That being said, I again state I agree with your basic conclusion that we should “start focusing … attention on improving airfield and air traffic control systems,” and PHL is a perfect example of what hasn’t been done, and what can be done.

PHL is sandwiched between New York, Newark, Baltimore and Washington, but it doesn’t belong to the airspace of Baltimore and Washington. The Northeast as a whole has an aviation problem due to population density unlike any other region in the US. We are so densely populated here that when a weather front moves through it effects all the airports. You’re right that with a new GPS based air traffic control system, we wouldn’t be stuck with so few flight lanes, and nightmares through which we just lived would be tremendously mitigated, or possibly eliminated.

As to PHL itself, we have been waiting here breathlessly for the FAA to finally issue their final judgment on the PHL Enhanced Capacity Program, which would increase the capacity of take offs/landings at PHL by at least 40%, primarily by lengthening one of the current parallel runways to a length of 8,000 feet, and adding a 12,000 foot runway to the other two parallel runways which are to be lengthened from about 10,000 to 12,000 feet, making 4 parallel “full length” runways. This would permit two runways to be used simultaneously for take offs and two runways to be used simultaneously for landings, in a staggered pattern.

If my counting is correct, the Bush administration has been dragging its heels so bad on this report and judgment that the PHL ECP report by the FAA is now almost 36 months late. I’ve been told it may finally be released this fall.

Right now PHL uses 2 runways simultaneously at all times, one for landing and one for take offs. During west flow winds (70% of the time) PHL operates it’s short parallel runway for smaller planes take off/landings, flipping usage as needed. During east flow winds this 3rd runway generally can’t be used primarily due to flight path problems. The PHL ECP includes either moving the flight path problems (Plan A) or rebuilding the runway further north than currently situated (Plan B ).

PHL’s short diagonal runway is generally only available for turboprop regional aircraft and small business jets.

Execution of the PHL ECP would both increase capacity for PHL by 40% and bring certainty to the terminal situation, so terminal/gate expansion plans could be finalized and economically completed. Since one of the potential expansion plans includes replacing the existing terminals B-F completely, in general the airport and the airlines have been justifiably unwilling to commit to any further major redesigns and expansions of the terminals, since the addition of Terminal A.

The FAA has to climb off their butts and get moving with these overdue plans at PHL and other airports, and get the GPS air traffic control system off the drawing board and into the towers and control centers.

However, in the complete and total absence of common sense by the airlines, they have boxed themselves into a corner. We’ve tried self-regulation of the airlines. It apparently hasn’t worked.

SirWired

Yes, the airports need improvement.
Yes, there are insufficient runways.
Yes, the taxiway design sucks in many airports.
Yes, the ATC system is outdated.

However, it is not as if all of these conditions happened suddenly. Yes, the airlines must “play the cards they are dealt”. But what the airlines are doing right now is taking the cards they are dealt, bluffing, and hope things turn out for the best.

Certainly nothing could have been done about the fact that many flights were delayed or canceled. Weather happens, and it truly is out of the airlines’ control. However, if PHL’s terminal and gate system cannot handle fairly routine issues (weather certainly is not a new phenomena) then they could, in response:

1) Stock the planes with supplies and service the lavatories to handle an extended ground hold.
2) Have shuttle buses and roller stairs available to extract passengers from planes parked on the apron, (and out of the way of taxiways), but not at a gate. (Don’t most hubs have acres of concrete near the hangars?)
3) Schedule fewer flights out of congested airports.
4) Make the decision to divert or cancel incoming flights earlier if it looks like the ground facilities cannot handle them.

What are the airlines doing instead?
1) Reducing or eliminating on-board supplies of food, and only servicing the lavatories when they are getting full, even if things are looking bad for an on-time departure. I sincerely hope USAir does not actually charge for a beverage if the plane is stuck on a taxiway for hours on end; but I wouldn’t put it past them.
2) Blithely ignoring the fact that there are insufficient gates to handle more than a few extra planes.
3) Fighting the FAA tooth and nail as they try to reduce the number of takeoff and landing slots out of NYC-area airports.
4) Keeping planes orbiting airports for hours on end, only to land and have no way to get to the gate.

The airlines are more than welcome to whine about the current status of airports and traffic control, but in the meantime, they need to step up, face the facts, and set up operations that can actually handle disruptions.

SirWired