pilotx86
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/politics/30airport.html?th
October 30, 2004
Threat to Close Emergency Airfield in Pacific Upsets Airlines
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - The Bush administration is threatening to shut an airfield at Midway Atoll in the mid-Pacific that has been available as an emergency landing site for decades. The airlines say the closing would force many two-engine planes flying between North America and Asia to make a long detour to hug the coastline of Alaska and the Russian far east, and could force some flight cancellations.
Three- and four-engine planes are not required to stay within a certain range of emergency fields. But safety experts say that these planes will still face increased risk in flying the mid-Pacific route, because they will be farther from land in case of fire, system failure or passenger illness, which are the main reasons for emergency landings.
The airlines are furious. "It seems like the government has just lost sight of the importance of Midway," said Gene Cameron, the manager of flight dispatching at United Airlines. Dispatchers plan aircraft routes based on prevailing winds and, especially in flights over water, availability of alternate landing spots.
But the Transportation Department, which has paid $3.5 million to the Interior Department to keep the airfield open for the last few months, is determined to stop. "There is no other airport available to commercial interests that we pay to operate," said Brian Turmail, a Transportation Department spokesman.
Midway was a naval base until 1993, and for several years after that its operation was financed by a private company that brought in visitors for "eco-tourism." When that venture failed, the Interior Department, which controls the atoll, said it would stop paying to operate the airfield. The Transportation Department began picking up the costs in late 2002 but does not want to bear the long-term obligation.
On Friday, the Transportation Department said that it would pay about $300,000 to keep the field open until Nov. 20 and that it would meet with the airlines to discuss the field's economic and safety significance. Along with the airlines, which are in financial distress, a possible contributor is Boeing, which met some of Midway's costs in the 1990's. Boeing specializes in two-engine aircraft, while its rival Airbus concentrates on four-engine models.
Midway is 2,800 miles west of San Francisco, 2,200 miles east of Japan and about 150 miles east of the international date line. Planes bound to Asia from North America usually fly near the Aleutians and the Russian far east because of prevailing winds, but tend to return on a more southerly route.
Mr. Cameron of United Airlines said he calculated that a Boeing 777 that had to return on the northerly route instead would take nearly 90 minutes longer to reach the west coast of the United States and burn nearly $4,000 more fuel.
Continental Airlines plans to begin service on Dec. 15 from Nagoya, Japan, to Honolulu in a Boeing 767, a twin-engine plane. But without Midway available, it will probably drop the route, said Rahsaan Johnson, a Continental spokesman. Under rules for twin-engine planes, the 767 would have to follow a circuitous route to stay within range of Micronesia, he said, and the airline would have to leave seats or cargo holds empty so it could carry enough fuel. "We'd be flying a plane full of fuel," he said.
A Boeing 777 flown by Continental made an unscheduled stop in Midway in January because of an engine problem. Northwest and American would also be affected.
Another possible site for diversions is Wake Island, but it is more than 1,100 miles away. In a recent letter to the Office of Management and Budget, two Democrats in the Senate, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Patty Murray of Washington, complained that this was "longer than the distance between Washington, D.C., and Miami." The Wake airfield is unavailable at night while lighting repairs are completed; airline officials do not expect to be able to use it before the end of the year.
The amount of money at stake at Midway is under dispute. The Transportation Department said the cost would run to about $6 million a year. The airlines say that data they received from the Interior Department puts the cost of the airfield at about $1 million when separated from other costs on the island, which is a national wildlife refuge and includes a memorial to the Americans who died in the historic naval engagement there in 1942. The airfield has a simple radio navigation beacon and runway lights, but no tower.
Duane Woerth, the president of the Air Line Pilots Association, put the cost at $600,000 a year. "I'm really ripped about this ridiculous loss of safety," he said. "This is an inherently governmental function. They keep trying to outsource this inherently governmental responsibility."
--------------------
Any comments? Personally, I'm furious at this guy already. I read the AOPA Magazine article on how aviation is such a vital part to our economy, yet look at what he wants to do to it...increase the costs of flying for the airlines...I mean the airlines need to cut costs, but having someone like this in office to further increase the costs...ugh...it really dims my hopes of becoming a pilot for the airlines one day...badly enough that i'm considering all alternatives to the airlines (corporate, instructing, etc).
October 30, 2004
Threat to Close Emergency Airfield in Pacific Upsets Airlines
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - The Bush administration is threatening to shut an airfield at Midway Atoll in the mid-Pacific that has been available as an emergency landing site for decades. The airlines say the closing would force many two-engine planes flying between North America and Asia to make a long detour to hug the coastline of Alaska and the Russian far east, and could force some flight cancellations.
Three- and four-engine planes are not required to stay within a certain range of emergency fields. But safety experts say that these planes will still face increased risk in flying the mid-Pacific route, because they will be farther from land in case of fire, system failure or passenger illness, which are the main reasons for emergency landings.
The airlines are furious. "It seems like the government has just lost sight of the importance of Midway," said Gene Cameron, the manager of flight dispatching at United Airlines. Dispatchers plan aircraft routes based on prevailing winds and, especially in flights over water, availability of alternate landing spots.
But the Transportation Department, which has paid $3.5 million to the Interior Department to keep the airfield open for the last few months, is determined to stop. "There is no other airport available to commercial interests that we pay to operate," said Brian Turmail, a Transportation Department spokesman.
Midway was a naval base until 1993, and for several years after that its operation was financed by a private company that brought in visitors for "eco-tourism." When that venture failed, the Interior Department, which controls the atoll, said it would stop paying to operate the airfield. The Transportation Department began picking up the costs in late 2002 but does not want to bear the long-term obligation.
On Friday, the Transportation Department said that it would pay about $300,000 to keep the field open until Nov. 20 and that it would meet with the airlines to discuss the field's economic and safety significance. Along with the airlines, which are in financial distress, a possible contributor is Boeing, which met some of Midway's costs in the 1990's. Boeing specializes in two-engine aircraft, while its rival Airbus concentrates on four-engine models.
Midway is 2,800 miles west of San Francisco, 2,200 miles east of Japan and about 150 miles east of the international date line. Planes bound to Asia from North America usually fly near the Aleutians and the Russian far east because of prevailing winds, but tend to return on a more southerly route.
Mr. Cameron of United Airlines said he calculated that a Boeing 777 that had to return on the northerly route instead would take nearly 90 minutes longer to reach the west coast of the United States and burn nearly $4,000 more fuel.
Continental Airlines plans to begin service on Dec. 15 from Nagoya, Japan, to Honolulu in a Boeing 767, a twin-engine plane. But without Midway available, it will probably drop the route, said Rahsaan Johnson, a Continental spokesman. Under rules for twin-engine planes, the 767 would have to follow a circuitous route to stay within range of Micronesia, he said, and the airline would have to leave seats or cargo holds empty so it could carry enough fuel. "We'd be flying a plane full of fuel," he said.
A Boeing 777 flown by Continental made an unscheduled stop in Midway in January because of an engine problem. Northwest and American would also be affected.
Another possible site for diversions is Wake Island, but it is more than 1,100 miles away. In a recent letter to the Office of Management and Budget, two Democrats in the Senate, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Patty Murray of Washington, complained that this was "longer than the distance between Washington, D.C., and Miami." The Wake airfield is unavailable at night while lighting repairs are completed; airline officials do not expect to be able to use it before the end of the year.
The amount of money at stake at Midway is under dispute. The Transportation Department said the cost would run to about $6 million a year. The airlines say that data they received from the Interior Department puts the cost of the airfield at about $1 million when separated from other costs on the island, which is a national wildlife refuge and includes a memorial to the Americans who died in the historic naval engagement there in 1942. The airfield has a simple radio navigation beacon and runway lights, but no tower.
Duane Woerth, the president of the Air Line Pilots Association, put the cost at $600,000 a year. "I'm really ripped about this ridiculous loss of safety," he said. "This is an inherently governmental function. They keep trying to outsource this inherently governmental responsibility."
--------------------
Any comments? Personally, I'm furious at this guy already. I read the AOPA Magazine article on how aviation is such a vital part to our economy, yet look at what he wants to do to it...increase the costs of flying for the airlines...I mean the airlines need to cut costs, but having someone like this in office to further increase the costs...ugh...it really dims my hopes of becoming a pilot for the airlines one day...badly enough that i'm considering all alternatives to the airlines (corporate, instructing, etc).
