USA Today Supports FAA’s Airspace Redesign Plan

In case you missed it, USA Today editorialized in favor of the Federal Aviation Administration’s redesign plan for the airspace surrounding New York and Philadelphia, citing the national benefits of alleviating congestion at airports that cause 75 percent of the country’s total flight delays.  The FAA’s plan, which has been in the works for a decade, provides a safe solution to one of our most pressing transportation problems…but the plan is under attack from local interest groups and politicians who seem willing to distort facts in order to score political points.

Indeed, USA Today ran an opposing view by Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who claim the plan does little to reduce delays and is unsafe.  But as USA Today’s own editorial board wrote: “pilots—who would be the first to object if safety were compromised—disagree. Capt. Larry Newman of the Air Line Pilots Association says procedures spurred by the redesign ‘have been safely used throughout the national airspace system for years.’”  And USA Today agrees with the FAA that the reduction in delays is significant.

I agree with USA Today’s editorial board that there surely is a way to compromise so that we can make a real difference for the nation’s air travelers without placing an undue burden on the citizens of New York and New Jersey.  The FAA has been willing to bend.  What about the politicians?

Unfortunately, this is yet another example of political and special interests impeding progress on transportation solutions that benefit the nation as a whole.

-Secretary Peters

Comments

[Larry Kaufman]

So the plan has been in development for 10 years. What took FAA so long. Rather than crowing about this, I'd be ashamed to admit that it has been in development for that length of time. Boeing could design, test, and get certified a new aircraft type in less time.

[Andrea Narciso]

The "progress" you speak of will benefit the airlines pocketbook, not the nation as a whole, not the folks who will still be sitting in airports for hours since the new flight plan will save a mere 3 minutes off flight time, and it certainly will not benefit the communities over which this new flight plan intends to re route the airplanes.

[Gregg E. White]

This plan is "smoke and mirrors". The FAA is trying to appease the airlines and the various interest groups with a plan that does nothing to reduce delays.

That USA Today would support this plan shows your lack of understanding the issues and not investigating the plan.

Delays in the Northeast corridor are mostly the result of airline demand exceeding airport capacity (how many aircraft can land and takeoff from available runway space).

All the time and money invested in this plan has been wasted. We need leaders that have the courage to identify and address the real issues to today's issues.

Ask the real experts: the air traffic controllers of all of the affected facilities. These men and women will tell the truth. These men and women laugh at this plan, a typical band-aid assembled by folks that have no understanding of the realities of today's over-stressed airports and airways.

[Michael]

The plane is environmentally and physically unsafe. Air pollution and noise polution over residential areas is unwarranted.

[Bill.Brennan]

The USA story touts the potential benefits without any consideration of the negatives. Most important, the FAA did not abide by current laws, did not assess noise impacts and was almost secretive with the scheduling of public hearings. Lack of response to inquiries for flight information was arrogant. Even a U.S senator's request was ignored. Shame on the FAA. The problem deserves open discussion. By working together a possible solution may be found to address the concerns of thousands of citizens faced with a substantial increase in low flying aircraft. These citizens also have rights.

Thank you.

[Barry Perlmutter]

The main goals of the FAA redesign plan are to increase aviation capacity and reduce delays. The capacity improvements achievable are surprisingly small because the airport runways themselves are a major limiter, and because previous airspace redesign efforts have already reaped the "low hanging fruit." Two more limited proposals offer little or no capacity improvement, and the most ambitious set of changes, which would be very expensive and take years to implement, offer, at best, mid single digit percent improvements. To get even these small improvements requires optimistic operating assumptions and the dropping of locally highly valued noise abatement restrictions.

The projected noise impacts are very high. The most ambitious plan would cause more than a three-fold (5 decibel) noise increase to some 300,000 residents over the tri-state area .

The public is likely to experience little change other than the increased noise pollution. Projected capacity improvements are small and speculative. Previous FAA projects have proposed methods that looked attractive on paper, but proved unworkable in practice. Furthermore, small capacity improvements are rapidly taken advantage of by the carriers to schedule additional flights during peak periods, so reduction in aviation delays is unlikely. In 1998, when seeking support for the redesign, the FAA promoted noise reduction as a benefit. It is now disappointing to see such one-sided pursuit of capacity at the expense of noise. New Jersey Governor Corzine and Senators Lautenberg and Menendez have already vehemently rejected the FAA proposals. Senator Lautenberg's rejection is notable, since he helped initiate the redesign in 1998 because he was promised by the FAA administrator that it would yield noise and capacity benefits.

[Joe Brennan]

I have a "special interest" or maybe that should be multiple "special interests" because your plan will negatively affect tens of thousands of lives in my community in Rockland County.You will destroy the quality of life these people have come to enjoy and their property values at the same time. The "politicians" are doing what they were elected to do,represent the people.

[sniggler]

Mrs Peters,
When will you learn that all the redesigned airspace and procedures in the world are not going to reduce delays. The answer starts with new runways and more realistic arrival and departure slots. The flying public (your real customers) deserves no less.

[Rita St. Clair]

With the budget so low, I am hoping that you will think twice about giving smaller airports an AIP grant, especially the one I live near, as they have overgrown their use now and think that they should be as large as LaGuardia or LAX. Please keep in mind that there is a lot of misguided information given to the FAA by some of these smaller airports just to get the AIP grant. Thank you for reading this comment.