Presented to: NAS Performance Workshop By: Dan Murphy Date: September 7, 2007
advertisement
Progress to NextGen Avoided Delay Metric Presented to: NAS Performance Workshop By: Dan Murphy Date: September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration Metrics Needs • NextGen plans for 2025 • OEP focused on the mid-term • NextGen near-term benefits Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 2 Ja nM 00 ay -0 Se 0 p0 Ja 0 nM 01 ay -0 Se 1 p0 Ja 1 nM 02 ay -0 Se 2 p0 Ja 2 nM 03 ay -0 Se 3 p0 Ja 3 nM 04 ay -0 Se 4 p0 Ja 4 nM 05 ay -0 Se 5 p0 Ja 5 nM 06 ay -0 Se 6 p0 Ja 6 n07 Performance Metric (minutes) Scheduled Block Time 3 2 1 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Avg Scheduled Blocktime (TTM*) 0 -1 -2 -3 Federal Aviation Administration 3 Total Delay Measure • Schedule Delay – Airlines compensate for routine system delays. • Modeling – Total System Delay – Allows us to know full range of delays and where they occur. Total = Gate + Taxi-out + Airborne + Taxi-in Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 4 Day-by-Day NAS Model of Delay ASPM55 Airports, FY2006 1200000 F it A c tu a l 800000 600000 400000 200000 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ /1 12 /1 11 /1 0 10 Total Delay (minutes) 1000000 Federal Aviation Administration 5 Capacity Improvements by 2015 • Runways at OEP airports in OEP – PHL, SEA, IAD • Runways at OEP airports not in OEP – ORD, FLL • Non-OEP Runways – Several FACT56 airports not in OEP plan new runways • OEP procedural improvements – TMA, RNAV, PRM, SOIA – Assumed at OEP35 airports only – Yield 10% arrival capacity improvement Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 6 Base Delay Projections 180 2006 2012 2016 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ /1 12 /1 11 /1 0 10 Delay per Flight (minutes) 160 Delays projected using ATO Network Forecasts Assumes weather in 2012 and 2016 the same as 2006 Projections assume no capacity improvements Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 7 Delay Projections with NextGen 180 2006 2012 2016 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ /1 12 /1 11 /1 0 10 Delay per Flight (minutes) 160 Delays projected using ATO Network Forecasts Assumes weather in 2012 and 2016 the same as 2006 Projections assume capacity improvements in FACT2 analysis Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 8 Annual Delay Increase 80 B ase F A C T C a p a c itie s Delay per Flight (minutes) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Federal Aviation Administration 2016 9 Avoided Delay Delay Savings per Flight (minutes) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 10 Calculation of Metric • Use model to compute average delay with and without NextGen improvements – Delays calculated with actual demand • Difference in modeled delays is avoided delay – Could use percentage reduction in delay rather than delay itself Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 11 Target Setting Average Delay (minutes) 20 Target 19 18 17 Projected Without NextGen Projected With NextGen 16 2006 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Federal Aviation Administration 12 Target Setting Risk 20% 18% 16% Traffic Growth 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% Projected Demand Actual Demand 4% 2% 0% 2006 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Federal Aviation Administration 13 Target Setting Risk Average Delay (minutes) 20 19 18 17 ProjectedWithout Without NextGen NextGen Without NextGen With NextGen NextGen ProjectedWith With NextGen Series3 16 2006 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Federal Aviation Administration 14 Historical Example: ASPM55 Airports Average Total Delay per Flight 24 22 Minutes of Delay per Flight 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 * Calendar Year Source: ASPM flight data. Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 * 2007 includes data through July. Federal Aviation Administration 15 Target Setting Risks • Projected delays depend upon projected demand • Demand may not materialize • Delays depend upon where demand occurs – Overall growth projections may be accurate – Growth projections are less accurate at airport level – Delays at constrained airports very sensitive to demand • Targets must be conservative Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 16 Issues • Projections require: – FACT 2 capacity assumptions – Timeline of NextGen capacity improvements • Target setting must be conservative – Use low end of predicted growth range for key airports (e.g. ORD) • NextGen initiatives lack detail – What is capacity impact of each initiative? Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 17 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 18 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 19 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 20 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 21 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 22 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 23 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 24 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 25 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 26 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 27 Progress to NextGen September 7, 2007 Federal Aviation Administration 28
