Airport Infrastructure: Unresolved Issues Make It Difficult to Determine the Cost to Serve New Large Aircraft
Released: 2002-03-04T00:00:00

Letter

Background

To develop and maintain a national system of safe airports, FAA promulgates federal standards and recommendations for the design of airport infrastructure. FAA’s airport design standards regulate how an airport must be configured to safely serve aircraft with certain characteristics, such as wingspan and weight. Design Group V standards serve the B-747, while Design Group VI standards will serve NLA (see fig. 1). FAA has established a process to grant modifications to airport design standards according to an airport’s unique local conditions. Under a recently established policy, FAA headquarters officials have the sole authority to approve modifications to the standards for accommodating NLA. Generally, an airport’s request must show that an acceptable level of safety, economy, durability, and workmanship will continue despite any modification. (See app. II for more detailed information on airport design standards and the process for requesting and granting modifications.)

The Cost for Airports’ Infrastructure Upgrades to Serve NLA Will Be Affected by a Number of Unresolved Issues

With the arrival of NLA closer and the availability of more up-to-date information to airport officials about whether airlines plan to offer NLA service at their airports, 14 airports reported that they expect to serve NLA by 2010. Determining the cost to serve NLA is difficult because a number of issues are unresolved including whether and the extent to which FAA revises NLA’s design standards or which airlines actually buy NLA and the frequency of NLA service at U.S. whether NLA will begin service in the United States as early as 2006, as planned; and the extent to which the cost estimates reported by the airports are attributable to NLA instead of changes to accommodate growth in air traffic.

The 14 airports that expect to serve NLA by 2010 collectively reported that their cost estimate for infrastructure changes is $2.1 billion. However, even with these changes, officials from most of these airports told us that they do not expect their airports to fully meet current Design Group VI standards. (See app. III for a list of these cost estimates by airport. See app. IV for the cost estimates from these 14 airports to upgrade their four major types of infrastructure.)

Regarding the unresolved issues, most airport officials told us that they plan to apply to FAA for modifications to the standards or to serve NLA by restricting its operations. FAA has three studies underway to evaluate certain Design Group VI standards to determine which ones should be revised. One study uses actual data from taxiing B-747 aircraft to determine how much pilots deviate from a taxiway’s centerline. The amount of deviation is important to help determine a taxiway’s required width to operate NLA safely. According to FAA, it has continuously kept airport and industry officials informed of preliminary results of its on- going studies. However, FAA will not know until 2003, when the final results are expected, whether to revise the current Design Group VI standards and/or grant modifications or what the nature of any changes might be. There are certain Design Group VI standards for which modifications cannot be granted. For example, runway and taxiway bridges designed to safely support a B-747 with a maximum taxiing weight of 875,000 pounds cannot support an A380 with a maximum taxiing weight of 1.4 million pounds.

Which airlines actually buy NLA, how they use these aircraft in their route structure, and the total number of NLA that are put into service will influence which airports eventually receive NLA and the cost for infrastructure changes. For example, Honolulu International Airport is a likely destination for NLA if Japan Airlines or All Nippon Airways, two of the key airlines that serve this airport, buy them. If not, Honolulu International Airport would not likely receive NLA on a regular basis and could possibly accommodate them through modifications to standards, thereby avoiding more costly infrastructure changes. The total number of NLA in service and which airlines purchase them will be influenced by market demand, which is even more uncertain than when the estimates were made because of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Before and after these attacks, Airbus has estimated that 1,500 NLA would be flying worldwide by 2019. In contrast, in July 2001, Airbus’ competitor, Boeing, said that it estimated that 500 NLA would be flying by then—a threefold difference. Each company’s future vision of air travel accounts for the large difference between their estimates. Officials at many of the airports we surveyed believe that if they serve only a few NLA, they might be able to accommodate these aircraft with operational restrictions, thus making full compliance with Design Group VI standards unnecessary. For example, to help ensure safety, an airport could restrict NLA’s ground movement to designated taxi routes, terminal gates, and runways, and/or could restrict the ground movement of other aircraft.

The total estimated cost to accommodate NLA could also change because the timing of its arrival is uncertain. The A380 has not been completely built and the first flight (certification trial) is not expected until 2004. The A380 is not expected to arrive in the United States until 2006. Meanwhile, many factors, including commercial decisions and unforeseen technical problems in certifying the aircraft for service, could delay this schedule. This uncertainty has led some airports to decide that they will not upgrade their infrastructure unless they are reasonably certain that some of the airlines they serve will be using NLA there.

Lastly, distinguishing, where possible, between the costs for growth and those specific to serving NLA would affect the estimated costs of infrastructure changes. Costs that airports would incur for growth, regardless of whether they serve NLA, should be separated from those that an airport is incurring only because it is serving NLA. Airbus officials stated that most of the estimated costs airports reported for infrastructure upgrades are attributable to growth rather than accommodating NLA. However, airport officials have told us that, in some cases, costs attributable to growth and serving NLA are so interrelated that it is very difficult to separate them.

Within the next 2 years, we expect some of these issues will be resolved. For example, FAA expects to have final results from its tests on certain airport design standards in 2003 and will then be able to decide whether to revise the standards. With these issues resolved, airports will have a clearer understanding of the infrastructure changes that must be made and their costs.

Agency Comments

We sent a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation, the Airports Council International-North America, and Airbus for their review and comment. We met with Transportation officials, including the Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, FAA. These officials suggested that we explain why some airports indicated large differences between the costs for meeting Design Group VI standards reported to FAA in 1997 and those we received in 2001. We believe that the costs for making infrastructure changes to fully meet Design Group VI do not provide a realistic estimate of the changes that airports expect to make to serve NLA. Therefore, we revised the report to focus on the airports that expect to serve NLA and the costs of those infrastructure changes they expect to make. FAA officials also provided a number of clarifying comments, which we have incorporated.

The Senior Vice-President, Technical and Environmental Affairs, Airport Council International-North America, provided oral comments. He suggested that we clarify the relationship between Design Group VI standards for new construction at airports and NLA’s operational requirements. He said that the draft report made reference to airports’ inability to meet Design Group VI standards without noting that airports can accommodate NLA with operating restrictions. We revised the report to clarify this point.

The Deputy Vice President of Safety and Technical Affairs for Airbus provided written comments (see app. V for the full text of Airbus’ comments). Airbus agreed with the list of 14 airports that reported that they expect to serve NLA by 2010. However, the company said that the estimates from these airports overstated the costs to accommodate NLA. The company’s collective estimate for the 14 airports that expect to serve NLA is $520 million, as opposed to the $2.1 billion collectively estimated by the airports. The company provided two major reasons for this difference. First, Airbus said that, in the majority of cases, there is no safety need to bring existing airport infrastructure to Group VI standards to accommodate the A380. Second, Airbus said that the cost estimates reported by the airports are “rough” and do not reflect detailed analysis. Airbus said that most of the cost estimates airports reported could be attributed to the growth of air traffic and are not directly related to accommodating NLA.

With respect to whether airports can safely accommodate NLA now, the report was revised to acknowledge that many airports could accommodate NLA by placing ground restrictions on its movement or the movement of other aircraft and that these measures might obviate the need for immediate infrastructure changes. However, if Airbus’ expectation of a robust demand for its NLA becomes reality, these measures are not likely to provide an efficient long-term solution, especially at those large airports that have experienced delay and congestion problems in the past. As for the rigor of the estimates, we asked the airports to derive their cost estimates from those used to support such planning documents as their master plan and capital budget. We revised the report to clarify the basis for their estimates. While the draft report acknowledged that the estimates were based on assumptions about several factors, we revised it to state that distinguishing between the costs attributable to growth versus the costs specific to serving NLA would affect an airport’s cost estimate. Airport officials have told us that it is very difficult to separate these costs, especially when an airport expects to serve NLA as a part of its growth.

Airbus also disagreed with including any costs for the five airports that are not likely to receive NLA by 2010. However, if these costs are included, the company estimated the costs for 19 airports to fully meet Design Group VI standards at $1.7 billion, as opposed to the $4.6 billion reported to us. We agree with Airbus that including the costs for five airports to fully meet standards when they do not expect to accommodate NLA does not provide a useful estimate. Moreover, some airports told us that they do not expect to make some of the changes that they reported would be necessary to meet these standards because of space limitations or other factors. Therefore, we revised the report to focus on the airports that expect to accommodate NLA and their cost estimates for the infrastructure changes they plan to make.

We performed our work from June to December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and its Aviation Subcommittee; interested Members of Congress; the Secretary of Transportation; and the Administrator, FAA. This report is also available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please call me at (202) 512-3650 or call Belva Martin, Assistant Director, at (202) 512- 4285. We can also be reached by e-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov and martinb@gao.gov, respectively. See appendix VI for a list of key contributors to this report.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

We mailed a survey to officials at 23 airports and asked them to update the cost estimates to upgrade their airport infrastructure that they had reported to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1997. We sent surveys to the same 22 airports that FAA had surveyed because those airports provided nearly all of the B-747 service or serve as hubs for airlines that might purchase New Large Aircraft (NLA) and therefore are likely to also serve NLA. We also included Indianapolis because it is a cargo hub for Federal Express, which has already placed an order with Airbus for 10 NLA.

Because 4 years have elapsed, we expected that airport officials would have more recent information to estimate the following: the cost to accommodate NLA, if FAA revises the Design Group VI standards or grants modifications to them and the cost to fully meet Design Group VI standards.

The officials were asked to specify their airport’s total estimated costs to upgrade the following four major types of infrastructure for NLA: runways; taxiways; bridges, culverts, and tunnels; and terminals, concourses, and aprons. (See app. IV for estimates of these costs by category.) We also asked additional questions about their plans for serving NLA, such as the number of aircraft they expect to serve and the time frame for service. When answers were unclear or incomplete, we conducted follow-up telephone calls for clarification. We asked airports to derive their cost estimates from those that were used to support planning documents, such as an airport’s master plan and capital budget. We did not verify the airports’ estimates for accuracy.

We received responses from 22 of the 23 airports, including 19 of the 20 that responded in 1997 and 3 additional airports. Only Lambert-St. Louis International Airport did not respond. In 1997, FAA received responses from 20 of the 22 airports it surveyed; Honolulu International and Orlando International did not respond.

Appendix II: Airport Design Standards

The FAA establishes airport design standards to configure an airport’s infrastructure to safely serve aircraft with certain characteristics, such as wingspan and weight. Design Group V standards serve the Boeing 747, while Design Group VI standards will serve NLA. FAA defines Design Group V aircraft as those having a wingspan of at least 171 feet but less than 214 feet. Design Group VI aircraft are those having a wingspan of at least 214 feet but less than 262 feet. The standards for Design Group VI were published in 1983 and are currently under review by FAA. The agency has established an NLA Facilitation Group to help introduce NLA at airports. This group is made up of FAA, Boeing, Airbus, and other aviation officials, including representatives of airports, airlines, and pilots.

Unique local conditions might require modifications to airport design standards on a case-by-case basis. FAA’s approval is required for modifying airport design standards that are related to new construction, reconstruction, expansion, or an upgrade at an airport that receives federal or federally approved funding. FAA has established a process to approve modifications to standards. An airport’s request for a modification must be submitted to the appropriate FAA regional or district office for evaluation to determine whether the modification is appropriate, and, if it is, the proper level of approval. Under a recently established policy, FAA headquarters officials have sole authority to approve modifications to standards related to serving NLA.

Some of the Design Group VI standards that pose the most difficult challenges for airports are runway and taxiway widths, separation distances (e.g., for a runway and parallel taxiway and for parallel taxiways), and infrastructure strength (e.g., for bridges and culverts). Clearances on aprons, ramps, gate areas, and terminals at many airports might also need to be upgraded to meet these standards. For example, John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) does not fully meet all of the current Design Group V standards because the airport is severely limited by a lack of airfield space. Airport management is developing plans to get the airport to Design Group V and hopes that with FAA’s granting a modification to the airport or revising certain Design Group VI standards, the airport would be able to safely serve NLA. (See table 1 for a comparison of current design group requirements for key infrastructure features of airports and specific features at JFK.)

Appendix III: Cost Estimates Reported by 14 Airports to Serve NLA through Revisions or Modifications to Design Standards

Appendix IV: Airports’ Cost Estimates to Upgrade Four Major Types of Infrastructure

Our survey asked airports to provide cost estimates for four major types of airport infrastructure: runways; taxiways; bridges, culverts, and tunnels; and terminals, concourses, and aprons. According to a 1997 survey, these areas represent those that are most likely to require upgrades to accommodate NLA.

Figure 3 shows the percentage of the $2.1 billion total estimated cost to upgrade each major type of airport infrastructure at the 14 airports that expect to accommodate NLA through revisions or modifications to FAA’s airport design standards. The $663 million reported for upgrading runways accounts for the largest percentage of cost (32 percent). NLA. Moreover, Los Angeles International Airport’s estimate to upgrade its runways accounts for $398 million of the total reported by 14 airports. Upgrading bridges, tunnels, and culverts accounts for 28 percent of the total cost ($593 million). The vast majority of the bridge and tunnel costs are attributable to a $508-million project at Los Angeles where the freeway runs under the airfield. Upgrading the cost for taxiways accounts for 24 percent ($509 million) of the total cost, and upgrading terminals, concourses, and aprons accounts for 15 percent of the total cost ($317 million). At some airports, airlines are responsible for these areas, so upgrading them does not show up as a cost to airports. Additionally, since two airports, Indianapolis International and Memphis International, are primarily going to receive the cargo version of the A380, terminal upgrades would not be needed.

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

Key contributors to this assignment were Carolyn Boyce, Jean Brady, Stephen Brown, James Fields, David Hooper, Michael Horton, Mitchell Karpman, Kieran McCarthy, Richard Scott, and Kate Wulff.