AA schedule shift affects KFSM airport operations costs

[MikeD]

Interesting issue going on at Fort Smith, Ar (KFSM) airport, as a result of a half-hour early shift to the AA flight schedule out of the airport. This shift, requiring resultant Aircraft Rescue FireFighting coverage, is taxing the airport financially.

For some history, FSM is a joint-use military-civil field. For decades, the resident 188th Fighter Wing of the Arkansas Air National Guard has been a tenant there, with their A-10s, F-16s, F-4s, and F-100s they've flown from Ebbing Air National Guard Base there over tha time. As a result, the ANG crash/rescue fire department.....like many joint-use ANG/civilian fields.....has provided the ARFF services for not only the military aircraft on the field, but for the civilian aircraft also, both GA as well as air carrier. This is a benefit these airport authority or local governmental entities have enjoyed, either for free for for a very nominal fee. Amazing savings for the airport operations budget.

A few years ago, the 188th Fighter Wing was realigned in a DOD base closure/realignment process. The realignment resulted in the 188th FW losing their flying mission, their A-10s being sent to active duty USAF at Moody AFB, GA. The 188th Fighter Wing became the 188th Wing, with a focus on intelligence/space operations, as well as a remote UAS operation. As a consequence, with the resident Ebbing ANGB no longer having aircraft on their ramp, there was no longer a reqirement for the ANG to have a ARFF section of their fire department. The Fort Smith Airport Commission now had to shoulder the responsibility for an ARFF department and crash/rescue protection for the airport. With no ARFF assets in the local structural fire department in the City of Ft Smith, and with the airport commission having to fund the service, the ARFF service (like many airports) went to private contract ARFF provider. This same situation has also occurred at the Des-Moines, Iowa International Airport following the change of mission of the Iowa ANGs 132nd Fighter Wing, and the resultant loss of their F-16 unit.

FSM has contracted for 14 CFR 139 ARFF Index B coverage, which provides for two trucks: one small Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) and one medium-size ARFF foam truck; manned by one firefighter each. A total of two firefighters on each shift will makeup the ARFF department at FSM. Backup for any aircraft incident/accident will come from the Ft Smith city fire department. This is a large reduction from the ANG, which used to have approximately 10 firefighters on shift, manning 2 medium ARFF foam trucks, one rescue truck, one chief truck, and one structural engine.

If one references the FAA AF/D, one will see that airports that do have ARFF services (only required by the FAA for airports with air carrier service), that service may not be 24 hours. Whether municipal (government) operated or whether private contractor, many airports only have ARFF services for specified times of the day, and either unavailable at other times, or available at other times only by prior notice / PPR. This is the case with FSM. With regional jet service to/from DFW on AA, and ATL on DAL regionals, the shift by AA to an earlier time has generated some revenue woes for the airport commission. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Story here:

A half-hour earlier adjustment in American Airlines’ flight schedule at the Fort Smith Regional Airport has created some turbulence in the airport’s fire and rescue protection budget.

Airport Director John Parker told the Fort Smith Airport Commission on Tuesday that the move requires the airport to provide at least 19 hours of aircraft protection instead of the 18.5 hours in a nearly 1-year-old contract with Pro-Tec Fire Services. Following talks with the Wisconsin-based company, a revised labor contract for 24-hour protection would cost the commission an extra $300,000 of uncompensated expenses.

“We’re paying a half-hour of overtime every day,” Parker said. “The end of the day is variable because aircraft don’t arrive on their scheduled arrival time all the time. … We can’t justify going to 24 hours at this point. We’re spending less in overtime than this contract would take.

”As an example, one air carrier recently flew its final flight of the day into the airport at 2:30 a.m., Parker noted.

Pro-Tec offered estimates for the years 2016-18 for 24-hour protection. It would cost the airport an extra $50,000 a year. The commission followed Parker’s recommendation and did not approve an amendment to the contract.

“Although it’s always been our goal to have 24-hour ARFF coverage, at this point in time without having a revenue source established, we can’t go into further deficit spending,” Parker said.

Potential for canceled flights due to published aircraft rescue and firefighting protection still exists, the airport director wrote in a memo to the commissioners.

The airport is already looking at $153,000 in planned deficit spending due to the adjustment in aircraft protection. Staff is seeking a renegotiated lease agreement with the Air National Guard as compensation. The contract with Pro-Tec is roughly $250,000 a year for 18.5 hours of daily coverage before and after flight schedules.

A rough estimate for the overtime being paid to Pro-Tec was not available due to the variable time at the end of the day. Parker could only say it would be less than $50,000 a year.

The airport has been required to pay for its own aircraft fire and rescue protection following the change in mission last year of the Arkansas Air National Guard’s 188th Wing from an A-10 Warthog unit to the nation’s first space-based targeting mission.

In other news, Delta Air Lines is expected to bring in a larger CRJ700 jet in September to make up for the recent cut of a daily flights out of the airport. The larger plane will bring back up the daily seats offered to 147.

Link here:

http://swtimes.com/business/time-shift-creates-budget-turbulence-fort-smith-airport

 

[MikeD]

More on the specific change, with video:

http://5newsonline.com/2014/09/30/fewer-firefighters-at-fort-smith-airport/

 

[A Life Aloft]

I am not familiar with this particular airport, but I was just looking at them a bit online. It's just DAL, AA and Fed Ex out of there commercially then? Does the the 314th Airlift Wing still do some training there? I read in another article, that the Guard was going to be doing some sort of drone operations as opposed to flight training now. It's a decent little field from the looks of it, with a flight school, FBO, flying club and even a Civil Air Patrol unit.

I imagine that they compared the costs last year for forming their own fire unit as opposed to contracting that service out and went with the contracted services. Do you know why they didn't contract out with the city? They were issued a grant by the FAA just last month to be used "to purchase a new 1,500 gallon Index B Aircraft Rescue and Fighting (ARFF) vehicle and four fire protection suits to assist the airport in meeting safety requirements." And from last year: "To supplement its 1,500-gallon 2006 Oshkosh Striker the guard previously operated, DSM used revenue from passenger facility charges to purchase a new 3,000-gallon Oshkosh Striker at a cost of more than $1 million. In addition, officials spent about $250,000 of airport funds to purchase a refurbished 1,500-gallon Striker for backup. They also have the Guard paying market value rent for the land they are using but they are supposed to come up with a new agreement next year.

So they have equipment and now it's a matter of man power/hours. It's quite the pickle for them now and it seems like they barely have the proper coverage as it is.

They apparently still have a Military fuel contract as well it seems......will they be in danger of losing that contract now as well if there are far less Military flights?

 

[JeppUpdater]

So the taxpayers were funding the ARFF and now the airport is short on money because the money stream has ended?

Sounds like the airport needs to raise fees to compensate if they want extended/24 hour coverage. This will of course hit the airlines, who will then decide whether to raise tickets or modify/reduce services.

Capitalism at work...which of course means it's incredibly complicated now that the gravy train has ended.

 

[surreal1221]

So the taxpayers were funding the ARFF and now the airport is short on money because the money stream has ended?

Sounds like the airport needs to raise fees to compensate if they want extended/24 hour coverage. This will of course hit the airlines, who will then decide whether to raise tickets or modify/reduce services.

Capitalism at work...which of course means it's incredibly complicated now that the gravy train has ended.

Hey now, don't tell that to little airport managers though.

Service to their city will continue. Granted, it is all about how they position themselves in their negotiations with AA, DL and FedEx. Poor positioning and they'll fail to secure the extra fees they need...succeed and this is a non-issue. Except, well, it would still appear they would want to make it an issue in the media: David vs. Goliath sort of story line.

 

[A Life Aloft]

There's not a huge amount of GA over there, but there are a number of commercial enterprises/entities. Perhaps they should look at expanding this and possibly raising some fees. That can be a double edged sword of sorts though depending on how it's managed/handled. I looked at their last set of financials and they did spend quite a bit of money along with some grants on many improvements to the airport, some of which could have been delayed IMO, considering the current issue, but they are also committed to some construction projects that they started before the announcement of the Military pulling out, so in those spending aspects, (which also contributed to them to be in the red) they are really stuck.

 

[MikeD]

I am not familiar with this particular airport, but I was just looking at them a bit online. It's just DAL, AA and Fed Ex out of there commercially then? Does the the 314th Airlift Wing still do some training there? I read in another article, that the Guard was going to be doing some sort of drone operations as opposed to flight training now. It's a decent little field from the looks of it, with a flight school, FBO, flying club and even a Civil Air Patrol unit.

I imagine that they compared the costs last year for forming their own fire unit as opposed to contracting that service out and went with the contracted services. Do you know why they didn't contract out with the city? They were issued a grant by the FAA just last month to be used "to purchase a new 1,500 gallon Index B Aircraft Rescue and Fighting (ARFF) vehicle and four fire protection suits to assist the airport in meeting safety requirements." And from last year: "To supplement its 1,500-gallon 2006 Oshkosh Striker the guard previously operated, DSM used revenue from passenger facility charges to purchase a new 3,000-gallon Oshkosh Striker at a cost of more than $1 million. In addition, officials spent about $250,000 of airport funds to purchase a refurbished 1,500-gallon Striker for backup. They also have the Guard paying market value rent for the land they are using but they are supposed to come up with a new agreement next year.

So they have equipment and now it's a matter of man power/hours. It's quite the pickle for them now and it seems like they barely have the proper coverage as it is.

They apparently still have a Military fuel contract as well it seems......will they be in danger of losing that contract now as well if there are far less Military flights?

Little Rock AFB I'm sure uses the field for transition (pattern) work; probably doesn't land there at all unless a divert field. One of the ideas was to contract with the city, but the costs would likely be higher, and the city doesn't have any ARFF trained firefighters anyway, nor any experienced ones to be leadership at that station. That fix would not have been a quick one. So the contract option was taken, especially for a service that, in the big financial picture, isn't used as much as other fire assets are, which is likely what the city would be thinking.

The military fuel contract is via the FBO or whoever the fuel seller is, so that won't change.

The equipment granted, I don't know if its on property, and if it is, it needs the staffing. If it's not, then its equipment + staffing they they'll need from the contractor.

So the taxpayers were funding the ARFF and now the airport is short on money because the money stream has ended?

Sounds like the airport needs to raise fees to compensate if they want extended/24 hour coverage. This will of course hit the airlines, who will then decide whether to raise tickets or modify/reduce services.

Capitalism at work...which of course means it's incredibly complicated now that the gravy train has ended.

Yeah, via the DOD, the taxpayers were funding essentially free ARFF services for the airport. Well, due to changes, that has now dried up, and the airport commission has to bear the burden. It's like anything when it comes to DOD and base closures: IF the surrounding municipalities to a military installation are depending on services or income from that installation......ie- they don't recognize that those services are only icing on the financial cake, and not the cake itself......and they fail to plan their own budget in a way that isn't dependant on that gravy, then that's their own fiscal planning mistake when the freebies or revenue stream are no longer there due to a BRAC, etc.

 

[woodreau]

I remember prior to 2006, airports served by less than 30 seat aircraft were not required to have any ARFF capability - basically EAS cities served by 1900s. But the requirement changed in 2006 and it caused a few problems. A lot of EAS cities didn't have any ARFF capability. When the requirement for ARFF was instituted I remember some cities dispatching the city/town fire truck out to the airport to cover the 1 or 2 commercial flights that we operated into the town. The fire truck would post on station at the airport 30 minutes prior to departure/arrival, and go off station 30 minutes after takeoff/arrival. It happened in the background, we weren't aware of the mechanics of ARFF protection - it was going on behind the scenes, until flight crews were getting busted by the FAA for not ensuring ARFF was available when they arrived late during IROPs (and the fire crews not being told the flight was late, left the airport 30 minutes after scheduled arrival time.) We were operating with no ARFF coverage when we ran late.

So out came the memo and what crews had to do when IROPs were going on, we had to ensure during the in range call to the station, that the ARFF coverage was available, and if it wasn't we had to hold in the air until the station reported ARFF was on scene, then we could land / do the turn, etc...

 

[MikeD]

I remember prior to 2006, airports served by less than 30 seat aircraft were not required to have any ARFF capability - basically EAS cities served by 1900s. But the requirement changed in 2006 and it caused a few problems. A lot of EAS cities didn't have any ARFF capability. When the requirement for ARFF was instituted I remember some cities dispatching the city/town fire truck out to the airport to cover the 1 or 2 commercial flights that we operated into the town. The fire truck would post on station at the airport 30 minutes prior to departure/arrival, and go off station 30 minutes after takeoff/arrival. It happened in the background, we weren't aware of the mechanics of ARFF protection - it was going on behind the scenes, until flight crews were getting busted by the FAA for not ensuring ARFF was available when they arrived late during IROPs (and the fire crews not being told the flight was late, left the airport 30 minutes after scheduled arrival time.) We were operating with no ARFF coverage when we ran late.

So out came the memo and what crews had to do when IROPs were going on, we had to ensure during the in range call to the station, that the ARFF coverage was available, and if it wasn't we had to hold in the air until the station reported ARFF was on scene, then we could land / do the turn, etc...

And the problem is, the city fire truck showing up isn't technically ARFF coverage, unless the crew is trained/certified as airport firefighters, and the vehicle they bring has the appropriate onboard agents/water to meet Index specs. A structural fire truck doesn't generally meet this guideline, and the FAA was cracking down on that too after finding it out.

 

[Nark]

And the problem is, the city fire truck showing up isn't technically ARFF coverage, unless the crew is trained/certified as airport firefighters, and the vehicle they bring has the appropriate onboard agents/water to meet Index specs. A structural fire truck doesn't generally meet this guideline, and the FAA was cracking down on that too after finding it out.

And rightfully so. I'm usually the first to complain about the idiotic bureaucracy of the FAA, but sometimes, just sometimes they get it right.