A Feasibility Study of Regional Air Cargo

U.S. Departmentof Transportation

Federal AviationAdministration

Report to Congress

A Feasibility Study ofRegional Air-Cargo Airports:

Including a Case Study of aRegional Air-Cargo Center for theWashington, D.C., Area

Washington, D.C. 20591 August 1991

Report of the Federal AviationAdministration Pursuant toSenate Report 101-121Accompanying the Departmentof Transportation and RelatedAgencies Appropriations Act, 1990

A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports

2


3

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7I — Introduction. ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 9Background ...................................................................................................................................... 9Study Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 10Problem Areas ................................................................................................................................ 11

II — Background and Future Requirements. .............................................................................................. 13Evolution of the Air-Cargo Industry ............................................................................................. 13

Pre Deregulation ...................................................................................................................... 13Post Deregulation .................................................................................................................... 14

Current Status ................................................................................................................................ 15Future Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 17

III — Regional Air-Cargo Centers ............................................................................................................... 19Description of the Concept ........................................................................................................... 19Developing a Regional Air-Cargo Center ...................................................................................... 20

Advantages ............................................................................................................................... 20Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 21Integrated and Traditional Air-Cargo Carriers ........................................................................ 22Facilities Required.................................................................................................................... 23

Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 24New Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 24Converting and Improving an Existing Airport ..................................................................... 26

Case Studies ................................................................................................................................... 27Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) ........................................................................................... 27Stewart International Airport (SWF) ......................................................................................... 29Huntsville International Airport (HSV)..................................................................................... 33

IV — Analysis of Air-Cargo Operations ..................................................................................................... 35Cargo Operations and Their Contribution to Delay..................................................................... 35Analysis of All-Cargo Operations at New York-Area Airports ....................................................... 39

General .................................................................................................................................... 39John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) ........................................................................... 41LaGuardia Airport (LGA) ........................................................................................................... 43Newark International (EWR) ..................................................................................................... 45

V — Air-cargo Operations in the Washington, D.C., Area ........................................................................ 47Description of Washington Air-Cargo Operations ....................................................................... 47

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ...................................................................... 47Washington National Airport (DCA) ........................................................................................ 49Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) ................................................................ 51

Effects of Air-Cargo Operations on Congestion and Delay .......................................................... 53General .................................................................................................................................... 53Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ...................................................................... 53Washington National Airport (DCA) ........................................................................................ 57Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) ................................................................ 57

Alternative Locations for Washington, D.C., Regional Air-Cargo Facility ................................... 59Tipton Army Airfield (FME) Fort Meade, MD ........................................................................... 59Martin State Airport (MTN) ....................................................................................................... 61Winchester Regional Airport (W16)......................................................................................... 61Martinsburg Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport (MRB) .................................................... 63Hagerstown Washington County Regional Airport (HGR) ...................................................... 63

VI — Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 65Appendix A — Tabulation of Hourly Operations ...................................................................................... 67


4


5

Figure 1 World Air Freight Forecast ................................................................................................ 17Figure 2 Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) ..................................................................................... 28Figure 3 Stewart International Airport (SWF) ................................................................................... 30Figure 4 Huntsville International Airport (HSV) .............................................................................. 32Figure 5 Total Hourly Operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport ............................... 40Figure 6 John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) ..................................................................... 41Figure 7 Total Hourly Operations at La Guardia International Airport ......................................... 42Figure 8 La Guardia International Airport (LGA) ............................................................................. 43Figure 9 Total Hourly Operations at Newark International Airport .............................................. 44Figure 10 Newark International Airport (EWR) .................................................................................. 45Figure 11 Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ................................................................ 48Figure 12 Washington National Airport (DCA) .................................................................................. 48Figure 13 Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) .......................................................... 50Figure 14 Total Hourly Operations at Washington Dulles International Airport ........................... 52Figure 15 Total Hourly Operations at Washington National International Airport ....................... 56Figure 16 Total Hourly Operations at Baltimore/Washington International Airport ..................... 58Figure 17 Tipton Army Airfield (FME) ................................................................................................ 60Figure 18 Martin State Airport (MTN) ................................................................................................. 60Figure 19 Winchester Regional Airport (W16) .................................................................................. 60Figure 20 Martinsburg Eastern WVa Regional Airport (MRB) ............................................................ 62Figure 21 Hagerstown Washington County Regional Airport (HGR) ................................................ 62

List of Figures

Table 1 U.S. Airline Freight Traffic ................................................................................................ 16Table 2 Enplaned and deplaned freight and mail, including express — year ending 12/31/88... 36Table 3 Percentage of Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More .................................................. 37Table 4 Comparison of Rankings in Delay and Cargo Tonnage ................................................... 38Table 5 Aircraft Operations, Washington Dulles Int’l Airport ...................................................... 54Table 6 Aircraft Operations, Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport ................................................ 59Table 7 Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .............. 68Table 8 Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/29/90 .............. 69Table 9 Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/28/90 ............................... 70Table 10 Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/29/90 ............................... 71Table 11 Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/28/90 .............. 72Table 12 Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/29/90 .............. 73Table 13 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/28/90 ...............74Table 14 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ...............75Table 15 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/28/90 ...................76Table 16 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/29/90 ...................77Table 17 Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .... 78Table 18 Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport 11/29/90 .........79

List of Tables


6


7

Executive SummaryThe potential of regional air-cargo airports

to relieve congestion at major airports in theimmediate area has been examined by theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) at therequest of the Senate Appropriations Commit-tee. Senate Report 101-121 accompanying theDepartment of Transportation FY 1990 Appro-priations Act called for the study to includethe feasibility of establishing an air-cargoairport in the immediate Washington, D.C.,area. This report presents the FAA’s findings.While a large portion of air-cargo operations ishandled at busy air-carrier airports, thisactivity usually does not add significantly tocongestion because cargo flights are few innumber and occur during off-peak hours.Many major airports actively encourage cargobecause it generates additional jobs andairport revenues. It is estimated that more thanhalf of all air cargo is carried in the baggageholds of scheduled airliners, and, under mostcircumstances, it would be extremely difficultand inefficient to isolate cargo from passengeroperations.

The question remains whether an air-cargoairport could succeed if it were developed forother reasons besides relieving congestion,such as to encourage land development orstimulate economic growth. There is no prom-ising model at this time. Substantial efforts todevelop Stewart International Airport inNewburg, New York, and Huntsville Interna-tional Airport in Huntsville, Alabama, havenot yet attracted a large part of the air-cargomarket. The only clearly successful recentexamples are the sorting facilities of small-package, express-delivery services, such asFederal Express in Memphis, Tennessee,United Parcel Service in Louisville, Kentucky,

and Airborne Express in Wilmington, Ohio.These facilities are concentrated in a geo-graphic area around the Ohio River Valleywhere flights can be brought together effi-ciently to transfer cargo. There may be otheropportunities to develop successful cargoairports but they are not apparent at this time.Fort Worth Alliance Airport has been cited as asuccessful cargo airport, but the airport hasnot contracted with any all-cargo operator yet.Instead, the airport is operating as a generalpurpose reliever. Its activity has primarilybeen general aviation and airline trainingoperations, and its tenants include manufac-turers and companies involved in aircraftmaintenance. This sort of multi-purposereliever airport could be feasible in manyurban areas.

It is expected that cargo will remain con-centrated at very busy airports near majorpopulation centers where there is amplecapacity available to shippers in the baggageholds of airliners. Air-cargo sorting operationswill continue to be located at a few airportsthat the small-package, express carriers con-sider to be well located for that purpose.Efforts to develop regional air-cargo airports atother locations will involve considerableexpense and financial risk. The least expensiveapproach may be to initiate civil air-cargoflights at military airfields under surplus-property or joint-use agreements. Militaryairfields have many of the attributes neededby cargo airports, including long, strongrunways, ample apron area, and good high-way access.

The air-cargo industry is dynamic andrapidly growing, and it is recommended thatthis subject be reconsidered periodically.


8


9

This report has been prepared in response to lan-guage in Senate Report 101-121 on the Department ofTransportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Actfor FY 1990. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)was requested to study the feasibility of establishingregional air-cargo airports to relieve congestion at majorairports in the immediate area. The study was to includethe impact of an air freight and cargo operations facilityto alleviate congestion and thereby increase capacity atthe major airports in the Washington, D.C., area. Thisarea includes Washington Dulles International Airport,Washington National Airport, and Baltimore/Washing-ton International Airport.

Air traffic delay is a serious problem, and it is ex-pected to worsen because of the widening gap betweenthe capacity of major airports and the traffic these air-ports are required to handle. According to FAA forecasts,the number of airports where airline delays exceed20,000 hours annually will grow from 21 in 1988 to 41 by1998 unless major capacity improvements are made tothe national airport system. In addition, 15 airports willincur between 50,000 and 100,000 hours of airline aircraftdelays annually by 1998 as opposed to just 5 today.

The top 100 airports in the U.S. account for 90 percentof the airline passengers enplaned, and the number ofenplanements is projected to grow by 56 percent over thenext 10 years. Aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings)at these same 100 airports are expected to grow by36 percent during that same period to accommodate theincrease in passenger demand.

Both the quality and cost of air service are stronglytied to aviation system capacity. In the dozen years sinceairline deregulation, real air fares have declined, and theairlines’ emphasis on the hub-and-spoke system hasimproved the service to many cities. System capacitymust continue to grow to allow for airline competition ifthis trend is to continue.

Large capacity gains result from the construction ofnew runways and new airports. For example, the newDenver airport will increase capacity and reduce conges-tion in Denver as well as reduce delays system-wide.However, at a cost of over $2.5 billion for a new airport

I — Introduction.

Purpose

Background


10

like Denver, it will be a challenge to finance and buildothers. New runways at existing airports also face oppo-sition because of their environmental impact as well astheir cost. In addition to new construction, other alterna-tives to increase capacity need to be investigated.

The FAA and the aviation industry have been workingon a wide variety of alternatives to enhance capacity.These alternatives include: improvements in approachprocedures and airspace planning and design, applica-tions of new technology that have emerged from Re-search, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) programs,and solutions developed through free market influences,such as potentially new connecting hub airports, relieverairports, and expanded use of existing commercialservice airports. The concept of developing regional air-cargo airports, separate from the major passenger hubairports, has been proposed as an alternative that couldreduce congestion and delay at major airports.

The dynamic growth in the passenger side of the airtransportation industry since deregulation and its impacton capacity have been well-documented and publicized.The air-cargo segment of the industry, on the other hand,has not been as well-studied, even though its growth hasalso been remarkable. There is some concern that rapidlyexpanding cargo operations at the major hub airportswill add to the problems of congestion and delay theseairports are experiencing as a result of expanding passen-ger operations. However, this study has found that all-cargo operations do not add to congestion and delaysbecause these operations occur primarily in off-peakhours.

Various means were used to conduct the study, assummarized below:

• A thorough literature search (magazines, journals,technical papers and reports) was performed.Sources in the airlines, air-cargo carriers, andairports were located and interviewed.

• Air-cargo and passenger data, including historicaland forecasted growth, current volumes, andoperations were gathered.

• The contribution of air-cargo operations to majorair carrier airport congestion and delays wasanalyzed.

Study Methodology


11

• Past and current efforts to develop regional air-cargo centers were analyzed.

• The national air-cargo system was analyzed todevelop pros and cons in establishing regionalair-cargo centers. These pros and cons wereapplied to the establishment of a regional air-cargo center for the Washington, D.C., area.

• Cost estimates for developing a new regional air-cargo center and for converting and improving anexisting airport facility were obtained.

Early in the study it became apparent that a greatdeal of the data necessary to perform a rigorous statisti-cal analysis simply did not exist in any readily accessibleform. Gathering data was far more difficult than hadbeen anticipated. However, it was possible to deriveoperational characteristics from the data available.

Problem Areas


12


13

II — Background and Future Requirements.

Evolution of theAir-Cargo Industry

Pre Deregulation Until 1977, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) main-tained strict regulation of nearly all facets of the U.S.commercial air-cargo industry. During the early years,all-cargo carriers dominated the business. However,starting in the 1950’s, several of the larger passenger/combination carriers entered the all-cargo business byacquiring fleets of freighter and/or QC (quick change)aircraft. These combination carriers continued to operatesignificant fleets of jet freighters until air-cargo deregula-tion. They were formidable competitors to the U.S. all-cargo airline operators, especially on the domestic routes,because they had greater financial strength, they offeredday and night service combining the schedules andcapacity of their passenger aircraft and freighter opera-tions, and they could cross subsidize between theirpassenger and cargo operations.

Another element in the air-cargo industry was the airfreight forwarders, such as Airborne, Emery, and UPS.They marketed, assembled, and consolidated air cargo,provided pick-up and delivery service, and assumedresponsibility for the shipment from point of origin topoint of destination. To provide this service, the forward-ers used the direct air carriers (both combination and all-cargo) for the line-haul portion of the movement. By 1970there were approximately 250 certificated U.S. air freightforwarders, with the top 10 companies representing wellover 50 percent of the total forwarder traffic. In 1970, theCAB allowed five long-haul railroad or motor carriercompanies to enter the market, further increasing compe-tition.

The original small package “air express” service wasoffered by scheduled airlines in conjunction with theRailway Express Agency (REA). The airlines collectivelynegotiated an agreement with REA to act as their groundagent. However, during the 1970’s, air express activitydeclined in shipper patronage, largely due to operationaland financial difficulties at REA. In 1975 REA ceasedoperations and filed a petition for bankruptcy.

The air freight forwarding industry continued togrow in the early to mid–1970’s, and air freight generally


14

exceeded the growth rates of the U.S. economy. But,many structural problems emerged to create a massiveshift in market power. A primary factor was the sevenconsecutive years of losses on all-cargo operations suf-fered by the U.S. domestic airlines. During this time,three airlines discontinued freighter service completelyand two others downsized considerably. Domestic all-cargo service was reduced by approximately 50 percent.To a great extent, these losses were caused by the jump infuel prices experienced in 1973-74 and by artificially lowdomestic freight rates set by the CAB. This was com-pounded by the entry of passenger wide-body aircraftinto the cargo market. These aircraft, with their hugebelly holds, created a large excess of air-cargo capacity.

The down-sizing of all-cargo service caused thefreight forwarders, who required and could no longer gethigh volumes of overnight lift, to seek new solutions.Most decided to provide their own dedicated lift, ratherthan depend on passenger carriers that provided cover-age for barely 65 percent of the U.S. domestic air-cargo/express marketplace, and whose shipment, tracing, andtracking systems were at best rudimentary and inad-equate.

During the past 15 years, there has been a dramaticchange in the composition of the carrier group providingall-cargo aircraft services. This is largely due to the de-regulation of the air-cargo industry in 1977. Because ofthe exceptionally high and sustained growth rates intraffic and revenues since deregulation, the U.S. freighterfleet today is much larger than it ever was.

The emergence of the integrated air express businesshas been particularly significant. Started by DHL, andcontinued with remarkable success by Federal Express,air express has been one of the fastest growing segmentsof the air-cargo industry. By and large, the new carriersdo not depend on forwarders, consolidators, or otherthird parties to provide their traffic, as was the case forthe passenger/combination carriers and the scheduledall-cargo carriers before deregulation. Much of the expan-sion of the U.S. freighter fleet is due to this integrated, air-express segment of the industry. A parallel developmentsince deregulation has been the growth of cargo charterairlines. Many of the freight forwarders contract all theirflight operations to several of these carriers.

Post Deregulation


15

In summary, the major U.S. passenger/combinationcarriers, with the exception of Northwest, have sus-pended all-cargo operations. With the buyout of FlyingTigers by Federal Express, the last pre-deregulation all-cargo carrier has succumbed. In 1977, the all-cargo/express carriers represented approximately 15 percent ofthe total cargo jet lift capacity. By the end of 1987, the all-cargo/express industry’s fleet of 355 jets accounted forapproximately 75 percent of the total cargo jet lift capac-ity. This trend has continued, with the all-cargo/expresscarriers growing at a rate of approximately 15 percent peryear.

Today the air-cargo/express industry providesovernight express service to and from virtually every zipcode in the country. Customer service features, such asstate-of-the-art tracing and tracking capability, on-callpick-up service, Saturday service, residential coverage,money-back guarantees, and automated billing andreporting systems, among numerous other advances, areinnovations since 1973.

The industry is highly competitive. Pricing is a pow-erful marketing tool in terms of building volume andgaining market share. The growth and development ofthis industry structure has been significantly beneficial toall shippers and consumers throughout the UnitedStates. Air freight costs to the shipper have actuallydeclined since 1980.

Services of the air-cargo/express industry have beena major factor in bringing small communities and ruralAmerica into the mainstream of economic growth. Newmanufacturing and high technology plants, along withmedical and research centers, are being attracted to lowcapital/production cost areas of the country, at least inpart, because they are provided regular express transpor-tation access to every other corner of America, and mostparts of the world.

Passenger airlines are no longer a major presence inthe small package express market, but they continue todominate the airport-to-airport movement of largeshipments. Interviews with industry specialists, aircarriers, airports, and others indicate that approximately60 percent of all air cargo is still carried as belly cargo onscheduled airliners.

Despite this high percentage of ton-miles flown, thepassenger/combination carriers account for only

Current Status


16

13 percent of the air-cargo/express revenue in domesticmarkets due to wide disparities in yield, according to astudy by Leeper, Cambridge, & Campbell, Inc., called TheAll-Cargo Air Carrier Industry: Its Economic Impact andFuture Needs. Traditional passenger/combination carriershave increased their system freight and express traffic byonly 12.7 percent since 1977. Domestic revenue ton-mileshave actually declined by 10.5 percent, while interna-tional freight and express ton-miles increased 53.4 per-cent.

Table 1 shows the average annual growth from 1980to 1988 for U.S. airline freight traffic. The major growthhas been in the express carriers, and the growth in inter-national operations has been much greater than that fordomestic operations.

This international market has attracted a host offoreign competitors to the U.S. carriers. According to theSeptember 1990 issue of Cargo Facts, of the top 10 freightcarriers in 1989, seven were foreign flag carriers. Theseforeign flag carriers are still aggressively seeking businessin the U.S., as reflected by the opening of major newcargo terminals at several U.S. airports and the acquisi-tion of new 747-400F freighters.

TABLE 1 U.S. AIRLINE FREIGHT TRAFFIC

Revenue Ton Miles in MillionsAverageAnnual

1980 1984 1988 GrowthDomestic

Scheduled 3,273 3,558 3,660 1.4%Charter 291 615 251 -1.8%Express Carriers 312 1,338 3,543 35.5%Subtotal 3,876 5,511 7,453 8.5%

InternationalScheduled 2,466 2,989 4,788 8.6%Charter 508 524 1,191 11.2%Subtotal 2,974 3,512 5,979 9.1%

Total U.S. AirlinesScheduled 5,739 6,546 8,447 5.0%Charter 799 1,139 1,442 7.7%Express Carriers 312 1,338 3,543 35.5%

Grand Total 6,850 9,023 13,432 8.8%

Source: Boeing, World Air Cargo Forecast


17

The Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast predicts a 6.7 per-cent annual growth rate in world air cargo (Figure 1).Asian markets continue to lead the pack with annualgrowth rates of 8 to 8.5 percent. Intra-European marketsshould grow at about 5.5 percent per year. In the U.S., the$22 billion a year domestic market, which makes upabout 20 percent of all air cargo carried in the world, isexpected to double by 1995.

Aircraft capacity can be expected to keep pace withdemand. Currently, Boeing and McDonnell Douglashave orders for almost 2,200 aircraft between them. Withthe expected increase in the passenger market and lack ofpure freighters available, cargo capacity should remainstatic in the short term. However, since the air-cargoindustry is presently in an “over-capacity” status, this isnot expected to limit air-cargo growth in any way. Of theinternational and domestic airlines responding to inquir-ies on their average unused cargo capacity, the percent-ages of unused belly-and combi-cargo capacity rangedfrom a low of 15 percent to a high of 97 percent, but theaverage was about 40 to 50 percent. The percentages ofunused all-cargo capacity ranged from 3.5 to 32 percent,with an average of about 20 percent. According to theCargo Facts issues of May 1990 and June 1990, the loadfactor for selected all-cargo aircraft in domestic servicefor the fourth quarter of 1989 averaged about 50 percentof available capacity. By the time current capacity isreached, new aircraft will be on-line and ready to absorbany additional growth.

Future Requirements

Source: Boeing, World Air Cargo Forecast

1970 1975 1980 19850

20

40

60

80

100

130

150

170

1990 1995 2000

9.7% per year

Historical Forecast

High

Low

Baseline

Forecast Growth Rates (%)

HighBaselineLow

1989-19958.97.56.1

1995-20006.55.75.0

1989-20007.86.75.6

Rev

enue

Ton

Kilo

met

ers

(Bill

ions

)

FIGURE 1 WORLD AIR FREIGHT FORECAST


18


19

The concept of developing regional air-cargo centershas evolved over a number of years, primarily as a resultof successful examples of integrated, small-package,express carriers deliberately choosing less congestedairports, away from major metropolitan areas, as theirprimary and regional hubs. When studying the problemsof congestion and delay at major air carrier airports,cargo operations appear to be separate from passengeroperations, that is, an entity that could be moved to a lesscongested airport relatively easily. The rationale for thisseparation is that all-cargo aircraft require take-off,landing, and runway time that could be used by passen-ger aircraft. A corollary of this is that cargo operationsuse valuable ramp space, and their warehouses andcargo-handling facilities occupy potential passengerterminal space.

If it is to be part of the solution to congestion anddelay, a regional air-cargo center must be far enoughfrom the major metropolitan airports to avoid any inter-ference with, and delay of, aircraft on approach to, ordeparture from, these airports. At the same time, it mustbe close to the metropolitan area and have good access tohighway systems in order to support the overnight andone-or-two-day delivery requirements of air freight. Thiswould enable the center to serve its customers through ahub-and-spoke network of feeder airlines and roadfeeder services designed to reach outlying points. For aregional air-cargo center to be successful, the lack ofinfrastructure congestion and ease of access must im-prove cargo handling sufficiently to attract cargo custom-ers and operators from the metropolitan airports.

Stewart International Airport, New York, and FortWorth Alliance Airport, Texas, are often cited as ex-amples of regional air-cargo centers. However, FortWorth Alliance, which opened in early 1990, has notestablished air-cargo carrier operations as yet. Several air-cargo carriers do have operations at Stewart, and some ofthem have expansion plans. Currently, however, thereare only a few all-cargo operations each day at Stewart.Huntsville International Airport, north of Birmingham,Alabama, with its International Intermodal Center, isanother example of what could become a regional air-

III — Regional Air-Cargo Centers

Description of the Concept


20

cargo facility. But, it too has only a few all-cargo flightseach day. (Each of these examples is described in moredetail in Section III.) None of these airports has been ableto relieve congestion and delay by attracting air-cargooperations from nearby air carrier airports.

Because there are so few all-cargo flights, regional air-cargo centers are also able to accommodate a large num-ber of operations by General Aviation (GA). The latter, infact, may be of more benefit to capacity enhancement. GApilots are often eager to avoid congestion and delay atbusy air-carrier airports. Relocating GA aircraft fromcongested airports can free up slots for use by the aircarriers.

Airports, including regional air-cargo centers andindustrial airports, may act as magnets for businessdevelopment. The example of Fort Worth Alliance Air-port is described in Section III. Facilities of this type mayattract industries that are related to the aviation industry,that use Just-In-Time (JIT) inventory control systems, orthat deal in perishable goods imported from or exportedto overseas markets, among others.

The consensus among aviation experts is that aircargo will continue to grow in the future. Those Nationswhich prepare for this situation will be in a better posi-tion to deal with the increase, dominate the transporta-tion market, attract industry, and obtain overall economicbenefits.

Military air bases lend themselves to air-cargo useunder surplus-property or joint-use agreements. Therunways are usually able to accommodate even thelargest cargo jets. Most of the necessary infrastructure(highways, buildings, sewage, electricity, water, etc.) isalready in place. In those areas where joint use is contem-plated, a limited number of cargo operations may be lessdisruptive to military operations than passenger traffic.

Developing a RegionalAir-Cargo Center

Advantages

Capacity Enhancement

Economic Development

Preparation forthe Future

Joint-Use


21

One serious obstacle is aircraft noise, because air-cargocarriers often operate at night and may use older andnoisier aircraft than passenger airlines.

Although new regional air-cargo centers do not costas much as passenger airports, the expense is consider-able (see Section III, Cost Estimates) and income may bemuch lower. Conversion of existing airports is some-what less expensive, but the costs are still substantial.

There are very few remaining sites for new airportsclose enough to major metropolitan areas to serve asregional cargo centers. During the last thirty years, urbandevelopment has taken up most of the available land.Areas which are available tend to be remote and do notpossess the necessary infrastructure. The most likelyalternative would involve conversion of an existingairport, but few are ideally located for this purpose.

Regional air-cargo centers must be served by a well-developed highway system. They must be supported bysewage, water, electricity, and telephone systems. Takingthe Fort Worth Alliance Airport as an example, theinfrastructure enhancements necessary to support thefacility are projected to cost at least twice what the airportfacility itself cost.

All-cargo operations are not easily separated frompassenger operations. Fully 60 percent of air cargo is stillmoved as belly cargo. Since belly cargo is carried onpassenger aircraft, it must remain at the air carrier air-ports. Separation of all-cargo and belly cargo will forceagents and freight forwarders who deal in both types ofoperations to maintain facilities at two or more locations.In addition, they will lose at least a certain degree offlexibility in deciding whether to send a particular cargoshipment as belly cargo or on an all-cargo aircraft.

Most all-cargo/express flight operations are con-ducted late at night or early in the morning (about 10:00p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). According to a study by Leeper, Cam-bridge, & Campbell, Inc., fully 66 percent of the all-cargo

Disadvantages

Cost

Space

Infrastructure

Operational Efficiency

Airport Efficiency


22

carriers’ jet operations are at night. For most airports,these are the very hours that aircraft operations are attheir lowest point, with very few passenger aircrafttaking off or landing. At major air-carrier airports, whichmust remain open 24 hours a day, nighttime all-cargooperations make efficient use of the airport facilities andgenerate revenue for the airport without adding signifi-cantly to airport congestion and air-traffic delay.

Integrated carriers move their overflow in belly cargo.They require the availability of passenger aircraft tomaintain their schedules. Removing these carriers to anall-cargo facility would require them to ship their over-flow to air-carrier airports by truck, thus unacceptablydelaying shipments.

In reviewing the advantages and disadvantages ofdeveloping a regional air-cargo center, it is important todifferentiate between the integrated air-cargo carriers,such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, andAirborne Express, and the more traditional air-cargooperators, such as Evergreen International, Southern AirTransport, Zantop, and the scheduled passenger airlines.Because of the integrated nature of their operations, withtheir “self-feeding” network of door-to-door pickup anddelivery services, the integrated air-cargo carriers are notas dependent upon any one location. It is much easier forthem to relocate to another airport if it makes operationaland economic sense.

The more traditional air-cargo operators, on the otherhand, are much more inter-dependent. The shippers,forwarders, brokers, consolidators, and individual air-lines all depend on each other to put cargo shipmentstogether at competitive rates and provide the necessarylift to deliver these shipments to their destinations. Noone element of these traditional operations could bemoved to another airport facility without the otherelements. For the scheduled passenger airlines, thisdependence on location extends even further becausevirtually all their cargo, both international and domestic,moves as belly or combi cargo and must travel from onepassenger hub airport to another until it reaches itsdestination.

Data on the volume of cargo carried as all-cargoversus belly-cargo is not readily available. For thoseairports where data was available, the percentages of all-

Shipment Delays

Integrated and TraditionalAir-Cargo Carriers


23

cargo versus belly cargo varied widely from airport toairport. Airports which serve as hubs/sorting centers forintegrated air-express operations, such as Memphis andOntario, have a high percentage of their cargo volumecarried on all-cargo flights, 61 percent for Memphis and93 percent for Ontario. In general, airports with a pre-dominantly domestic market served by the integratedexpress cargo carriers have about 60 percent of theircargo volume carried by all-cargo aircraft. However, forthose airports which serve as origin/destination centers,especially for overseas flights, the percentage of all-cargoto belly/combi cargo is reversed, 60 percent belly/combiand 40 percent all-cargo. These latter figures are in linewith the world air-cargo capacity figures in Boeing’sWorld Air Cargo Forecast, 60 percent passenger (belly/combi) and 40 percent freighter.

In order to support a regional air-cargo center, anairport should provide certain basic facilities.

Given the importance of international operations inthe air-cargo market, the runway should be 10,000 to12,000 feet long and 150 feet wide and have the necessarystrength to support the take-off of a fully-loaded freighteron a long-haul, non-stop intercontinental flight. Theoperational takeoff length of the runway at AllianceAirport is 9,600 feet. Stewart International Airport inNew York extended their runway to 12,000 feet to sup-port international operations. Huntsville InternationalAirport is extending one of their runways from 8,000 feetto 10,000 feet to accommodate international wide-bodycargo aircraft. Runways and taxiways also need to bedesigned with the necessary pavement strength tosupport very heavy aircraft. Boeing’s newest cargo plane,the 747-400F freighter, has a maximum takeoff weight of870,000 pounds.

One of air cargo’s most significant attributes is on-time delivery. A regional air-cargo airport should havethe facilities to provide continuing and reliable opera-tions during weather conditions that restrict visibilityduring takeoff and landing. These may include an airtraffic control tower (ATCT), an airport surveillance radar(ASR), and an appropriate instrument landing system(ILS) and associated landing light systems.

Facilities Required

Runways

Landing Aids


24

To receive, store, and distribute cargo, an airport musthave the apron space and cargo buildings necessary toaccommodate the cargo operators, customs service,brokers, and freight forwarders. These buildings may bebuilt by the airport authority and leased to the cargooperators, built by the operators themselves, or they maybe built and leased out by a third-party franchisee.

In order to function as a true regional air-cargo center,the airport must have convenient access to interstatehighways, preferably both north-south and east-west.Railheads are also desirable.

All those facilities necessary to support an intensivecargo operation need to be in place. These include, butare not limited to, modern high-capacity telephonetrunking and switching systems, environmentally ap-proved waste-disposal systems, and adequate electricpower and water for current and future needs.

Such a facility needs access to a readily available,reasonably priced, at least semi-skilled labor market. Thislabor market should be located relatively close andshould contain sufficient numbers to staff operations atleast in the near-term.

It is difficult to develop cost figures for a new airportwithout knowing something about the specific airportsite. Construction costs depend a great deal upon localconstruction and labor costs, land value, terrain, obstruc-tions, and other factors which can vary widely from siteto site.

Given the problems in developing cost estimateswithout knowing the specific site, it is useful to look atrecent examples of construction costs for runways, accessroads, and terminal facilities at airports around thecountry.

The Fort Worth Alliance Airport was completed in1990. According to the Perot Group, the runway, with anoperational takeoff length of 9600 feet, two paralleltaxiways, large terminal area apron, and the service andaccess roads, cost $39 million to construct, not including

Freight Storage andMovement

TransportationInfrastructure

Support Infrastructure

Labor

Cost Estimates

New Facilities


25

land costs. The runway pavement strength is designed tosupport an airplane gross weight of 870,000 pounds, themaximum takeoff weight of Boeing’s newest cargoplane, the 747-400F freighter. An Instrument LandingSystem (ILS), associated landing lights, and FAA towerwill add about $6 or $7 million. A highway interchangewith the nearby interstate highway cost about $6 millionwith the associated bridge, ramps, and frontage roads.(According to the Alabama Highway Department, amore complex interstate highway interchange being builtto improve access to Huntsville International Airport inAlabama will cost $17 million.) Access roads (six lane)beyond the immediate boundary of the airport andconnecting the airport with the interstate interchangeand other public highways cost about $8 million permile. Vital infrastructure support systems cost as follows:waste water treatment plant - $12.5 million; powersupply system - $10 million; telecommunications sys-tem - $3.4 million; water supply system - $4.5 million.

The construction cost for the necessary cargo terminalfacilities, including ramp space for the aircraft, buildingsfor the handling and temporary storage of cargo, andloading docks for the trucks that pick up and drop offcargo, must also be considered. The Huntsville Interna-tional Intermodal Center reports that a 50,000 square footcargo facility completed in April 1990 at HuntsvilleInternational Airport cost approximately $1.6 million. Amuch larger 300,000 square foot cargo complex at Wash-ington Dulles International Airport, currently scheduledfor completion in the fall of 1991, will cost nearly $21million, according to the Washington Airports TaskForce.

It is unlikely that any airport will be built to serveonly as a regional air-cargo center, so facilities will prob-ably be necessary to serve general aviation and othertraffic. In addition to the cargo terminal facilities, anairport would require at least the minimum operationsand passenger ramp and terminal facilities for generalaviation, business and corporate aircraft, and smallcommuter or air-carrier passenger operations. As anestimate of the cost for a small passenger terminal,construction of a new 640 foot long, 90 foot wide con-course at Huntsville International Airport will cost about$12 million, according to the Huntsville Madison CountyAirport Authority. This concourse will accommodate


26

10 jet aircraft parking positions and four commuteraircraft parking positions.

A November 18, 1990, newspaper article in the Ra-leigh, North Carolina, The News and Observer describesthe proposed development of an “air-cargo and manufac-turing complex” in North Carolina, much like the re-gional air-cargo center discussed above, with an adjacentindustrial park. The cost to develop the entire complex,with “2 two-mile-long runways… surrounded by manu-facturing plants and air-cargo firms,” is given as $250 to$400 million. This probably represents a fair assessmentof the cost to develop any such industrial airport facilityconsidering the acquisition of property; installation ofroad, sewer, water, electrical and other support infra-structure; and construction of an airfield that wouldsupport long-haul international flight operations.

Costs for converting and improving an existingairport vary so widely that citing such costs is hardlyinstructive. Some of the estimated costs only for runwayand taxiway extensions in various airports, which couldbe considered as regional air-cargo centers in the Wash-ington area, are given in Section V. To these costs must beadded all the expenses for infrastructure upgrades, roadaccess, and so forth. While it is unlikely that upgrades ofexisting facilities would be as costly as the construction ofnew facilities, the costs can be expected to be substantial.

Converting and Improvingan Existing Airport


27

Case Studies

Fort Worth AllianceAirport (AFW)

Fort Worth Alliance Airport (Figure 2) is the result ofa successful public/private partnership. A private invest-ment firm, the Perot Group, donated 418 acres as the siteof a new airport adjacent to a planned industrial park.The airport is owned by the City of Fort Worth, whichdeveloped it with over $40 million in Federal aid for airtraffic control and airport facilities. The project was alsosupported by Tarrant and Denton counties, the State ofTexas, the Perot Group, and another private investmentgroup. The entire project, including support facilities andvehicles, reportedly cost nearly $250 million.

Alliance is a multi-purpose reliever airport that wasdesigned and built specifically for the manufacturer,distributor, and cargo carrier. It is believed to be the firstpurpose-built industrial facility that incorporates anairport with an industrial park and attracts major avia-tion maintenance and manufacturing companies. Alli-ance can accommodate all types of aircraft, including theC-5 Galaxy and Boeing 747-400, in all weather condi-tions. Alliance has an FAA control tower and two Instru-ment Landing Systems (ILS) with Approach Light Sys-tems (ALS).

The Alliance facility opened just over 18 months afterground was broken. Some of the companies committedto locating at the airport are American Airlines with their$481 million aircraft maintenance facility (which isprojected to employ 2,500 initially, and more than 4,500upon completion), a Santa Fe Railway automobile un-loading/distribution facility, Ishida Aerospace Manufac-turing, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Manufactur-ers that locate at Alliance will have direct access to taxi-ways, as well as close proximity to rail and highways.

Alliance Airport opened in early 1990 and is alreadyoperating at the level that was forecasted for the 10-yearpoint (150,000 to 200,000 operations). Current operationsare mostly general aviation training and some practicelandings from Southwest Airlines. Alliance is, in thisway, relieving and complementing DFW Airport. How-ever, no all-cargo operators have planned operationsthere as of December 1990.


28

FIGURE 2 FORT WORTH ALLIANCE AIRPORT (AFW)

3416

5,000 ft.


29

Located in Newburgh/New Windsor, New York,Stewart International Airport (Figure 3) is a reliever andcargo airport that was converted from a surplus AirForce Base. Despite a major land acquisition and im-provement program sponsored by New York State, theairport has been slow to attract traffic. Although turnedover to the State in 1970, the airport was not well-devel-oped or marketed. In 1983, it was taken over by the StateDepartment of Transportation (NYDOT), which began tomarket the airport to serve commercial, cargo, andcorporate, as well as general aviation users. In addition,the NYDOT developed an industrial park on airportproperty to attract large businesses.

Prior to 1983, the State of New York invested $83million in land acquisition and runway/taxiway im-provements, and the Federal Government invested $2.2million for the runways and taxiways. Since 1983, theState of New York has invested an additional $35 million,primarily in developing the industrial park and otherairport lands. The Federal Government has invested $155million for the Air National Guard Base, $30 million forthe U.S. Postal Service Regional Mail Facility, and $15million for other improvements on the airport. As ofSeptember 1990, private investment on the airport to-talled nearly $100 million. Airport tenants were payingrents and payments in-lieu-of taxes of about $1 millionper year.

Stewart today is the site of several distribution cen-ters, production plants, and other commercial activities.Some of the tenants are Anheuser-Busch, AmericanExpress, the Air National Guard, and Cessna. Airborne,Consolidated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, FederalExpress, the U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Animal Import Center (largest in theworld) are also located at Stewart. Stewart is a regionaltrucking hub for Consolidated Freightways/Emeryoperations. The airport is a major employer in the area,accounting for about 4,300 jobs.

Stewart has a 12,000 foot runway with an instrumentlanding system and 9,960 acres of State-owned landavailable for airport development. It is the second largestairport in terms of area in the United States. A new200,000 square-foot cargo terminal is under constructionon 170 acres at the north end of the runway. Another250,000 square-foot facility is to be built on the south end.

Stewart InternationalAirport (SWF)


30

FIGURE 3 STEWART INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SWF)

27

34

16

GA Ramp

Passenger Terminal

Cargo Area

9

Army

Fire Station

5,000 ft.


31

Unlike Fort Worth/Alliance, Stewart is intended toattract passenger as well as cargo service. More than twomillion people live within a 45 minute drive fromStewart making it an ideal site for a satellite commercialservice airport for the New York City area. The passengerterminal can handle 500 passengers an hour, and theairport has a U.S. customs center for international flights.Passenger service is seen as a vital supplement to aircargo. According to an article by Terrence Laughlin,“Countdown to Takeoff,” in the September 1988 issue ofHudson Valley magazine, “Nothing will have a greatereffect on increasing Stewart’s cargo load than scheduledpassenger service. Today’s wide-body aircraft can carryhuge amounts of cargo in the belly…The drive for pas-senger service is, consequently, critical to the growth ofStewart’s cargo activity.” American Airlines beganscheduled service to Stewart in April 1990, and two othercarriers have followed, although a portion of the serviceis by smaller, regional aircraft.

It is arguable whether Stewart is a success as a re-gional air-cargo center. Despite the advantage of a largeinvestment by New York State and proximity to the NewYork metropolitan area, the airport has had relatively lowactivity historically, ranking 512 among U.S. airports in1988 with 4,171 passengers (on non-scheduled, charterflights) and accounting for less than 1 percent of thecargo carried from the region. Currently, there are only afew all-cargo operations each day. However, several ofStewart’s air-cargo tenants, including Airborne andConsolidated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, haveplans to expand their facilities and operations, anddevelop regional hubs there. In addition, since April,when scheduled passenger service began, throughDecember of 1990, Stewart enplaned 191,971 passengers,which will place Stewart among the 170 or 180 busiestU.S. airports in 1990.


32

FIGURE 4 HUNTSVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HSV)

(5000 FT.)

5,000 ft.

50

0 f

t.

8,0

00

ft.

1,5

oo f

t.36L

36R

18R

18L

Main Terminal

Air Cargo Apron


33

Huntsville, a regional commuter airport (Figure 4),and its associated industrial park were completed in1967. It has two 8,000 foot parallel runways with 5,000foot separation, permitting simultaneous independentILS operations. The east runway is to be extended to10,000 feet. With 432,000 passenger enplanements in1988, Huntsville ranked 110th among U.S. airports.

Huntsville International Airport has every intentionof becoming an intermodal cargo center for the south. Inthe early 1980’s, the Huntsville-Madison County AirportAuthority decided to go ahead with plans to pursue thecargo market in order to increase the utilization of theairport and create jobs. As a direct result of this decision,the International Intermodal Center was completed inDecember 1986, after a phased construction program thatcost about $13 million. Money for the project came fromFAA grants-in-aid under the Airport Improvement Pro-gram (AIP) and from grants by the Economic Develop-ment Administration and the Appalachian RegionalCommission, while about one–third of the funds wereraised through airport revenue bonds. The InternationalIntermodal Center provides services for receiving, trans-ferring, storing, and distributing containerized air, rail,and truck cargo. While most cargo is rail/truck traffic, anew air-cargo building was completed in April 1990 toaccommodate more air traffic. And, there are alreadyplans to expand this facility. Airborne Express, Consoli-dated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, BurlingtonNorthern, and Panalpina/Cargolux provide all-cargoservices at the airport. Huntsville handles about 8 millionpounds of cargo annually, with more that 85 percent ofthe cargo (by weight) carried by the all-cargo carriers.Also located at the airport is the Huntsville-MadisonCounty Jetplex Industrial Park, which, in addition tomany businesses and industries, houses U.S. Customs, aFree Trade Zone (FTZ), and an industrial bond financingoperation.

The Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority,which includes the Huntsville International Airport, theInternational Intermodal Center, and the Jetplex Indus-trial Park, is a self-sufficient entity. No tax dollars fromthe city, county, State, or Federal Governments are usedto support its operations. Grants and entitlements havebeen used for capital improvement projects, and theadditional funds required have been raised throughairport revenue bonds. In an economic impact studycompleted for the year 1988, the airport and businesses

Huntsville InternationalAirport (HSV)


34

and industries located on airport property accounted forover 5,200 jobs, with an additional 6,500 airport-relatedjobs located off the airport site itself. Since the study wascompleted, the Airport Authority estimates that thenumber of jobs has increased by 10 to 20 percent.


35

In analyzing cargo operations and the extent of theircontribution (or non-contribution) to delay, it is impor-tant to differentiate between two types of cargo opera-tions, belly-or combi-cargo and all-cargo. Belly cargocarried on passenger aircraft and cargo carried on combi-nation cargo/passenger (combi) aircraft are consideredpassenger operations because these operations willcontinue whether cargo is carried or not. Cargo opera-tions actually contribute to delay only if they are flownby all-cargo aircraft during peak hours. The approach ofthis study has been to consider only these all-cargooperations in the delay analysis. This has created prob-lems in data gathering, because many airports do notmaintain records of the number of flights by all-cargoaircraft.

Table 2 shows the U.S. airports with the greatestvolume of cargo traffic (in total freight tonnage) and alsoincludes selected airports with significant cargo opera-tions, such as the major and regional hubs for the inte-grated express carriers. The information in the table isbased on data from calendar year 1988, because that isthe latest year for which published data is available. Thetable also includes the percentage of all-cargo to totaloperations for the limited number of airports that re-ported all-cargo operations as a discrete category. Atthose relatively uncongested airports that are hubs forthe integrated express cargo carriers, all-cargo operationsrepresent only about 15 percent of the total aircraftoperations. At other airports, all-cargo operations arenormally less than 4 percent of the total. Even at John F.Kennedy International Airport, which is number one intotal cargo tonnage, all-cargo operations are only 6 per-cent of total operations.

Table 3 shows the airports in the U.S. with the highestpercentage of operations delayed 15 minutes or more.The three New York area airports are among the top fiveairports in terms of aircraft delay. Of the Washington,D.C., area airports, only Washington National appears onthe table. (And, as discussed below, Washington Nationaldoes not have any all-cargo operations.)

Table 4 compares the statistics from Tables 2 and 3. Itis interesting to note that, of the top ten airports with thehighest percentage of delay, 6 are in the top ten in cargo

IV — Analysis of Air-Cargo Operations

Cargo Operations andTheir Contribution toDelay


36

TABL

E 2

ENPL

AN

ED A

ND

DEP

LAN

ED F

REIG

HT

AN

D M

AIL

, IN

CLU

DIN

G E

XPR

ESS

— Y

EAR

END

ING

12/

31/8

8

Tota

l Fre

ight

Tota

l Fre

ight

Tota

lAl

l Car

go%

Car

go

IDAi

rpor

tRa

nked

by

Carg

o To

nnag

eM

etric

Ton

sSh

ort T

ons

Ops

Ops

Ops

JFK

NY-

John

F. K

enne

dy In

tl#1

in to

tal c

argo

enp

lane

d/de

plan

ed w

orld

wid

e1,

299,

104

1,43

1,61

330

4,49

018

,343

6.02

%

LAX

Los A

ngel

es In

tl#4

in to

tal o

pera

tions

& c

argo

enp

lane

d/de

plan

ed w

orld

wid

e1,

099,

522

1,21

1,67

362

2,42

7

ORD

Chic

ago-

O’H

are

Intl

#1 in

ope

ratio

ns &

#5

in to

tal c

argo

wor

ldw

ide

906,

928

999,

435

803,

453

15,3

561.

91%

MIA

Mia

mi I

ntl

#6 in

tota

l car

go e

npla

ned/

depl

aned

wor

ldw

ide

740,

280

815,

789

364,

476

54,6

7015

.00%

SDF

Sand

iford

Fie

ld, K

YU

PS h

ub a

nd #

9 in

tota

l car

go e

npla

ned/

depl

aned

wor

ldw

ide

701,

502

773,

055

159,

958

25,4

7615

.93%

ATL

Atla

nta-

Har

tsfie

ld In

tl#2

in o

pera

tions

& #

12 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e59

8,36

565

9,39

877

8,77

9

SFO

San

Fran

cisc

o In

tl#8

in o

pera

tions

& #

13 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e57

5,24

963

3,92

445

2,00

5

DAY

Day

ton

Intl,

OH

Emer

y hu

b, #

16 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e50

0,03

155

1,03

421

4,39

132

,488

15.1

5%

EWR

New

Yor

k-N

ewar

k In

tlFe

d Ex

rgnl

hub

, #18

in to

tal c

argo

wor

ldw

ide

454,

681

501,

058

370,

331

12,8

573.

47%

BOS

Bost

on-L

ogan

Intl,

MA

#11

in o

pera

tions

& #

21 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e32

0,15

635

2,81

241

4,96

89,

001

2.17

%

FWA

Ft W

ayne

Mun

i, IN

Burli

ngto

n Ai

r Exp

hub

, #22

in to

tal c

argo

wor

ldw

ide

318,

982

351,

518

121,

398

14,1

2811

.64%

DEN

Den

ver-S

tapl

eton

Intl

#6 in

ope

ratio

ns &

#25

in to

tal c

argo

wor

ldw

ide

290,

387

320,

006

503,

095

ON

TO

ntar

io In

tl, C

AU

PS rg

nl h

ub, #

28 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e25

9,77

528

6,27

213

8,55

4

IND

Indi

anap

olis

Intl

CF A

ir Fr

eigh

t, Ar

row

, Fed

Ex rg

nl h

ub, #

31 in

wor

ld c

argo

236,

242

260,

339

220,

234

SEA

Seat

tle-T

acom

a In

tlAi

r-Sea

-Lan

d in

term

odal

cen

ter

227,

200

250,

374

315,

944

PHL

Phila

delp

hia

Intl

UPS

rgnl

hub

, #12

in o

pera

tions

& #

33 in

car

go w

orld

wid

e21

9,53

524

1,92

841

4,90

2

DFW

Dal

las-

Ft W

orth

Intl

#4 in

tota

l ope

ratio

ns w

orld

wid

e20

1,60

122

2,16

467

5,06

0

OAK

Met

ro. O

akla

nd In

tl, C

AFe

d Ex

/UPS

rgnl

hub

s, #1

5 in

ope

ratio

ns &

#38

in c

argo

189,

424

208,

745

400,

188

19,7

864.

94%

IAD

Was

hing

ton-

Dul

les

Intl

Maj

or W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C, a

rea

airp

ort

166,

443

183,

420

231,

113

7,06

43.

06%

BWI

Balti

mor

e-W

ashi

ngto

n In

tlM

ajor

Was

hing

ton,

DC,

are

a ai

rpor

t14

5,74

716

0,61

330

7,87

98,

100

2.63

%

CVG

Gre

ater

Cin

cinn

ati I

ntl

DH

L hu

b, #

40 in

ope

ratio

ns &

#48

in c

argo

wor

ldw

ide

143,

696

158,

353

272,

695

15,4

845.

68%

ILN

Wilm

ingt

on, O

HAi

rbor

ne h

ub, p

rivat

ely

owne

d10

9,62

312

0,80

521

,894

b)21

,675

99.0

0%

LGA

New

Yor

k-La

Gua

rdia

Maj

or N

ew Y

ork

area

airp

ort

106,

188

117,

019

362,

072

359

0.10

%

MEM

Mem

phis

Intl

Mai

n Fe

d Ex

hub

, #24

in o

pera

tions

& #

81 in

tota

l car

go w

orld

wid

e64

,775

71,3

8235

3,09

154

,706

15.4

9%

DCA

Was

hing

ton

Nat

iona

lM

ajor

Was

hing

ton,

DC,

are

a ai

rpor

t64

,390

70,9

5832

2,40

3

LCK

Rick

enba

cker

AN

GB,

OH

Fed

Ex la

rge-

carg

o hu

b, fo

rmer

ly th

e Fl

ying

Tig

ers h

ub29

,824

32,8

66a)

44,0

0011

,000

25.0

0%

SWF

Stew

art I

ntl,

NY

CF/E

mer

y &

Airb

orne

regi

onal

hub

s; pl

anne

d as

NYC

relie

ver

18,0

4119

,881

81,7

973,

223

3.94

%

BGR

Bang

or In

tl, M

EPl

anne

d as

eas

t coa

st c

argo

relie

ver

527

581

128,

436

272

0.21

%

a) E

npla

ned

tons

onl

y.b)

Est

imat

e pr

ovid

ed b

y Ai

rbor

ne T

raffi

c M

anag

emen

t; FA

A/RS

PA A

irpor

t Act

ivity

Sta

tistic

s of C

ertif

icat

ed R

oute

Air

Carri

ers.


37

tonnage. Looking only at this relationship, one mightassume that delays could be reduced by relocating thecargo activity. However, as will be explained in thefollowing paragraphs, this is not necessarily true.

Percentage

Airports 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Newark International 9.2 13.8 6.5 6.7 10.3

Chicago O’Hare International 4.1 5.6 4.6 5.5 10.2

New York La Guardia 9.2 8.9 6.5 5.2 9.4

San Francisco International 3.4 5.3 6.2 6.3 7.0

New York Kennedy 6.1 7.0 6.5 5.3 6.0

Boston Logan International 6.1 7.3 4.8 3.7 3.0

St. Louis-Lambert International 4.6 4.4 1.6 2.7 2.8

Denver Stapleton International 4.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 2.6

Dallas-Fort Worth International 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.4 2.4

Atlanta Hartsfield International 6.2 6.5 6.2 3.5 2.3

Philadelphia International 0.9 2.0 3.7 2.6 2.0

Detroit Metropolitan 2.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6

Los Angeles International 0.8 1.1 3.3 1.7 1.0

Washington National 2.0 3.2 2.3 1.5 1.0

Minneapolis International 2.2 3.9 0.7 1.4 0.7

Houston International 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7

Pittsburgh International 1.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6

Cleveland Hopkins International 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2

Miami International 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2

Kansas City International 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2

Fort Lauderdale International 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Las Vegas McCarran International 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Source: ATOMS Data

TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE OF OPERATIONS DELAYED 15 MINUTES OR MORE


38

TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF RANKINGS IN DELAY AND CARGO TONNAGE

Delay Ranking Airport Cargo Tonnage

1 Newark International 92 San Francisco International 73 Chicago O’Hare 34 New York John F. Kennedy 15 New York La Guardia 30

6 Boston Logan 107 Denver Stapleton 138 Atlanta Hartsfield 69 St. Louis International 3510 Philadelphia International 18


39

Analysis of All-CargoOperations at New York-Area Airports

General Tables 7 through 12 (see Appendix A) tabulate thenumber of cargo operations, general aviation operations,and all other aircraft operations, broken down by hour,for the three airports in the New York area for a typicaltwo-day period. These hourly traffic figures were devel-oped based on the Official Airline Guide and historicaldata provided by the FAA Central Flow Control Facility.In order to more easily visualize the actual impact byhour of all-cargo operations, Figures 5, 7, and 9 comparethese operations to the airports’ nominal hourly capacity,under both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flightrules (IFR) conditions. The nominal airport capacityfigures were obtained from the National Plan for Inte-grated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database maintained bythe FAA. They are intended only as a gauge for compari-son against current hourly traffic figures. An airport’sactual capacity varies during the day and depends on anumber of factors, including the runway configurationthat is being used and the mix of aircraft types taking offand landing.


40

* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) databasemaintained by the FAA.

FIGURE 5 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

NOVEMBER 28, 1990

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

All other Operations

GA Operations

Cargo Operations

VFR Hourly Capacity *

IFR Hourly Capacity *

NOVEMBER 29, 1990


41

John F. Kennedy International Airport (Figure 6)exceeded its nominal VFR capacity of 82 operations perhour during three hours on 11/28/90 and during onehour on 11/29/90 (Figure 5). Cargo operations do con-tribute to exceeding capacity in those hours, but, as thegraph shows, this contribution is slight. Just over 2 per-cent of the total 90 operations at the busiest hour are dueto all-cargo aircraft, about the same percentage as generalaviation. This means that, at the busiest hour, there wereonly two all-cargo operations. Of the four times JFK’s VFRcapacity was exceeded, there was a total of only three all-cargo operations. About 90 percent of the cargo opera-tions are scheduled for hours when the airport has amplecapacity in good weather and bad.

John F. KennedyInternational Airport (JFK)

INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL

TERMINAL

CONTROL

TOWER

NORTH

PASSENGER

TERMINAL

13R

13L

31L

31R

4R

22L

22R

4L

(5000 FT.)

FIGURE 6 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (JFK)


42

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

FIGURE 7 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT LA GUARDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOVEMBER 28, 1990

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)


GA Operations

Cargo Operations



NOVEMBER 29, 1990



43

LaGuardia Airport (Figure 8) exceeded its VFR capac-ity of 62 operations per hour six times on 11/28/90 andeight times on 11/29/90 (Figure 7). Since LaGuardia hasonly one all-cargo flight per day, at 0600, cargo opera-tions were not a factor in adding to congestion.

LaGuardia Airport (LGA)

4

13

22

31

( 5000 FT )

TERMINALBUILDING

AIR CARRIER MAINTENANCE& BASE FACILITIES

AIR CARRIER MAINTENANCE& BASE FACILITIES

GA MAINTENANCE& BASE FACILITIES

GA TERMINAL

Closed Runway

FIGURE 8 LA GUARDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LGA)


44

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)


GA Operations

Cargo Operations



FIGURE 9 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOVEMBER 28, 1990

NOVEMBER 29, 1990



45

Newark International (Figure 10) exceeded its VFRcapacity of 81 operations per hour three times on11/28/90 and four times on 11/20/90 (Figure 9). All-cargo operations contribute to exceeding capacity, butthis contribution averages about three percent, less thangeneral aviation. At the busiest hour (1700, 11/28/90),there were only two all-cargo operations. At their worst(0900, 11/29/90), all-cargo operations represented 6 per-cent of the total operations, or 5 of 84 operations. About60 percent of the cargo operations at Newark are sched-uled for hours when there is ample capacity in goodweather and bad.

Newark International (EWR)

FIGURE 10 NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (EWR)

TERMINALS

CONTROL TOWER

NORTHTERMINALBUILDING

GAPARKING

4L

4R

22L

22R

29

11

5,000 FT.


46

In summary, air-cargo operations are only a smallpart of the delay and congestion problem at JFK andNewark airports. Any benefits in terms of delay-costsavings that would result from diverting all-cargo opera-tions to another airport would probably be far out-weighed by the cost of duplicating the tremendous cargoinfrastructure that has developed there. A large part ofthe cargo is carried in the baggage holds of airliners andwill remain at the busiest passenger airports. Several ofthe cargo station managers interviewed pointed out thatNew York remains the center of many businesses andindustries that depend on air cargo, like the garmentindustry and the diamond markets. Cargo operationsgenerate essential revenue at airports that must remainopen 24 hours a day during the hours that air-carrierpassenger operations are at their lowest levels. BothNewark and JFK are expanding their ground-side cargofacilities in order to meet the future demand of the in-creased cargo operations they expect and are activelyseeking.


47

V — Air-cargo Operations in theWashington, D.C., Area

Description of WashingtonAir-Cargo Operations

Washington DullesInternational Airport (IAD) The Dulles catchment area (from Pennsylvania to

North Carolina) generated over $5.8 billion in air exportsin 1989, according to a Virginia Department of Aviationstudy. Dulles (Figure 11) has grown to become the sev-enth largest U.S. gateway airport for nonstop passengerflights to Europe. This increase in nonstop flights leads toan increase in passenger travel, and more importantly, anincrease in cargo capacity and revenues for the region.

With the transfer of Washington Dulles and Washing-ton National Airports from the Federal Government tothe Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987,a $1.5 billion capital development program was initiated.The $800 million program at Dulles includes a newinternational arrivals building, terminal expansion, andparking and taxiway improvements. Ultimately, twoadditional runways are planned for construction. Withthese improvements, the Authority estimates that Dulleswill be able to handle up to 700,000 takeoffs and landingsper year, making it one of the busiest airports in theworld. Passenger load will have increased from 500,000passengers in 1962 to 20 million by the year 2000. Whiledomestic passenger travel increased 7.3 percent at Dulleslast year, international travel jumped nearly 15 percent —double the national average. Since cargo traffic followspassenger traffic, the Washington area can expect aninfusion of capital from increased trade and investments.

According to a recent study by the Virginia Depart-ment of Aviation, Dulles air cargo has averaged a 24 per-cent annual growth in cargo tonnage since 1982, makingit the fastest-growing East Coast gateway for air freight.The airport currently handles about 370 million poundsannually. The study projects continued growth for do-mestic air freight due to U.S economic strength, new airfreight services, and the growth of facsimile and otherelectronic communications. The international air freight


48

FIGURE 11 WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (IAD)

FIGURE 12 WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT (DCA)

19R

19L

12 11L

29R

30

1L

1R

CONTROL TOWER

MIDFIELD TERMINAL RAMP

3500 ft

3000

- 43

00 ft

W1

W1

W2

W3

W5

W7

W4

W6

W8

W8

R6

W1

W2

N1

N1

N5

N3

N4

N2

E1

E1

E1

E2

T3

T4

T5

T1 T1T2

T2

K

N

L

P

E10

E9

E3E5

E7

E4E6

E8

5,000 FT

336

33

21

18

15

INTERIM TERMINAL

GAMAINTENANCE

GA/COMMUTER TERMINAL

NORTHTERMINAL

TERMINALBUILDING

SOUTH HANGERS

GA PARKING

GAPARKING


49

business is expected to grow at a rate equal to or exceed-ing the last five years due to expansion in world trade,new international routes from Dulles, and the ability ofcombination, or combi carriers (passenger and freight) tocompete effectively with freight-only carriers.

By the fall of 1991, Cargo Building #5 at Dulles will becompleted. This building will make a radical difference,tripling the airport’s capacity to handle air freight. It willinclude complete, state-of-the-art services, storage andoffice space, refrigeration for perishable goods, loadingdocks for eight large aircraft, and a staging area for trucksto expedite loading and unloading. Included will be acentralized customs facility with a drive-through designto expedite cargo transfer.

Washington Dulles is actively seeking more cargotraffic. According to the former president of the Washing-ton Area Cargo Authority (WACA), “Dulles is a major hubwith a very significant untapped cargo potential.” And,the president of the Washington Airports Task Force saysthat “Collectively we’re going to make Dulles a majorworld cargo center. There is a need for a major mid-Atlantic cargo hub, and Dulles is a natural to fulfill thatfunction.”

According to the Task Force, Dulles is operating nearthe maximum capacity of its current cargo facilities, but,when the new facility is ready in the fall of 1991, therewill be room to more than triple its cargo operations. (Itshould be noted that at Dulles the factor that determinescargo capacity is the warehouse/cargo sorting spaceavailable, not the runway or airspace capacity.) All-cargooperations at Dulles average 50 to 60 per week. Most all-cargo operations are conducted during off-peak hours.

Air-cargo facilities at National (Figure 12) includethree buildings with more than 60,000 square feet ofoffice, cargo, parking and storage space. The largestfacilities are operated by United Airlines. Other airfreight operations at the airport are conducted by Ameri-can, Northwest, TWA, Delta, USAir and Eastern. U.S.Postal Service mail is the predominant cargo item leavingfrom and arriving at National, averaging over 8 millionpounds a month. All the cargo carried from National iseither belly or combi cargo. There are no all-cargo opera-tions at this airport. Only one all-cargo flight was re-corded in 1988.

Washington NationalAirport (DCA)


50

15R

33L

22

4

28

10

Passenger Terminal

Cargo Area

5,000 ft.

350

0 ft

.

15L

33R

FIGURE 13 BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI)


51

Baltimore/Washington International Airport (Fig-ure 13) reported an increase last year of more than 2 per-cent in air-cargo volume, handling 244 million pounds.The airport has 330,000 square feet of cargo facilities onmore than 30 acres.

BWI is also actively seeking additional cargo traffic.According to the manager of cargo development at BWI,the airport has always been one of the Nation’s mostprogressive airports in the area of cargo. The airport’sproximity to Interstate 95 and to the Port of Baltimore areadvantageous to both shippers and consignees. About10 percent of the cargo handled by BWI is air/sea mer-chandise, utilizing both airline and ship transportation.This special service meets the speed and handling re-quirements of shipments such as machine and air parts.

New to BWI this year is KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,which uses the new, extended-range Boeing 747-400. Thisjumbo jet can carry 295 passengers and crew-members and up to 70,000 pounds of freight in a combiconfiguration. The ability to haul cargo in the rear of themain deck of the aircraft allows the plane to carry over-size items not suitable for other aircraft (specifically thosewhich depend upon belly cargo). Of interest is the inten-tion of KLM to expand its capacity to export Americanlivestock.

At present, according to the airport’s Planning Office,BWI is operating at about 90 percent of the capacity oftheir existing cargo facilities, and they are planning alarge expansion of air freight facilities which will providemore direct ramp access for all-cargo aircraft. There arean average of 150 all-cargo operations at BWI each week.These all-cargo operations are ordinarily scheduled atoff-peak hours.

Baltimore/WashingtonInternational Airport (BWI)


52

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

20

40

60

80

100

120

140O

pera

tions

per

Hou

r

Time of Day (hours)

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)


GA Operations

Cargo Operations



FIGURE 14 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT WASHINGTON DULLESINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOVEMBER 28, 1990

NOVEMBER 29, 1990



53

Effects of Air-CargoOperations on Congestionand Delay

General Tables 13 through 18 (see Appendix A) tabulate thenumber of cargo operations, general aviation operations,and all other aircraft operations, broken down by hour,for the three airports in the Washington, D.C., area for atypical two-day period. Again, to more easily visualizethe actual impact by hour of all-cargo operations, Figures14 through 16 compare these operations to the airports’nominal capacity, under both VFR and IFR conditions. Air-cargo operations do not contribute significantly to delayat the Washington, D.C., area airports. All-cargo opera-tions are scheduled predominantly at off-peak hours atboth Dulles and Baltimore/Washington, between 2200hours and 0800 hours at Dulles and 2100 hours and 0800at Baltimore/Washington. No all-cargo operations areconducted at National.

World air-cargo operations are projected to double bythe end of the century, according to Boeing’s World AirCargo Forecast. Even at these levels, the airports in theWashington area will still be operating under their capac-ity for cargo. And, there will continue to be a great deal ofunused capacity at Dulles and Baltimore/WashingtonInternational, where the airport authorities are activelyseeking more cargo operations.

Only once in the observed two-day period (Figure 14)do hourly operations at Dulles even exceed its ratedcapacity of 87 operations per hour for IFR conditions(which were not in effect on the date indicated). This wasduring the 1600 hour, 11/28/90, when 94 flights arrivedor departed. No all-cargo operations were recordedduring this period. However, there were 25 generalaviation flights in that hour. Dulles’ capacity under VFRconditions is 119 operations per hour.

According to the Washington Dulles InternationalAirport Capacity Plan, October 1990, produced by the FAAand the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, anannual demand of 450,000 operations represents a dailydemand of 1,406 operations and a peak-hour demand of117 operations. (These figures were generated by a capac-ity/delay computer model to support the CapacityPlan.)

Washington DullesInternational Airport (IAD)


54

TABLE 5 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Year Total All-cargoActual Operations Operations

1985 198,0001988 241,000

Forecast Assuming the percentage of all-cargo operationsreported in 1988 (Table 2) remains constant at 3.06%

1990 236,000 8,0481995 408,000 12,4852000 452,000 13,3822005 490,000 14,994

Source for actual and forecast total operations: FAA-APO-90-6, Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005, July 1990.


55

The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005 esti-mates that Dulles will reach this level of operations aboutthe year 2000. For Dulles, this peak-hour demand of 117operations is still below the VFR hourly capacity of 119operations (see Figures 12a and 12b) of the presentairport configuration. Current plans for Dulles includethe construction of one, and perhaps two, additionalrunways before FY 2000. This, and other capacity im-provements planned for Dulles, will further increase theairport’s capacity.

By 2005, total operations at Dulles are projected toreach 490,000 per year (see Table 5). The FAA does notforecast cargo operations, but, assuming that they remaina relatively constant percentage of total operations, all-cargo aircraft operations will more than double by 2005,from just over 7,000 operations per year in 1988 to nearly15,000 per year. This constant percentage may result in ahigh estimate, because most of Dulles’ growth in cargohas been from belly and combi cargo, and this trend isexpected to continue. On the other hand, the new cargofacilities scheduled for completion in the fall of 1991 mayattract enough all-cargo carriers to reach 15,000 annualoperations by 2005. In any case, 15,000 all-cargo opera-tions per year represents approximately 41 operationsper day, or an average of just under two per hour. Sinceall-cargo aircraft are expected to continue to operatepredominantly at night, or during off-peak hours, thislevel of daily operations should not become a significantfactor in delay and congestion at Dulles.


56

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)


GA Operations

Cargo Operations




FIGURE 15 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT WASHINGTON NATIONALINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOVEMBER 28, 1990

NOVEMBER 29, 1990


57

Washington National Airport exceeded its IFR capac-ity of 60 operations per hour four times on 11/28/90 andsix times on 11/29/90 (Figure 15). Cargo operations werenot a factor, since National has no all-cargo flights, but itis affected by general aviation. National’s capacity underVFR conditions is 73 operations per hour.

Baltimore/Washington International Airport ex-ceeded its hourly capacity of 70 operations for IFR condi-tions only once, during the 1600 hour, 11/29/90 (Fig-ure 16). There were 71 flights arriving or departing inthat hour, with no all-cargo operations and 8 generalaviation flights. BWI’s capacity under VFR conditions is125 operations per hour.

According to the FAA’s Terminal Area ForecastsFY 1990-2005, BWI will reach an annual demand of425,000 operations about the year 2000 (see Table 6). Thisrepresents a 40 percent increase in annual operationsover 1988 and a 34 percent increase over 1990. But, with apeak hour demand of only 73 operations on a typicalday, November 29, 1990, the airport can absorb thisincrease within its present configuration, which has a VFRhourly capacity of 125 operations. Like Dulles, Balti-more/Washington International has plans for the con-struction of one additional runway before the year 2000which will further increase the airport’s capacity.

By 2005, total operations at BWI will have reached479,000 per year (see Table 6). Following the same as-sumption used with Dulles, that all-cargo operations willremain a relatively constant percentage of total opera-tions, all-cargo flights to and from BWI will increase byabout 55 percent by 2005, from 8,100 operations per yearto nearly 12,500 per year. This forecast level of operations,based on a steady rate of annual increase, is actuallyhigher than the forecast provided by the Planning Officeat BWI. Based on a decreasing percentage of all-cargo tototal operations, BWI expects an annual level of all-cargooperations of 10,100 by 2005. But, even at 12,500 opera-tions per year, all-cargo operations will represent only 35operations per day, or an average of less than 1.5 perhour. Again, since all-cargo aircraft are expected tocontinue operating predominantly at night or during off-peak hours, this level of daily operations should notbecome a significant factor in delay and congestion atBWI.

Washington NationalAirport (DCA)

Baltimore/WashingtonInternational Airport (BWI)


58


FIGURE 16 TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT BALTIMORE WASHINGTONINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 230

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ope

ratio

ns p

er H

our

Time of Day (hours)


GA Operations

Cargo Operations



NOVEMBER 28, 1990

NOVEMBER 29, 1990


59

TABLE 6 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Year Total All-cargoActual Operations Operations

1985 284,0001988 304,000

Forecast Assuming the percentage of all-cargo operationsreported in 1988 (Table 2) remains constant at 2.6%

1990 318,000 8,2681995 370,000 9,6202000 425,000 11,0502005 479,000 12,454

Source for actual and forecast total operations: FAA-APO-90-6, Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005, July 1990.

Several potential locations for a regional air-cargofacility in the Washington, D.C., area were investigated.One of the criteria used in searching for alternatives wasthat any site selected should be outside the terminal areaairspace of the current three major airports in the Wash-ington area (National, Dulles, and BWI). This was done toavoid the possibility of interference with and delay ofaircraft on approach to or departure from these airports.

Tipton (Figure 17) is a part of an approximately 9,000acre portion of Fort Meade that has been earmarked forclosure. However, current plans are to turn about 7,000acres of the site over to the Park Service, sell about 1,000acres to private developers for residential and commer-cial uses, and develop approximately 400 acres thatinclude the airfield into a regional general aviationfacility. The Army has used the airfield to support heli-copter and light aircraft operations. Given the currentplans for the land surrounding the airfield and theproximity of the National Security Agency and otherparts of Fort Meade which will not be closed, there is notsufficient land available at Tipton to support a regional

Alternative Locations forWashington, D.C., RegionalAir-Cargo Facility

Tipton Army Airfield (FME)Fort Meade, MD


60

FIGURE 17 TIPTON ARMY AIRFIELD (FME)

FIGURE 19 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT (W16)

32

14

FIGURE 18 MARTIN STATE AIRPORT (MTN)

14

32

10

28


61

Martin State Airport (MTN)

Winchester Regional Airport(W16)

air-cargo facility that could accommodate internationalflight operations. In addition, a portion of the airfieldfloods about twice a year. Finally, Tipton is located be-tween National and BWI airports, within the proposedTri-Area TCA, and immediately adjacent to the proposedVFR flyway through the new TCA.

Martin State (Figure 18) is located northeast of Balti-more on Chesapeake Bay. Its only runway is nearly 7,000feet long, but there is very little room for expansion.Chesapeake Bay is at the south end of the runway, and ahighway and rail line are located at the north end. Thearea around the airfield is already developed, so thatnoise restrictions would likely become a factor. Noiseabatement procedures are already in effect. Finally, theairfield itself is located in a 100-year flood plain, and theChesapeake Bay end of the airfield is a part of the wet-lands under the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake BayCritical Area Commission. Efforts to develop MartinState would likely run into environmental hurdles thatwould require years of litigation.

Winchester Regional Airport (Figure 19), in north-western Virginia, is in the middle of a capital improve-ment program that will include a 1,000 foot runway andtaxiway extension, for a total runway length of 5,400 feet.This will include upgraded lighting and navigation aidsto improve instrument approaches for all-weather opera-tions, a new general aviation passenger terminal, andnew hangar, parking, and service area. The AirportAuthority sees the airport as a major corporate airport,supporting corporate and business aircraft (includingjet), as well as recreational and general aviation aircraft. Acommuter airline has expressed an interest in operatingin and out of Winchester, and the airport could easilysupport a light cargo operation. However, although thereis room for additional runway extension and widening,the downtown area of Winchester is only two miles fromthe end of the runway in the direction over which aircraftnormally depart. Noise restrictions could become aproblem, particularly for large jet cargo aircraft conduct-ing operations at night.


62

FIGURE 20 MARTINSBURG EASTERN WVA REGIONAL AIRPORT (MRB)

FIGURE 21 HAGERSTOWN WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT (HGR)

9

27

Control Tower

Hangers

Fire Station

Hangers

20

2

Army Hanger

8

26

17

35


63

Martinsburg Airport (Figure 20) is located to thesouth of Martinsburg, West Virginia, just off U.S. Route11, near Interstate Highway 81. It is 35 air miles fromWashington Dulles International Airport, 80 miles fromWashington, D.C., and 90 miles from Baltimore. Theexisting east-west runway is approximately 7,000 feetlong and is ILS-equipped. The north-south runway is5,000 feet long. Because U.S. Route 11 borders part of thewest side of the airport, the west end of the east-westrunway could only be extended about 500 feet withoutrelocating the highway. However, there is ample landavailable to the east, permitting the extension of therunway to 11,000 feet. Martinsburg is one of the airportsstill under consideration for a large United Airlinesmaintenance facility.

The airport authority has learned that it would costabout $2.0 million for every 1,000 feet of runway andtaxiway extension. Thus, extending the east-west run-way and parallel taxiway from 7,000 to 11,000 feet wouldcost $8 to $10 million. The airport authority is developingan adjacent business and industrial park. In the spring of1991, the State of West Virginia plans to begin construc-tion of a freeway interchange from Interstate 81 that willprovide improved access to the business park and theairport. According to the airport authority, any necessarycargo facilities could be funded and built by the city andcounty, and then provided to the cargo operators on a 25-to 30-year leaseback. Alternatively, they could be built bythe cargo operators themselves. For international opera-tions, free customs service is available, with prior notice,from the customs office at the Virginia Inland Port lo-cated about 30 miles away near Front Royal, Virginia.

Hagerstown Airport (Figure 21) is located north ofHagerstown, Maryland, approximately 75 miles fromBaltimore, Maryland, and 75 miles from Washington,D.C. The existing east-west runway is 5,450 feet long,and the north-south runway is about 3,500 feet long. Theeast-west runway is ILS-equipped.

The airport authority has already acquired about 95acres of land east of the east-west runway, and the Air-port Master Plan includes a phased series of extensionsto the runway and taxiway on this land. Extending therunway to 6,100 feet would cost about $3.5 million.Going beyond this length will require a fairly extensiveproject to tunnel U.S. Highway 11 under the runway.

Martinsburg Eastern WestVirginia Regional Airport(MRB)

Hagerstown WashingtonCounty Regional Airport(HGR)


64

Extending the runway to 7,000 feet would cost about $23million, and an additional 1,000 feet would bring the totalto $45 million. There is additional farm land availablethat could be acquired to further extend the runway andtaxiway to 10,000 – 12,000 feet. Runway costs for thisadditional length would not be quite so expensive, sincethe land would not require as much fill and grading. Theairport authority is also developing an adjacent businessand industrial park, part of which would provide anexcellent site for cargo facilities and taxiway access to therunway.


65

VI — FindingsA. It is appropriate that cargo operations

be collocated with passenger opera-tions at the busier metropolitan areaairports. More than half of all aircargo is carried as belly cargo onscheduled passenger aircraft. To tryto isolate cargo from passengeroperations would be difficult andinefficient.

B. All-cargo aircraft operations add littleto air traffic congestion and delay atbusy air-carrier airports. All-cargoflights represent a relatively smallpercentage of the take-offs andlandings at these airports, and mostoccur at night or during other off-peak hours.

C. Relocating cargo operations to sepa-rate regional air-cargo airports wouldbe expensive and have a negligibleeffect on efforts to improve capacityat major metropolitan area airports.The FAA and the aviation industrymust continue to pursue other alter-natives to enhance the capacity of thenational airport system.

D. Cargo operations require the sameexpensive airport facilities, includinglong runways, highway access, andsupport infrastructure, as passengeroperations. These facilities are best

shared. Many major airports activelyencourage cargo, because it generatesairport revenue and additional jobs.

E. There are no models of all-cargo, orprimarily cargo, airports that could beconsidered successful at this time, otherthan the regional and hub sorting facili-ties of the integrated and small-package,express carriers. Because of the inte-grated, “self-feeding” nature of theiroperations, these carriers are not asdependent upon any one location.

F. Multi-use reliever airports, such as FortWorth Alliance in Texas or HuntsvilleInternational in Alabama, are more likelyto be useful and successful than single-purpose, air-cargo airports. StewartInternational in New York has a muchbetter chance to become a successfulairport now that several air carriers havebegun scheduled passenger servicethere.

G. Joint-use agreements at military airfieldsor conversion of surplus, former militaryairfields may offer some of the best, least-cost alternatives for multi-use relieverairports. Military runways are usuallylong enough and strong enough tosupport large jet aircraft, and most of thenecessary infrastructure is already inplace.


66


67

Appendix A — Tabulation of HourlyOperations

Table 7 Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .............................68

Table 8 Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/29/90 .............................69

Table 9 Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/28/90 ................................................70

Table 10 Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/29/90 ................................................71

Table 11 Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/28/90 .............................72

Table 12 Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/29/90 .............................73

Table 13 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/28/90 ..............................74

Table 14 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ..............................75

Table 15 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/28/90...................................76

Table 16 Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/29/90...................................77

Table 17 Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 ...................78

Table 18 Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ........................79


68

TABL

E 7

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT JO

HN

F. K

ENN

EDY

INTE

RNAT

ION

AL

AIR

PORT

ON

11/

28/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

10

01

00

11

10

12

50.0

0%0

0100

10

01

10

01

20

02

100.

00%

0

0200

10

12

00

00

10

12

50.0

0%0

0300

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0400

00

00

10

12

10

12

50.0

0%0

0500

30

58

20

02

50

510

50.0

0%0

0600

40

812

11

24

51

1016

31.2

5%6.

25%

0700

20

1214

21

1619

41

2833

12.1

2%3.

03%

0800

02

1517

20

1921

22

3438

5.26

%5.

26%

0900

12

69

10

3233

22

3842

4.76

%4.

76%

1000

00

55

03

2225

03

2730

010

.00%

1100

01

1213

10

78

11

1921

4.76

%4.

76%

1200

03

69

03

1619

06

2228

021

.43%

1300

00

1414

03

710

03

2124

012

.50%

1400

02

2931

01

89

03

3740

07.

50%

1500

10

5758

20

1113

30

6871

4.23

%0

1600

21

4851

01

3839

22

8690

2.22

%2.

22%

1700

12

4144

00

4545

12

8689

1.12

%2.

25%

1800

02

2729

00

5656

02

8385

02.

35%

1900

00

2020

10

2829

10

4849

2.04

%0

2000

00

2020

00

1313

00

3333

00

2100

00

1515

20

1113

20

2628

7.14

%0

2200

20

79

20

1820

40

2529

13.7

9%0

2300

00

55

20

24

20

79

22.2

2%0

1915

354

388

2013

353

386

3928

707

774

5.04

%3.

62%


69

TABL

E 8

A RRI

VALS

AN

D D

EPA

RTU

RES

BY H

OU

R AT

JOH

N F

. KEN

NED

Y I N

TERN

ATI

ON

AL

AIR

PORT

ON

11/

29/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

10

01

10

01

20

02

100.

00%

0

0100

10

01

10

01

20

02

100.

00%

0

0200

10

12

00

00

10

12

50.0

0%0

0300

10

01

10

01

20

02

100.

00%

0

0400

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0500

40

711

20

02

60

713

46.1

5%0

0600

40

59

10

56

50

1015

33.3

3%0

0700

10

2021

10

1314

20

3335

5.71

%0

0800

02

1416

31

2630

33

4046

6.52

%6.

52%

0900

10

89

20

3234

30

4043

6.98

%0

1000

02

1012

00

1717

02

2729

06.

90%

1100

10

1213

11

911

21

2124

8.33

%4.

17%

1200

00

44

10

2021

10

2425

4.00

%0

1300

01

1718

00

77

01

2425

04.

00%

1400

02

3638

20

911

22

4549

4.08

%4.

08%

1500

11

6365

10

1314

21

7679

2.53

%1.

27%

1600

02

4547

00

3838

02

8385

02.

35%

1700

11

2628

00

5252

11

7880

1.25

%1.

25%

1800

00

2424

10

5556

10

7980

1.25

%0

1900

00

1818

20

2830

20

4648

4.17

%0

2000

10

2021

30

1417

40

3438

10.5

3%0

2100

00

1616

20

1113

20

2729

6.90

%0

2200

30

58

30

1821

60

2329

20.6

9%0

2300

00

44

30

47

30

811

27.2

7%0

2111

355

387

322

371

405

5313

726

792

6.69

%1.

64%


70

TABL

E 9

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT L

AG

UA

RDIA

AIR

PORT

ON

11/

28/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

33

00

00

00

33

00

0100

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

00

00

01

01

01

01

010

0.00

%

0600

01

56

11

1416

12

1922

4.55

%9.

09%

0700

00

2121

01

3132

01

5253

01.

89%

0800

01

2728

00

4141

01

6869

01.

45%

0900

03

2023

01

3031

04

5054

07.

41%

1000

03

3437

00

2727

03

6164

04.

69%

1100

01

3233

00

2525

01

5758

01.

72%

1200

00

2424

01

3031

01

5455

01.

82%

1300

00

2626

00

3131

00

5757

00

1400

00

3030

00

2323

00

5353

00

1500

04

2327

04

3236

08

5563

012

.70%

1600

03

3033

03

4144

06

7177

07.

79%

1700

01

4849

02

3840

03

8689

03.

37%

1800

02

3840

01

4445

03

8285

03.

53%

1900

00

3232

00

2727

00

5959

00

2000

00

2626

00

2323

00

4949

00

2100

00

2222

00

1818

00

4040

00

2200

00

2828

00

55

00

3333

00

2300

00

99

00

00

00

99

00

019

479

498

115

480

496

134

959

994

0.10

%3.

42%


71

TABL

E 10

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT L

AG

UA

RDIA

AIR

PORT

ON

11/

29/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

33

00

00

00

33

00

0100

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0600

00

33

11

2123

11

2426

3.85

%3.

85%

0700

03

2730

00

2626

03

5356

05.

36%

0800

03

2427

03

3538

06

5965

09.

23%

0900

01

2223

02

3941

03

6164

04.

69%

1000

03

3740

00

2323

03

6063

04.

76%

1100

00

3030

01

2526

01

5556

01.

79%

1200

02

2527

04

3539

06

6066

09.

09%

1300

03

2932

04

2933

07

5865

010

.77%

1400

01

3233

00

2323

01

5556

01.

79%

1500

02

2426

02

3234

04

5660

06.

67%

1600

01

3435

05

3641

06

7076

07.

89%

1700

02

3941

03

3235

05

7176

06.

58%

1800

01

2930

02

4143

03

7073

04.

11%

1900

00

3333

00

2727

00

6060

00

2000

00

2323

00

2323

00

4646

00

2100

00

2525

00

1818

00

4343

00

2200

00

2828

00

55

00

3333

00

2300

00

99

00

00

00

99

00

022

477

499

127

470

498

149

947

997

0.10

%4.

91%


72

TABL

E 11

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT N

EWA

RK IN

TERN

ATIO

NA

L A

IRPO

RT

ON

11/

28/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

22

10

01

10

23

33.3

3%0

0100

00

11

10

01

10

12

50.0

0%0

0200

10

01

00

00

10

01

100.

00%

0

0300

10

01

00

00

10

01

100.

00%

0

0400

10

01

00

00

10

01

100.

00%

0

0500

20

24

02

13

22

37

28.5

7%28

.57%

0600

32

510

10

1213

42

1723

17.3

9%8.

70%

0700

12

3740

00

3333

12

7073

1.37

%2.

74%

0800

02

2022

33

4450

35

6472

4.17

%6.

94%

0900

03

3134

11

4850

14

7984

1.19

%4.

76%

1000

07

3138

00

1919

07

5057

012

.28%

1100

11

2325

02

3638

13

5963

1.59

%4.

76%

1200

03

3235

12

3437

15

6672

1.39

%6.

94%

1300

01

2829

13

3135

14

5964

1.56

%6.

25%

1400

03

3336

02

1921

05

5257

08.

77%

1500

05

2833

06

3036

011

5869

015

.94%

1600

30

3134

05

3843

35

6977

3.90

%6.

49%

1700

26

5866

05

5964

211

117

130

1.54

%8.

46%

1800

33

4854

22

4751

55

9510

54.

76%

4.76

%

1900

00

3636

00

2323

00

5959

00

2000

00

2222

20

3234

20

5456

3.57

%0

2100

00

3535

10

89

10

4344

2.27

%0

2200

00

1515

00

1717

00

3232

00

2300

10

1112

20

02

30

1114

21.4

3%0

1938

529

586

1633

531

580

3571

1,06

01,

166

3.00

%6.

09%


73

TABL

E 12

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT N

EWA

RK IN

TERN

ATIO

NA

L A

IRPO

RT

ON

11/

29/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

22

10

01

10

23

33.3

3%0

0100

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0200

10

01

10

01

20

02

100.

00%

0

0300

10

01

00

00

10

01

100.

00%

0

0400

20

02

00

00

20

02

100.

00%

0

0500

30

25

10

12

40

37

57.1

4%0

0600

31

59

00

1616

31

2125

12.0

0%4.

00%

0700

02

4547

00

2727

02

7274

02.

70%

0800

31

1620

23

4045

54

5665

7.69

%6.

15%

0900

01

3031

50

4853

51

7884

5.95

%1.

19%

1000

02

3436

11

2426

13

5862

1.61

%4.

84%

1100

06

2834

00

3939

06

6773

08.

22%

1200

02

3032

03

3235

05

6267

07.

46%

1300

05

3035

03

3235

08

6270

011

.43%

1400

01

3839

06

2329

07

6168

010

.29%

1500

01

3738

05

2732

06

6470

08.

57%

1600

14

4348

05

4651

19

8999

1.01

%9.

09%

1700

22

3741

06

4753

28

8494

2.13

%8.

51%

1800

41

3843

02

4951

43

8794

4.26

%3.

19%

1900

00

3535

00

2323

00

5858

00

2000

00

2323

20

3234

20

5557

3.51

%0

2100

00

3535

10

89

10

4344

2.27

%0

2200

00

1515

00

1717

00

3232

00

2300

10

1112

20

02

30

1114

21.4

3%0

2129

535

585

1634

531

581

3763

1,06

61,

166

3.17

%5.

40%


74

TABL

E 13

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT W

ASH

ING

TON

DU

LLES

INTE

RNAT

ION

AL

AIR

POR

T 11

/28/

90

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0100

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

20

24

01

01

21

25

40.0

0%20

.00%

0600

10

12

02

79

12

811

9.09

%18

.18%

0700

00

99

14

914

14

1823

4.35

%17

.39%

0800

03

2528

01

67

04

3135

011

.43%

0900

01

1516

03

3437

04

4953

07.

55%

1000

07

1118

01

1819

08

2937

021

.62%

1100

08

1826

02

1214

010

3040

025

.00%

1200

00

1010

08

1725

08

2735

022

.86%

1300

07

1623

02

1214

09

2837

024

.32%

1400

04

1822

03

1215

07

3037

018

.92%

1500

07

2936

05

1217

012

4153

022

.64%

1600

012

3143

013

3851

025

6994

026

.60%

1700

012

1224

011

2839

023

4063

036

.51%

1800

05

1116

02

2426

07

3542

016

.67%

1900

00

3030

00

44

00

3434

00

2000

00

2727

00

2525

00

5252

00

2100

00

99

00

2626

00

3535

00

2200

00

77

10

12

10

89

11.1

1%0

2300

00

33

30

03

30

36

50.0

0%0

366

286

355

558

285

348

812

457

170

31.

14%

17.6

4%


75

TABL

E 14

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT W

ASH

ING

TON

DU

LLES

INTE

RNAT

ION

AL

AIR

POR

T 11

/29/

90

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0100

00

11

00

00

00

11

00

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

30

25

01

01

31

26

50.0

0%16

.67%

0600

02

13

00

77

02

810

020

.00%

0700

01

67

06

814

07

1421

033

.33%

0800

06

3440

12

69

18

4049

2.04

%16

.33%

0900

00

1414

03

3336

03

4750

06.

00%

1000

06

1117

01

1920

07

3037

018

.92%

1100

03

1619

01

1112

04

2731

012

.90%

1200

01

910

03

1720

04

2630

013

.33%

1300

02

1820

02

1517

04

3337

010

.81%

1400

05

1621

04

1216

09

2837

024

.32%

1500

09

2938

010

1424

019

4362

030

.65%

1600

07

3643

010

2838

017

6481

020

.99%

1700

06

1117

010

3343

016

4460

026

.67%

1800

03

1013

02

2325

05

3338

013

.16%

1900

00

2929

00

44

00

3333

00

2000

00

2626

00

2525

00

5151

00

2100

00

1010

00

2626

00

3636

00

2200

00

77

10

12

10

89

11.1

1%0

2300

00

33

30

03

30

36

50.0

0%0

351

290

344

555

282

342

810

657

268

61.

17%

15.4

5%


76

TABL

E 15

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT W

ASH

ING

TON

NAT

ION

AL

AIR

POR

T 11

/28/

90

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

22

00

00

00

22

00

0100

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

01

01

01

01

02

02

010

0.00

%

0500

00

00

01

01

01

01

010

0.00

%

0600

00

11

00

55

00

66

00

0700

02

1921

01

3435

03

5356

05.

36%

0800

05

2126

02

3032

07

5158

012

.07%

0900

08

2331

03

1821

011

4152

021

.15%

1000

09

2534

04

2832

013

5366

019

.70%

1100

04

2630

01

1819

05

4449

010

.20%

1200

01

1718

06

2026

07

3744

015

.91%

1300

03

2932

06

2228

09

5160

015

.00%

1400

05

1722

06

3238

011

4960

018

.33%

1500

05

2328

06

2228

011

4556

019

.64%

1600

09

2938

012

2436

021

5374

028

.38%

1700

06

2329

08

3745

014

6074

018

.92%

1800

06

3642

03

3336

09

6978

011

.54%

1900

01

2223

00

1616

01

3839

02.

56%

2000

00

2222

00

2020

00

4242

00

2100

00

2323

00

1717

00

4040

00

2200

00

1414

00

00

00

1414

00

2300

00

66

00

00

00

66

00

065

378

443

060

376

436

012

575

487

90

14.2

2%


77

TABL

E 16

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT W

ASH

ING

TON

NAT

ION

AL

AIR

POR

T 11

/29/

90

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

22

00

00

00

22

00

0100

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0400

01

01

00

00

01

01

010

0.00

%

0500

00

00

01

01

01

01

010

0.00

%

0600

00

22

00

1010

00

1212

00

0700

03

1417

03

2932

06

4349

012

.24%

0800

06

2127

03

2932

09

5059

015

.25%

0900

08

2836

05

2025

013

4861

021

.31%

1000

08

1927

05

2530

013

4457

022

.81%

1100

05

2732

02

1820

07

4552

013

.46%

1200

02

1618

04

2327

06

3945

013

.33%

1300

02

2830

04

2226

06

5056

010

.71%

1400

03

2326

011

2839

014

5165

021

.54%

1500

07

2633

08

2129

015

4762

024

.19%

1600

08

2533

09

2635

017

5168

025

.00%

1700

06

2632

06

3642

012

6274

016

.22%

1800

09

3342

02

3436

011

6778

014

.10%

1900

00

2323

00

1616

00

3939

00

2000

00

2323

00

2020

00

4343

00

2100

00

2222

00

1717

00

3939

00

2200

00

1414

00

00

00

1414

00

2300

00

66

00

00

00

66

00

068

378

446

063

374

437

013

175

288

30

14.8

4%


78

TABL

E 17

A RRI

VALS

AN

D D

EPA

RTU

RES

BY H

OU

R AT

BA

LTIM

ORE

-WA

SHIN

GTO

N IN

TERN

ATIO

NA

L A

IRPO

RT

ON

11/

28/9

0

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0100

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

10

01

00

11

10

12

50.0

0%0

0600

41

27

40

711

81

918

44.4

4%5.

56%

0700

01

1920

32

1520

33

3440

7.50

%7.

50%

0800

34

2431

01

1718

35

4149

6.12

%10

.20%

0900

00

2121

22

2832

22

4953

3.77

%3.

77%

1000

03

1013

03

2831

06

3844

013

.64%

1100

02

3739

02

68

04

4347

08.

51%

1200

02

2628

02

2325

04

4953

07.

55%

1300

02

46

03

3639

05

4045

011

.11%

1400

05

1116

00

33

05

1419

026

.32%

1500

03

3437

02

1012

05

4449

010

.20%

1600

04

2933

02

3133

06

6066

09.

09%

1700

24

1117

18

4251

312

5368

4.41

%17

.65%

1800

01

2324

02

68

03

2932

09.

38%

1900

00

2727

00

2727

00

5454

00

2000

00

2424

00

88

00

3232

00

2100

00

1010

10

3334

10

4344

2.27

%0

2200

40

1418

10

12

50

1520

25.0

0%0

2300

10

67

10

12

20

79

22.2

2%0

1532

332

379

1629

323

368

3161

655

747

4.15

%8.

17%


79

TABL

E 18

ARR

IVA

LS A

ND

DEP

ART

URE

S BY

HO

UR

AT B

ALT

IMO

RE-W

ASH

ING

TON I N

TERN

ATIO

NA

L A

IRPO

RT 1

1/29

/90

ARR

IVA

LSD

EPA

RTU

RES

TOTA

L O

PERA

TIO

NS

CA

RGO

%G

EN A

V %

TIM

EC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

LC

ARG

OG

EN A

VO

THER

TOTA

Lof

OPS

of O

PS

0000

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0100

00

00

10

01

10

01

100.

00%

0

0200

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0300

00

00

11

02

11

02

50.0

0%50

.00%

0400

00

00

00

00

00

00

——

0500

20

02

00

22

20

24

50.0

0%0

0600

62

210

50

914

112

1124

45.8

3%8.

33%

0700

04

2125

34

1320

38

3445

6.67

%17

.78%

0800

11

2224

11

1719

22

3943

4.65

%4.

65%

0900

02

2224

01

2223

03

4447

06.

38%

1000

05

712

00

2929

05

3641

012

.20%

1100

00

3838

01

67

01

4445

02.

22%

1200

01

2425

03

2831

04

5256

07.

14%

1300

01

67

12

3235

13

3842

2.38

%7.

14%

1400

01

1516

02

57

03

2023

013

.04%

1500

01

3233

02

911

03

4144

06.

82%

1600

03

3235

05

3136

08

6371

011

.27%

1700

11

810

02

4143

13

4953

1.89

%5.

66%

1800

01

2930

01

78

02

3638

05.

26%

1900

00

2323

00

2828

00

5151

00

2000

00

2525

00

88

00

3333

00

2100

00

1010

10

3334

10

4344

2.27

%0

2200

40

1418

10

12

50

1520

25.0

0%0

2300

10

67

10

12

20

79

22.2

2%0

1523

336

374

1625

322

363

3148

658

737

4.21

%6.

51%


80


81

A Feasibility Study of Regional Air Cargo

Documents

Transcript of A Feasibility Study of Regional Air Cargo