detailed construction schedules had not yet been finalized. 

However, the FAA has approved the runways and published Records of Decision 

(RODs) for them, so there is a high level of confidence that they will be completed by 

2015. 

Technical improvements included in OEP v8.0 such as Simultaneous Offset 

Instrument Approaches (SOIA) at SFO, Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), Time 

Based Metering (TBM) and Area Navigation (RNAV) arrival routes were also assumed 

to increase capacity at most airports. For the 21 non-OEP airports, only new runways 

planned for completion by 2015 (based on a survey of the airports), not 

technological or procedural enhancements were considered. 

For the long term (2025), the capacity assessment took into account any current 

planning at the 56 airports for additional runways and reconfigurations, again based 

on survey information. Assumptions about future technology and procedures were 

based on various research proposals, extrapolations from the latest OEP, and 

through a review of the proposed Next Generation Air Transportation System also 

known as NextGen22. These technological improvements were included in the 

analysis of the 35 OEP airports, as well as at OAK (we assumed that the NextGen 

improvements would only be implemented at a non-OEP airport if the airport had 

been identified as needing additional capacity otherwise). 

The FACT team coordinated the assumptions about the 2025 enhancements with the 

Agile Air Traffic Management (ATM) Integrated Product Team (IPT)23, the Airports 

IPT24, and the Evaluation and Analysis Division (EAD)25 of the JPDO. It is important 

to note that NextGen definition and planning is still in its early stages at the JPDO. 

Although the set of improvements considered by this report was deemed to be 

reasonable and consistent with those being considered by the JPDO, they do not 

necessarily represent the final vision of NextGen. Over time, as JPDO plans solidify, 

enhancement plans are expected to change. 

Capacity improvements assumed for 2025 included some that were applied to all the 

OEP airports and OAK, such as reduced radar separation minima and controller aids 

to improve separation accuracy. Other new procedures were specific to a given 

runway configuration, such as SOIA-type approaches to closely spaced parallel 

runways in instrument conditions. For the other non-OEP airports, only planned new 

runways were considered. Figures C1 and C2 show the improvements modeled at 

each of the 56 airports for 2015 and 2025. 

 

20 See http://www.flychicago.com, select “O’Hare Modernization Program.” 21 See http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/final_alp.pdf. 22 See JPDO’s NextGen Concept of Operations at http://www.jpdo.aero/pdf/NextGenConOpsv12.pdf. 23 The Agile ATM IPT is now known as the Air Navigation Services Working Group. 24 The Airports IPT is now known as the Airport Working Group. 25 The Evaluation and Analysis Division is now known as the Systems and Engineering Analysis Division. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 32 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

While the assumed improvements would hopefully be implemented in time to 

accommodate the forecast 2025 demand, their availability and effectiveness is by no 

means guaranteed. It would be prudent for airports to consider other means to 

handle future traffic growth and not to rely on these developmental concepts. 

Incorporating Operational Constraints 

Current constraints on operations at each airport were also taken into consideration 

in the assessment of current and future capacity. For example, constraints might be 

placed upon operations due to noise mitigation, airspace restrictions, or limited 

arrival and departure procedures. Noise mitigation constraints were assumed to 

continue in future years. It was assumed that some airspace limitations (but not 

those caused by terrain, for example) could be alleviated with navigational or 

procedural improvements in the future, as could some arrival and departure 

restrictions. 

Identifying Airports Needing Additional Capacity 

Several different methods were used to determine whether the future airport 

capacity could accommodate the expected future demand without excessive delays. 

The following section describes the methods used to evaluate future operational 

performance at the airports, and also the criteria used to determine whether 

operational improvements were required. The two principal methods used were 

Annual Service Volume for individual airports and the NAS-Wide Simulation Model, 

which is a simulation of operations across the National Airspace System (NAS). 

Estimating Future Performance at Individual Airports 

Annual Service Volume 

Annual Service Volume26 (ASV) is the annual level of traffic that results in a given 

level of average delay. An ASV analysis allows decision makers to make a tradeoff 

between annual levels of traffic and acceptable levels of delay: as traffic levels grow 

in the analysis, the average delay level also increases. This is an important point 

because the higher the “allowable” delay limit is at an airport, the higher the level of 

traffic it can handle, as measured by the ASV. 

ASV is determined by calculating the amount of delay that is produced at different 

levels of traffic, and then determining which traffic level had produced the target 

delay level. In the original study, the level of delay chosen as appropriate for a given 

airport depended on that airport’s historical levels of delay. The ASVs for some 

airports were thus based on higher, or lower, levels of delay than other airports. For 

greater consistency in this analysis, a single level of delay was utilized at all airports: 

ASVs were based on an estimate of 7 minutes of delay per flight, on average. It 

should be noted that this is higher than the value of 4 minutes average delay per 

flight that is typically used in airport planning; the higher level was selected because 

the analysis is intended to identify airports with excessive delay levels. 

The ASV analysis considers multiple runway configurations and utilizes an annual 

estimation of weather conditions for each configuration in its calculation. Future 

levels of ASV (for the 2015 and 2025 planning periods) incorporate planned runway 

 

26 ASV studies are typically conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration’s William J. Hughes Technical 

Center using the Runway Delay Simulation Model (RDSIM). 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 33 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

improvements and/or additions, as well as technological or procedural improvements 

at selected locations. ASV estimates are time consuming and expensive to produce, 

especially for multiple time periods. ASVs have been prepared for all 56 airports for 

current operations and for planned new runways, but ASVs that included the 

procedural improvements assumed for 2025 were only prepared when needed. This 

will be explained further below. 

NAS-Wide Simulation Model 

Another method for evaluating the future performance of airports is by using a 

simulation model to estimate future levels of delay. Here, capacity information from 

the updated airport capacity benchmarks was used as an input to a simulation of 

daily traffic between airports in the NAS, where the daily traffic schedule is derived 

from future demand forecasts in the TAF. Average delay and other metrics are then 

calculated for individual airports. High levels of expected delay indicate a potential 

need for additional capacity, while lower levels of delay could indicate adequate 

capacity to meet demand expectations. While the ASV model determines the traffic 

level that would produce a specific level of delay, the NAS-Wide analysis calculates 

the level of delay that would result from a specific level of traffic in each time period. 

The simulation model used by the FACT analysis is a network queuing model of the 

NAS. This model takes demand, capacity, airspace data, and other information as 

input and produces an estimate of various measures of performance. Because this is 

a network model and flights move from airport to airport throughout the day, the 

performance of one airport influences the perceived performance of the other 

airports. For example, reducing departure delay at airport A with the addition of a 

capacity improvement also improves the arrival delay (relative to scheduled arrival 

time) at airport B, as arrivals at B are no longer being delayed upon departure from 

A. It is this interaction between airports and other system resources that makes 

system-wide modeling a powerful tool in capacity analyses. 

In order to properly account for the interaction between demand and capacity, the 

NAS-Wide model used in the FACT study simulates all traffic through the NAS, not 

just traffic between certain airports of interest. Demand information is derived from 

various sources including the Official Airline Guide27 and estimates of general 

aviation, cargo, and commuter traffic based on historical levels. Future operational 

levels of traffic are created by growing today’s operations to meet growth rates 

estimated in different forecasts such as the FAA’s TAF. 

Capacity estimates come from detailed modeling using other tools such as the EACM. It is important to consider the interaction between the improvements being 

modeled when using such tools. It is possible that different improvements may 

provide similar benefits under like conditions. If these interactions are not accounted 

for properly, capacity estimates may be too high. By using a network model, the 

interaction between demand and capacity at a single airport, as well as across 

airports, can be accounted for. 

Criteria for Identifying Capacity-Constrained Airports 

The purpose of this analysis was to look across multiple models, with separate 

criteria for each, to determine a common set of airports identified by each model as 

 

27 Official Airline Guide—Source of flight schedule information. See http://www.oag.com. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 34 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

needing additional capacity in the future. The approach used had to be broad enough 

to analyze many airports across the entire NAS, while utilizing a consistent set of 

criteria to identify the future performance for each airport. Local conditions may 

result in unique operational problems that could not be accounted for by the models 

as used. In such cases, the results of this analysis should be considered in 

combination with more detailed site-specific analyses. 

To be identified by this analysis of future capacity, an airport was required to be 

identified by each study as being capacity-constrained; this strict requirement was 

based on an acknowledgement that each study made use of a different set of criteria 

to determine whether an airport might need additional capacity. In the end, the 

process produced a conservative list of airports with the clearest need for additional 

capacity. However, airports that were not identified in this analysis may still need 

more capacity in the future and should not stop planning for future facility 

improvements. 

The criteria for identifying an airport as needing additional capacity have been 

refined since the original FACT report. This was done to account for performance 

aspects not originally considered. The performance characteristics considered in this 

analysis and how they differ from those used in the original report are described 

below. 

Criteria for the 35 OEP Airports Expanded to All 56 FACT Airports 

In the original report, the information available for, and the knowledge of, the OEP 

airports was much more extensive than what was available for the non-OEP airports. 

Because of this, the criteria used for the OEP airports were much more stringent than 

the criteria used for the smaller airports in the original assessment. Since then, 

extensive modeling and analysis has been completed for the non-OEP airports. Any 

airport identified as needing additional capacity in the original report, as well as 

those airports in metropolitan areas identified as needing additional capacity, were 

modeled and analyzed at the same level of detail as the OEP airports. In total, 56 

airports were analyzed: the original 35 OEP facilities plus 21 additional airports. 

Refined Identification Criteria 

To identify which of the 56 airports are expected to need additional capacity in the 

future, the FACT 2 analysis used the following criteria: 

• Annual Service Volume Ratio was estimated at 0.8 or above (annual 

demand at least 80 percent of ASV based on 7 minutes average delay) 

• Scheduled Arrival Delay was estimated at 12 minutes per flight or above, 

on an annual basis, and either

o Local Scheduled Arrival Delay was estimated at 50 percent or more 

of the total Scheduled Arrival Delay in good or bad weather conditions, 

or

o Arrival Queue Delay (delay waiting to land after arriving at an 

airport) was estimated at 12 minutes per flight or above in good or 

bad weather conditions 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 35 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

• Or as an alternative to the Scheduled Arrival Delay criterion, Departure 

Queue Delay (delay waiting to depart while at the departure airport) was 

estimated at 12 minutes per flight or above in good or bad weather conditions 

To be identified as a capacity-constrained airport in the future, an airport was 

required to satisfy the ASV criterion, and either the Scheduled Arrival Delay criterion 

or the Departure Queue Delay criterion described above, using the traffic levels in 

the TAF released in 2006. As an additional analysis, the FATE forecast was also 

applied to the ASV criterion as well as the Scheduled Arrival Delay criterion. Other 

criteria were not estimated using the FATE forecast because similar modeling had 

already been completed with the TAF. If any of the required criteria was not 

satisfied, an airport was not identified. 

The FACT analysis required that an airport be identified as needing additional 

capacity according to both the ASV criterion and the NAS-Wide criterion, for both the 

TAF and the FATE forecasts. The NAS-Wide simulation modeling results for 2025 

were produced first. If the NAS-Wide criteria for an airport indicated that additional 

capacity may be required in 2025, only then were 2025 ASV results calculated for 

that airport. Otherwise, the 2025 ASV for that airport was not produced. 

From the list of criteria above, only two, the ASV ratio and the Scheduled Arrival 

Delay criteria, were used in the original study. Since that time, additional metrics 

were added to further refine the study results. The rationale for adding the new 

metrics and criteria is described below. 

Local Scheduled Arrival Delay. This metric is based on a NAS-Wide 

simulation model. Flights take off from an origin airport, fly through the 

system, and land at a destination airport. When flights arrive at their 

destination airport, they may have incurred delay relative to their scheduled 

arrival time along the way. If so, that delay may have been incurred at their 

origin airport, en route, or at their destination airport. Problems that exist at 

an origin airport may thus impact Scheduled Arrival Delay at the destination 

airport. Incorporating a criterion that at least 50 percent of the Schedule 

Arrival Delay was caused locally (i.e. by the arrival airport) was an attempt to 

avoid identifying airports where high delays are caused primarily by problems 

at other airports. Since these delays cannot be resolved by improvements at 

the arrival airport, the arrival airport should not be identified. 

Arrival Queue Delay. This criterion was added to capture significant airport 

delays that are caused locally, even when at least 50 percent of the 

Scheduled Arrival Delay was not Local Scheduled Arrival Delay. For example, 

suppose one airport had an average Scheduled Arrival Delay of 32 minutes, 

and 40 percent, or 12.8 minutes, of that delay was caused locally. Even 

though this airport fails the criterion that at least 50 percent of the delay 

must be caused locally, it still has a significant amount of delay. By adding 

the Arrival Queue Delay criterion, airports with significant locally caused 

delays will be identified. It is important to note that this is Arrival Queue

Delay, not Scheduled Delay. Queue delay is taken while waiting for use of an 

arrival runway. It is all caused locally, so 12 minutes per flight is a significant 

amount of delay compared to 12 minutes of scheduled delay, which may be 

incurred at various points along a flight. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 36 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Departure Queue Delay. This criterion was added to recognize significant 

departure delays at an airport. The original FACT study focused on arrival 

delays, leaving open the possibility that an airport that experiences significant 

departure delays but not arrival delays would not be identified as needing 

additional capacity. With this additional criterion, departure delays are 

captured as an indication of capacity shortfalls. 

In the original study, another criterion called Extrapolated Delay was incorporated 

into the analysis. In discussions with the aviation community following the release of 

the original report, it was suggested the assumptions used by this criterion were too 

conservative and that it did not accurately reflect what could reasonably be expected 

given changes in future demand and capacity. Based on this feedback, the 

Extrapolated Delay criterion was removed from the FACT analysis. 

Another important difference from the original study should be noted. In the first 

FACT report, a simplified approach was used for non-OEP airports because ASV 

estimates did not exist for most of these other airports at the time and detailed 

capacity modeling was not complete. However, following the release of the original 

report, more detailed analyses were performed for the smaller airports. Because 

these results are now available for all airports, this analysis of future capacity needs 

now uses the same detailed criteria for all airports. 

Validation of Results 

Additional capacity related information was gathered though a validation process 

involving many of the airports included in this study. The FACT team provided airport 

operators with the input assumptions and preliminary output data for their individual 

facilities. The purpose of the validation was to ensure the operational data was 

accurate and the assumptions made were reasonable and consistent with observed 

current conditions. In some instances, these queries were augmented by discussions 

with airport management and FAA air traffic control personnel at the airports being 

evaluated. In total, these discussions served as an opportunity for coordination and 

validation of the results. 

Evaluating Capacity Needs in Metropolitan Areas 

A separate analysis was performed to evaluate the possible use of secondary airports 

in a metropolitan area to alleviate congestion at the primary airport(s). As part of 

this analysis, the total annual demand for commercial airports in a metropolitan area 

was compared to a measure of the total annualized capacity for those same airports. 

Defining the Metropolitan Area 

The geographical boundaries for the FACT 2 metropolitan areas are based on the 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) established by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB)28. An MSA includes a central county or counties that have an urban 

area with a population of at least 50,000, plus adjacent counties that have a high 

degree of social and economic integration with the central county/counties as 

measured by commuting ties. For the purpose of the FACT study, the analysis 

focused on MSAs that contained at least one commercial service airport. 

 

28 Federal Register, Office of Management and Budget (2000), “Standards for Defining Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas”. See http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/00-32997.pdf.

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 37 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Most metropolitan areas consist of a single MSA, but sometimes the catchment area 

for large airports may extend beyond the MSA boundary. Some passengers may be 

willing to travel across MSA boundaries to fly out of an airport that offers a wider 

selection of flights and/or lower fares. In these cases, MSAs were combined to form a 

metropolitan area that captured the dynamics of the regional passenger demand and 

its airport system. For example, to accurately reflect the Boston regional airport 

system in FACT 2, the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA (which is Boston’s 

central MSA containing BOS) was combined with the Manchester-Nashua, NH MSA 

(containing MHT) and the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA (containing 

PVD) to form the Boston Metropolitan Area. 

For MSAs containing a major airport, which has been defined in this study as an OEP 

airport, the following criteria were used to determine whether other MSAs should be 

combined with the MSA containing the OEP airport: 

• If there is a commercial service airport in a nearby MSA that is within an 

hour’s drive (or approximately 60 miles) of an OEP airport, the nearby MSA 

was combined with the OEP MSA. 

• If there is an adjacent MSA with no commercial service airports but that is 

sufficiently close to an OEP airport to contribute to the O&D traffic demand, 

then the adjacent MSA was added to the OEP MSA. 

Depending on the local dynamics of a metropolitan area and the observed 

commuting behavior within the airport catchment area, it was sometimes necessary 

to add secondary airports and their associated MSAs to a metropolitan area even 

though the above criteria were not satisfied. An example is the addition of MKE to 

the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Even though MKE is outside of the Chicago 

Metropolitan Area, it serves O&D passengers living in Northeastern Illinois, which 

overlaps with the Chicago Metropolitan Area. 

Secondary Airports Considered in the Metropolitan Area 

A more stringent criterion was used in FACT 2 to determine which additional airports 

should be included in the local “system” of commercial airports for a metropolitan 

area together with the capacity-constrained airport(s). Only secondary airports that 

have a significant share of the local passenger traffic and are essentially substitutes 

for the capacity-constrained airport(s) were considered in this analysis. The 

significant share criterion specifies that the secondary airport must account for at 

least 5 percent or more of the local originating traffic for the metropolitan area or 

have a minimum of 500,000 annual local originating passengers. The criterion was 

expanded for the Chicago Metropolitan Area. GYY and RFD were included in the 

Chicago Metropolitan Area for consistency with the definition used in the 

Environmental Impact Statement for the O’Hare Modernization Program. 

Criteria for Identifying Capacity-Constrained Metropolitan Areas 

The candidate list of metropolitan areas was limited to those containing at least one 

large or medium hub, or at least two small hub airports identified as capacityconstrained in the FACT 2 analysis. From this candidate list, a metropolitan area was 

identified as capacity-constrained if it met one of the following three criteria: 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 38 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

• The total annual demand of the capacity-constrained airport(s) and the 

secondary commercial service airports exceeded 80 percent of the total 

annualized capacity of these same airports, using either the TAF or FATE 

demand projections, or 

 

• No other secondary commercial service airports were located within the same 

metropolitan area as the capacity-constrained airport(s), or 

• There were at least two large hub airports identified as capacity-constrained 

within the same metropolitan area. 

The total annual demand is the sum of the forecasts of total operations (arrivals and 

departures) for the individual airports in the metropolitan area. The total annualized 

capacity is the sum of the annualized capacities for the individual airports in the 

metropolitan area. The annualized capacity is determined by multiplying the hourly 

benchmark capacities for VMC and IFR conditions, weighted by the annual 

percentages of VMC and IFR weather, and then multiplying by the number of 

operating hours per day and by 365 days per year. 

In a multi-airport metropolitan area, if the total metropolitan area demand was 

determined to be at least 80 percent of the total metropolitan area (for either the 

TAF or FATE demand projections), then it was identified as capacity-constrained. This 

percentage is a recognition that demand is not perfectly transferable from one 

airport to another: passengers who are far away from an airport are less likely to use 

it rather than a closer airport, even if the closer airport does have delay problems. 

If there was only a single commercial service airport in the metropolitan area and it 

was capacity-constrained, this would indicate the need for additional capacity in that 

metropolitan area. If the capacity cannot be easily added to the existing airport, it 

might be necessary to develop other commercial service airports in the area. 

Similarly, if there are two large hub airports in the metropolitan area and both are 

capacity-constrained, this is a good indicator that additional service to secondary 

airports should be considered to help reduce the congestion at the primary airports. 

 

In Closing 

A system-wide analysis such as this, including a large number of airports and 

forecasting well into the future, inherently contains a number of variabilities and 

uncertainties. Consequently the methodology was structured in a conservative 

manner, to identify only those airports where multiple studies agreed that future 

delays would be excessive. Such an analysis cannot substitute for the more detailed 

modeling and analysis performed at the local level, with greater depth and greater 

attention to local factors. However, this evaluation of future needs can help the FAA 

identify airports needing additional attention now, possibly to include more detailed 

analysis and planning, in order to avoid a larger problem later. 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 39 May 2007 

Appendix D 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

APPENDIX E: COMPARING THE FACT 1 AND FACT 2 

FINDINGS

Comparison of FACT 1 (2003) and FACT 2 (2007) Results after 

Planned Improvements 

Figure E1 

FACT 1 (2003) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

5 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2003

1 metro area that needs 

additional capacity in 2003

Figure E2 

Comparison of 

FACT 1 (2003) 

and FACT 2 

(2007) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

3 airports identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

0 metro areas identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

0 airports newly identified in 

FACT 2

1 metro area newly identified in 

FACT 2

2 airports no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

1 metro area no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 40 May 2007 

Appendix E 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2003 

(FACT 1) 

2007 

(FACT 2)

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

z O’Hare International (ORD) 3 3

⊕ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

⊗ Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) 3 

⊗ Philadelphia International (PHL) 3

Total 5 4 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2003 

(FACT 1)

2007 

(FACT 2)

⊕ New York 3

⊗ Atlanta 3

Total 1 1 

Table E1 

Comparison of FACT 1 

(2003) and FACT 2 

(2007) Results after 

Planned 

Improvements 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer needing 

additional capacity assuming 

planned improvements are 

completed 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 41 May 2007 

Appendix E 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Comparison of FACT 1 (2013) and FACT 2 (2055) Results after 

Planned Improvements 

Figure E3 

FACT 1 (2013) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

15 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2013

7 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2013

Figure E4 

Comparison of 

FACT 1 (2013) 

and FACT 2 

(2015) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

6 airports identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

3 metro areas identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

0 airports newly identified in 

FACT 2

1 metro area newly identified in 

FACT 2

9 airports no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

4 metro area no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 42 May 2007 

Appendix E 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2013 

(FACT 1) 

2015 

(FACT 2)

z John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 3 3

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB) 3 3

z Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

z Philadelphia International (PHL) 3 3

⊗ Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ) 3

⊗ Bob Hope (BUR) 3

⊗ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

⊗ John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 3

⊗ O’Hare International (ORD) 3

⊗ Palm Beach International (PBI) 3

⊗ San Antonio International (SAT) 3

⊗ Tucson International (TUS) 3

⊗ William P. Hobby (HOU) 3

Total 15 6 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2013 

(FACT 1)

2015 

(FACT 2)

z Los Angeles 3 3

z New York 3 3

z San Francisco 3 3

⊕ Philadelphia 3

⊗ Austin-San Antonio 3

⊗ Chicago 3

⊗ South Florida 3

⊗ Tucson 3

Table E2 

Comparison to FACT 1 

Results for 2013 after 

Planned 

Improvements 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer needing 

additional capacity assuming 

planned improvements are 

completed 

Total 7 4 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 43 May 2007 

Appendix E 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Comparison of FACT 1 (2020) and FACT 2 (2025) Results after 

Planned Improvements 

Figure E5 

FACT 1 (2020) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

18 airports that need additional 

capacity in 2020

8 metro areas that need 

additional capacity in 2020

Figure E6 

Comparison of 

FACT 1 (2020) 

and FACT 2 

(2025) 

Results after 

Planned 

Improvements

8 airports identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

5 metro areas identified in both 

FACT 1 and FACT 2

6 airports newly identified in 

FACT 2

3 metro areas newly identified in 

FACT 2

10 airports no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

3 metro area no longer meeting 

FACT criteria

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 44 May 2007 

Appendix E 
Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System

Airports Needing Additional Capacity 2020 

(FACT 1) 

2025 

(FACT 2)

z Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) 3 3

z John Wayne-Orange County (SNA) 3 3

z LaGuardia (LGA) 3 3

z Long Beach-Daugherty Field (LGB) 3 3

z McCarran International (LAS) 3 3

z Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) 3 3

z Midway Airport (MDW) 3 3

z Newark Liberty International (EWR) 3 3

⊕ Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL) 3

⊕ John F. Kennedy International (JFK) 3

⊕ Philadelphia International (PHL) 3

⊕ Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) 3

⊕ San Diego International (SAN) 3

⊕ San Francisco International (SFO) 3

⊗ Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ) 3

⊗ Birmingham International (BHM) 3

⊗ Bob Hope (BUR) 3

⊗ Bradley International (BDL) 3

⊗ Long Island MacArthur International (ISP) 3

⊗ Ontario International (ONT) 3

⊗ San Antonio International (SAT) 3

⊗ T.F. Green (PVD) 3

⊗ Tucson International (TUS) 3

⊗ William P. Hobby (HOU) 3

Total 18 14 

Metropolitan Areas Needing Additional 

Capacity

2020 

(FACT 1)

2025 

(FACT 2)

z Atlanta 3 3

z Las Vegas 3 3

z Los Angeles 3 3

z New York 3 3

z San Francisco 3 3

⊕ Philadelphia 3

⊕ Phoenix 3

⊕ San Diego 3

⊗ Austin-San Antonio 3

⊗ Birmingham 3

⊗ Tucson 3

Table E3 

Comparison of FACT 1 

(2020) and FACT 2 

(2025) Results after 

Planned 

Improvements 

z Continues to need 

additional capacity based on 

the results of both studies 

⊕ Identified with the new 

FACT 2 criteria 

⊗ No longer needing 

additional capacity assuming 

planned improvements are 

completed 

Total 8 8 

Future Airport Capacity Task 2 Page 45 May 2007 

Appendix E