1. The Way Forward: the Airport View
Jeffrey W. Hamiel
Executive Director
Minneapolis/ St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission
and
Chairman, ACI - North America
Good morning...
Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director MSP
Here representing all ACI airports
MSP faces same problems as airports worldwide

2. World Growth In 2000 - MSP had 36,751,632 Passengers
In MSP had 523,146 Operations
Project very strong growth
In 2010
MSP = ,000,000
U.S. = ,000,000,000
World = 2,500,000,000
Severe noise problems limit development worldwide
Describe MSP situation:
soundproofing program (cost... number of homes)
low frequency noise
dual-track master plan
...other

3. U.S. Passenger Growth
This chart shows the historic growth in U.S. Traffic...
World traffic growth shows similar trends...
Growth of industry requires additional capacity, both in the ATC system and at airports

4. Delays Getting Worse
Chart shows the Number of delays longer than 15 minutes at top 20 US airports
Blue is worst airport had 30,000 delays
Magenta is worst airport had 50,000 delays
Yellow is worst airport had 60,000 delays
Delays plague all airports, particularly North America and Europe

5. Continuing Controversy Limits Airport Development
Extensive Master Plans, public inquiries and environmental reviews required.
Can take decades to obtain approvals.
Not just in North America
Throughout the world
Building runway capacity is almost impossible
10 to 20 years typical time required
Describe MSP planning process
Same at SEA, ATL, BOS, STL, etc.
Same in Europe and Asia NRT, LHR, CDG.

6. Airport Restrictions are Increasing
Boeing chart showing increases in number of airport restrictions, worldwide
Alarming rate of growth in restrictions
Association of European Airlines cites restrictions at 14 of busiest 18 European airports
Can only get worse!

7. Noise is Still the Primary Problem Limiting Airport Development Despite Population Reductions
Noise continues to be main reason for opposition to airport expansion
This chart shows the reduction in people exposed to DNL 65 in the U.S.
Reduced from 7 Million in 1975 to 1/2 Million in 2000.
Yet, population declines and cumulative exposure metrics don’t tell the whole story
MSP Example: Annual complaint history

8. U.S.Airport expectations in 1990
Hushkits would be used to comply with Chapter 3 - mainly by cargo carriers
Higher fuel prices would drive replacement of older aircraft
DC9, 727 & classic 737 would largely be replaced in passenger service
Here’s what US airports thought would happen at the start of the Chapter 2 phaseout (read slide)
... We were wrong...
And airport neighbors think we lied to them !
Airports lost credibility and integrity.

9. Reality in 2000: Real Fuel Prices Declined
Here’s the reality...
During the critical years when airlines were making fleet investment decisions, real fuel prices (blue line) actually declined.
Some carriers opted to recertify old aircraft to Chapter 3 standard, rather than invest in new Chapter 3 aircraft.

10. Reality in 2000: Approximately 1100 relatively noisy aircraft remain in fleet
Here’s another reality...These airplanes are very noisy!
Here are single event contours for a
B Chapter 2
B Raisback Chapter 3
B Hushkit Chapter 3
B modern Chapter 3
Note that the727 80dB contour extends 8 to 12 miles from start of takeoff roll... VS
757 contour... 2 miles long!

11. At End of U.S. Phaseout Aircraft Within 5dB of Stage 3 Accounted for 60% of Noise
At the end of the U.S. Phase out of Chapter 2 aircraft, airplanes with a cumulative margin within 5dB of Chapter 3 limits accounted for 60% of the noise energy in the U.S.
60% of noise... 26% of operations
That means that a large portion of the noise impact at a typical airport is produced by relatively few airplanes.

12. Benefit of Replacing Noisiest Stage 3 Aircraft at MSP
Here’s what that means at my airpotr for the year 2000.
Blue shading = actual fleet
Red line = modern aircraft

13. ACI-NA Survey - 62% of airport directors find noise a serious problem
ACI-NA Survey - 77% of airports in favor of early retirement of noisiest aircraft
U.S. General Accounting Office report largest airports say noise is biggest concern

14. ICAO is the Proper Venue
CAEP historic role recommending new certification standards
Recommended new Chapter 4 standard
Recommended the “Balanced Approach”
Source Noise Reduction
Operating Procedures
Land Use Planning/Zoning
Operating Restrictions
Did not recommend phase-out of noisy Chapter 3
ACI believes ICAO is the proper forum to devise a solution for all these reasons...(read slide)
And we believe the “Balanced Approach” is the right way to treat the problem.
CAEP/5 made progress, yet...
We still need to deal with the small number of very noisy aircraft that are at the heart of the problem at noise sensitive airports.
Until we do, it will continue to be very difficult to expand capacity.

15. ACI Position at CAEP/5
Adopt new Stage 4 standard 14 dB quieter than Chapter 3
Phase out noisiest Chapter 3 aircraft
those within 5dB of Stage 3 in 5 years
Interim support of operating restrictions at noise sensitive airports
Here’s what we sought at CAEP/5. (read)
While disappointed that a more stringent new certification limit was not adopted, we recognize that new certification only affects the fleet in the long term.
Regional phase out of -5dB should be reconsidered.
As an alternative to a complete phase out of airplanes within 5dB, we support interim restrictions at individual noise sensitive airports.

16. CAEP/5 Conclusion: Phase Out Not Feasible
Removal from registry
Applied world wide or regionally is very expensive
Affected all aircraft within target levels (8, 11 or 14 dB)
Did not achieve consensus at CAEP/5
CAEP/5 determined that phase-out at the stringencies evaluated was not feasible.
We recognize the airlines’ view of the cost impacts of total or regional phase out...
Especially at the stringencies evaluated by CAEP/5 of 8, 11 or 14 dB
We are also very aware of the needs of the developing countries.

17. However, an International Solution Must be Found
To reinforce the “Balanced Approach”
To provide targeted relief at noise sensitive airports
To resolve problems of disparate local or regional regulations
To permit airport capacity development
Yet, we must continue to work toward an ICAO-sanctioned solution to achieve these goals. (read slide)

18. ICAO Sanctioned Airport Operating Restrictions
Avoids proliferation of different rules
Only applied to noise-sensitive airports
Affects only aircraft within 5dB
No removal from registry
5 year phased reduction in operations
25 year or cycles-based life guarantee
Explicitly recognize developing nations
Consistent with “Balanced Approach”
Only ICAO has the international charter to recommend a standardized operating restriction that can be adopted by individual airports, where necessary, as part of the “Balanced Approach”
We think the benefits are... (read slide)
However, adoption must not be blocked by impossible “Part 161” procedures as in the U.S.
Otherwise we run the risk of many different rules being adopted by individual airports...
Something that ACI feels would be highly detrimental.

19. ICAO Can Help Provide Solution
Internationally defined restrictions
Adopted locally
Part of “Balanced Approach”
ACI is working on recommendations to our members to minimize proliferation that will accomplish these goals...
We believve this problem is one we can solve...
If we continue to work together within the ICAO forum!
Thank you.