Met Council Meeting Minutes 7-16-09

Metropolitan Council – July 16, 2009
9:00 a.m. Met Council’s offices; 390 No. Robert; St. Paul, MN
Aviation Technical Advisory Task Force Meeting
Wilbur Smith Report – Chapter 4 and 5 – Minor I and Minor II airport designations





Attendance – three from Wilbur Smith – Scott Sanders, WSA ssanders@wilbursmith.com : Eric Laing, WSA elaing@wilbursmith.com ; Lois Kramer; Kramer aerotek; lois@krameraerotrk.com;Chair – Jon Olson from Anoka County; Chauncey Case, Met Council, chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.us ; Connie Kozlak; Met Council; connie.kozlak@metc.state.mn.us ; Gob Vorpahl MAC bob.vorpahl@mspmac.org ; Bridget Rief; MAC; bridgt.rief@mspmac.org ; Merland Otto City of Mpls.; merland.otto@ci-minneapolis.mn.us Joe Leon, CCNM, PhillyJoe@usfamily.net; Richard Theisen MnDOT aero; dick.theisen@dot.state.mn.us ; Scott Kipp, City of Eden Prairie, skipp@edenprairie.org ; Barbara Haake AC/B advisory commission; trubador2@msn.com;Jack Plasch, Lexington MN, JackJulia86@msn.com: (NOTE: was there a “Kevin” there? And later a “Merlyn” came in (wearing a suit, back to me) Who is he?

Jon Olson from Anoka County called the meeting to order and from there, Chauncey Case led the meeting. Chauncey said there is a major change at MSP. Need to look at trends. Better understanding of the regional airport system. Data from airports similar to ours; system similar to the MSP region.
Classification with some revision. Remaining steps for this task force to be done. Consultants have slides. Scott Sanders, project manager from Wilbur Smith, started the slide presentation.

Wilbur Smith is 3/4ths of the way into the study. Info done; nine to ten months into the process – working on options. Flying Cloud 124,570 operations in 2007 to 111,007 in 2030 showing a -0.5% drop. AC/B from 86,840 to 77,650 from dates of 2007 to 2030 resulting in -0.5% drop (figures from Chapter Three).

Scott Sanders (and later, Lois Kramer) then showed Regional Systems similar to our airport system (peer airports) (Chapter Four): Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Mpls population 3,208,212; Detroit 4.4 million. Twin Cities has more operations; more reliever based and aircraft – a robust system. We are active and well developed. Other airports comparable to MSP. Are there apparent regional changes in the national system of hubs? What is the experience of airports when hubs are closed or downsized? With Delta/NWA merger the likelihood of further consolidation and capacity cuts are high, even it it is done on a system-wide basis.

Looked at St. Louis MO. How has Southwest Airlines started in other cities? Strategy going into small airports at perimeter of major cities; now going into major metro areas. Regional trends – divided US into three areas – western, central and eastern. Use FAA regions and consolidated them into these three areas. Used metro areas from 2000 to 2008 for enplanements. Population of region considered. Enplanements to population ratio and looked at average fares.

Eastern area has the most people (Columbus Ohio is the break point for the eastern region – 46%; Central has 34% of the population; Western has 20% of the population. BUT in 2000 the Central region handled the most enplanements (includes Mpls, Chicago, Dallas and Houston).

Looking at 2008, Central region has been declining; E/W regions have been growing. Central region is lagging except for Houston and Chicago Midway airports. West Coast – Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco are declining but mountain states growing. East and mountain states have the fastest growth. MSP pre-merger is holding its own. Las Vegas, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York’s JFK are the fastest growing hubs. Higher fares at fortress hubs divided by average miles per trip. MSP 16 cents per mile. Cincinnati 23 cents; Memphis 23 cents; NY 11 cents; Chicago O’Hare 13 cents; Atlanta 18 cents; St. Louis 18 cents; Kansas City 15 cents; Denver 14 cents; Miami 12 cents; San Francisco 12 center. MSP used to be higher with US airways, now lower. What happened at St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati? St. Louis was hub for TWA – bankrupt in 2001; bought by American and moved out. SW came into St. Louis. Connecting market got smaller. At St. Louis there was a 50% decline in departures; a 55% decline in enplanements.

Pittsburgh built around U.S. Airways. US left; deplanement down 45%; enplanements down 50%. Now no hub. LLC now carry 26% of the passengers at Pittsburgh. Now Pitt wants low-cost carriers. Low-cost carriers set prices lower at airports. Delta closed at Dallas/Fort Worth and Portland. Showed chart with blue circles where Delta and NW has hubs. Detroit and JFK in New York are used for International flights. What happened to Memphis? Too close to Atlanta – Believes more consolidation for NW and Delta coming. Delta has many “code share” partners.

Cincinnati – Not a closed hub – will reduce flights by 17% to 37%; looking at 50% down. High average fare/mile .23 cents. Cincinnati went from a big airport to a regional jet carrier with ranges of 1,000 to 1,500 miles – can serve with smaller planes. Scott: Lot of low cost service now into region around Cincinnati and can go there for lower fares (ie Dayton Ohio). Connecting passengers now are smaller numbers of people using connecting flights. Scaled back but still a hub. Delta is doing this. Salt Lake 2/3rds operated with Southwest. Delta carries 39% of passengers. Departures using smaller planes. Number of nonstop cities is getting smaller and smaller. Jon Olson asked about low cost operators in Duluth, Rochester? In Duluth, low cost but service once a week. In Cincinnati low cost came in quite a while ago. Southwest (SW) used to go to perimeter airports – but within 90 miles driving time but now SW is in major hubs. Showed slide with demand for service – this line steady but profits are all over the place. Hubs valuable but a mature national market – from 2002 has decline.

Lessons learned. Delta cuts back hubs. Excess terminal space at issue in St. Louis and Pittsburgh. Cincinnati (CVG) and Salt Lake regional hub model – the future for MSP. SW started in Denver in 2006 with 20 flights. Now in 2009 has 111 flights (just started to MSP) – these flights show non-stop. SW has 19 gates at Denver. W/SW look at Washington/Dulles; MSP, Boston and LaGuardia – go into a market and then announce new non-stop destinations – offering to shotgun of markets at first and then add. Detroit in 1987, Delta makes hard decisions. Connecting traffic moveable. MSP is at a “tipping point”. SW expansion in 2009 added four cities – in SW’s first four years in a city it expands quickly. Pay attention as to what SW is doing in other cities.

Laing: Looked at minor airports role. Two tiers. Higher end business planes use AC/B and FC airports. Lower recreational at the other minor airports. Recommends facilities according to role the airport plays within the system. MSP has the most services. ILS is located at the major International airport and at the Minor II airports (AC/B and FC). Minor I has non-precision approaches. Studies services and land side services…did this early on in the study. Evaluated each airport on the objectives Wilbur Smith laid out. Airports either met the objective or did not. 98% of all objectives were met in MAC’s system. Holman Field was lacking – no restaurant. Minor II met objectives. South St. Paul while not designated as in MAC’s reliever system has o approach lighting system and is called a minor I airport (they looked at the system plan; not just the comprehensive plan – everything is included).
MAC’s Metro system is well planned throughout the years. It is a “robust” system.

To be a Minor I or Minor II should have “x” to fulfill its intended role. Scott Kipp – Why change from Maximum length to Minimum length? Answer: Did not want to specify a maximum runway length for MSP – runways can be longer. Scott Sanders: the Legislature set the maximum length; we say that in our report. The max is set for Minor II airports. Connie – loads are important with no max. So we have minimums. Chauncey: We have plenty of capacity; planning for eventualities. Not looking at parallel runways at AC/B airport nor at a NW building area. Lake Elmo; no new runway.

Barbara: Why not list maximum runway when your proposal shows Intermediate starting at 6,000 foot runways? It leads one to assume that with Minor I ending at 4,500 feet and Minor II starting at that point that Minor II goes to 6,000 foot runways. Answer: No specifying of max because Legislature does this and we are just trying to show what a Minor II airport has an ILS, plus other extensive services. Runways should not be restricted – can extend when needed. Barbara: There was law that stated Intermediate from 5,001 to 8,000 feet in length (now removed with a Holman Field situation on taxation but it was in law) so everyone knew Intermediate started at 5,001 feet; now you are proposing 6,000 to 8,000 feet for Intermediate which means Minor II goes to 6,000 foot runways. Answer: This is just to show services and types of aircraft for this II designation – more corporate jets use Minor II airports.

Barbara: When was the subject of Minor I and Minor II brought up? Did this come from the Met Council? From MAC? From Wilbur Smith? Answer: Minor I and II came from the first meetings WS had with the Met Council. Minor II serves business aircraft. Barbara: When was the first meeting? Answer: Sometime last year. Barbara: Who first brought I and II up? Answer: Wilbur Smith Associates. Connie came into the discussion – said “this is just a task force report – not accepted yet by the Met Council”. Needs MAC plans before acceptance.

Barbara: Chauncey mentioned no parallel runways for AC/B airport – Bridget told us that parallel runways would be in her LTCP for AC/B airport. Could Bridget please comment on what MAC is going to recommend when Met Council says no parallel runways? Bridget was not asked to comment by this task force – no answer from Bridget. Chauncey appeared to back off his statement. Connie said Met Council would wait for MAC’s LTCP plan for AC/B airport.

Barbara: The citizens want the airport to remain with a maximum runway length of 5,000 feet. Homes were bought with the promise that this is a “minor” airport; Blaine zoned residential surrounding this airport. Real estate agents said there is a law that this airport will not exceed 5,000 foot runways. Mounds View on the south border of the airport was built up in 1940 before the airport was even built. Connie: yes, homes in Mounds View on the south side were always there. Other homes came later. Barbara: Yes, Blaine allowed those homes to be built around the airport – very nice homes. Connie: Can’t specify limitations at to runway length. Example Highway 65 – residents can’t oppose the width, necessity of moving traffic – has to serve the region. Same with airports – serve the region/needs. Jack – in other words the people have no say? Connie – they have public meetings. Jack – but the residents have no say. No answer.

WS – Holman Field has no restaurant (Joe Leon commented – restaurant was called “terminal restaurant”).

WS – All of the airports are great. It was stated (by whom?) that 5,000 foot length falls into the transport category. Investment will want precision approaches.

Scott Sanders (WS): Minimum recommendations for airports are only what is needed; not to restrict future plans. Chart with Facility and Service Operations – if you have land to accommodate it – then it goes into the Minor II category. 3,200 feet can land light jets; GPS approaches are now being looked for.

Next Steps: GIS elevation – Alternatives under consideration. Search Area A; NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) inclusion; Wipline; others. Develop cost estimates for alternatives. Have not looked at “drive time”. Will come to next Task Force meeting. Chauncey said search area “A” will be dropped. NPIAS for federal funding. Wipline may drop out of system – does not require full public access (Forest Lake will be discussed). Bridget – eliminate Forest Lake? Scott: Will look at it but Forest Lake may take more research. Bridget – better define minor category. Chauncey on Forest Lake: Discussions needed – system evaluation – serve community; sod to paved? Not a MAC airport. Forest Lake like an outstate airport.

Joe: “Drive time” WS – will go to Met Council for answer. Joe: Data projections? Do you go to MnDOT for this? Answer: No. Joe – increase in traffic around AC/B airport great from 1976 to 2006; three-fold increase in traffic. Connie: Traffic measured by the counties. Met Council forecasts traffic for the region. Employment, homes built-out bring in traffic. Scott talking about drive time from airport to airport; consider time of day.

WS back in two/three months with final few chapters. Chauncey- no date set; look at WS contract to see how much more is required. Full draft available for discussion. General steps: final draft goes to council’s transportation committee; prior to that it goes to transportation sub committee. Involve cities; update Policy Transportation Plan. Maybe not happen until 2009 – May 2010. Interest now limited to Policies and Guidelines will have updated 2030 document. In past had five-year aviation policy. Current plan could go four years more because it was just adopted in January 2009. Four years from today it will be required to be updated. Now with this study will amend transportation plan – need to look at transportation policy too. Fed has to OK safety Blue Law; this aviation may be changed independent of transportation plan. Decision on this coming at the end of this year. Chauncey: citizens had a say on long term comp plan. In Met Council local communities can have input. Connie: This defines how airports function. Plan for the region as a whole.

NOTE: SHOW WHY NOT NEEDED. Connie: Airport has a function. Maybe able to go to MAC for function. NOTE: Do what the REGION needs. Connie: No physical needs at AC/B right now for upgrading.

Joe: Safety has not been mentioned once. Need to think about safety – National Sports Center right at the north end of the runway. USA Cup starting next week. 3,500 young people will be coming to the sports center. In 2006 there were a number if air fatalities with charter companies. Higgins of National Safety Board says charter aircraft operators are essentially unregulated – rules not enforced. Ebersoll accident, Wellstone, Owatonna are some examples. If an accident took place at the AC/B airport we could lose 1,000 children. (Man in green shirt – who? -) stated that we are safer than anywhere else in the nation. Connie: We have safety embedded in the plans/standards. Airport zoning – runway protection zones (RPZ). Bridget: Zoning for AC/B airport will want zoning done around the airport with a zoning board. Analysis of accidents – size and length of the RPZ.

NOTE: No zoning around the airport – residential already there. Bridget – FAA needs to enforce it. Joe – Key Air fuel tanks above ground. Bridget – Tanks above ground can find leaks – underground could letch in to water table.

Meeting ended.