The New York Times
August 29, 2001

BUSINESS TRAVEL

Delta's Chief Generates Debate Over Airport Runways

Earlier this month, this column was devoted to comments by Leo F. Mullin,
the chief executive of Delta Air Lines (news/quote), who says that we have a
national transportation crisis caused by domestic airports' lacking enough
runway capacity to handle an annual passenger load that is expected to reach
a billion in 2010, from the current 680 million.

Even if people living near airports object, 50 miles of new runway at 25
airports are needed, he said. Readers were invited to comment.

Mr. Mullin said he wished to stimulate a debate. He succeeded. So many
e-mail messages piled in that the comments will be printed in two columns.

Many who wrote objected to Mr. Mullin's proposal and offered alternatives. A
few agreed with the new-runway arguments being made by Mr. Mullin and others
in the industry.

Mr. Mullin was "right on target," said Walter Levy, an aviation consultant.
"The principal factor limiting air traffic is runway capacity at major
airports, but it is not just a real estate problem."

New runways, and growing volume on existing runways, mean more simultaneous
landings at airports, which puts a greater burden on air- traffic
controllers, he said, adding: "There is a limit to the ability of these
hard-working people to manage more simultaneous landing traffic and maintain
required high levels of safety."

Many who disagreed with Mr. Mullin suggested that improving rail service,
and integrating it more into airport networks, would reduce air traffic jams
without expanding airports.

"Almost every other developed country has addressed the problem of airport
congestion by building high-speed rail lines" that displace many flights of
300 miles or less, Mike Anderson said.

Short flights often use smaller airplanes, adding to congestion. Besides
being more reliable, more comfortable and faster on these trips, high-speed
rail usually costs less. In Europe, he said, "high-speed trains have
absolutely decimated" airline competitors on the routes they serve. And
while costs to build a rail network are high, they're only a fraction of
what the federal government spends annually on airports, he argued.

John Strand agreed. Last year during the air delay mess, "I could usually
get from New Jersey to Washington faster by train, and our trains are by no
means state of the art," he said.

Jeffrey Herf, a history professor at the University of Maryland, argued for
integrating air, rail and bus lines around regional airports.

He wondered, "Would it not make great sense for the United States to
undertake a massive construction program to build fast trains connecting
small and medium-sized cities within 200 miles of major airports directly to
the airports and city centers?"

•

William C. Vantuono, the editor of Railway Age, a railroad trade journal,
said that Mr. Mullin's comments indicated that the Delta chief executive
incorrectly "assumes that airlines and their infrastructure exist in a
vacuum."

Instead of building runways for more airplanes, investment should be made in
"the intermodality between airlines and passenger rail, where airlines
divert short-haul traffic to railroads" and in the process "free up airport
slots, add capacity, and concentrate on what they do best and most
profitably: long-haul service," he suggested.

While many European nations improve passenger rail, he said, "in this
country we look for ways to minimize intercity rail, throwing it an
occasional carrot — just enough to keep it alive, but never enough to make
it thrive."

Though Amtrak's new high-speed Acela rail service between Boston and New
York hasn't matched optimistic expectations, several readers argued that
there was a real demand for rail on regional routes like that.

"We need to expand and add rail capacity to our system and better integrate
it with the air system," said Matt Friedman, who added: "I often use rail
travel to go to San Francisco from my home in Sacramento as the frequency is
almost hourly and the trip time comparable to driving. The rapid increase in
travel demand makes competition between air and ground transportation silly
and counterproductive."

Maria Schiff agreed. "I call your attention to a wonderful piece by Robert
Kuttner, published in The Boston Globe (op-ed page) a few weekends ago,"
that cited the large number of flights of less than 300 miles, Ms. Schiff
said. "It was his opinion that if even a moderate proportion of such flights
could be replaced by train travel, the need for additional runways at many
major airports would disappear."

A lot of readers suggested, meanwhile, that current airport runway capacity
could be used more efficiently. Ernest Hofeller, for one, suggested that
more flights ought to be scheduled for off-peak hours. "Trains and buses
transporting passengers run at night; why not airplanes?" Mr. Hofeller
asked.

Noise is one reason, said David Muhlitner, who insisted instead that if we
accept more runways and more traffic, the aviation industry needs to develop
new technologies to mitigate the impact on people living near airports "who
will be affected by the increased noise and pollution."

"There is simply no pressing need for commercial aircraft to depart or land
during normal sleeping hours" just so corporate travelers "can attend a
business meeting at a particular time," he said.

To be continued: Other readers responding to Mr. Mullin's comments criticize
airlines for using smaller planes and dispute whether an airport capacity
crisis even exists.

The Business Travel column appears each Wednesday. E-mail:
jsharkey@nytimes.com.

===============

The New York Times
September 5, 2001

BUSINESS TRAVEL

Airport Runway Debate, Part II
By Joe Sharkey

This is the second installment of comments from readers responding to Leo F.
Mullin, chief executive of Delta Air Lines (news/quote). In an interview in
an earlier column, Mr. Mullin had insisted that the best way to deal with
mounting airport delays and congestion was to build 50 miles of new runways
at major airports.

There is no passenger-capacity crisis at the nation's airports," contended
Joe Brancatelli, who writes an outspoken online travel column for
Biztravel.com.

"The problem is an aircraft problem," he said. "Airlines continue to add
more flights using smaller aircraft, and then they expect the American
people to pay for their arrogance — in which they push smaller planes
through an overtaxed hub-and-spoke system."

Gerald Rothstein added: "Smaller planes have been substituted for larger
ones on virtually all routes. When airline managers ignore the effects of
this on congestion and just blame the government — and neighborhood
activists opposed to airport expansion — they are just trying to deflect the
blame from themselves."

Joseph E. Illick of San Francisco objects to airports gobbling up more land.
"Leo F. Mullin's attitude toward airport expansion — it must happen, no
matter what the human and environmental cost, because the economy demands
it — reflects not only an arrogant stance toward humanity and the
environment, but a narrow-minded view of what constitutes the economy," he
said. "Mr. Mullin likens the air transport system of today to the rail
system of a century ago. And look what has happened to the railroads. Is it
not possible that 100 years hence our progeny will see abandoned airstrips?"

Don Carlson asked: "Where is it written that airline profits take precedence
over the interests of people who are affected by the 50 miles of new runways
he wants to build across the country? No, thanks, Mr. Mullin. I'm a business
traveler, but I don't want the public to pay your price for my convenience."

Karen McClellan, vice president of the aviation division for the Institute
for International Research, offers some encouragement for Delta's boss.

"It is refreshing to see a C.E.O. be articulate in what needs to happen to
increase airport capacity," she said, adding that other solutions include
perhaps increasing "airspace capacity" by revising current standards for
keeping planes five miles apart, as well as using new technologies that
enable closer takeoffs and landings.

John Heilner, a travel management consultant, said, "The solution involves
aggressive use of peak, off- peak pricing of flights." He suggested that
"significant differentials" of 25 to 50 percent in landing fees be imposed
for peak hours at high-volume airports, for a trial period. "Savings on
off-peak flights must be large enough to motivate a change in behavior and a
shift in demand to these flights," he said.

Eric Oddleifson of Cohasset, Mass., suggested that "the polluters (i.e., the
airlines) pay for the damage they will inflict" in increased noise and in
decreased property values for people living near airports. "There are 65
million people affected by jet noise and emissions pollution" living in
areas where jet noise ranges from significant to severe, he said.

Meanwhile, he welcomes an emerging "new paradigm" involving increased use by
businesses of small aircraft that carry six to eight passengers and fly
among lesser used regional airports. "These aircraft are quiet, efficient,
and utilize the 3,000 existing airports," rather than just the 25 major hubs
where congestion is centered, he said.

James Fallows, the author of "Free Flight: From Airline Hell to a New Age of
Travel" (PublicAffairs, 2001), said that the proposal for major runway
additions "illustrates the limit the airline system is unavoidably hitting."
He added, "It is fundamental to the airlines' pricing model that traffic be
concentrated in hubs," which accounts for a disproportionate increase in
congestion at major airports.

Laying down ever more runways is "politically unrealistic and conceptually
weak," he said. As he did in his book, Mr. Fallows contended that novel
aircraft designs advanced by NASA and others will usher in a new aviation
era in which small, efficient and cheap corporate and owner-operated jets
will help alleviate hub congestion by acting as "air taxis" with vastly
expanded use of smaller regional airports.

James Trunzo, an architect in Boca Raton, Fla., argued that "short- term
patches," like building more runways, simply added to the "confused mess we
call airports today."

"There is a complete failure to integrate transportation systems — that is,
all of the cars, trucks, buses and trains that should ideally flow
seamlessly and efficiently in your travels," he said. "Is it unreasonable to
ask for organization and simplicity of purpose to all that concrete and
glass?" he asked of airports, calling for smarter "big picture" planning
focused on a "fully integrated model" incorporating the "entire surrounding
transportation infrastructure," rather than the mere "piling on" of more
runways.

Mark Brennan of New York wrote: "Building more runways sounds like a good
solution until one recognizes that the real problem is that runways today
(and presumably those to be added in the future) are not allocated
economically. We have heavy demand for runways because the price of using
one is the same regardless of whether I land on it by myself in a private
plane, or a 747 with 400 passengers uses the same strip."

The problem will persist, he said, "until we charge usage fees for runways"
by "auctioning off the landing rights" to the highest bidders.

Baylor Lancaster of New York objected to Mr. Mullin's comment that runway
construction needs to take the same priority over neighborhood opposition as
highway construction often does. Runway expansion, like highway expansion,
will only lead to more traffic, she said, offering the notorious snarls of
the highways in Atlanta, Delta's home, as an example.

"Besides, if the number of runways were increased, where exactly does Mr.
Mullin propose parking all those extra planes once they've landed?" she
asked. "You can be sure Mr. Mullin would be back in your column arguing for
larger terminals soon after the new runways were finished, no doubt causing
additional `community disruption.' "

Dan Woog of Westport, Conn., took issue with estimates cited by Mr. Mullin
and others that domestic air traffic will necessarily grow to a billion a
year from the current 680 million. "There are only a million or so variables
that could come into play, ranging from a stunning rise in videoconferencing
(and no, not with today's technology), to a global recession," he wrote.

James Baird accused airline executives of a "tradition of poor planning" and
suggested they get on a plane and visit countries like Japan that have
adapted to worse runway shortages than ours.

"Tokyo, one of the world's largest metro areas with over 25 million people,
is served by two airports with a total of three runways," he said. "Take-off
delays are minimal," he added, because "virtually all aircraft are
wide-bodies" big planes like 747's that carry 500 passengers.

Though Amtrak conceded recently that its nearly year-old experience with
high-speed rail between new York and Boston has had disappointing results,
fully integrated rail systems work well elsewhere, Mr. Baird said, adding,
"Short distance, 300 miles or less, are efficiently supplemented by
high-speed rail."

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
==========
**NOTICE: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========