May 8, 2003
Mr. Steven Brown
Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Steve:
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation, and the military.
Members based in the northeastern U.S. recently brought to our attention a Special Traffic Management Procedure (STMP) for operations at Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK). This STMP may be implemented any time after May 15, 2003, and is likely to reduce operational capacity during poor weather by approximately 50 percent. Thus, the ACK STMP, and the manner in which it was developed, are of great concern to the association.
Of primary concern to NATA is that no known public meetings were held to review the merits of the STMP and to solicit input from affected operators on alternative mitigation of air traffic concerns. Incredibly, our members report that neither ACK airport management nor its ATCT were directly involved in the STMP development. NATA believes, and hopes you agree, that any new restrictive policy of this magnitude must be accomplished with full transparency and public participation.
To the best of our knowledge, an STMP has never previously been deemed necessary for ACK. This leaves NATA and our members curious as to the circumstances resulting in this change. In particular, we note that aviation operations are not anywhere near the peak levels of recent years, when a STMP wasn’t necessary. How can one be necessary in the current environment?
Additionally, NATA is highly concerned with what could be termed as discrimination against Part 135 commercial on-demand air carriers. The STMP exempts all scheduled air carrier flights but provides no rationale for this action. This aspect of the STMP will pose a severe hardship to Part 135 on-demand operators who, even more than their scheduled brethren, depend on the ACK summer season traffic to sustain their businesses through the slower fall and winter seasons.
The hardship is most clear when considering the following scenario: A customer calls the on-demand operator to schedule a trip during the summer season from Danbury, Connecticut to ACK. The on-demand operator must now warn the customer that, if the weather is less-than-ideal, their arrival to and departure from ACK cannot be assured until the night prior to the flight. As a consequence, the proposed STMP would provide scheduled air carriers with competitive and marketing advantages at the expense of other certificated air carriers. We know this is not the FAA’s intent, but it is clearly an outcome of the present ACK STMP.
For this reason, NATA is opposed to the STMP’s provision of a blanket exemption for scheduled operators. The on-demand air charter passenger has just as much right to expect to depart and arrive on time as the passengers aboard a scheduled carrier.
Additionally, the geographical exemptions are troubling. When the FAA requires a STMP it is presumably due to the fact that air traffic is too heavy. NATA fails to see how an aircraft departing from Connecticut to ACK is tangibly different from a Florida departure once both arrive in the BOS ARTCC airspace, yet the Floridian is exempt from slot requirements.
The geographic exemptions also create inconsistencies without a legitimate reason. For example, if Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama-based departures are exempt, what is the reasoning for not exempting flights from neighboring Louisiana or South Carolina?
Additionally, the procedure for obtaining a reservation under this STMP is quite unique and we believe it poses many other problems. For instance, operators planning trips to ACK will not know if the STMP is in effect until approximately 2200 UTC the previous evening. The operation of the STMP will be made via a Notice to Airmen. All non-exempt operators are then required to call a single telephone line (which we understand will be staffed by a single employee) to attempt to obtain a slot. It may well take an operator more than an hour to obtain a connection.
We feel that this slot allocation process demonstrates a lack of concern and appreciation for the on-demand operator that we find unacceptable.
Finally, we must point out that this STMP will be detrimental to aviation safety. In the event that covered non-scheduled operators cannot obtain a slot, they will be tempted to operate to and from ACK in less-than-ideal weather. As we saw during the summer of 1999 when an airplane flown by a well-known pilot crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, such an event would draw unfavorable attention to the FAA and to non-scheduled flight operations.
The lack of public notice and input and the lack of clearly identified air traffic problems, combined with what NATA perceives to be discriminatory policies against on-demand operators and the likely safety impact warrant a complete review of the ACK STMP in our opinion. Therefore, NATA has no choice but to request a moratorium on implementation until these issues are satisfactorily resolved.
We would appreciate any clarification on the above issues from your office and I am available to you for additional discussion of this important topic.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside
Vice President
Cc:Mr. Thomas Davidson, Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region
Ms. Amy Lind Corbett, Regional Administrator, New England Region