OI. The story of the status quo
Economy Adv Exts - Demand will increase
Download 0.82 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Economy Adv Exts - Delay Costs
- Delays lead to cost overruns and hurts dependent systems - empirics prove
Economy Adv Exts - Demand will increaseAir Traffic demand will double over the next decadeSheridan 06 (Thomas B., American professor of mechanical engineering and Applied Psychology Emeritus at MIT. http://www.resilience-engineering.org/REPapers/Sheridan_R.pdf) cass Air traffic demand is predicted to double by 2020-2025 in the U.S., Europe, China and elsewhere. The larger airports in the U.S. and Europe are currently operating at full capacity. Economic and construction delay and cost factors suggest that mostly the same airports and runways will have to be used, and especially smaller airports used more efficiently to supplement the larger airports. Radar surveillance technology has been shown to err by up to 1/2 mile, depending on aircraft distance from a radar site. (This constraint is largely responsible for regulations that restrict aircraft separation to 5 miles horizontal and 1000 feet vertical in enroute airspace, and 3 miles, 1000 feet in airspace near airports.) Behavioral analysis indicates that human air traffic controllers cannot observe and vector many more aircraft than they now handle in a sector. And it is far from clear that just adding more controllers would be affordable, or would even work in any case. Since personnel constitute the greatest cost factor, the hope would be to keep the number of personnel the same or actually decrease the number. For all these reasons it has been decided that a radical departure from the current, mostly manual, air traffic control system must be put in place. Figure 1 shows the trends that underlie this decision. In the U.S. an inter-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) was set up in 2004. In addition to its own planning staff are eight Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) responsible respectively for: agile air traffic management; airport infrastructure; proactive safety management; user-specific situation awareness (including a new broadband information network); weather observation, prediction and impacts; security (presumably without limiting mobility or civil liberties); harmonization of equipage and operations globally; and environmental protection (with sustained economic growth). Each IPT has representatives from various government agencies, principally the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency responsible for aircraft certification, air traffic control as well as training of control personnel, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the agency that has been primarily responsible for aviation research and development. Because global positioning satellite (GPS) technology will play a key role in the new system the US Department of Defense (that is responsible for those systems) is also a player, as are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), all included for obvious reasons. In addition an organization called the NGATS Institute has been set up to include industry participants and perspectives. The organizational complexity of the project is evident. Economy Adv Exts - Delay CostsDelays extremely costly - costs exponentially grow each minute a flight is delayed - increasing demand will only continue to compound the delay problemThe Eno Center 12 [The Eno Center for Transportation is a neutral, non-partisan think-tank that promotes policy innovation and leads professional development in the transportation industry “NextGen: Aligning Costs, Benefits and Political Leadership” http://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/NextGen-paper.pdf, April 2012] Lin The burden of increased fuel expenses is further exacerbated by airport congestion and existing inefficiencies in an aviation system that uses outdated technologies and protocols. Congestion is a problem, particularly at certain busy airports where the congestion is caused by capacity constraints, and will likely get worse as the economy recovers from the recession and travel demand rises. In 2010 major airlines reported that about 40 percent of arrivals and departures are delayed. Every additional minute spent by operators sitting on the tarmac or circling an airport awaiting clearance means additional fuel, equipment depreciation and maintenance, increased labor costs, employee fatigue, and a possible loss of customers. According to the latest FAA estimate, NextGen could save about 1.4 billion gallons of fuel through 2018. This estimate assumes continued benefits of some of the NextGen capabilities already in place at some airports and timely implementation of the FAA’s mid-term goals. This amounts to, on average, about 200 million gallons annually assuming full implementation of NextGen. Using the current jet fuel price of about $2.86/gallon in 2011, total fuel savings to operators would be about $600 million annually. However, the FAA has not made public the details of their estimation, simulation models, or methodology. Some industry experts may remain skeptical of the FAA’s estimates without a clear indication of the methodology or basis behind these figures. The following is a simple yet plausible independent measure of NextGen’s fuel savings. In 2010 the total fuel consumption by all US commercial airlines in domestic flights was 10.205 billion gallons of fuel worth $22.84 billion at an average fuel price of $2.24/gallon. Assuming a one percent improvement in fuel efficiency following NextGen implementation, which is a very conservative assumption, the resulting fuel savings amount to about 102 million gallons of fuel annually worth $229 million using the average 2010 fuel price. The savings from fuel also have environmental benefits. The 102 million gallons of fuel saved translates into reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1.076 million tons. This helps mitigate the airline’s industry impact on the environment and has real economic savings in a carbon offset market worth $7.9 million. Table 1 simply expands the figures for higher levels of fuel reduction. The results show that the benefits could be significant when only considering modest estimates of NextGen’ fuel efficiency. A more ambitious five percent fuel consumption reduction leads to about $1.145 billion dollars of fuel saved and 5.380 million tons of reduced carbon emissions annually. Decreasing air traffic congestion would yield hundreds of millions in costs savings annually for aviation industry and passengersRobert Poole 12,Director of Transportation Policy, http://reason.org/experts/show/robert-poole,”Air Traffic Control Reform News #92”, 4/19/12./jeong A new policy paper, "NextGen: Aligning Costs, Benefits, and Political Leadership" was released by the Eno Transportation Foundation at an event April 4th, co-sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center. The presentation of the paper, by Eno CEO Joshua Shank and the paper's author, 2011 Eno Fellow Sakib bin Salam, was followed by a panel discussion by a number of long-time aviation policy people, all supportive of NextGen. I'm glad to see more attention being paid to ATC modernization, but I'm disappointed in this paper, for several reasons. It begins promisingly, by seeking to show that even modest improvements in air traffic flow should result in meaningful savings in fuel costs, reduced CO2 emissions, and traveler time savings, while improved surveillance should also produce significant safety benefits for general aviation (GA). The author assembled data from DOT and MIT to estimate current annual airline-specific delays, as well as airline-specific operating costs. Using that information, he produced spreadsheets quantifying the benefits from delay reductions of various percentages, from 1% to 35%, accruing to airlines and to passengers. Similar parametric calculations were applied to estimate GA fuel savings, time savings, and safety benefits (reduced deaths and aircraft damages due to fewer crashes). Selecting some sample figures from the author's tables, I used his annual dollar benefit figures for the case of 10% delay reduction for airlines and 5% for GA (as well as 5% safety improvements for GA), and added them up. The annual benefits to these beneficiaries were as follows: Airlines $1,078 million 54.8% Passengers $537 million 27.3% GA $352 million 17.9% Remember those numbers, because we will come back to them in a moment. The author next provides some estimates of NextGen costs, both FAA infrastructure costs and aircraft equipage costs. He does not attempt to relate costs to benefits, which is one of the major concerns of the ATC customer community, but let's leave that aside. The next (and longest) chapter delves into funding NextGen, first setting forth criteria for assessing various alternatives (since many, including me, are concerned that current aviation user taxes are unlikely to be sufficient). These criteria are equity, transparency, efficiency, and political feasibility. Five alternatives are considered: a tax on airline baggage fees, a higher tax on commercial jet fuel, a higher passenger ticket tax, a higher general fund contribution, and a separate airport-specific NextGen passenger fee that would be higher at the large hub airports where NextGen's impact is likely to be larger. His preferred approach is the airport-specific passenger fee. If you step back from this approach, it appears that equity has been given short shrift. Airlines get more than half of the benefits, and GA gets another 18%, but the poor passengers get stuck with paying the whole NextGen bill. How on earth is that equitable? I got a lot of positive feedback from last month's article in which I criticized a recent online screed claiming that it is passengers who should pay for ATC, not aircraft operators (for whom this is an ordinary operating cost), yet this report from a respected think tank essentially makes the same misguided recommendation. An even larger failing is that the report seems to consider the main problem with NextGen to be lack of funding. The author's PowerPoint from the April 4th event rightly notes GAO and Inspector General reports citing a long and continuing history of FAA cost overruns and program delays. A growing number of aviation stakeholders express concern that simply providing more funding, without more-fundamental reforms, would amount to "feeding the beast." They have concluded that the underlying problem is that the governance of the ATC system is poorly matched to the task. The FAA's Air Traffic Organization ought to be focused directly on meeting the needs of its aviation customers. Instead, its real customer is Congress, which provides its funding and to which it must be responsive. No other developed country so inherently politicizes the governance of its ATC system. In recent decades, nearly all developed countries have de-politicized their air navigation service providers (ANSPs), allowing them to operate as businesses, paid directly by their aviation customers, and in several cases (Canada, the UK), with aviation stakeholders on their governing boards. These (mostly governmental) ATC corporations have ready access to the bond market to raise the capital for modernization projects vetted as cost-effective by their customers. This approach is misleadingly labeled "privatization" in the report and therefore dismissed after three paragraphs as politically infeasible. In fact, what nearly all these countries have done is to reform in place the existing ANSP, changing its governance and funding, not turning it over to some outside private provider. Reforming the ATC system's governance and funding in this manner will resolve the questions regarding which technologies and procedures are worthwhile to aircraft operators and which are not. And thanks to access to the bond market and a bondable revenue stream, those capital improvements judged worthwhile can readily be financed. Delays lead to cost overruns and hurts dependent systems - empirics proveGAO 11 [The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. This paper was written by Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., who is the Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues “NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FAA Has Made Some Progress in Implementation, but Delays Threaten to Impact Costs and Benefits” http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585588.pdf, 10-5-11]Lin Some key acquisitions may soon encounter delays, which can increase overall acquisition costs, as well as costs to maintain current systems. For example, delays in implementing the ERAM program is projected to increase costs by $330 million, as well as an estimated $7 to $10 million per month in additional costs to continue maintaining the system that ERAM was meant to replace. Moreover, due to the integrated nature of NextGen, many of its component systems are mutually dependent on one or more other systems. For example, ERAM is critical to the delivery of ADS-B because ADS-B requires the use of some ERAM functions. ERAM is also pivotal to the on-time implementation of two other key NextGen acquisitions—Data Communications and SWIM. In part due to ERAM’s delay, FAA pushed the Data Communications program’s start date from September 2011 to February 2012, plans to revise the original SWIMsegment 1 cost and schedule plan, and delayed the SWIM-segment 2 start date from 2010 to December 2012. The long-term result of this decision is not yet known but it could delay certain SWIM capabilities and hinder the progress of other capabilities that depend, in turn, on the system integration that SWIM is intended to provide. Thus, looking more broadly, the implementation of NextGen—both in the midterm (through 2018) and in the long term (beyond 2018)—will be affected by how well FAA manages program interdependencies. Delays in air traffic costs our economy $3 billion a year - NextGen key to increase traffic flow and to meet the future capacity increasesTumer et al 07 (Kagan, and Adrian Agogino. Professor, Robotics and Control Oregon State University, PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering, from The University of Texas, 97-06 was a senior research scientist in the Intelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research Center. Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 2007, AAMAS '07: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 14 - 18, 2007. Red Hook, NY: Curran, 2007. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.7793&rep=rep1&type=pdf) The efficient, safe and reliable management of our ever increasing air traffic is one of the fundamental challenges facing the aerospace industry today. On a typical day, more than 40,000 commercial flights operate within the US airspace [14]. In order to efficiently and safely route this air traffic, current traffic flow control relies on a centralized, hierarchical routing strategy that performs flow projections ranging from one to six hours. As a consequence, the system is slow to respond to developing weather or airport conditions leading potentially minor local delays to cascade into large regional congestions. In 2005, weather, routing decisions and airport conditions caused 437,667 delays, accounting for 322,272 hours of delays. The total cost of these delays was estimated to exceed three billion dollars by industry [7]. Furthermore, as the traffic flow increases, the current procedures increase the load on the system, the airports, and the air traffic controllers (more aircraft per region) without providing any of them with means to shape the traffic patterns beyond minor reroutes. The Next Generation Air Transportation Systems (NGATS) initiative aims to address this issues and, not only account for a threefold increase in traffic, but also for the increasing heterogeneity of aircraft and decreasing restrictions on flight paths. Unlike many other flow problems where the increasing traffic is to some extent absorbed by improved hardware (e.g., more servers with larger memories and faster CPUs for internet routing) the air traffic domain needs to find mainly algorithmic solutions, as the infrastructure (e.g., number of the airports) will not change significantly to impact the flow problem. There is therefore a strong need to explore new, distributed and adaptive solutions to the air flow control problem. And, reduced costs - transforming our Air Traffic Control system will save the airlines, government, and manufacturing industry hundreds of millions of dollarsJansen 12,(Bart - http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/04/nextgen/664954/1,”Report: Air traffic control improvements would save money”,4/4/12,editor at USA today news agency) Improvements to the air-traffic control system could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by consuming less fuel and reducing flight delays, according to an industry analyst's report released Wednesday. But airlines remain leery that the Federal Aviation Administration will follow through on improvements that justify buying more expensive equipment for planes, according to the report by Sakib bin Salam, a fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. FAA has estimated that its program for improving air-traffic control, which is nicknamed NextGen, will make flight routes more precise by tracking planes with a satellite global-positioning system. Routes that are more precise could be shorter, reduce congestion and burn less fuel, saving airlines and passengers money. But according to bin Salam, FAA hasn't released how it estimated that the program would cost $15 billion to $20 billion to build through 2025, or how it estimated potential savings that eclipse those figures. To nail down estimates, bin Salam calculated that burning 1% less fuel would have saved U.S. airlines $229 million in 2010, when fuel was much less expensive than today. Reducing flight delays by 1% would save $39 million per year, based on the cost of flights and the length of delays, bin Salam said. The FAA projects much larger savings in fuel and delays. "Even at a minimum, the savings could be significant," bin Salam told industry experts at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Congress recently approved four-year legislation for FAA, but airlines remain skeptical that lawmakers will continue funding the equipment and training for NextGen as budgets tighten. Options for specifying money for the project, such as raising a passenger tax or a fuel tax, would meet fierce opposition on Capitol Hill. "There is a lot of uncertainty in the industry about how much NextGen might cost," bin Salam said. His report was released on the same day that FAA officials unveiled NextGen improvements in Houston. Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said Houston flights are projected to fly 648,000 miles less per year and reduce carbon emissions 31,000 metric tons. For example, he compared landing now to walking down a flight of steps of descents and accelerations, while under the new system planes will glide almost at idle like sliding down a banister. "Through NextGen, the FAA and members of the aviation industry are teaming up to make some of the most complex airspace in the country some of the most efficient," Huerta said. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|